Search Posts
I just launched a new web site for the Union Station events that will help match players and GM's. Check it out at gencon.wixsonit.com This is going to be a great event for people who are looking for an alternative to Scotty's. Almost all the tickets are "sold" out (they're free). If you would still like to be a part of it and/or are looking for something to do on Wednesday, there are still some GM'ing slots left and you would get some really awesome stuff as a bonus.
Last I heard, Scotty's will be running an evening slot. According to the thread about Scotty's Tracy couldn't get Scotty's to go past 5:00 because of last year's problems there during the dinner rush. There may well be some informal games, but I think you're better off joining us at Union Station. You are right though that there isn't going to be a community meeting after all. I hadn't gotten word of that when I wrote the descriptions for the events.
I was getting grief in the other discussion of pre-convention gaming, so let me open up this fresh thread and welcome anyone who wants to plan or coordinate any pre-convention gaming for Wednesday this year at Gen Con. I'm organizing an all day, Wednesday PFS event at Gen Con this year. Gen Con has set me up with a room with 10 tables for the day and the events are on the Gen Con schedule. Now all I need are GM's. :-) GEN CON SCHEDULE LINKS RPG1230862
There are three slots, like normal. I'll be glad to have GM's for any of it. AND you'll get something for it, for a change, because I'm making up some really sweet gaming accessories for GM's and players. Since it's on the Gen Con schedule it is drawing in some of the people who don't frequent these message boards and gives us a (hopefully) quieter space to play than Scotty's. I'm also going to try to find someone to use UStream to live stream the afternoon community meeting to the room where we'll be playing, so people won't miss anything if they stick with me all day. From what I understand, the Scotty's event is wrapping up by 5:00 pm, so even if you're going to the earlier games there this is the place to be if you're looking for a game starting later. What I really need, though, are people who are willing to GM. As of right now I have a little better than 20 people signed up for the evening slot. I could use at least one more GM to cover that, but I'm sure there will be more signups between now and then so any help at any time is more than welcome. Please don't make me beg. :-) From what I'm told, Gen Con has not had anyone ask them to do this kind of thing before, and I've had to do quite a bit of coaxing over the past year to make it happen. If this goes well I think it will be easier to do next year, so please help me make it work. Check it out: http://gencon.wixsonit.com Let me know: gencon2012@wixsonit.com Cheers,
I really enjoyed the convention, and I got to play 5 PFS scenarios. Thanks! Favorite-est GM's were Tim Harborfield and Emmanuel Green, but there were one or two more close contenders. Chris B., clearly I rolled a 1 on my diplomacy check during our first encounter. I was a complete dick to you. I'm sorry. Hopefully I did better on the re-roll later in the day. Sir Bart not only lived, but even got a very cool new Monastic Training boon (poor-man's Improved Reposition bonus feat). Plus, I got to play him at the high-tier table for the special (played up to 8-9 from 7 at a table of 10-11's playing down for me!) That was superfun. Three cheers all around.
Ya, well I was willing and ready to GM, so it wasn't that. And ALL of the walk-ins who came in AFTER us were seated except us. But whatever. I know better now than to go to Scotty's for pre-con PFS games now. I've gone there the last two cons and it gets worse each time. Noisy, crowded, and poorly run. Please don't schedule it there again next year. The place where you ran the pre-con mod for us in '09 was a much better place and it was much better with Doug putting it together.
I wonder why GM's don't give the intro boxed text out as a handout (probably in addition to reading it) at more events, especially at noisy cons. I've done it a few times, once in particular when the intro boxed text was an entire page long. I has seemed to me like the times I've done that the players were more engaged because they could look back at it during the session instead of asking, "what was the name of that guy, who has that thing...what's it called...and where are we taking it again?" The names are always the hardest part. Even in a quiet room they're hardly memorable enough (and sufficiently difficult to pronounce) that it is always a barrier to immersive play. Handing out the boxed text seems to fix that problem, and would probably save a lot of GM's voices at Gen Con.
