New class mechanics in scenarios


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
1/5 **

4 people marked this as a favorite.

First, I wanted to start by giving a little background. MY OP experience goes back to Living Greyhawk; I'm a former VL, and a four-star PFS GM. I've started in PFS since Season 0 at Gencon '08.

Second, I want to be clear: PFS has been, by far, the best OP campaign in which I've ever taken part. As a whole it is well run and immensely enjoyable. I'm not posting to complain, but to offer my feedback in a constructive manner.

With those out of the way, on to my point:

I appreciate that PFS is, first and foremost, a marketing tool. However, in order to function in that role, it has to be fun and accessible. Fun, meaning the experience at the table is paramount; accessible, meaning low barriers to entry and plenty of play opportunities. I would argue that pushing new class mechanics into PFS scenarios does nothing to improve the campaign, but plenty to make it less accessible.

I'm no longer very active in GMing PFS. What prompted me to step away was the sheer number of new character mechanics showing up in PFS scenarios, which of course requires the GM read and understand those mechanics. This can be especially painful when this involves reading one or more new classes (Occult Adventures, I'm looking at you). Meanwhile, most or all of that detail is lost on the players anyway; sure, someone might go "hey, that's neat, I want to try that," but often times the underlying mechanics simply aren't visible to the player. The end result is lots of work for the GM with very little in-game payoff.

Leaving new classes and other character mechanics out of the scenario, meanwhile, allows each player to embrace new mechanics to whatever degree he or she desires. It also puts the onus of understanding the new mechanics on those most interested in them, effectively allowing players to self-select their desired level of mechanical complexity. The player could then explain the mechanics if the GM has a question, providing supporting additional resources when necessary. The incentive for players so inclined to buy new supplements is maintained.

I appreciate that there is really nothing to be done for existing scenarios, but if this design philosophy were adopted for future society scenarios (both Pathfinder and Starfinder), I believe we'd see more GMs and increased participation, which is the most effective promotion strategy I can think of. I know I'd be more inclined to GM if I didn't have to learn large, player-facing parts of the latest hardcover release in order to do so. YMMV and all that.

1/5

Are you arguing that scenarios should only have npcs with Core classes? What if the writers wait two years before using any of the newest material? If you are asking for something in between, say only material from hard cover books or none of the classes after a certain book, I would like to know why the line should be drawn there, please.

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree only to the extent that only one is added per scenario. When you have scenarios that have 2 or 3 complicated ACG and Occult classes (especially at high levels) it really becomes a bear to prep.

But I would hate for these to be completely ignored, otherwise we end up with season 0 through 2 scenarios where only CRB stuff is used and ends up being too vanilla or completely outclassed by all the player character options. Scenarios get outclassed enough as is, we don't need to exacerbate the issue by restricting what authors can use too much.

Dark Archive 4/5 5/5

As some one who jumped in much later and with a lot less 3.X experience compared to others I found playing and see some of the builds others did in action very helpful. So I'm a little bit sympathetic to keeping things do able, but there has only been 1 completely new class in the last 2 years? I do think there has been a better balance in season 8 and even the later half of season 7 did not seem to be too heavy. A local trusting community that understands how complex GMing can be and expects fairness and fun more then 100% rule accuracy helps a ton.

Know as much as I enjoy building a character to figure out how a class ticks, I also enjoy spending some time figuring out how an NPC is supposed to work while prepping too.

1/5 **

Tallow wrote:

I agree only to the extent that only one is added per scenario. When you have scenarios that have 2 or 3 complicated ACG and Occult classes (especially at high levels) it really becomes a bear to prep.

But I would hate for these to be completely ignored, otherwise we end up with season 0 through 2 scenarios where only CRB stuff is used and ends up being too vanilla or completely outclassed by all the player character options. Scenarios get outclassed enough as is, we don't need to exacerbate the issue by restricting what authors can use too much.

One new class per scenario would help, and possibly be a reasonable compromise.

Personally, I don't see a problem with things being "too vanilla." Of course, I tend to be more interested in role-playing and stories than I am in mechanics and tactics, and I can certainly see where others may disagree. However, if we're saying that we need the new material in order to avoid NPCs being outclassed, isn't that a implicit acknowledgement of power creep?

