![]() ![]()
![]() Knowing when to use this is key of course, and is knowing what abilities the PCs at your table use and how much they try to use player knowledge instead of character knowledge. Your character would never "know" that the BBEG does or doesn't have Combat Reflexes. Best you could guess is that he just took a swing at your buddy and "maybe" you could get by without getting smacked (does not = not getting swung at). There are so many different ways to verbally describe what is happening in combat. I prefer a very descriptive cinematic style, as it helps paint a picture for me and my players. Refering to other abilities that retaliate, such as a monk, of course, would be my responsibility as a GM to know that you have such an ability. I would necessarily use this GMing for people I don't know, or at least know what their character does. For me, I don't see combat as a buch of static things that happen, but a whirling cloud of chaos in which actions happen with in the rule set provided. Doesn't say anything about elaborating on the fluff that goes on between rolls. This isn't about knowing what an AoO is or isnt from a rules perspective, or preventing a player from applying rules knowledge about AoOs. It's about preventing players from implying player knowledge onto their characters. No different than a character not making a knowledge check to identify a monster, then pulling out their cold-iron weapon, just cause they feel its the right thing to do. ![]()
![]() I wanted to get a feel for other GMs and how they deal with the meta-gaming that often revolves around the AoO, combat reflexes, and provoking. How I deal with the issue: Real combat isn't static. The combatants don't just stand there and take their one (or more) swipes per turn (as I've seen discussed in numerous threads). So your attack is your "good oppotunity" to land a solid blow (one that isn't parried, or dodged, or glances of his shield as would happen in actual combat). I read the same thing for combat reflexes. All it represents is their "good opportunity" to stike a creature, not that they won't "try" and hit you going past, even if they've used up their "good opportunity". So, the first combatant, A1, somehow provokes from B1. Attack gets rolled as normal, but unlike normal attack rolls, I roll my AoOs behind the screen, to begin minimizing meta-gaming. The next player, A2, will often think to themself, and sometimes even verbalize "they've taken their AoO, i'll just walk past them" This is where, behind the screen, I'll roll again. Of course, if they don't have Combat Reflexes, the roll is moot, but the dice and my verbalization, "He swings as you walk by, slamming into your armour, which absorbs the entirety of his blow", or a "glancing blow, successfully parried" I find can break the meta involved, or at least try to minimize it. I like the surprised look I get when a player thinks the coast is clear but maybe, just maybe, it really isn't. How do you try to negate this type of meta? ![]()
![]() Hendelbolaf wrote:
I agree on the sound, though the issue (of Mirror Image vs. Heartseeker vs. Magic Missile) arises from what I see as the use of the word "unerringly" in the descriptions. Both Magic Missile and Heartseeker use the word but MM works vs. MI but Heartseeker does not. That's the bone that I have. ![]()
![]() MikeMyler wrote:
I have to disagree with you on this point. The wording of Heartseeker doesn't mention the sound of a beating heart, it simply says "beating hearts". A heart still beats in areas of Silence. ![]()
![]() Sniggevert wrote: Well, they had to tear down the walls with claws. The act of digging into the room would pull some of the debris from the wall into the hallway they were digging from. I didn't imagine them as charging through and bursting the wall into the small chamber, but go with whatever makes a better story for you. Thanks. Hadn't thought of it that way. I can picture it better now. With that in mind, this area has been sealed off until just recently, and that the Sinspawn brought down three captives, I would assume that there would be some tracks to see in the dust/debris. Or perhaps some debris scattered as though someone trod through. Perception/survival for noticing and tracking? Since A3 has it despcribed as "ages-old dust" even though it was a sealed, I doubt the Sinspawn were thorough in the cleanliness of their corridors. ![]()
![]() Since we cannot measure the subjective (character builds, tactics, luck), we must measure the objective. What can we measure? All we can measure APL and CR (which Paizo and PFS may already do). Bear with me for a moment: Consider the CR per encounter for two scenarios taken from Season 4 and let's compare, simply from an APL vs. CR standpoint: Spoiler :
4-14 My Enemy's Enemy "easier" and 4-02 In Wrath's Shadow "harder" -Both are levels 3-7
Now, with the APL in mind, subtract the CR from the APL. For the first, "easier", scenario, we have the following: CR2 (subtract) APL 3.5 = -1.5
Sum up the difference and we get 4.5. Dividing this by the 5 encounters, the total CR for this adventure is 0.9 over APL. I don't have my book in front of me for the level of challenge that 1 over your APL represents (challenging?). Do the same for the "harder" scenario and we get: CR6 - APL 3.5 = +2.5