I'm officially renaming this thread "The Dumpling Incident" I am the "he" component of the couple in question. My name is Kevin. My wife's name is Desi. Hi! First things first. We didn't walk out because of the pig. Now, here's the deal with the pig (named Dumpling): Although she's slowing coming around to playing RPG's on her own, Desi started playing, and mostly still does play, just to humor her gamer husband. I'm sure you have seen the type before. We mostly only play together at conventions. My wife having fun is /required/ for her to play with me at conventions, and consequently what it takes for me to be able to play PFS at conventions, and so on. This rule trumps every rule in every book and guide Paizo publishes. Period. End of story. Fluff stuff like a pig as her cavalier's mount is what it takes for my wife to have fun playing RPG's. She was /really/ in love with this particular idea, which was approved by the GM of the first mod she played this character. "Can I have a pig?" "Sure." At the end of the con, while waiting for our turn at the final paint-and-take, I have a video interview with her where she said her highlight for the convention was, "Charge! Snort, snort, snort." You will pry this pig from her character's cold dead hands, is what I'm saying. And I wouldn't want to try. She's so cute when she's having fun and it takes so little to make her happy. In our home campaign (still Savage Tide actually) there was a magical mishap I used as an opportunity to have her character's skin turn purple. She loves purple. She was delighted. So much so that in the aforementioned paint-and-take she was excited to find a mini to use as her character in our home campaign and plaster it with purple paint. It has zero game impact, but HUGE impact on player satisfaction. It's exactly the kind of tweak a good GM loves to grant. If you need a RULES justification for accepting it I will refer back to:
The bold is my emphasis and I interpret as leaving the matter in the hands of the GM's discretion, and as such is not breaking the rules at all. Since the pig is, in terms of game mechanics, less than a wolf or a pony (not to mention much less than a boar), but still suitable for riding in a fantasy environment, especially for a gnome ... this should have been a non-issue, which it hasn't been for any of the five previous GM's who ran with it when Daisy (the gnome) was introduced at the table. If that still doesn't satisfy you, then as was also pointed out, she could just as easily have bought the pig and trained it. The limitation of which animals can be used are just part of the Mount class feature of the cavalier class, not of the rules as a whole. There's nothing in the rules that says that no character can under no circumstances ride a pig, is there? If that /still/ doesn't satisfy you, then what's the harm in reskinning, really? We're not playing a tournament game here. It's not competitive. If it has negligible impact on the power level of the character (or, as in this case, where it would actually fix a companion nerfed in the interest of flavor) what is the harm? How does that compare to the impact on player fun? How do you weigh the two? For me the answer is clear. You let the player have their fun. I only told the GM that it was a pig with dog (I should have said wolf) stats because from the tone he was setting from the outset I could tell he might be a stickler and might need a justification to allow it. It didn't occur to me that he would go so far as to not allow the pig-shaped-dog with a wink and a nod, even given what little I know about the module. A pony or a wolf wouldn't have been any better, and treating the pig as a dog behind the screen would have been fine. A cavalier needs a mount. Period. Any cavalier that shows up to Frostfur Captives is going to have issues. Period. Cavaliers are already difficult to play, are hindered really, in PFS. Why do you have to make it harder still by being such an extreme stickler for the most severe interpretation of the rules? Or, in the case of reskinning, rules that aren't even real rules? WHY WE LEFT No, we didn't leave the table because of the pig. We left, honestly, because we could tell that we were not going to have fun playing at this GM's table. From the moment we sat down we started getting lectures (word used advisedly) about the proper way of filling out the 3x5 cards he provided, asking for every spell we had to be listed on the back of the card for instance. That's where the animal companion's tricks thing came into play: they had to be listed on the card too. It was trained for general purpose, combat (which comes automatically with Mount class feature) and she hadn't given it any bonus tricks because she never used her pig that way. She never used it to attack, defend, or anything, either. She just always used it to charge, and ride. That's it. She's getting better, but doesn't know the rules thoroughly and forcing too much on her makes the game less fun: see the #1 rule above all else from the beginning of this post for more details. But he gave us a stern talking to about even how our names appeared on the 3x5 card, that if we didn't readily answer to our