In any event, I can only speak for myself. I would certainly GM more if the prep didn't feel complicated simply for the sake of using the new material.

1/5

What has been proposed sounds like a good idea to me.

1/5 **

Davor Firetusk wrote:
As some one who jumped in much later and with a lot less 3.X experience compared to others I found playing and see some of the builds others did in action very helpful. So I'm a little bit sympathetic to keeping things do able, but there has only been 1 completely new class in the last 2 years? I do think there has been a better balance in season 8 and even the later half of season 7 did not seem to be too heavy. A local trusting community that understands how complex GMing can be and expects fairness and fun more then 100% rule accuracy helps a ton.

Quite possible...I've mostly been gone since early Season seven (which to me seemed to have Occult EVERYTHING for, well, reasons). Maybe the concern I'm expressing has already been heard and accounted for.

Davor Firetusk wrote:
Know as much as I enjoy building a character to figure out how a class ticks, I also enjoy spending some time figuring out how an NPC is supposed to work while prepping too.

Definitely a sentiment I do not share. However, as you have alluded to, you are able to scratch that itch that without making in mandatory for the GM.

1/5 **

Nohwear wrote:
Are you arguing that scenarios should only have npcs with Core classes? What if the writers wait two years before using any of the newest material? If you are asking for something in between, say only material from hard cover books or none of the classes after a certain book, I would like to know why the line should be drawn there, please.

I personally wouldn't mind never going past the APG, but I understand others feel differently. I guess what I'm mostly bothered by is characters who use new classes for not apparent reason beyond promotion. For example, there was a follow-up scenario to Black Waters (School of Spirits) which featured what felt like a very pointless use of a medium for a character that really didn't fit, and in fact didn't even oppose the players. That, for me, was the big "why?" moment.

3/5 **** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

4 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:


I personally wouldn't mind never going past the APG, but I understand others feel differently. I guess what I'm mostly bothered by is characters who use new classes for not apparent reason beyond promotion. For example, there was a follow-up scenario to Black Waters (School of Spirits) which featured what felt like a very pointless use of a medium for a character that really didn't fit, and in fact didn't even oppose the players. That, for me, was the big "why?" moment.

Wait? Explain yourself on that one because from what I understand of both Black Waters and School of Spirits its arguably the most apt use of that class.

1/5 **

MadScientistWorking wrote:
Wait? Explain yourself on that one because from what I understand of both Black Waters and School of Spirits its arguably the most apt use of that class.

Ok, just went back and looked.

Spoiler:

The class in question is Spiritualist; I am of course referring to "J." Could she be a spiritualist? Sure. But why? I fail to see how the scenario was improved in any quantifiable way by the inclusion of the class. She could have been an expert followed around by a spirit with zero mechanical impact to the player experience.

In other words, as the GM, I had to pick up a new book and learn a new class for a character that didn't end up really needing a stat-block in the first place. That was a good 30 minutes of prep that served no purpose whatsoever, promotional or otherwise.

3/5 **** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

bugleyman wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Wait? Explain yourself on that one because from what I understand of both Black Waters and School of Spirits its arguably the most apt use of that class.

Ok, just went back and looked.

** spoiler omitted **

In other words, as the GM, I had to pick up a new book and learn a new class for a character that didn't end up really needing a stat-block in the first place. That was a good 30 minutes of prep that served no purpose whatsoever, promotional or otherwise.

Because that NPC is a combat NPC. At least from the perspective that it did come up in my playthrough of it. Also, it's useful as a backup where the players are having issues with the one combat if you screw it up.

1/5 **

MadScientistWorking wrote:
Because that NPC is a combat NPC. At least from the perspective that it did come up in my playthrough of it. Also, it's useful as a backup where the players are having issues with the one combat if you screw it up.

Personally, I don't think forcing every GM to learn a new class for what is at best an ancillary NPC from a combat perspective is ultimately a wise decision. Again, I can only speak for myself, but there are much better ways that 30 minutes could have been spent.

Even if you disagree in this particular case, however, I think my point -- that shoehorning new character mechanics into scenarios for product promotion purposes unnecessarily increases the prep load on GMs, which is bad for PFS -- stands. At least I know it does for me. I know I've noped out of GMing a few times when I notice that every 2nd NPC is a Skald instead of a Bard, or a Medium or Kineticist or...

