Having played the first Intro mod about a month ago, and then again tonight, here is my take on this situation:
Our first GM ran a decidedly easier scenario. This was a combination of: A) Her dice hated her that night; B) Our group prepared in advance and had the most balanced party imaginable; C) We had a heal-bot cleric; and D) She limited herself slightly since we had mostly new PFS players at the table that night. All of these factors combined to make a relatively easy, though still highly enjoyable, playthrough. We had a great time, and all the new PFS players thoroughly enjoyed it. Only one fight really challenged us decently, and we hung on fairly easily in my opinion. The memorable parts of this playthrough I remember are the excellent roleplay on the part of the GM, and the great party dynamics that we got to play with. We had an absolute blast, with very little threat of mortal peril.
Our second GM ran it tonight, and wailed on us. This was a combination of: A) His dice hated us with a passion; B) Our group was the least balanced group in the history of gaming, leading most of us to wander around senselessly until he took pity on us (not one of us had Sense Motive, Knowledge (local), or any of the other most basic and useful skills); C) We had absolutely no healer, no one capable of casting any healing spells, no potions, found no potions, and had no CLW wands at our disposal, and were generally a low hp party; and D) He not only didn't limit himself, but threw everything at us that he could get his hands on. Having played through it so recently, I thought I knew what he could hit us with, but he surprised me by stomping thoroughly on all of our expectations. Through it all, we had a great time. He kept us alert and on our toes the entire time, and we were all prepared to sacrifice our PC for the pleasure of a real challenge.
With two vastly different experiences, and two different GMs, I cannot say that I enjoyed either one more than the other. I absolutely loved the first one with the roleplaying; we had a fantastic time and thoroughly enjoyed hamming it up. The second game was great too, because we overcame massive challenges. We earned the right to brag that, not only did we play it, we survived it.
I guess what I've realized is that either style would get boring after a while, or wear thin, if I played nothing but that style for months and months on end. I am fortunate enough to have several GMs in the area, so we can change things up. So far, I have not become tired of any of my GMs, and can honestly look forward to playing with any of them.
If a person feels a system is getting stale, often what is called for is a change of routine. Get a new GM with a different style. If you want a challenge, look for that person with murder in their eyes. Don't look to the person who enjoys carefully crafting the intricacies of their NPCs' personal lives. Likewise, don't look at the GM who sits down at the table and starts making throat-slitting motions at you while laughing, and expect him/her to run an intensely roleplay-heavy session.
In the end, the problem is this: There are people who treasure their characters and may be deeply upset to see them dropping like flies, and then there are people who enjoy seeing a believable mortality rate in brutal medieval combat. Trying to hit the center is like trying to hit a moving target. It isn't that the modules are too easy, or too hard. The problem is that players aren't being appropriately matched to the GM style they want to play with. The best idea is to find someone whose playing style more closely matches your own, and then harass them until they agree to DM for you. And, if you want a truly brutal challenge, maybe egg their car a bit first.
|
I guess we all have opinions. I'm there for the role-playing, not the combat challenge. That being said, a good, hard fight can be role-playing fun and challenge.
My character died in our most recent offering - Song of the Sea Witch - the encounter was tough, but circumstances can dictate a death at a table. That being said, we had just been discussing how much tougher the newer mods had been.
Personally I don't want to play games where all characters are created to be destroyers of life. As for dumb combat tactics, a dumb character is likely dumb in combat. A foolish character is likely foolish in combat. I'd like to see dump stats played, not ignored.
I think that games I have played are tough enough for me (and my characters).
|
Sure but it's a long list going back since September 2009. So;
Dralkard Manor,
Asmodeus Mirage and
Silent Tide featured.
more recently
Feast of Ravenmoor
Heresy of Man - almost lost a 5th level PC on the 1st of Oct.
Dralkard Manor: Killer scenario which was since been retired.
Asmodeus Mirage: Killer scenario which has since been retired (for numerous reasons).Silent Tide: I just ran this with 4 2nd level PCs and 2 1st level PCs and we walked all over subtier 4-5. Maybe your DM changed it without telling you.
Feast of Ravenmoor: Module. These seem to be more challenging on average.
Heresy of Man: Killer series that is supposed to be more balanced now.
So yeah, if you're going to play all of the killer scenarios (most of which have been retired), I guess you're going to find it challenging. I would also bet your GM modifies the scenarios extensively for combat.
|
I tend to see a lot of modules that have encounters with creatures having DR that players that level can't realistically handle.
