|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious, though...what do you imagine the upside to be?
Varied fights. bad guys that aren't doing the same thing we've seen badguys doing for 20 years.
There are a limited number of core builds and tactics you can reasonably throw on an NPC and have them even have a chance of challenging a party of PCs with an interesting fight. After 20 years of 3.5, players have seen all of them. Repeatedly. Ad nauseum. As new classes open up new opportunities and combinations, scenario authors are going to use them. Not to cram the new classes down peoples throats, but because they have an option to do something but same old same old and keep the game from getting stale.
Right, but, at least where I live, the #1 reason tables get cancelled seems to be the lack of a GMs, not stale fights.
Besides, does it really seem coincidental that when a new book comes out, suddenly 1/3 of the scenarios released that season have NPCs built with classes from that new book? It seems unlikely that that much overlaps is driven solely by organic desire for fresh material.
Also, you can freshen up a fight with a new spell or feat, which is much, much less objectionable to me from a prep standpoint that an entirely new class.
To be fair, though, I must admit I'm biased. I personally have no use for much of the supplementary material Paizo has produced...I find it redundant. In fact, I find some of it (Ultimate Intrigue) actually makes the core game worse. So YMMV.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not believe it's an unreasonable expectation for GMs to stay on top of new rules. Especially when, in many cases, they can choose what scenarios they want to run.
Put like this, no, I disagree. Paizo publishes 2-4 books with new rule elements per month. GMs don't get them for free. Even if they did, that's a lot of reading.
Most new books don't go into the PRD. The ones that do, take a while to get there (months). It can be months before they're on Archives of Nethys. D20PFSRD is faster but doesn't allow easy per-book browsing that I know of so it's really hard to find out what's new.
---
I do expect GMs to make an honest effort, but I also expect the scenario to make an honest effort. If a game element is new, not easily available, the scenario should go the extra mile to explain it to the GM. If the element is in a book that's not freely browseable on the PRD, go an extra extra mile.
|
|
I do not believe it's an unreasonable expectation for GMs to stay on top of new rules. Especially when, in many cases, they can choose what scenarios they want to run.I don't intend for the following to be snarky or rude although I suspect it will come out that way.
No, just a bit elitist.
You've got less than 10 games as a PFS GM to your credit.
Try GMing a few hundred games over 6 years and then tell us what you think are reasonable expectations for PFS GMs.
The reality is that GMing can become a chore. GMs burn out. Adding to the complexity and time to prepare scenarios exacerbates those issues.
As I said above, the extra work has nearly caused me to quit as a GM several times. I think that my local community would agree that my quitting would be a bad thing since it would put more strain on the other GMs.
It's unfortunate that the current structure of PFS only recognizes and rewards people for GM'ing rather than organizing. A good organizer can watch out for GM burnout, step-in when needed, and most of all try to assess which folks in the community are the best fit for each other and differing roles (both as GM's and maybe as mentors of various sorts). This doesn't fit well with the current PFS model of how the V's work, however, so the end result is a lot more GM-burnout than is probably necessary.
I get what the OP is saying about mechanics, but I think that just trying to limit mechanics is probably a poor solution. At some point you're likely to encounter a PC with those mechanics as well. A better answer would be some sort of way to share additional information similar to GM-prep, but with the ability to add additional review information and get feedback so you know what you're getting into before you even pick up a scenario / mod / AP / quest / you get the idea. Similar to what was posted about about difficulty, but a bit more nuanced so you have the ability to look at it and know that instead of 8/10, which may mean nothing to you, is a chase through someone's dreamscape followed by non-standard statblocks with a 3rd party template on top of it (as a hypothetical example, not a real one that I'm aware of). Not that I'm nay-saying a general difficulty level - just that metrics are a bit vague.
All of that said, if we're wishing for upgrades, I'd love to have some sort of voting tally with the "run" time of a scenario so we could have an average on that - especially useful for organizing in tighter time slots.