Summing we get 13. Dividing by the 6 encounters we get 2.16. This is past the "hard?" challenge and slowly working its way to "epic?" challenge form the CR table. So, simply comparing the two scenarios, the former is going to be easier than the latter. I would say that using this tool based solely on the objective and what we can measure, we could slap a purely objective label on a scenario. The label would simply be based off the CR. So we can say that this scenario, or mod or AP is harder than this one, all things being equal. Now, the subjective is another story and there is no easy way to deal with that, nor do I think should we. Builds, tactics, player knowledge, GM knowledge, the random party make-up of the sit-and-play style of PFS and at the end of the day, pure and simple luck will be the largest determining factor of how easy or hard any mod will be. PFS scenarios have to take into account that any group of characters can sit down at a table together. Sure, there are going to be broken builds and sometimes players will walk through scenarios. But why cater to the 1%, when the vast majority are fine with the way things are. All we are hearing are the squeaky wheels. ![]()
![]() Hoping to get a little clarification on one seemingly small discrepancy. Area B1, the description reads that the debris from the smashed wall spills into the hallway B2. Yet the sentence below reads verbatum, "The wrathspawn broke through this barrier first on their way upstairs...." To me this implies that the debris from the smashed wall should be spilling into the room, not into the hallway. Maybe it's just me, but that's the difference between someone broke in and someone (or in this case something) broke out (breaking out adds to the creepy). Just because this is something I would look for I figured I would ask if this should be the case. ![]()
![]() This has been an interesting thread so far. For those that advocate poor tactics (at least many of the tactics discussed) I don't see a technical distinction in terms of "cheating". One is blatantly obvious (perhaps even so to a newbie), the other not so much. Though, I did have a group of players thank me for rolling all rolls in the open. They are relatively new to PFS (handful of scenarios each). I pose an interesting philosophical question in terms of character death, even for new players. If I roll everything in the open, does it make your character's death feel better, since it is obvious that there is no funny business and that the dice Gods were against them that day? Since there is no way to "win" at PFS, there is definitely a way to "lose", character death. It does stink when you get nerfed 45 minutes into your night but does it ruin your individual "fun" for the evening (or day). Is dying that way a "good" way to "lose"? Will that new player come back? I think this is where good GMing, making his death epic, with in depth description and drama, can keep that new player. Why? Table-top RPs not only compete with themselves, but also with MMOs and video games, where everything is easily seen. Making memorable experiences is key. A grisly, untimely death will engage the imagination and make the experience very personal to that person. Slightly off-topic, I am a fan of the screen, especially to help avoid metagaming. Having players make the statement, "oh, he doesnt have combat reflexes, so i can be the 2nd to move through his space" just makes me roll in secret and say "he takes a swipe at you and juuuuuuust misses". Since melee isnt some static thing with people simply taking their one shot and thats it. Combat reflexes simply means that you get that "one good opportunity". Doesnt mean that someone without wont try and take a swipe as you pass by. I have never, not will I ever, fudge in the BBEGs favour. But if i actually forget (and not "forget") to add a flanking (or other) bonus, is that fudging? Have I cheated? Has your play that game been diminished? If not, how is that any different than fudging? The odd fudge for the player is forgivable, sa there's always tomorrow for them to die a grisly death. ![]()
![]() In no particular order: 3-18 God's Market Gamble. The fire got out of hand, quick. That session ended early, but on an epic fail level. #51 City of Stangers - Part1. I love Ms. feathers. All I see in my mind is John Candy in drag. 3-23 The Goblinblood Dead - Another epic fail, running away with a paralyzed Tengu in tow 2-15 Shades of Ice part 1 - Stellar timing of Unnatural Lust cast on a donkey...... #7 Among the Living: My Taldan cleric came into her own as a person with a unique personality in this scenario. 3-01 Frostfur Captives: Goblins and alchemist fire make for fun roleplaying...... 4-11 The Disappeared. Another awesome adventure that highlighted all the great non-combat skills mixed with a time limit. I loved the tension it created. #8 Slave Pits of Absalom. Ended before it even began (1st encounter), as the rest of my party got apprehended by the City Guards and thrown into jail for d12 months (12), despite her repeated cries of "They're coming, we need to leave now!" Murderer's Mark. Bard out of butter to cast Grease. Asking at every meal, "is there butter?" ![]()
![]() james maissen wrote:
