Zman1719's page

I was always under the assumption that that was what the B scenarios were intended to be. If that's not what the designers had in mind, then what other purpose do they serve?

Are they meant to be a random one off adventure, unrelated to the main AP? If so, are they meant to be skipped over by groups intending to play the AP?

The feat reward at the end of the B adventure seems to suggest that you are supposed to play it before the AP, but I could be mistaken.

I hope that didn't come off as a rant. I'm genuinely curious about the purpose of the B adventure.

I thought the same thing. When my SO and I first picked up Skull and Shackles (yes, we started with that one) we did the B adventures first because we thought "well, we don't know PACG so we should start with the intro scenarios first." I can tell you that all of my friends who play this game have thought and done the exact same thing. We all assumed that the B scenarios were an "intro" for new players and the AP as a whole. If this is not the case then I, too, would like to know their real intended purpose.

Given that I've played Freedom: The Underground Railroad and never won, and played Robinson Crusoe and never won, and that both of those games are co-ops, the fact that WoTR isn't a breeze through the park like ROTR is good news to me. We enjoyed ROTR but I kept having the nagging feeling that it was a bit too easy for our party.

That's all well and good but the difference between those other co-op games and PACG is that this is a campaign. Meaning that you are supposed to complete the scenario and then move on to the next. Those other games are more one-offs. Sure you have different scenarios but they aren't strung together into one long serial campaign.

Having a couple scenarios in PACG that are difficult and take a couple tries to get through is perfectly fine. Having every scenario take 3+ tries to complete is not my (or my SO's) idea of a fun time. Neither is having a bunch of scenarios come down to shear luck. A bit of luck is great but having scenarios where you feel utterly helpless and are reliant on purely the draw of the cards is not fun either.

So far we house ruled that you can have up to 6 cards with the non-basic trait for the starting decks. This made slugging our way through the base scenarios a little better but it still wasn't nearly as enjoyable as the other two sets. It also feels "wrong" to have to make the game easier to have a good time but we were desperate at that point to try and squeeze some fun out of the base scenarios.

Actually, 3d6+1d4+1 is an average of 14.. But that's not the point. The point is that the game is luck based. I could fail a check with 5d12+8 against a Carrion Golem. And trust me, someone probably has! We're talking about probabilies here. Are we saying that WotR is harder because some of the probabilities of certain DCs become lower? I disagree.

I think that people think that WotR became harder is because they have to become out of their comfort zone. In RotR you could just take 3 casters and win. Now: no. So the question we should ask ourselves is:

"Do we mind playing with a playstyle that synergizes better with this set than our previous playstyle?"

I've heard people saying that it's not fun to force someone in a Healer role, or to pick up an extra Armor as a Card Feat. But the game requires some thinking now, folks, and is that really a wrong thing to have? If you were to play certain Console-RPGs you'd have a choice between some archetypes too: Do I like to play with a CC heavy Mage? No. But does it work? Yes.

My point still is: The game didn't get harder, because some scenarios and Monsters got harder. The game got harder, because it forces us to think more strategic about our choices in the game! ("I better pick an armor card feat first." "Maybe I should upgrade Wisdom before Melee." "I could explore with this Blessing, but I'd rather safe it for my fellow players." "I should take 2 Cures instead of 1 Cure and a Flaming Weapon, perhaps a Skitter and a Cure would work too.").

That is fine and I would be OK with the "better strategy" is needed aspect of WotR if that is what I wanted. I have enough Co-op games that my GF and I play that require deep strategy or planning or thinking to win.

We really enjoyed playing PACG because we could have a lot of fun casting spells or clubbing down enemies with maces and didn't have to optimize our character choices and spend 5-10 minutes a turn planning out every move and decision to win the scenario. We could play who we wanted and had an amazing and enjoyable time doing it. PACG was great because of how accessible it was for both of us. With WotR it seems that this aspect was lost and while some players find fun and enjoyment in this type of strategic and optimization heavy game, I can tell you that we are not in this group. So, for us, PACG fell very short with WotR.

I would love to see a difficulty "slider" on future sets. Perhaps on each scenario or each adventure pack. In Sentinels of the Multiverse each villain has an Advanced Mode section to turn up the difficulty. For PACG this could be as simple as adding to each of the scenarios (or adventures) "Advanced Mode: Subtract 3 from each of your checks to defeat a bane" or some flavor of that depending on the scenario/adventure deck number at hand. That would allow the hardcore strategic, optimization style players to have their fun while still allowing those of us who just want to have a fun adventure with whatever character(s) we choose to also enjoy our time.

In closing I will say that RotR and SnS were great fun and thoroughly enjoyed being able to play who we wanted. WotR feels more like work than being actual fun for us.

My girlfriend and I finally got a chance to dive into the base adventure this past weekend and boy did we have a tough time. We tried a mix of characters and played each scenario probably 3-4 times. Our whole experience through this adventure was less of "what could we have done better to succeed?" and more of "hopefully we don't get that unlucky next time." Overall, I agree that the luck aspect in WotR is far and above that of the tactic aspect as it was previously. The base adventure felt like you could only win by getting lucky banes and/or lucky hands. I am not a fan of heavy luck based games and neither is she so we certainly did not enjoy this base adventure. When we won a close or difficult scenario in RotR or SnS it usually made us feel accomplished, like we deserved that win. In WotR, that feeling is gone and instead replaced with "thank the lord it's over" and that just isn't the feeling either of us enjoy playing games. We don't want constant stress. I get that this all about demons and such and maybe that is the whole point if this adventure path but that just isn't for us.

I can say we are both disappointed so far. I am really hoping Adventure 1 is less luck driven otherwise WotR may be shelved or sold as neither of us are really into the whole luck based difficulty aspect of games.

I am debating between the BT insert and the 2 inserts from go7gaming. The BT insert seems to be alright from what everyone on these forums have mentioned but has anyone used the cheaper one from go7? For those that are unaware, they have 2 inserts: one that is $24 and one that is $31. The $24 one has no bottom, 4 full lanes and one center lane that is smaller than the rest plus the dividers are wood. The $31 one has 5 full lanes, a bottom and acrylic dividers.

From what I have read here and elsewhere, the $31 go7 insert seems to have lanes that are little too tight. However, the $24 has some fixed areas in the middle and in the outside lanes. Does anyone have experience with this "cheaper" insert?

I see a lot of people having trouble with 3/4 party groups. Has anyone played 2 player or 5/6 and noticed similar results with difficulty and such? I ask because I mainly play with just me and the fiance.

I will say that I haven't yet played WotR as my girlfriend and I are still finishing up S&S but from experience with S&S, the scenarios we found the most fun were the ones where it came down to the wire and it all hinged on a couple checks. However, there have been some scenarios where pure luck is the only way to win and that is NEVER an enjoyable experience, at least for us. A great example of this is the Free Captains Regatta. We had to play 3-4 times to finally win and it wasn't a "wow that was intense!" it was a "we finally got lucky enough to win" That scenario with 2 people is nearly 100% luck which just isn't a good time. No matter what we did and how efficient we were with turns and blessings, it was just pure luck. "Hope the ship is near the top" or "hope we shuffle it near the top" which just isn't fun.

We will be going into WotR hopeful that it isn't luck based difficulty but if it ends up that this is the case we may house rule something to help mitigate this or shelf it if it is really bad. We did have to play a lot of the B scenarios in S&S at least twice but have had relatively few failures since then. A couple close calls but not many failures (other than Free Captains Regatta). So fingers firmly crossed for a fun Adventure Path that isn't too "lucky"