Hmmmm (had to add the extra "m's" so the poster wouldn't think it's addressed to her) ... maybe we should start a general PFS improvements wishlist thread... though probably AFTER con-season...
|
From the GM side, a lot of the mechanical issues centered around so many new classes being introduced in a relatively short period of time. 10 from the ACG, followed by 6 from Occult Adventures a year later, followed by the Vigilante, and now the Shifter coming soon. The ACG classes at least somewhat resembled existing classes, but the Occult classes are very complicated. I'm still not completely comfortable with most of them. Paizo has at least slowed down the introduction of new classes, though Vigilante with so many very different archetypes is still pretty complicated, and from what I've heard about Shifter, it's going to function similarly.
Combine that with the subsystems and Season 6 focusing on technology, and it's a lot to parse for a GM. I like the variety that it offers, but the span of time that all of those new options happened in increases the impact.
I don't think GMs are expected or need to understand every option in the splat books. Those are less likely to appear on NPCs to begin with. RPG line options that show up frequently and soon after publication are more of a problem. I've mostly just avoided running scenarios where I don't have time to understand the mechanics, but I GM at a much slower pace than some. About once a month, with a few extras at cons here or there. I'm more concerned with picking scenarios that people can play and that aren't too complicated for newcomers.
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Appalachia
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do get irrationally angry when someone brings a vigilante to the table - but thats just because it generally means they plan to abuse the shadowdancer lite abilities it has (thanks to Blood of Shadows this particular build area has become trendy locally and its an endless source of headaches for me) but that's on the player side.
On the GM side I enjoy getting to play with the new mechanics (I personally think the occult books are really cool) , but I do see where some of you others are coming from.
Fromper may have the proper solution - call out which scenarios are heavier on subsystems and new mechanics so GMs can purchase them without having to rely on reviews which, frankly, I have found to not be all that helpful.
|
|
At least the first time something new is employed in a scenario. Something like, "School of Spirits - This scenario showcases new options available in Occult Adventures!" I mean, in some cases you can guess that from the timing of release and the product description, but a direct note couldn't hurt.
|
|
Besides, does it really seem coincidental that when a new book comes out, suddenly 1/3 of the scenarios released that season have NPCs built with classes from that new book? It seems unlikely that that much overlaps is driven solely by organic desire for fresh material.
Solely? Of course not. But a signifigant chuck certainly get the creative juices flowing for "ooo i can combine this with this with this" or "A wolf in sheeps clothing mesmerist staring at someone would absolutely SHRED them... "
Also, you can freshen up a fight with a new spell or feat, which is much, much less objectionable to me from a prep standpoint that an entirely new class.
Very few of them actually work against a party, or function all that differently than whats there.
In fact, I find some of it (Ultimate Intrigue) actually makes the core game worse. So YMMV.
My thread about the impact of ultimate intrigue on pfs literally started with "arrrrrrrrrrggh" in the title (number of rrr's not guaranteed to be accurate)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well BNW, I guess our opinions differ as the what the more important factor is. Which is fine; ultimately I can only speak for myself.
My thread about the impact of ultimate intrigue on pfs literally started with "arrrrrrrrrrggh" in the title (number of rrr's not guaranteed to be accurate)
To this I say: LOL. :P
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To some extent, this is not a new policy. Take a look at early Season 2. The scenarios included a (forgettable) witch, an (notable) summoner, a (forgettable) cavalier, and, oh, yes, a (frightening) magus. PFS got an early look at the chase mechanics (but with a restricted pool of experienced GMs) too.
GMs can't avoid a lot of the new class material, because non-Core GMs will be seeing it at their tables, and it might be a good idea to explore the material from the GM's side as soon as possible.
I'm honestly not sure of a good solution, other than restricting yourself to running Core and quests with pre-gens.
-- Chris, a semi-retired GM
who mostly restricts himself to running Core
and quests with pre-gens
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you have a 4 and a 5 star GM (and I know of several other 5-star GM's who don't GM PFS anymore) who basically have quit GM'ing...