character names then we were to instead put our real names because he didn't want to have to repeat himself when he called on us. Not unreasonable requests, if a bit extreme and more than any previous GM in all my experience at gaming has ever required -- but the tone and insistence on every little thing being just so was really off-putting. We literally had to sit through a half hour of rigorous player training and paperwork before we could get started. THEN, he was offended that we were looking at our iPads instead of at him. We got done with our paperwork, whispered to each other to make sure we wanted to go on even without the pig (which she was willing to do), and got the /look/ from the GM. I looked him in the eye, said we were ready, and we're listening, go ahead. He just kept giving us the /look/. I eventually glanced up at him again to see why he was quiet and nothing was happing, and he'd just been looking at us and then said, "I"m waiting," and gave a significant look again at our iPads. Mind you, the rest of the players at the table were looking at their character sheets and looking through books. But it was us with our iPads that seemed to be the problem. THEN, when I again insisted that despite looking at our iPads we really were capable of following what was going on if he would just go ahead and begin, he did begin. It was, and I wish I could say this more gently, a conspicuously drab presentation. A purely mechanical recitation. It was the kind of beginning that makes people look at each other and say, "Oh boy, it's going to be a long day." The final straw was once we had gotten through the introduction and it was time for us to act, the GM broke the cardinal rule of DM'ing. He directed player action. At first he kept saying, "I strongly advise against that," and "you shouldn't do that," and finally, "you can't do that." We wanted to address the problem of the captive goblins not liking dogs of a dog-sled by tying them up and stuffing them in sacks and put them on the dog sled. We were told in so many words that wasn't going to happen. I can put up with a lot. Desi was willing to put up with a lot for me. But we thought that we're at this big, wonderful convention, it's the last day, and we don't have to sit and suffer through this if we don't want. So we made up an excuse and left. No hard feelings. It's not necessarily that he isn't a good GM, just not good for us. No harm done, and we had five really great experiences with other GM's at the convention. It worked out fine for us. We went back to the room and finished packing so we wouldn't have to rush later, went back to the dealer hall for the last bit of our shopping, went and played some D&D Miniatures League (and I won a new mini), went around and took pictures in front of all the big sculptures, and then did paint-and-take. It was a wonderful conclusion to our convention. A FINAL THOUGHT I appreciate all the GM's, good and bad, who volunteer to judge games at a convention. Without you we wouldn't be able to play at all, I know that. I know it's not easy dealing with the grab-bag of players at every new table. I have nothing against how this GM runs his games, per se. Maybe he isn't so strict outside the convention environment, either. It's hardly fair to judge a GM on convention play alone. As it was the last slot of a long con, maybe he was just tired. I choose not to apply such judgements to this GM that go further than this one experience. But just as much as GM's have say over what happens at their tables please realize that players have a say in who they choose to play with. We have a choice when we sit down at a table -- to stay or go. This is a good example. If you don't let my wife have the pig, we can just get up and go, and the next GM will. Daisy the gnome cavalier will go on the Frostfur Captives adventure with her pig Dumpling, eventually, even if I have to GM it.
I learned that I wish there was a comprehensive Paizo/PFRPG style guide for contestants to reference. A lot of people got dinged for style violations (not italicizing spell names, not capitalizing skill names, etc.) While I would understand a past RPGSS contestant saying of such requests that contestants must be willing to do their homework, and I would agree in principal, I still don't think that this particular kind of homework is the best use of time. A place like Paizo certainly has to have a style manual on hand. A lot of time could be saved, and the quality of submissions improved (allowing us to focus on just following the style rules instead of trying to divine them in the first place) if they would just lay that on the table at the outset.
This archetype would make cavalier a playable class in Pathfinder Society Organized Play. I play a cavalier in PFS and I wish I didn't. It was a silly thing to do, but I started when it was in Beta on a whim and then I was stuck. The main problem with a cavalier in PFS is that the PFS modules rarely take place in environments where a cavalier can use his mount. So, in PFS, a cavalier is basically just a haughty, uptight fighter. I say people should vote for this merely on the basis of the possibility of bringing cavalier into parity for PFS.