Can you provide any examples? Of course, this is probably a point of conjecture, but any feedback you can provide will help the writers, staff, VC's, etc improve future scenarios.
Also, don't forget to post reviews for the scenarios. This is a great opportunity to provide feedback to the authors and campaign leadership.
On top of that, when you are dealing with a situation where groups are a hodge podge of just whoever shows up you don't always get a cleric to heal or a rogue to get past a trap. Yeah, people could run a pre-gen of those type, however, if someone drove 90 miles to play (I have friends that drive from Vancouver, B.C. to play in Seattle) you don't want to force a pre-gen on them.
Perhaps the most challenging aspect of writing scenarios for any OP campaign is balancing the encounters, even taking dice variability out of the equation. There is just waaay too much character variation table to table. What is a TPK to one party, is a one-shot to another. Not every GM is able to properly evaluate what is/not a proper challenge in every instance and that can lead to unsatisfying games.
|
I was thinking about this - and honestly, I think the real problem is there isn't a middle ground with most of the modules, imo. This has been a problem since day 1. They are either over the top difficult or a cake walk (generally, there are obviously acceptations).
In a lot of ways, I think that pathfinder still has a lot of growing up to do and module difficulty(and originality) are areas that it struggles with. I think it comes down to a number of things - the restrictions placed on authors and what is expected out of a module, inexperience of some writers and judges, what people conceptually think of as difficult (more fights does not necessarily = a harder mod. It just makes it a longer mod.)
As a player, I LIKE to be challenged and I have no qualms whatsoever if my character dies. The best times are when you are fighting for your life and nail biting, while keeping in character. There should be a penalty for failure and you should feel there is a good (and fair) chance of it. When a module is a cake walk or it makes up things to screw the player just because, that kills a lot of the fun for most people, myself included.
I certainly hope that this is something that improves with pathfinder - but I think it needs to happen sooner rather then later. The campaign isn't really new anymore. I've seen some mild efforts towards it but not enough. Mods also have to have more interesting role-playing opportunities - places for character development. Those moments that define a character, where you sit at the table and gasp or think, 'Now what?'
On a separate note, good role-playing doesn't exclude being effective. It drives me batty when people fall into this trap. ;)
-Toni
|
|
stuff
Just remember that what is "easy" to one group is not to another. There are plenty of forum posts that show this to be true.
GM style/experience can have a lot to do with the challenge as well. Things like effective use of tactics and environmental factors varies as much as d20 rolls.
As an example, do your creatures with reach just take a single AoO when the big, bad barbarian charges? Or does it do something more effective, like trip him, etc. Not trying to debate specific tactics, just provide an example I see all the time of how a GM may not take full advantage of their opportunities. We're all guilty of it from time to time and it can greatly impact the "challenge."
|
GM style/experience can have a lot to do with the challenge as well. Things like effective use of tactics and environmental factors varies as much as d20 rolls.
In my opinion GM style/experience is the most significant aspect of difficulty.
I recall the discussion of one of the older adventures in the GM section of the forum - some think it was way too easy and others too difficult. The crux of the matter ended up being some GMs running an encounter knowing all the tactics and other GMs not realizing important abilities.
No need to get into specifics for fear of spoilers, but just wanted to point it out as a general point of discussion.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, don't forget to post reviews for the scenarios. This is a great opportunity to provide feedback to the authors and campaign leadership.
I thought this warranted repeating. I read every review of Pathfinder Society Scenarios posted on paizo.com, as well as reviews of all Pathfinder Modules that I had a hand in developing. While feedback in threads like these allows back-and-forth discussions reviews don't, the best way to get your opinions of the lethality, challenge level, story/crunch balance, etc. in a given adventure across to me and Mike is to post reviews.
|
|
In my opinion GM style/experience is the most significant aspect of difficulty.
I recall the discussion of one of the older adventures in the GM section of the forum - some think it was way too easy and others too difficult. The crux of the matter ended up being some GMs running an encounter knowing all the tactics and other GMs not realizing important abilities.
I've had the most experienced PFS GMs and in my experience, it doesn't make an easy scenarios any less of a cakewalk.
I see what you mean by different GMs running a scenario differently, but party composition and player ability is a more significant factor. The GM only becomes a major factor when he makes major modifications to the scenario.