I used to be good for 4 tables a month (sometimes more if I was feeling cheeky--there for awhile I was doing 6 or 7 a month) plus 4 to 7 slots of GM'ing at conventions.
Now I don't GM much anymore.
Considering what a fantastic GM you are, this is a tragedy. Seriously, I have modeled myself as a GM on you -- hard.
To some extent, this is not a new policy. Take a look at early Season 2. The scenarios included a (forgettable) witch, an (notable) summoner, a (forgettable) cavalier, and, oh, yes, a (frightening) magus. PFS got an early look at the chase mechanics (but with a restricted pool of experienced GMs) too.
GMs can't avoid a lot of the new class material, because non-Core GMs will be seeing it at their tables, and it might be a good idea to explore the material from the GM's side as soon as possible.
I'm honestly not sure of a good solution, other than restricting yourself to running Core and quests with pre-gens.
-- Chris, a semi-retired GM
who mostly restricts himself to running Core
and quests with pre-gens
A very thoughtful comment from another exceptional GM.
_____
I am starting to think that Fromper's rating system could be useful. This could help GMs decide whether something is worth the hassle of GMing.
Myself, I love seeing weird scenario mechanics and fun new classes in scenarios. I like the variety of what I see available. Now what is weird is that I don't consider myself a rules-savvy GM at all. I read the new books. I know many of the rules, but I am far from expert. If I see a class I don't understand, I try to find a guide or a pregen and figure out how it works, or I ask questions in the GM forum, but I don't worry too much if a game mechanic contradicts a bit of what I've seen before. I just sort of... go with it?
Almost everyone in here who's expressed discomfort with the new classes and mechanics in here is what I would classify as a rules expert. You guys are near-encylopedic in your knowledge of Pathfinder. Is part of the issue that the newer scenarios create a situation where your rules knowledge works against what you expect?
I am trying to figure out how to bridge matters, because I want to get both of you GMing for me again. I'm selfish that way. I can't stand to see excellent GMs retire on me.
Hmm
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is, sadly, a pain point with me as well. Thought not enough to limit my interest in GMing.
My latest eyeroll when prepping was #8-14 To Seal the Shadow, which feels like a minisystem buffet line, where almost every scene change is the opportunity for another few pages of rules. Which is a shame, really. Gods help anyone that runs that scenario cold.
Anytime the focus of a scenario becomes the minisystem (or subsystem, if you prefer) or new class mechanics, it can tends to make the cool and exciting stories fall flat.
As is the case with To Seal the Shadow, #8-05 Ungrounded But Unbroken, #7-21 Sun Orchid Scheme, #7-05 School of Spirits, and bunch more.
Another thing that can do this is scenarios that take place in exotic locations, or ones that have a need to introduce a dozen proper names in the mission briefings. It's hard to keep track of what we're supposed to be doing as Pathfinders when we need a flow chart to keep things straight. I appreciate the exciting locales, but the WALLOFTEXT is real, and off-putting most times. #8-16 House of Harmonious Wisdom comes to mind as a culprit in this regard.
-------------------------
Now all this said, there are a couple things I'm happy of that are included in our scenarios these days.
1. Each scenario has a sidebar at the start called "GM Resources" that tells you which books you need to run the adventure. Every time a non core resource is used, it is abbreviated for reference.
2. Newer scenarios include the actual pages of monsters etc from their books, as a kind of appendix in the back.
If we could also have something in the scenario blurb that outlines what mini systems are used, that could give GMs and players a heads up. Something like this:
A Pathfinder Society Scenario designed for levels 1-5.To most, Mount Shibotai's devastating eruption was a footnote in Tian history...
This scenario makes use of the verbal duel rules (found in Ultimate Intrigue), a kind of ritual (presented in Occult Adventures, and a loyalty system (detailed further in the scenario).
Maybe not that involved, but still something to give potential players and GMs a heads up. Especially for folks that are purchasing scenarios to run, and then feeling blindsided by new mechanics.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One huge problem with the warning approach is that it would likely be too broad.