Scarab Sages 5/5

bugleyman wrote:
Tallow wrote:

I agree only to the extent that only one is added per scenario. When you have scenarios that have 2 or 3 complicated ACG and Occult classes (especially at high levels) it really becomes a bear to prep.

But I would hate for these to be completely ignored, otherwise we end up with season 0 through 2 scenarios where only CRB stuff is used and ends up being too vanilla or completely outclassed by all the player character options. Scenarios get outclassed enough as is, we don't need to exacerbate the issue by restricting what authors can use too much.

One new class per scenario would help, and possibly be a reasonable compromise.

Personally, I don't see a problem with things being "too vanilla." Of course, I tend to be more interested in role-playing and stories than I am in mechanics and tactics, and I can certainly see where others may disagree. However, if we're saying that we need the new material in order to avoid NPCs being outclassed, isn't that a implicit acknowledgement of power creep?

In any event, I can only speak for myself. I would certainly GM more if the prep didn't feel complicated simply for the sake of using the new material.

Nothing implicit about it. Its explicit that there is power creep. This is why we are getting so many nerfs to the game lately.

5/5 5/55/55/5

we really don't need another flying invisible mirror imaged wizard

1/5 **

Tallow wrote:
Nothing implicit about it. Its explicit that there is power creep. This is why we are getting so many nerfs to the game lately.

Fair enough. However, please understand that the mere suggestion of power creep raises hackles, especially in discussions about rules bloat. There seems to be an rather large contingent that thinks it is possible to endless produce perfectly balanced mechanics...despite the fact that no company has ever managed it. ;-)

1/5 **

BigNorseWolf wrote:
we really don't need another flying invisible mirror imaged wizard

That's a bit too reductionist to meaningfully contribute to the conversion, and my purpose in posting this thread wasn't to engage in a debate for debate's sake. My purpose was to share what would keep me in the GM's chair. Obviously everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion (though to be honest, I'm a little surprised I haven't yet seen a "don't let the door hit you on the way out" post yet).

Scarab Sages 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Frankly, it isn't the scenarios and crazy classes that have had me GM very, very rarely since November 2016. (I think I've GM'd 4, maybe 5 sessions since then.)

Its the power creep and rules bloat and players bringing all kinds of craziness to the tables that just obliterate all my hard work in prepping things. I don't enjoy that. Sure, I can make it fun by bringing story and roleplay. But its a hollow fun for me, and after awhile, hollow fun just becomes hollow.

I'll be GM'ing mostly Starfinder in the future I think.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
(though to be honest, I'm a little surprised I haven't yet seen a "don't let the door hit you on the way out" post yet).

To be fair, you're already out the door anyway and just poke your head in the window every now and then. :)

Silver Crusade 4/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I don't think scenario authors or developers should be limited to, or limit themselves to, a circumscribed set of PC classes.

I do agree with the broader thought that recently-printed classes, mechanics, monster abilities, and the like should be used with some restraint, and that restraint has not always been evident. I think it usually has been, though. I've only been "overwhelmed" a couple of times. I admit that I do enjoy being stretched a bit as a GM because I tend to learn more when that happens. That might not be for everyone.

The particular example you used, though, of School of Spirits? That may bother you, and that's all right--but it doesn't bother me one bit. That's really the kind of relationship and concept the class was designed for. It would have been silly to use something else.

I mean, you could have built her as a summoner with "house" rules, but then people have to keep track of those house rules, and by the time you're done, that wouldn't net you much of anything.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I vehemently agree with the original poster. A great many scenarios (especially in season 7) were far too much work to prepare.

This was especially true for the Occult Handbook. Paizo made the deliberate design decision to make all of those classes have quite different mechanics.

Some of the newer classes are complicated to learn. Even worse, they are time consuming and complicated to run (Mesmerist, I'm looking at you).