Since we're talking about scaling, I've often thought it's a good idea to do a little scaling, even within subtier 1-2. The difference between a group of level 1s and level 2s is almost as significant as playing up. If we're eventually going to do some (official) scaling, I'd like to see scaling within subtier 1-2 as well, so that you don't TPK the level 1s and level 2s don't walk the scenario.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I had an idea that I posted in another thread, and I think it's relevant here too:
How difficult would it be for the scenario to include (# Monsters = to APL + X).Ooooh, I think you might be on to something here.
Many encounters will have a small handful of identical mooks, with a single statblock whose title says "[Mook Name] (X)" with X being the number of mooks. Simply replacing X with "X+APL" would allow very easy auto-tiering. So for a battle that includes 2+APL mooks, the group of 4 freshies will face 3 mooks, while the 6 level 2's will face 5 mooks. Not bad, not bad!
Alternatively/additionally, we could create some term referring to a harder version of something, with a defined reason for using it (more than five players, high APL, etc) and a concise shorthand for implementing it.
For instance, perhaps we call it "Hard Mode" and give certain parameters under which it's implemented. If you encounter a skill challenge whose DC isn't set by core rules, then maybe you list the DC as "DC 15 (HM 20)" to mean that it's normally DC 15, but if your table qualifies for Hard Mode you up it to 20. Similarly, the number of mooks in a fight could be listed as "3 (HM 5)" for a similar effect. You could add HM notations for things like the BBEG's HP or AC as well.
This would allow balanced difficulty adjustments that wouldn't rely on the GM's on-the-fly guesswork (less work for him, less risk for the players) and also would have a negligible effect on the scenario's word count.
I think there's potential for this idea. Thoughts?
|
|
I've had the most experienced PFS GMs and in my experience...Like...?
He's been stuck with me a few times, but I'm a notorious softie GM... okay, except maybe for that one time in Shipyard Rats. And I'm a measly 3-star.
He also got stuck with Massacre Miles that session where my alchemist went boom.
I find this thread funny. Last week, we had a table full of newbies die. The entire table. Something about a ship full of explosives going boom. The week before that, we had a samurai that crit failed, essentially sepuku'd himself, then got aoe'd by an enemy alchemist's bomb while at negative hp, thus dying. I think it's just your group.
|
|
I find this thread funny. Last week, we had a table full of newbies die. The entire table. Something about a ship full of explosives going boom. The week before that, we had a samurai that crit failed, essentially sepuku'd himself, then got aoe'd by an enemy alchemist's bomb while at negative hp, thus dying. I think it's just your group.
Little confused here. There is no penalty for 'critical failures' in Pathfinder.
|
|
I find this thread funny. Last week, we had a table full of newbies die. The entire table. Something about a ship full of explosives going boom. The week before that, we had a samurai that crit failed, essentially sepuku'd himself, then got aoe'd by an enemy alchemist's bomb while at negative hp, thus dying. I think it's just your group.
1) There's no penalty for failing to crit. There is no penalty for fumbling either (besides auto miss). This isn't Rolemaster (which is cool btw).
2) What scenario did your ship blow up? It just sounds like your GM is being a jerk tbh. What kind of GM powertrips like that and kills a bunch of newbies with instant death stuff?
I think it's just your group!
|
|
From my observation while playing and gming, party make up is the main thing affecting a scenarios degree of difficulty. A mix of pc's at a con filling a high level slot will have a harder time than a local society game where you have a balanced party at the go.
Second observation clerics and paly's can greatly effect a mod, as well a a witch. These class can be BBEG killers. Nothing like a dismissal on the second round of last encounter.
Playing up, I have a rogue that never plays up. This rogue was lucky to live to sixth level. He has nearly died in half his games played.
I have a ninth level inquisitor that has died once(thanks TK). Probably should of died a couple more times. 2x during the heresy of man series.
I have a cleric i put allot of GM levels into. At level 8 he has almost died once getting full attacked by a troll, ac 12 just doesnt help against rends and such.
Note I usually gm with the same 12 or so people that are experienced, 1 or 2 take pride on min maxing. Most of the players are aware of typical trap placement, the 30 ft corridor puts them on edge instantly.
Mod difficulty, I think the level 0 mods can be the most difficult or the easiest. When I GM i try to keep everything as vanilla as possible. For example a CR 6 creature that later became a CR 9 creature will be the CR 9 the same as long as the EL stays less than +3 of the tier level. While i will just replace a older stag beetle that was advanced 5hd with a current beetle vermin creature of the same CR.