Agreed. I can tell when players sit down to certain scenarios (such as say The Disappeared) if they will be sucessful or not, because I know their characters are built for combat. ![]()
![]() David Bowles wrote:
Exactly. So if it is ultimately a combination of all three (tactics, build, wealth) that creates the "problem" how does nerfing the wealth for all solve the problem of over-powered characters? You'll still have very efficiently built characters who will still be able to over-shadow others and claim scenarios are too "easy", which as I understand, was the original "complaint". ![]()
![]() calagnar wrote:
![]()
![]() Cold Napalm wrote:
^^^THIS. and luck. ![]()
![]() Lormyr wrote:
Great reply. Since comparable wealth is subjective (+/- 2k, 5k, etc), we have PFS execs make that call. The question is, how do we get there and what about those that fall behind due to poor luck or sub-optimal tables that expend larger than normal consumables, if anything? ![]()
![]() I don't recall who (and can't find, since there are a lot of posts, I don't take credit) but did try and discuss the difference between wealth and income. I ran some numbers an was intruiged by what I found. Though my characters income was almost 20k over tier, his wealth (including all consumables) was only 7k over tier. Never did I feel I was trying to game the system to ensure maximum gold. But if someone didnt have the same expenditures are someone else, then, yes, they would be well over tier. But how do you regulate that, if it needs to be regulated? ![]()
![]() Jiggy wrote:
I like since one would still ahve the ability to play up every now and then to make up for potential losses. ![]()
![]() trollbill wrote:
By all means, I fully agree and everyone has fun and defines fun their own way (not trying to say otherwise, but tone and the typed word). But the entire question of eliminating the ability to play up taking on greater risks for greater rewards comes back to the question of why is this an issue (in terms of difficulty of scenarios)? PFS has already taken the large step of setting scenario difficulty for a challenge of 6 people. Regardless of whatever challenge they put forth, there will be some groups that WALK through secnarios and other that will struggle (and then vice-versa) SOLELY based on the make-up of characters at the table. Never have I said that those sessions where we walked through were "not fun/or challenging". It was nice to be able to flex a little muscle every now and then. Getting back to the original point (trying to anyhow, since the entire thread weaves, its just the way it goes) why do we need to fix something that only a handful of people (again, we have no numbers to back this up) seem to have broken? ![]()
![]() Lormyr wrote:
So, to infer your conclusion, someone is gaming the system to pick and play only the games and tiers available to them that will allow them to maximize their ability to "play up"? Just so we understand. So, to infer further, your conclusion is it's not just wealth that seems to be the issue and it's not just optimization that is the issue, its the rabid combination of the two that is providing the "problem". So why are we catering to this sub-group of individuals? Are they the majority of PFS players? If so, then I am obviously playing the game wrong, since I would say that none of my characters is "optimized" in terms of gaming the system (since they all have items that they wanted based on a given in-character event that makes sense for them but is not "optimal"). If not, then why is the minority dictating to the majority? Why can they not change and make less "optimized" and more well-rounded characters? ![]()
![]() BigNorseWolf wrote:
So we have solved one of the underlying issues regarding scenario "easiness". So going forward, this will play itself out and *should* become less of an issue in the future. ![]()
![]() Throughout this entire discussion, I have not seen any numbers to back of the "claim" of "too many people have too much wealth". How many people have too much wealth? On what evidence is this being based? Simply because they find the scenarios "too easy"? All there has been so far is anecdotal evidence that this occurs. The proposed changes have been, so far as I can tell, based on agian, more anecdotal eveidence. Let's assume that some people find the scenarios "too easy". We should be asking ourselves WHY? not simply jumping to the conclusion that all characters have too much wealth. 1. The tactics in scenarios are often questionable. GMs are to run RAW. Therefore, those questionable tactics MUST be run, regardless of the ideas and tactics of your group. It is difficult enough to plan for in a home-game (providing a good challenge for your players), let alone 7 or so random strangers playing the scenario you wrote. 2. Character make-up and player ability (including metagaming) have more to do with overcoming challenges than are given credit. The right mix of players and characters can WIPE some encounters, while others can not. That happens. We need to get over it. Without any solid numbers to back up the claim that "too many characters have too much wealth" I find the claim suspect at best. I dont think that we have acurately defined the problem and gotten to the real root cause. WBL and some characters with too much money seems to be the easy scapegoat. ![]()
