Tyrel Marak's page

(Disclaimer - I played this once, but didn't face the haunt, though heard about it, and am preparing to run it at some point in the future ... which is why I was interested in this thread.)

Elephant in the room = haunts are complicated, poorly understood, inconsistently run and often lead to a bad player experiences. Argue all you want, defend them all you want, clarify them piecemeal all you want - between this thread, other threads and my own personal experience, I have no doubt that haunts have been poorly executed to the point that they cannot be consistently run.

Beyond this, I think the expectations as to the level of PC optimization and player professionalism (i.e. the degree to which the players treat this hobby like a job) have risen sharply during the third season. This is at a time when we are getting an influx of casual players from the dwindling organized play options available for 4E. I know the base has been asking for more challenge, but I don't think that pandering to the base is always a good thing. Deadly encounters (i.e. reasonable likelihood of a one shot KO or even death), especially in low tier games, don't seem like a good idea to me, and aren't likely to draw in and keep new players. I understand that not everyone can be made happy, but I think that right now the scenario writers and campaign organizers are aiming at the (at least somewhat) optimized, hard-core and vocal GMs/players.

Finally, it is obvious that thrikreed feels strongly about this - to the point that he intends to not play any more PFS. I personally know of 3 other players in my area who have made a similar vow and have so far followed through (despite my repeated invitations). I know of one other player who has made a similar vow and is in the process of trying again - but it's obvious that past experiences have "left a bad taste in his mouth."

These are just my thoughts and anecdotal observations. Take them however you want.

Good Call on the no changing ability scores! Folks rigged their scores to take advantage of the system with a obviously OP class. They got caught and now they get to keep their scores :D

Got caught? Doing what - playing within the rules? You're not the only person who has said something like this in the posts above, and I have to say that all of it sounds rather vindictive to me.

I personally want the broken archetypes, features, etc done away with in PFS, and I think that this is a good first step. At the same time, Paizo and the campaign organizers need to realize that when Paizo publishes something and then PFS gives it the thumbs up, players expect that they are doing nothing wrong when they decide to play these twice-vetted characters. Yes, the Synthesist Summoner is OP - but it was OP the second it was available, and it didn't take a genius to figure that out. And I think if you look on these very boards, you will see that this was pointed out and complained about time and again. (As a side note: I do not have a Synthesist Summoner.)

The described remedy, while gracious, does not speak to the specifics of this build's problems. One of the bigger problems with this build is that it begs for stat dumping - you get to overlay a suit of living armor that entirely makes up for all of your deficiencies. This is further heightened by the fact that the character is built with spell-caster stats, but aimed at melee combat, often multi-classed with levels in other melee combat classes. So now, with this remedy they are stuck with levels in a melee class that cannot be changed (because they are unaffected by the ruling) and stats that do not in any way support that class.

Again - I don't have a Synthesist, and further I want broken stuff out of the campaign, but this feels wrong. By so narrowly defining these rebuild rules, it feels almost punitive.

Thanks everyone for the discussion. I have some ideas now.

Our group clearly cannot maintain even the once a week pace we were trying to set, and could never approach the 3-4 times a week pace we were able to set with LFR. We will cut back to every other week and supplement scenarios with modules and see where that gets us.

Truth is, I respect all of you and your opinions, and it's been interesting to hear about the different experiences each of you have had and how in many cases they are very different from my own. I have only played in the one other living campaign (LFR), and clearly living campaigns are not all the same. I don't have the LC or LG experience to draw on for comparison that many of you have, and it's clear that you guys have put a lot of thought and effort into crafting and maintaining this campaign. I may not agree with every decision, but I like PF and PFS both enough that I'm going to tough it out and try to stick with it.

Keep on talking about this if you want, but I for one have vented my frustration, heard some interesting responses, and am satisfied. I also do understand a little better where you're coming from.

Have a good one.

Q