The deadliest high level mods I have ran was Lost at Bitter End 0-26. Sarkorian Prophecy 2-8. Think PFS to easy get some players to play these 2 back to back. They are AWESOME.
|
|
I've seen the gamut. I have had 2 characters die from "one-shots". One character was 1st level and stayed dead; the other time, all the other players pooled their gold and sold my stuff to buy a Raise Dead spell. The GM decided to pull some punches after the troll hit me for 40 points (claw-claw-rend) in one round (subtier 3-4).
I had a character killed and devoured by a swarm, and got raised mid-game. Actually, I am not sure that Raise Dead can be used an a skeletonized victim, but the GM allowed it before I even asked. I had plenty of PA.
In one game, a character put on what turned out to be a Necklace of Strangulation. We had bluffed our way past the encounter where we would have been warned about the necklace. Since one PC had an adamantine weapon, the GM gave us a chance to cut the necklace off before it killed him. This is not RAW, but the GM thought RAW was unfair in this instance.
This was a long way to say, "sometimes".
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is PFS too safe? Yes. I don't think that "too safe" is the real problem though. Not challenging enough is a better description of the problem. We don't REALLY want to increase the number of PC deaths in any marked manner. What we REALLY should aim for is increased tension at the table. An increase in the "butt pucker quotient" is the goal, without significantly increasing the actual number of player deaths. That increase in tension will make it MORE FUN for players. THAT is a worthy goal.
But the bigger underlying questions are why the problem of play balance happens (and when) and the FAR more important question is not just how to fix this - but rather, should we even try do so if we could? What's the cost of this "fix"?
First off, I think the most important issue is to look at the encounters and action economy to determine whether or not the encounters are "too easy".
I don't think the inherent issue is 20 point buys. Moreover, people will not want to play a 15 point buy (the characters do not feel heroic), so I think this can be a misleading analysis.
Biggest Single Factor Affecting Balance: Number of Player Characters at the Table
I do, however, think that the CR nature of the encounters is highly vulnerable to the number of players at the table. When a module is "balanced" for a light challenge to 4 PCs, and instead, 6 PCs are at the table rolling bones -- it should be no surprise that the players roll over the foes. The PCs are half again as large, get half again as many actions, and are half again as likely to be going first and getting off their actions before the foes do.
The single biggest factor affecting ALL modules at ALL levels is the number of players at the table. Moreover, it is the one factor which crops up repeatedly, across all scenarios at virtually all levels
Other Factors - Skill of the Players
There are other issues which can significantly effect encounter difficulty as well. Skill of the players and ability to co-ordinate and optimize both their character builds and their action economy at the table is a real factor, especially in higher level mods. I don't think that the "expert" skill level of players has all THAT much of an effect on lower level scenarios, especially at Tier 1-2. But by the time you get to level 6 or 7? It certainly does have a significant effect. The higher the level of the scenario, the more the following factors come into play:
- Character ability/feat optimization: Some highly skilled players will plan out their character builds and exploit opportunities within the system. While I wouldn't call this min-maxing, some of you might;
- Equipment optimization: Good players can spend their gold wisely to buy the right kind of magical gear for their characters;
- Combat Co-ordination: Good players who work well together know how to make their characters actions support others before them and after them in the initiative order. While not determinative, this certainly adds up and becomes far more pronounced the more characters there are who co-ordinate effectively; and
- Increased Action Economy: Skilled players know when its worth it to not take an attack and instead take the round to further buff, and just as importantly, when not to do so and just support the character in the round who is ready to rock n roll NOW.
In general, the higher level the scenario, the more opportunity there is for all of these "skill factors" to come into play and have an effect.
When you combine a mid-level module with six highly skilled players? It becomes a cake-walk, more often that not. This is the REAL problem in all of this that begs a solution, as these are the very sort of players who are most likely to quit PFS as a consequence of the problem -- and they are the very sort of players we don't want to lose. They are good enough to GM and more than good enough to help other players learn the game. When these players quit PFS because it is no fun (no challenge) losing them is a real loss to PFS as a whole.
If there is a REAL REASON to make a change, mid-level boredom for experienced players is where you will find it.