My personal solution to the problem (after seriously considering quitting as a GM) was to vet all scenarios before deciding to run them. I will just not run scenarios that I feel impose too high a burden on me. Whether that burden be learning new classes, learning some new badly explained and implemented mini game, or bad writing causing tactics to be invalidated by the map I've got better things to do with my time :-)

1/5 **

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
(though to be honest, I'm a little surprised I haven't yet seen a "don't let the door hit you on the way out" post yet).
To be fair, you're already out the door anyway and just poke your head in the window every now and then. :)

Absolutely true, but I had a good time the other day, so I'm thinking about ways I might come back in with more frequency. :)

1/5 **

Tallow wrote:
I'll be GM'ing mostly Starfinder in the future I think.

That prospect is very appealing to me, and part of why I'm posting is I hope that Starfinder society doesn't go down the same road that PFS did.

1/5 **

Terminalmancer wrote:

I don't think scenario authors or developers should be limited to, or limit themselves to, a circumscribed set of PC classes.

I do agree with the broader thought that recently-printed classes, mechanics, monster abilities, and the like should be used with some restraint, and that restraint has not always been evident. I think it usually has been, though. I've only been "overwhelmed" a couple of times. I admit that I do enjoy being stretched a bit as a GM because I tend to learn more when that happens. That might not be for everyone.

The particular example you used, though, of School of Spirits? That may bother you, and that's all right--but it doesn't bother me one bit. That's really the kind of relationship and concept the class was designed for. It would have been silly to use something else.

I mean, you could have built her as a summoner with "house" rules, but then people have to keep track of those house rules, and by the time you're done, that wouldn't net you much of anything.

I can see that...thanks for sharing your thoughts. :)

3/5 **** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

Tallow wrote:

Frankly, it isn't the scenarios and crazy classes that have had me GM very, very rarely since November 2016. (I think I've GM'd 4, maybe 5 sessions since then.)

Its the power creep and rules bloat and players bringing all kinds of craziness to the tables that just obliterate all my hard work in prepping things. I don't enjoy that. Sure, I can make it fun by bringing story and roleplay. But its a hollow fun for me, and after awhile, hollow fun just becomes hollow.

I'll be GM'ing mostly Starfinder in the future I think.

Except the craziest builds are still relegated to early content so all this complaining really doesn't seem correct. At least I can't really think of anything that approaches the level of Rainbow Oracle cheese in later content.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think there have been good and bad adventures.

Particularly bad was To Judge a Soul 2, where you get a fairly random effect from a different class every round. Talk about overwhelming the GM with pointless complexity; there was not that much chance that the random effects would really help anyone.

Quite good was School of Spirits, which was really built as a showcase for that class. The story was driven by the class, and involved challenges relevant to the class. It relates the game mechanics of the class to how a character with that class might experience them. I don't think it would have been as good or convincing if you used a papier-mache Expert dummy for it instead.

I've seen more good uses of new classes. I don't think Paizo should avoid them; sometimes they're really a good tool for the job.

But I agree with Tallow, that doing it conservatively is a good idea; try not to use too many at a time (ideally 0-2). Don't do it just to be edgy, do it if it will really improve the adventure.

5/5 *** Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:

Frankly, it isn't the scenarios and crazy classes that have had me GM very, very rarely since November 2016. (I think I've GM'd 4, maybe 5 sessions since then.)

Its the power creep and rules bloat and players bringing all kinds of craziness to the tables that just obliterate all my hard work in prepping things. I don't enjoy that. Sure, I can make it fun by bringing story and roleplay. But its a hollow fun for me, and after awhile, hollow fun just becomes hollow.

I'll be GM'ing mostly Starfinder in the future I think.

Okay, I understand power creep, but combating rules bloat by hopping onto an entirely new roleplay system is kind of ironic.

In all seriousness, I do understand the sentiment. Occult classes especially have lots more rules text than the standard classes, but I'm in favour of introducing classes step by step. I'm sure people were complaining when the Alchemist and Witch came out. And before that, the Core classes were also brand new. The only advantage they had was that they piggybacked a lot on 3.5. There just happen to be a lot more moving parts on the new classes. But it's just class literacy. You have to start somewhere, otherwise people will never learn how the classes work. I'm sure it'll lessen over time. Like others said, one class per scenario is enough.