So it seems like you were just getting warmed up when you hit the word count. It feels like a sample of a longer piece, which come to think of it isn't the worst way to deal with writing in the context of a contest like this, even if it does go against the spirit of the word limit rule. What is there does sound like a good start. The writing blends well with the tone of the published works. I nearly weep, however, for the missed--dare I say, golden--opportunity to give this archetype Gold Fever. Perhaps that could be the highest level ability, cash in Constitution points for gold (which is certainly limiting.) All those toxic chemicals required to transmute lead into gold must be taxing on the body, I would think.
I guess you get half a point for using the word panache, but even that is kind of pedestrian. I wish there were more positive things I could say. Victor, I feel for ya, brother. I think you were just closing your eyes and hoping to skate through this round into more comfortable territory. At least that's how it seems from here. Best of luck.
While everyone else is focused on the mechanics and game balance, I find myself looking with an eye for the writing. In particular I am looking for writing that is evocative but which would blend in seamlessly with the published archetypes. This one, like so many others, stands out in a bad way. The writing contrasts with the tone and style of the published works and is generally clumsy and difficult to read. That said, I like the name plenty, and the overall idea is fun and interesting. You get a point for concept, but fall down after that.
As it happens I just got to the part of Snow Crash where the word glossolalia is being used. I hadn't heard it before then. I would have liked the Faith Healing ability to be written more clearly and the mechanics smoothed out and simplified. Overall I think a lot of this entry is awkwardly written. In spite of my misgivings, I like the idea and will vote for it.
Instead of piling on I'm just going to say what I like here. I like the name. Ignore the critics about the name. It's compelling. I love the description. It builds up and has momentum, and by the end of it I was just about to bust out loud with a Samuel Jackson line from Pulp Fiction. It had that kind of effect on me. I can't be a fair judge of this or any Inquisitor class archetype right now. I have an player with an Inquisitor in my group who is the bane of my game. I suspect the whole class is slightly broken in the hands of a determined whiner. So, you're on my sort list by default. If you don't get bumped by eight others that I feel strongly about you can count on me.
A word to the wise: step away from the submit button. Remember there are four alternates who all submitted valid entries for this round and are just waiting for you to disqualify yourself. 'Nuf said? I don't know enough about PFRPG paladins to really judge this one. I have to go by the judges' comments. Going by the name, though, it makes me think of a particular video game turned RPG published by another company. I'm not sure if that was intentional or if I'm the only one picking up on that, but the association is pretty strong to my mind.
I'm biased in favor of this item because you basically built a performance poet. Glance at my profile to see why you'll get my vote on this alone. I've said elsewhere, and I'll say it again: I don't like abilities that only help PC's. I just can't overlook that. For me the archetypes have to swing both ways. I'm not convinced by the judges' complaints, so I'm going to give this one my very first thumbs up.
First I have to quibble with the use of the word "befriend." To befriend someone is to become friends with someone by giving them assistance or favor. A con artist does not actually act as a friend to the people he's swindling, he neither aids them nor favors them. He may seem to befriend them, may give them the impression he befriends them, but you do not say that he only seems to befriend people. That's likely to be a personal gripe, but it influenced my thinking. I've decided that I don't like abilities that are only good for PC's to use against NPC's. As someone who mostly plays behind the screen I probably wouldn't get a chance to play this archetype unless it was as a NPC. A con artist would be a good villain. When used as a villain I want a full compliment of abilities I can use to put the screws to my players. I would be disappointed to see this in a sourcebook. If I remember correctly, though, I dug your item.