Other Factors - Player Character Class Mix
There are a few other factors in play which can effect the difficulty of a module and the mix of character classes in play certainly can do so. For example, the only TPK I have ever had in a PFS Scenario, Rebel's Ransom at level 7 at Gencon 2010, occurred as a result of 5 walk-on players, new to Pathfinder, who did not have a single FULL BAB PC at the table of all. A single rogue was the only melee combatant in the party. All of the PC's were using Pre-Gens. By the very end of the module, this weakness in the party caught up with them and it was a wipe that I could not in good conscience have avoided. The fact that I have only seen this once suggests to me that while it CAN be a problem, it rarely is.
How Best to Address the Issue of Balance
GM Discretion?
In PFS, the general approach to the scenarios in how they are run is an official overt policy of "sameness of play experience". Officially, GMs are just supposed to run the same scenario more or less the same way. While some variation is unavoidable, GMs are not supposed to be changing the number of foes or their stats.
I think this is a rule honoured just as often in the breach than in the observance of it, but there you have it. I don't think that the nature of PFS can accommodate a formal change to this central premise, even if it is often unofficially violated by GMs. So I don't think we can officially sanction GMs to just "change stuff" on the fly as an overt rule solution to this issue. It may well be the best solution, but it isn't the one that works best for PFS and its goals.
If there is to be a "fix", the only one which works well for PFS is an objective change across the board for all scenarios. That's the only solution that will work for PFS play.
Easy Objective Fix #1: Increasing the Number of Foes based on Party Size
One easy way to objectively fix play balance is to increase the number of foes. If a group of 4 foes are normally encountered and there are instead 6 PCs playing, one easy fix is to simply increase the number of foes to 6. One would think that this approach should be "CR neutral" and will not affect mathematical play balance.
I know this "fix" is difficult to implement if the foe encountered is a boss or an odd number of foes, but just stay with me here for a moment -- as the "easy" even number of foes option illustrates the problem before we even GET to the more difficult encounter examples.
Let's assume (without deciding) that this solution could work. Even if we were to add a rule to all PFS scenarios permitting this sort of "fix", it does not account for another problem with ALL scenarios: scenario length. Many PFS scenarios, all of which are designed for in-store play, are too long as it stands. Most newer scenarios now feature an optional encounter to deal with the possibility of going over the time permitted to play the adventure. While adding more foes is an easy objective mathematical fix, it also adds to more combatants and complexity of combats. As a consequence, more foes is likely to significantly increase the length of every combat encounter in the scenario, across the board.
What is likely to end up happening with such an approach is that while the CR balance may become more appropriate, the scenario length will increase too much. I think this is simply exchanging one problem for a bigger one. There has to be a better way.
Easy Objective Fix #2: Increasing the Hit Points and AC of Foes based on Party Size
Another way to deal with this is to increase the hit points of the foes and their AC in the face of more PCs at the table. By way of example, assume that for each extra player at the table beyond 4, the AC of all foes in the scenario increases by 1.
Depending on the level of the scenario, we would specify a HP value to be added to each foe as well. So at Tier 3-4, all foes might have 5 HP added to their HP total for each player beyond 4 at the table. I'm not saying that this AC increase and this specific HP increase is necessarily the mathematically correct number to choose. But I do believe we could devise a matrix that DOES have the correct AC and HP additions to make.
I would also observe however, that easy round numbers that are intuitive and easy to remember are a better overall solution than mathematical precision, as it is easier for a GM to remember and apply on the fly during play. If the right number is 4.5 -- 5 might be the better overall number to use for ease of use purposes.
I frankly could care LESS about the underlying mathematical justification HOW the foe has this increased AC or Hit point total. I am not at all concerned about making sure that the rules for Monster Generation and PC generation are the same during PFS play as it serves no real purpose. These underlying rules for foe generation are present in the first place not for verisimilitude reasons, but to assist a designer or a GM to calculate CR objectively. As we are looking for a way to fix this CR play balance problem in another manner, I'm content with breaking foe generation on an ad hoc basis. Letting a concern with "Underlying Rules Integrity" trump this method of "quick objective fix" is putting the cart before the horse, imo.
It might also be that an across the board increase to +Attack Pluses, +Damage pluses and FORT /REF / WILL saves of +1 or +2 is also appropriate to deal with increased number of players at the table, too.
Quick and Dirty Fix is the Best of the Available Options
If it is determined that a better approach to DOING NOTHING AT ALL and just turning a blind eye to GMs subjectively tweaking a module on the fly is to DO SOMETHING, then I would recommend an ad hoc adjustment to AC/Hit Points/Saves and Attack To Hit/Damage values based upon the # of players at the table beyond 4 and the level of the scenario.