I would, however, like to see some kind of support in how some NPCs are supposed to work. The Morale box gives an outline of what kind of actions they take, but not their mechanical benefit. Test of Tar Kuata has a Monk with a very unique set of feats, some of which I'd never seen in action before. Mechanically I knew what they did, but it never really clicked together. I really had to go through her statblock to see what her feats all did. And while the majority of her feats are pretty simple, there's still 15 (!) of them I had to check to see how they interacted. Or similarly, Sun Orchid Scheme (released 19 months after the release of the Advanced Class Guide) has an Investigator that still perplexed a lot of GMs about what it's supposed to do in combat. The classes all become fairly easy to memorise once you've played them a bit, but until that point, there's still loads of class features you're unfamiliar with. I'd recommend for the first year since the release of new classes, you keep them at level 3 max or so so people can get familiar with what they do at low-level first. You can even give class levels to monsters to up their CR. I just fought an Elemental with Barbarian levels, that already added quite some complexity. I remember how my GM for All for Immortality thanked me for not fighting [redacted], for she had class levels the GM was completely unfamiliar with. The class writeup spanned over a page (nearly 2, with sidebar and flunkies included). Her tactics also unhelpfully include that she has many different things she can do.

Anyway, in some cases, I think some help in clarifying an encounter would be welcome. Maybe not necessarily in the scenario itself, but somewhere a writeup about how a fight is intended to go would help alleviate a lot of the complaints mentioned above. Maybe in an appendix you can choose to ignore if you're familiar with the class (maybe something called "GM tips" or something), or maybe in the accompanying GM thread.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
(though to be honest, I'm a little surprised I haven't yet seen a "don't let the door hit you on the way out" post yet).
To be fair, you're already out the door anyway and just poke your head in the window every now and then.

:)

5/5 5/55/55/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

That's a bit too reductionist to meaningfully contribute to the conversion.

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.

It's being done, and its hard to adapt to, but its a necessary thing to do.

with that said... an instruction manual for how that's supposed to work would be very handy, particularly for ability interactions that aren't obvious.

Scarab Sages 3/5

I've always been surprised that tactics are always so brief, especially when built to do something less common. If anything, that's what causes the biggest experience differences in my opinion. The GM who knows every feat and trick is always tougher then the guy who knows how power attack works.

Mechanics just need better explanations. It's niche mechanics that annoy me - I'm looking at you, Verbal Combat.

Second Seekers (Roheas) 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Appalachia

I agree - new classes are A ok.

Subsystems are where the vagaries really set in - especially since almost every use of the Chase Mechanics has featured the chase mechanics used DIFFERENTLY.

Season 8 potential spoilers:
Admittedly when I ran Treacherous Waves and the chase mechanics were totally different than the party was used to their level of anxiety was palpable at how they were unable to catch the bad guy. That was actually kind of cool

Scarab Sages 4/5

Douglas Edwards wrote:

I agree - new classes are A ok.

Subsystems are where the vagaries really set in - especially since almost every use of the Chase Mechanics has featured the chase mechanics used DIFFERENTLY.

** spoiler omitted **

I've had more issues with the subsystems as well. Not so much for my learning curve or prep time. Mostly, my problem with them is that they keep showing up in the tier 1-5 scenarios. I can understand that it might be easier to implement them there, because the overall complexity of the creatures you're likely to encounter is lower, but it creates an awkward situation using those scenarios with new players.

Season 8:
To Seal the Shadow and Champion's Chalice Part 1 both employ subsystems. I enjoyed them both as something different, but I've been playing for a few years. I can see them both (especially Champion's Chalice) as problems for introducing players to PFS. Scheduling games, I'm almost always relying on having some existing players in order to make the table, so constantly offering the evergreens isn't a solution. When two of the newest 1-5s include complicated subsystems, it can create a problem.

Season 7:
From Season 7, I know Bid for Alabastrine uses a subsystem, and again, I enjoyed that scenario. But I'm hesitant to run it for new players. I think The Sun Orchid Scheme uses some kind of subsystem. I haven't played it yet. Both are 1-5s and might include a brand new player.

5/5 *** Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht

The best subsystems are the ones your players aren't aware they're playing a subsystem. Sun Orchid Scheme is so elegant your players won't even notice they're playing a two-hour minigame. The rules flow so simply, it's just a natural cause-effect kind of thing. As a GM, you don't even have to explain the rules. While To Seal the Shadow has the players bombarded with rules and have you recalculating your skills. And even in prepping, the GM only has to look at the Heist Flowchart and immediately understand how it's supposed to go.