What stands out to me about this entry is the writing. It's lyrical and has a nice flow. The tone is consistent, appropriate, and it has a strong voice. You get bonus points for using "phraseology" in a way that doesn't sound pretentious. If I were to consider the writing and nothing else I would be happy to ask for a second helping. Unfortunately I think this would have been better done as a mystery and was done this way for the sake of the contest rules. I appreciate the chutzpah it took to attempt an oracle archetype, but it was already a hard assignment if you took on just one of the classes that already had archetypes on the books. As much as I hate to say so, but none for me, thanks. On a side note: if the Transcendent Consciousness (Sp) ability, or anything like it, were to be considered for any use, I think it could get around being a pain in the GM's butt by leaving it up to the GM to determine what scene, and from what perspective, the character experiences the past. At least that way the GM isn't forced to reveal something that would ruin the fun by putting the player in just before or after the key moment, or looking in the wrong direction so as to not give too much away. Sometimes a GM would like to give players a chance to see this kind of clue, so I do think this ability has some place in the game.
I wanted to like this because I play a cavalier in PFS, played one the beta play test, and I was hoping a cavalier archetype would bring back what was lost when the final version came out without oaths. Unfortunately I have to say that I would have liked it better if this was done as an order, and I think doing it this way was just a way of getting around the contest prohibition against submitting new orders as archetypes. So, none for me, thanks.
By their comments I think I could detect the strain the judges are under. It can't be easy to review 36 entries for archetypes when, as Sean said in the "archetypes aren't easy" section above, even the judges haven't gotten archetypes completely figured out. I imagine they didn't really take a lot of time to reflect on the math of each ability and were, to an extent, going with their gut and playing it more, "better safe than sorry" than in the previous round. So far I've seen a lot more hesitation and apprehension than outright dislike. I'm cool with what the judges said about my archetype. As harsh as they were I didn't get totally panned, which is better than I thought I might get. And, because I'm an alternate, I didn't need to get flogged in public, which is sweeter still. Spoiler: I'll stop crying...eventually.
In year's past, I don't believe they typically posted to that thread right away (if at all -- though I could be wrong). It was my expectation that you'd be emailed your feedback (both for Round One and Round Two), as I recall something similar to that being done in the past. I'd been told in email that after round 2 submissions were in that the alts would have their comments revealed, but then Sean said somewhere that alts should post their items in the "Judges, please critique my item" thread with everybody else. So we did. I think Mike should get his comments posted up so we can link to them for future reference. For future contests, for what it's worth, I put my support behind posting all the alternates' items and judges' comments with links from the master list, once round 2 entries are in. Same for posting the alternates' round 2 entries once the voting for round 2 is over. I mean, the alts got SO CLOSE. They should get their comments as a consolation prize.
A handy reference for us alternates and those that want to see what makes an item walk up to the verge of being in the top 32 but still come up short of crossing the threshold: .
Round 1 Alternates (in announced order)
Any idea why Mike's item never got its critique?
Boots of Roots Thanks Neil! That was fast, and illuminating. It's a relief to know that it wasn't some stupid mistake that kept me out of the top 32. I think it may have been the rhyming name that made the difference, and I'm okay with that. I mean, what else was I supposed to call it? Subjective matters of taste are too hard to account for when writing something for a contest. To me the rhyming still seems perfect and I don't wish I'd changed it. Because it was framed as a question I would like to answer one of the judge's comments. "Why can't I run?" The item was built around the idiom, "put down roots." I am gratified that for at least some of judges that idea came through clearly. It promotes and rewards staying in place, not moving, and discourages running, being the form of movement furthest away from standing still. I hoped it would convey a certain philosophical opposition to running away from problems (like monsters!) It's essential to the item's theme. In my book it doesn't have to make sense apart from being thematically consistent, it's magic. I also envisioned bits of dirt clinging to the roots, and the roots gripping the ground as the wearer moved along, making them cumbersome. I can see that it would probably bug the more technical and "gamist" type gamers out there, however. What I am most surprised at is that there were no comments about the item's description. I expected quibbling over the alliteration, ever so slightly campy style or the actual use of the phrase "put down roots," but there was nothing. Am I to think that the creative writing aspect was a complete success and didn't merit comment, or a complete failure because it was so unremarkable as to fail to solicit any reaction? Anyway, thank you to the judges for your kind consideration and excellent feedback. It was fun to play the game.
About the writing, you need to present the benefit of the item much earlier in the description. With every word people read they are wondering, "So what does this item do for me?" The longer you postpone telling them, the more frustrated they become and the less positive their attitude toward it. So many of the entries I've read over the past week have this problem that it's probably worth some focus. A statement of the item's benefit should come immediately after the item's physical description. The item should start with the briefest of physical description.