It seems to me that this approach, while admittedly ad hoc and very quick and dirty, has the virtue of being:
- easy to implement retroactively by amendment to the Guide to Organized Play;
- very easy to implement at the table;
- very easy to playtest to make sure we get it right;
- easy to remember for GMs;
- should not totally throw off the play balance of any module to suddenly push the module into TPK land unexpectedly.
Again, doing nothing is a real option -- and has been the approach taken so far. If doing nothing to address this is no longer acceptable, the above seems the best approach to me.
|
It's interesting to think about, and to share opinions about... but I doubt there'll be changes to the OP rules on this subject. There's just too many schools of thought on GMing, and in some of them this is a non-issue.
For example: There are gms who feel that fudging dice is an obligation, and there are those who feel it should never be done. Probably, most fall somewhere in between.
On the fudging side of the spectrum, it ALSO seems right and natural to whip up modifications to the adventure as written in order to better challenge the party (or to give them a 'deserved' break if it's too rough). Of course a GM who believes that fudging dice is anathema would likely disagree with the 'fudging' of the encounters themselves, and follow along with insisting an adventure should be run exactly as presented, come hell or high water.
The problem Paizo faces is if they make any stance, the GMs who played that way already anyway will continue to play that way, and they alienate/impinge on the fun of the rest.
|
Well.. in my opinion assuming character's death as something "positive" in a challenging campaign is a mistake.
Characters death is the result of precise errors or shortcomings by the character itself. I think a well balanced campaign should not consider a "death count" the measure of how much challenge it provided.
If the party has to work hard for his survival and can feel threatened by the obstacles it face then is a well balanced campaign.
Of course, character death should be a serious possibility... You zig when you should have zagged, you suddenly fail in a critical task .. and you should Die.. Sure.
But the difference between a quest and a suicide mission is that the party is considered able to face the threats ahead and turn back home with their own legs.
So I don't think deaths are a viable way of measuring the balance of the game ...
On the other hand .. if a party can make a fool of itself, do all the wrong tactical choices and still complete the quests with no repercussions .. that's the signal...
|
|
I've been playing PFS from year 0-present ( three full seasons plus ). During this time, i've found the character death rate to be extremely low. As an estimation, at an average of at least 1.5 tables per week our groups have had less than six character deaths over that period of time, or less than six out of at least 1050 character participations. This is less than a character deathrate of .6%. At times, DM's bend over backwards to assure that characters do not die. And, even when they do die, they are relatively easily ressurected. Maybe i'm very old school; but I think there should be more character risk involved, especially the higher level your character attains and the greater the adventure the character is involved in. (By the way, i've never resurrected one of my own characters). What do you think about this? Should there be a voluntary campaign in which, by player consent, there is a greater chance of character death and/or character reward?
As a GM I try to be fair, but do not tend to give players a free pass at my games. Statistically I make a permanent PC kill every 2.5 games I run.
I think the risk for players is real enough, but it probably depends on the GM.
|
Last weekend we attended Oddcon in England (and it was a blast), and I had 2 characters die. These were the first and second times I've lost PFS characters, and I've been playing PFS for a year now.
The first death was a critical hit, on a first level ninja, done by a large creature when we were playing up. It happens, but for a while there, I thought my Gen-con boon was just wasted. I got the corvidblooded boon at Gen-con and FallOfCamelot and I had been frothing about our mated pair of Tengu for months, then my ninja got herself squished by a lucky hit from a large monster. It wasn't even a final BBEG. Fortunately we had played up, so everyone made enough money, for us all to pitch in the cash to get her raised. If we had not played up, I would have lost my boon, in the first scenario played and this would have left FallOfCamelot without his mate to roleplay off.
There were a few minutes there, where I was really gutted though.
The second death was again, when we were playing up (despite my objections, eventually FallOfCamelot talked me round) and my poledancing Fighter (please see other thread) who was playing up 3 levels, got squished, again by something big who had abilities I'd never seen before IC or OOC (this is due to my ignorance through, not reading Bestiaries and not running many games, not a failing of the system). That one I was less concerned about, as unless the party managed to wipe I'd be raised and if necessary retrieved by my faction. Happily the rest of the party managed to clear up the adds while the BBEG made fighter-jam.
In these cases playing up went badly for the lower-level characters, which for me is how it should be. If the party does something stupid/idiotic/funny-but-ultimately-deadly then hope that in the aftermath the survivors/player learns something.
If not, then let Darwin weep and see how the dice rolls.