The first few instances of Chases varied from time to time because the rules weren't completely codified yet, and around season 6 or so they thought they needed an update, so even the more modern chases vary from the "official" rules.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

On the one hand 1-5s get played by new players and you don't want to overwhelm them. On the other hand, if you hide everything from new players they're going to be unprepared if they need to do something other than combat in higher-level adventures. "Well, it's nice that your first character is now level 6, but he's completely unprepared, so you better start a new character for real this time."

Much better would be to both use a varied amount of challenges (to teach people to be prepared for more than combat), but to also budget more time and space for explaining them. That is, the writer went the extra mile to explain them, and also warns the GM "set aside some time to explain this bit - we've made other pars of the scenario shorter to make it fit".

Also, 1-5s also get played by experienced players playing a new character. They do want new adventures to be fresh, not reskins of the same mechanics as all the other 1-5s.

Silver Crusade 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This sounds very similar to something I posted last November. That thread was about how hard it is to start running PFS for new GMs. Quoting my post again here in its entirety, since it's so relevant:

Fromper wrote:

I have a pair of friends (a married couple) who are both 3 star GMs in PFS. They decided to switch to 5th edition D&D after buying School of Spirits, and deciding that learning a new edition was easier than figuring out how the NPC with the occult class in that adventure worked. I think they were expecting that kind of difficulty in GMing to come up more often in the future, so it wasn't just that the one scenario did something weird. It was more the expectation that this was becoming the norm.

I actually had a similar experience that almost drove me away from PFS. I didn't play much PFS in seasons 5 or 6, when most of my RPG time was spent GMing for a home group that kept things relatively simple, and didn't keep up with the latest and greatest books. I returned at the start of season 7, so the Advanced Class Guide, Pathfinder Unchained, and Occult Adventures had all been published while I wasn't paying attention, and I didn't know anything about them.

I played 7-01: Between the Lines at GenCon, then volunteered to GM it locally, only to be completely overwhelmed by players with the new classes at my table. Not to get into spoilers, but there's part of that scenario where the GM has to adjust the adventure based on what classes the group is playing, and I literally had no clue for 5 of the 6 PCs at my table whether they were full BAB, arcane casters, divine casters, etc. The paladin was the only class at the table that I knew anything about.

If I hadn't already been scheduled to GM again a week or two later, and felt bad dropping out of that commitment, I probably never would have GMed a Society game again. As is, my later game ran much smoother, and I realized the one bad experience was just a fluke. But it was a fluke based on the specific content of that scenario requiring a level of rules expertise that I didn't have at that time.

What we could probably use is disclaimers on the scenarios saying what level of difficulty they are for GMs. I know some of them already mention when they use material from a particular book in the product blurb, but I'm thinking we could use a more decisive disclaimer on adventures like those two.

When I first posted that, I didn't bold that sentence in the last paragraph, and it went largely ignored. But I really think that's the best solution here. Some people like seeing new mechanics in scenarios, while others hate it. The best solution for both groups is to just have good warnings up front to let people know what to expect before they volunteer to GM the scenario. That way, we can continue to have a mix of scenarios that do or do not include such things.

It really shouldn't be that hard for Paizo to write "GMs for School of Spirits will need to learn how to run a new class from Occult Adventures" or "GMs for Between the Lines should have enough system mastery to know the basics of every character class PCs might bring to the table". The line that's there now that it uses material from Occult Adventures is truly meaningless, and doesn't help with the fact that GMs for Between the Lines need to know all the Advanced Class Guide classes, too, which was part of my problem at the time.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fromper, I think that's a good idea. It helps players pick scenarios they're comfortable GMing. But also, it provides quantitative insight on how difficult a season is becoming as a whole, which may be insightful for Paizo itself.

For the record, I think that both the two scenarios you actually mention aren't as hard as they seem at first glance.

Spiritualists are a bit of a dense class to start with, but since the NPC isn't all that active in most combats you don't have to know it perfectly. And it's the only new element, and it makes sense in the scenario.

In Between the Lines, you could also solve that problem by just asking each player "what are you playing? what core class does that resemble?"