For example, I have absolutely NO issue with School of Spirits. The mechanics weren't too big a deal but, most importantly, it made TOTAL sense that the NPC was the class that she was. Nothing else would have worked nearly as well. It was a great story and the mechanics worked to help tell that story
Contrast that with Karma Reclaimed. The NPC could have been one of several different classes with nearly ZERO impact on either the story or the combat. Making it a Mesmerist was just unnecessarily complicated. Oh, one of the mooks has mirror image up? That certainly changes the combat significantly. NOT.
I just think the warnings won't help all that much unless the warning is going to be along the lines of
School of Spirits: We use the Spiritualist here but we used it REALLY well so it is absolutely worth your effort
Karma Reclaimed: We used the Mesmerist for pretty much no reason at all . Totally just added to your workload for no reason
|
|
School of Spirits: We use the Spiritualist here but we used it REALLY well so it is absolutely worth your effort.
I'd be totally OK with this...
Karma Reclaimed: We used the Mesmerist for pretty much no reason at all. Totally just added to your workload for no reason.
...if they just STOPPED doing this!
Especially since I get the idea that they add this stuff under the misguided assumption that doing so will somehow have promotional value. When really, if they're driving away good GMs, it's just the opposite.
That's all I was really trying to say. :-)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Especially since I get the idea that they add this stuff under the misguided assumption that doing so will somehow have promotional value. When really, if they're driving away good GMs, it's just the opposite.
Its not just driving away GMs that reduces the promotional value.
If the first exposure a player has to a class is a character where the "coolness" of the class doesn't come through (whether due to the class just not getting to do its schtick, or because the overloaded GM running it runs it badly, or because the GM is so irked that he is running a sub par game) I don't think it counts as positive promotion.
And yeah, for the record, I think ALL 3 of the above applied to Karma Reclaimed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I share the OP's sentiments.
I agree with limiting the newer classes in scenarios. Same goes for those mechanics and subsystems.
Why not take advantage of the Bestiaries? We have thousands of monsters to choose from as villians. I personally am more comfortable with prepping a new monster than some of the class features.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Contrast that with Karma Reclaimed. The NPC could have been one of several different classes with nearly ZERO impact on either the story or the combat. Making it a Mesmerist was just unnecessarily complicated. Oh, one of the mooks has mirror image up? That certainly changes the combat significantly. NOT.
Actually, that one is pretty dam deadly. It has the worst spells available to a Mesmerist and is completely capable of taking out most of a party very easily. Tactics wise its hindered vastly by what spells you are supposed to cast but unhindered that character is deadly. There has to be a balance and jeez do I sympathize with the writers in that regard.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious, though...what do you imagine the upside to be?
Varied fights. bad guys that aren't doing the same thing we've seen badguys doing for 20 years.
There are a limited number of core builds and tactics you can reasonably throw on an NPC and have them even have a chance of challenging a party of PCs with an interesting fight. After 20 years of 3.5, players have seen all of them. Repeatedly. Ad nauseum. As new classes open up new opportunities and combinations, scenario authors are going to use them. Not to cram the new classes down peoples throats, but because they have an option to do something but same old same old and keep the game from getting stale.
Right, but, at least where I live, the #1 reason tables get cancelled seems to be the lack of a GMs, not stale fights.
Besides, does it really seem coincidental that when a new book comes out, suddenly 1/3 of the scenarios released that season have NPCs built with classes from that new book? It seems unlikely that that much overlaps is driven solely by organic desire for fresh material.
Also, you can freshen up a fight with a new spell or feat, which is much, much less objectionable to me from a prep standpoint that an entirely new class.
To be fair, though, I must admit I'm biased. I personally have no use for much of the supplementary material Paizo has produced...I find it redundant. In fact, I find some of it (Ultimate Intrigue) actually makes the core game worse. So YMMV.
Authors are players too. Given the number of repeat authors it should come as no surprise that these authors want to play with the shiny new toys.