(If it rolls and lights up, then the bad things are not your fault.)
:)
|
|
As a GM I try to be fair, but do not tend to give players a free pass at my games. Statistically I make a permanent PC kill every 2.5 games I run.
I think the risk for players is real enough, but it probably depends on the GM.
This just sounds way, way too deadly. Are you sure you mean permanent PC kill.
With this kill rate you have 0.4 Permanent death per scenario - or phrase it another way your chance of survival is 90% for a four person table, 92% for a five person table and 93.3% for a six person table.
With this odds your chances (assuming your death are random which they are not - but math otherwise gets complicated) to ever reach the last game of the final arc (36 games without being killed) are:
2.2% on a four person table
5% on a five person table
8.3% on a six person table
So I'm sure it can't be permanent kills or the data is biased by a few TPKs of starter characters.
It is interesting to do the math. You need a per scenario survival rate of 98% or above to have a greater 50% chance in the society to reach the last game without having been killed.
While 98% survival rate seems to be way too high For a challenge - keep in mind you have to survive often enough to ever retire. And a below 50% to survive all the way suddenly seems not too shabby.
Thod
Canadian Maplecakes
|
I guess we all have opinions. I'm there for the role-playing, not the combat challenge. That being said, a good, hard fight can be role-playing fun and challenge.
My character died in our most recent offering - Song of the Sea Witch - the encounter was tough, but circumstances can dictate a death at a table. That being said, we had just been discussing how much tougher the newer mods had been.
Personally I don't want to play games where all characters are created to be destroyers of life. As for dumb combat tactics, a dumb character is likely dumb in combat. A foolish character is likely foolish in combat. I'd like to see dump stats played, not ignored.
I think that games I have played are tough enough for me (and my characters).
Random aside.
Deluge, may I inquire as to which encounter was the one that ended your PC's life? When I wrote Song of the Sea Witch I had some thoughts as to what might end PCs, but then in playtests it turned out to be entirely different encounters. So, color me curious!
PS: Sorry that my module had to kill one of your characters... >.>
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Random aside.
Deluge, may I inquire as to which encounter was the one that ended your PC's life? When I wrote Song of the Sea Witch I had some thoughts as to what might end PCs, but then in playtests it turned out to be entirely different encounters. So, color me curious!
PS: Sorry that my module had to kill one of your characters... >.>
I'm curious too! I just played that scenario yesterday; I've got some guesses...
Our biggest near-miss was
Also,
Hm, I guess I just listed all the fights. So color me curious, too!
|
|
First off, just want to agree with....
A bunch of great points...
Secondly, as far as difficulty goes, I tend to think the majority of mods are softballed, but part of me wants to step back and think on that idea. (and so I listened to that part of me...)
My group of gamers are basically powergamers - we like to play more for the strategy of the game than the RP (though we do that too). I have the least amount of experience among us (the rest were strong LG players "back in the day"), and even I have gotten to be decent at making strong characters -- and this is how we like to play. So, when we sit down at a table, you can be pretty sure that you are ok, even if you're like a level 3 playing at 10-11. :)
Not to say there haven't been close calls and even some deaths, but as another post mentioned, this was pretty much due to stupid or foolish or RP-based tactics on our part. Most of the time, we can walk through mods.
So yes, a chunk of it is based on character build, party make-up and number of players.
But then there's the other side that I see when I GM, and that's the poor tactic builds, lack of proper monster/NPC integration and poor spell lists. It's not in all mods, and some of the tactics and such I realize are designed for RP/plot flavor; I can accept that. But when, for example was the last time a caster had an empowered fireball (or even a regular fireball) prepped to blast the perfectly templated PCs into a fiery mess? Or have a nasty summoned creature(s) ready to go at the start of a fight (rather than take the time during). Or have a bunch of invisible ambushers?
Mods need to have more mod-long penalties, like "if this guy flees, the PCs get a -2 initiative the rest of the mod due to him telling everyone else about them coming" or things like that that can beef up the mod while not really "increasing the CR level". Mods should be scary - maybe not at tier 1-2, maybe not even so much at 3-4 except for a few "oh god" moments here and there. We want the player base to grow, and killing people early when they have neither the gold or prestige/fame won't help things - but later on...please...my second 11th level character has like 146 prestige or something like that -- he hasn't had to use any yet. Even my other 11th level who has died twice could still die two more times and not spend a dime outside of prestige.