Silver Crusade 5/5

Avoiding rules bloat is impossible and is going to happen no matter what sort of arbitrary guiding principles are set into place. The argument that scenarios should be kept under a certain tier of complexity so that they aren't nightmares to prepare has its validity but eventually people who GM frequently are going to want some of the new(er) stuff that is available. The problem with any table top RPG is the same that any game by its very nature has.

You have to keep releasing new material in order to keep your player base engaged and active, otherwise your game gets replaced with newer alternatives...or it gets regulated to the nostalgia pile....or becomes that really old game that only a super small but super loyal fan base still even bothers with.

The issue is....

That rules bloat inevitably pushes people away as well. Once a game hits a certain level of options and complexity, it stops being practical on several different levels. This is why newer alternative options draw people towards them. D&D 5th got a number of people back into D&D, not only because it was more of a return to form for Wizards of the Coast but also because the existing top competitors had plenty of time to grow rules bloat and people were getting burnt out.

However, I have heard that several people (at least in my area) have already stopped playing 5th because of a general lack of official options outside of new adventures here and there. (Which kind of highlights that either end of the spectrum comes with negative consequences). Players want new options and GMs want new things to throw at players but at a certain point it all gets to be too much or not enough for just about anyone (super fans excluded). With Pathfinder being an extension of D&D 3.5, there is only so much that can be done before rules bloat is a thing. Even if Paizo only released 2 or 3 pathfinder books a year, that would be 16 or more books since its release in 2009. Things have a natural life cycle.

wither or become a tumor I guess......either way you eventually die

Silver Crusade 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Fromper, I think that's a good idea. It helps players pick scenarios they're comfortable GMing. But also, it provides quantitative insight on how difficult a season is becoming as a whole, which may be insightful for Paizo itself.

Thank you. This seems like such an obvious and simple solution that I don't understand why Paizo didn't start doing it years ago (before the rules bloat started costing them customers). Seriously, it shouldn't add more than 2 minutes to the writing time of a scenario to put a quick line in the scenario blurb. And if there's nothing special to note, then say that, too, so people know which scenarios don't have anything special that would make them harder to GM.

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

For the record, I think that both the two scenarios you actually mention aren't as hard as they seem at first glance.

Spiritualists are a bit of a dense class to start with, but since the NPC isn't all that active in most combats you don't have to know it perfectly. And it's the only new element, and it makes sense in the scenario.

In Between the Lines, you could also solve that problem by just asking each player "what are you playing? what core class does that resemble?"

But this is largely a problem of perception. How hard does it seem to prep and run these adventures, not how hard it really is.

Sure, after running and/or playing School of Spirits, most people realize that understanding the spiritualist class and all the details of that NPC's stat block are largely irrelevant, as long as you understand the theme enough to RP the social parts. But when you've first bought the adventure and started reading it to GM, all you see is a stat block for a complex new class that you feel obligated to read up on and learn. And remember, it was originally published months before Occult Adventures was added to the PRD, and at least a couple of weeks before it got to the SRD.

As for my situation in Between the Lines, that particular issue didn't scare me during the prep of the scenario. But I was showing up to run it at a store where I'd only recently started playing and didn't really know many people. Starting out an adventure with "Hi, I'll be your GM, but my rules knowledge is so bad that I don't know jack about the classes that 5 of the 6 of you are playing" doesn't exactly instill confidence. And frankly, even the writer of the adventure didn't know the occult classes well enough to deal with the issue at hand, as they weren't taken into account in that section of the adventure. Which again, was published months before the PRD included Occult Adventures.

I'll give Paizo credit for improving their information in adventures, to give you most of what you need in the scenario to run the odd stuff without having to own the books. But they need to realize that not all GMs are comfortable with doing that much prep work in advance, so including a disclaimer when such situations arise would go a LONG way towards helping GMs choose adventures they'll be happiest running.

1/5 * RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

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.

1/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:
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.

Given the volume and complexity of the material, combined with the need to know it backwards and forwards to do the material justice, I wholeheartedly disagree. Of course, those are just our opinions.

What isn't an opinion, however, is that it is taking a toll on GMs, and, at least in some cases, driving them away. And I don't know about you, but in my experience lack of good GMs is usually the #1 constraint on PFS play.

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
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.

Given the volume and complexity of the material, combined with the need to know it backwards and forwards to do the material justice, I wholeheartedly disagree. Of course, those are just our opinions.