I was one of the four first round alternates in this year's contest. Now that it's been confirmed that all 32 of the contestants to make it to round 2 have submitted their entries on time and, presumably, none of the alternates will be called up, I would appreciate it if someone could reveal all the judges' comments about my entry: Boots of Roots
So as soon as we see if all the 32 got their submissions in I will post my item in the "Judges please critique my item" thread. Last time I checked, nether of the alts posted there so far had been critiqued, so I started to think that in spite of some indications to the contrary they were holding off on ours anyway. Is that still the case or have you two received feedback from the judges? In any event you'll be looking for an item called Boots of Roots from me.
Done. Submitted, for what it's worth. It was harder to push the button this time. I keep thinking that some stupid, little mistake I could have caught made the difference that landed me in the alternate slot instead of the top 32. It was a conscious decision not to get stressed out about the first round entry. Now I'm paying for it.
Speaking of alternates working on their archetypes, I'm having trouble finding the submission tool that I'm supposed to use at http://paizo.com/rpgsuperstar In the place where I think I should see the submission tool I see "Come back January 25 to view this round's entries and cast your vote! " instead. How am I supposed to make my submission as an alternate?
Someone mentioned to me that last year they put up the alternates' items and judges' comments after the deadline for round two had passed, and may do so again this year. I hope that's true. I had decided that if my item didn't make it to the top 32 then I could guess why (I knew I took some risks) and I wouldn't trouble with asking for a review. I hadn't considered what I'd do if I wound up an alternate. Now I'm curious about what stupid mistake or marginal wording made the small difference between in and alternate. I could have easily dealt with outright failure. The narrow miss, however, that pinches. I sure am glad to have received the honorable mention, regardless.
... I think an insightful review like Phil Tobin's above would be a lot more useful than "ow, I died, one star". I take exception to this. My review was "This module is BROKEN, one star" and then went into great detail about it in the discussion. And it is, in fact, broken, and being fixed and reissued as I understand it.
I would like to call Paizo’s attention to the way the author is addressing customer complaints. He is dismissive of my assertions as "exaggerated" and diminishing my critique as merely a matter of "taste,” but I think he has been particularly disrespectful, if not downright mean, to JaeWalker, who deserves better. I am referring directly to his first comment on this forum, "heh, heh. I think that review has inspired me to write" and also the subsequent posts where he takes delight in the misfortune of the players who played his module, and to the attitude with which he addressed her directly. By contrast Kevin Wright’s responses were more to the standard of professionalism one would expect from an author addressing his audience. So too have Mark Moreland’s responses been respectful and as necessary, contrite. I thank them for taking customer complaints seriously, and with a bit of humility.
This module has an unidentified, undisclosed trap with no Search DC, no Disable DC, and no saving throw -- and that is flagrantly unfair. This is a trap that the players don't even know is triggered unless they try to leave the dungeon, and if the players do not complete the module in the allotted time this trap means automatic death for the entire party -- summary TPK. This module also has puzzles. Puzzles are a serious time sink, making it likely that players will fail to finish the module before the slot's time is up, and all their characters are then declared dead. Worse still, one of these puzzles is pointless and has no immediate solution or consequence, making it still more likely that the party will fruitlessly waste time, fail to finish the module, and have their characters summarily executed off stage at the end of the slot. In detail: Spoiler:
At the entrance to the dungeon there is a massive 10-foot-thick stone block that I guess slides into place later on. This feature is not mentioned or indicated anywhere in the text or description related to the entrance of the dungeon. There is no way to search for it (no Search DC) no way to jam it open even if you could notice it (no Disable Device DC). The sliding block isn't even described in the box text, which would at least give players a heads-up that they're about to be screwed!