![]() After reading and reflecting upon the elimination of higher rewards for higher risk, I have to say, i don't agree (and did post) for several reasons: 1. With no chance to earn higher rewards, every purchase needs to be optimal/optimized, since there will be NO room for error to maintain your WBL relative to this "ideal" that PFS has about how much wealth a character should have. It is difficult now (to do so) when a previous decision is sub-optimal (even though it seemed like a good idea at the time), such as purchasing item X because you like the concept/cool power, etc that turns out to be virtually useless in PFS based on the general style of play and how *most* of the scenarios are written. I feel that this path will hurt the average and newer gamer, who now has to spend much more time in creating characters, as now every feat choice is critical, every spell chosen in place of another, every rage power needs to be optimal, since there is no chance to make it up in better gear, reselling at no loss, etc. It continues to benefit the munchkin, min/maxer, rules lawyers and powergamers of PFS, as this is already how they game/create characters, etc. Again, nothing wrong with that per se, as we all have fun different ways, but as for me, this is not what I want out of playing a
2. I am giong to go out on a limb here and say that the WBL was created in such a way that a balanced (in terms of tank, healer, DPS, etc) party of X number of PCs with gold each will give the appropriate challenge per CR. Since PFS is all about sitting down at any given table with ANY and I do mean ANY mix ofcharacters, the odds of having a traditionally "balanced" party is very slim. Why is this important? Consumables, ESPECIALLY in the form of healing. Arcane is easier to work around, healing is not.
3. Metagaming & replacing consumables for other players, etc: It will be even more difficult to be altruistic in the following regard (Please bear with the example): A spellcaster casts a spell with an expensize component (or a scroll) such as: Raise Dead, Breath of LIfe, stoneskin, restoration, etc. There is no way that the character that benefit form the spell can pay back the caster who originally made the purchase (I understand WHY PFS doesn't allow this, but again, disagree. If people are going to cheat, they are going to cheat and this just hurts those that choose to play this way). Currently, with the
4. Is higher character wealth even an issue? Again, power/meta/min-maxers will always be there and will work whatever system exists to their maximum benefit. I haven't GMd any high level scenaios yet, but for the likes of GMs who GM high level scenarios, have you seen this unbalancing scenarios to the point of walkthroughs? I can think of an example where I was at a table where an extremely efficiently built character took the lead, but was that due to the build or his gear, or some combination, it’s hard to say (since I was playing and didn’t review his sheets)? 5. What are they trying to accomplish? A good question. Since the inception of season 4, I have seen fewer and fewer tables, when they have the option to play up, play up. Why? PFS is evolving and learning what types of challenges are needed in terms of balance for games. They are now all balanced for 6 PCs, with a reduction for four, as opposed to the other way around. I see this positive step in game design and challenge balance solving (in the long run) the majority of the current extreme cases of wealth imbalance. Based on anecdotal evidence, it seems that season 4 has been much, much more deadly for playing up than previous seasons (intentionally killer scenaios aside.... you know who you are). This will automatically lower the tables that play up, giving much needed balls to the lower level players trying to be goaded (and we know it happens) into playing up (NO friggin' way am I playing up! Timmy played up last week and they/he/she/it got slaughtered!) I'll stop here, but suffice it to say, I strongly disagree that risk/rewards needs to be changed. Insert your favourite cliche here about bad apples ruining the bunch, but overall, I see playing up going by the wayside due to the better design of scenarios we have seen starting in season 4 and expect to see continue in season 5. One final thought: I DO THIS FOR TALDOR! ![]()
![]() The question I have for the board is "Why"? Why do we feel the need to change the GP award for "playing up"? Has this been a problem? Are we seeing a large number of characters that have a ridiculous amount of gold/gear? How prevalent is this problem? Is it really a problem? Season 4 has really ramped up the deadliness, and I would expect to see more out of Season 5. Playing up in the new seasons is asking to be killed. Playing up was never just "an option" that you could choose for fun regardless of your level, it required a specific set of circumstances to be met. It also required the consensus of the entire table (at least at our local tables). With the proposed changes, I can see a large contingent of players not wanting to play with characters that would lower their reward and reduce their WBL, which is what would happen. Sign in to create or edit a product review. |