What isn't an opinion, however, is that is taking a toll on GMs, and, at least in some cases, driving them away. I don't know about you, but in my experience lack of good GMs is usually the #1 constraint on PFS play.

Pretty much this.

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.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that adding in their stat blocks the descriptions of what the abilities do, similar to how the prgens do it, would be helpful. That way you have the text you need to run the scenario in the scenario and don't have to wade through all the rulebook to figure it out.
Do people agree?

1/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
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.

Given the volume and complexity of the material, combined with the need to know it backwards and forwards to do the material justice, I wholeheartedly disagree. Of course, those are just our opinions.

What isn't an opinion, however, is that is taking a toll on GMs, and, at least in some cases, driving them away. I don't know about you, but in my experience lack of good GMs is usually the #1 constraint on PFS play.

Pretty much this.

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.

Agreed!

I'm sure it's fine if one is twenty-something. Or a retiree. Or independently wealthy. For those who are able (and wish) to devote the time, great! But it seems a bit elitist -- not to mention counterproductive -- to needlessly exclude everyone else.

Scarab Sages 5/5

bugleyman wrote:
Tallow wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
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.

Given the volume and complexity of the material, combined with the need to know it backwards and forwards to do the material justice, I wholeheartedly disagree. Of course, those are just our opinions.

What isn't an opinion, however, is that is taking a toll on GMs, and, at least in some cases, driving them away. I don't know about you, but in my experience lack of good GMs is usually the #1 constraint on PFS play.

Pretty much this.

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.

The thing is, I'm sure it's fine if you're twenty-something. Or a retiree. Or independently wealthy. For those who are able (and wish) to devote the time, great. But it seems a bit elitist -- not to mention counterproductive -- to needlessly exclude everyone else.

Are you referring to me needlessly excluding people? Or the previous poster that you and I responded to?

Scarab Sages 5/5

Thomas Hutchins wrote:

I think that adding in their stat blocks the descriptions of what the abilities do, similar to how the prgens do it, would be helpful. That way you have the text you need to run the scenario in the scenario and don't have to wade through all the rulebook to figure it out.

Do people agree?

This would be nice.

However, the answer that this sort of thing has repeatedly gotten, is that it adds to the word count and thus to the development bandwidth needed to develop said scenarios. We know that wordcount doesn't matter for a digital product insofar as the size of a scenario for printing cost purposes.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:
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.

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.

1/5 **

Tallow wrote:
Are you referring to me needlessly excluding people? Or the previous poster that you and I responded to?

Sorry...I was agreeing with you. :)

5/5 5/55/55/5

bugleyman wrote:


What isn't an opinion, however, is that it is taking a toll on GMs, and, at least in some cases, driving them away. And I don't know about you, but in my experience lack of good GMs is usually the #1 constraint on PFS play.

But what you seem to be saying is that this is a bad option, by only looking at the downsides to introducing new content, rather than the upsides of new content and running it through a cost vs benefit analysis.

1/5 **

BigNorseWolf wrote:
But what you seem to be saying is that this is a bad option, by only looking at the downsides to introducing new content, rather than the upsides of new content and running it through a cost vs benefit analysis.

I think any such analysis would involve a large number of assumptions. In fact, I'd hesitate to refer to the result as an "analysis." As someone who:

* Knows something about databases
* Has seen firsthand the quality of the data being fed into the reporting system
* Has been able to infer many limits of the system itself

I think you're putting far, FAR too much stock in how much anyone actually knows.

I'm curious, though...what do you imagine the upside to be? More players? Even if a lack of players were a constraint, I find it difficult to believe that the difference between a Skald NPC and a Bard NPC really matters that much -- or oftentimes, whether it is even discernible -- to most players. Once in a while, perhaps...and when it does make a difference, fine, do it. But very often it seems to me that new rules elements are used simply because they're new, not because they're necessary.

Scarab Sages 5/5

bugleyman wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Are you referring to me needlessly excluding people? Or the previous poster that you and I responded to?
Sorry...I was agreeing with you. :)

ok, cool. I just was like, "how was I exluding someone?" But figured I'd make sure before I responded.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

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.

1 to 50 of 68 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / New class mechanics in scenarios All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.