Though not specifically indicated, the trigger for this trap seems to be location based, but there is nothing the players ever hear from the DM that might tell them that there's a massive door that's going to close. In the box text that one might charitably say is related to the passage closing there is a bad guy issuing threats, but absolutely NOTHING that directly says,"You are approaching a point of no return. Turn back now or else you're going to be locked in here with no chance of escape." If you're going to have this kind of module, where the party is going to be trapped and forced to finish or die, then you absolutely MUST have an explicit and unambiguous sign of the point of no return and give players a chance to reconsider. To do otherwise is simply mean, and this module did otherwise. When a trap is triggered two things always do happen, or always should happen and until this module always did happen in my experience: 1.) the players know that something has happened, that the trap has been triggered, and 2.) the players get some sort of dice roll to determine if they are affected, usually a saving throw of some sort. This saving throw is appropriate to the level of the players, and either negates or diminishes the effect of the trap. The trigger in this case seems to be an NPC reaching a certain point in a box text monologue. When the trap is triggered there is absolutely no indication that anything is happening at all -- no rumbling and shuddering stone from the direction of the dungeon's entrance, no maniacal laughter from an NPC who tells the characters that now they're trapped, nothing! There is no saving throw! The players are all affected completely, and without any possibility to avoid the danger. The work-around is not level appropriate; it's DC 40 in an uncommon skill whether you're 5th level or 9th. At DC 40 for the Use Magic Device skill, the work-around method of escape absolutely, 100%, no munchkin can save you now, impossible. That this trap exists or that it's been triggered is passively injected in text meant for the DM alone, as if the author is letting the DM in on the joke that's being played on the party, without so much as the merest suggestion that the PC's should be notified. So, invariably, the PC's trundle blithely forward, unaware of the dire shift in their circumstances, which is the biggest injustice of this entire module. When the massive stone door slides shut in an adventure movie, it's always done with the audience and the characters watching. It happens on camera. This is for a reason. Players who know their characters are screwed will act differently than if they still think it's business as usual. If the party knows there is no point in retreating, they will not try to retreat and will act more boldly and decisively. If they know they have to complete the adventure within the allotted time or else their characters die, they tend not to dawdle. Players deserve the chance to know they're screwed and act accordingly. The fact that the author fails to write into the module the revelation of the closed door to the part is why I say that regardless of the authors stated intent, designing this dungeon in this way clearly demonstrates contempt for the players. This dungeon is designed to kill whole parties of characters and that has nothing to do with how GM's happen to run this adventure, how the dice turn up, or how players play it. It is designed to kill the party off stage if they don't die at the hands of the monsters and NPC's first. This contempt is further revealed in ACT 2, where regarding a riddle the players encounter the author writes, and I quote:"The riddle he has given may frustrate the PCs to some extent as it is actually no riddle at all but rather provides a hint to the answer to the final riddle in Act 6; that is the 'riddle within the riddle.' Regardless of what kind of answer the PCs come up with, nothing happens and eventually they must leave the room." Why does an author write a module in a way he knows will frustrate players and consume time? In practical effect it does frustrate players, and they blow a lot of time trying to figure out a puzzle and they loose time to complete the quest before the DM calls "time's up" and "you're all dead." I don't know of any precedent in PFS for this kind of module, one where the players are trapped in the dungeon with no chance of escape and automatic death unless you finish. I can't imagine there are any other such modules. Regardless, I really don't think Paizo should tolerate any such modules being written. If Paizo is going to continue to publish deathtrap modules like this one, I don't know why anyone would feel the need to keep playing in Pathfinder Society Organized Play. It as much as tells their customers that "even though you've been loyal to our product for all the time you've taken to play your character to this level, you should know that we might just decide to rip up your character sheet and throw it away without warning, sucker!" How did this module ever get through Paizo's editorial staff without seeing the trap and recognizing its potential for a dramatically bad, and intently unfair player experience?
I'm sans wife for the weekend, so it sounds like a swell idea to share a room!
I was reminded of how things can work out when a APL 2.5 group played up at my last event. The party could do it, of course, but IT TOOK FOREVER. Nobody could hit. So if you get any whiners then be sure to tell them that they can't play up (or maybe shouldn't play up even if they can) because there is a time limit that they will probably exceed if they do.
|