Anyway, that was a long post that probably like two people will read. But, I thought I'd post it anyway. :)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Steel_Wind,
Thanks for your articulate post. I agree with most of your analysis of the problem*, but I don't like your proposed solution (add AC and hit points to foes) for three reasons.
NPCs need to follow the rules, too.
You address this issue that the NPCs are getting hit points and (particularly) armor class from thin air. If I understand correctly, your response is that you don't care. But D&D 3rd Edition / Pathfinder designers have spent a lot of effort making sure that there isn't one set of rules for PCs and another form NPCs. I don't care as much about hit points, since they come in a range anyway and we can just assume NPCs "got lucky on their rolls" but if we increase an NPCs armor class, we have to ask what kind of AC bonus -- shield, or circumstance, or what -- whether it stacks with the armor the NPC already has, and if so, how -- and how it affects the character's flat-footed AC, and all manner of other sticky questions. If we end up needing to violate the rules for how armor class works in PFS, then so be it, but I think that drastic kind of rule violation should be a last choice.
It makes the time constraints much tighter.
I agree that adding NPCs to the encounter can make that encounter run long in real time, even if each battle takes the same number of in-game rounds. But adding hit points and armor class is a worse solution. PCs are missing more frequently, and the NPCs take more damage before they drop. But the opponents aren't doing any more damage or posing a greater threat to the PCs. A large, well-run party is just taking longer to roll over the foes.
If we want to pose a greater challenge to large parties of effective characters, we need to increase the encounters' challenge: stronger attacks, higher spell DCs, cleverer tactics.
Hit points and armor class are often not the crux of the issue.
Pick a scenario that you like,but which you think is pretty easy. Look through the encounters, and see which ones are more challenging if you just keep the NPCs fighting for another round or two. Contrariwise, pick a scenario that you like, but which you think is pretty dangerous. (Say, Dalsine Affair). Look through the encounters: is the foe's hit points and armor class the crux of the issue?
--
*
|
|
So I'm sure it can't be permanent kills or the data is biased by a few TPKs of starter characters.
It is interesting to do the math. You need a per scenario survival rate of 98% or above to have a greater 50% chance in the society to reach the last game without having been killed.
While 98% survival rate seems to be way too high For a challenge - keep in mind you have to survive often enough to ever retire. And a below 50% to survive all the way suddenly seems not too shabby.
Thod
TPKs, rooky mistakes, and small parties factor in.
As players get smarter, advance in level and have pp for raise dead the permanent kill ratio drops dramatically.
I think my ultimate goal is to bring players to 12th level and have an epic journey alomg the way. But there are risks, and those are very real at low levels.
The greatest inbalance in my experience are 6-7 PC tables, which I avoid like the plague.
|
|
Steel_Wind,
Thanks for your articulate post. I agree with most of your analysis of the problem*, but I don't like your proposed solution (add AC and hit points to foes) for three reasons.
I didn’t stop there. I also suggested addition to hit/damage as well as increase to the foes saves, too. You might want to re-read the text of the post and not just the headers.
NPCs need to follow the rules, too
You address this issue that the NPCs are getting hit points and (particularly) armor class from thin air. If I understand correctly, your response is that you don't care. But D&D 3rd Edition / Pathfinder designers have spent a lot of effort making sure that there isn't one set of rules for PCs and another form NPCs.
Cart<Horse
While I’m happy to use Herolab to boost my mobs and customize them for a home game tweaking the abilities of each skill point spent and feats selected to a perfect degree – we can’t do that sort of reconstruction at a PFS table on the fly. All we can do is devise a general across the board method to tweak a monster to respond to the comparative increase in CR challenge that additional PCs at the table pose to the underlying challenge posed by an encounter. And we need to be able to do this in as efficient a manner as possible, given the needs of PFS play and the limitations of the system.
Moeover, I would point out that when examining the AC value of a monster by CR, the suggested increases in AC value DOES increase pretty much by one across the line (a few times is goes up by two). Evidently, Skip Williams didn’t worry too much about it when he designed the system. Jason Bulmahn doesn’t take the time to worry about "why" that AC increases when you increase the CR, either. But suddenly we should freeze like deer in the headlights over the issue now in PFS?
I don’t think so.
The point behind the rules for monster creation is not about verisimilitude or praying to the Gods of Design Consistency. It’s about play balance and devising a system that attempts to estimate and categorize a foe’s abilities by level so the designer can devise appropriate challenges.
We already use that system in Pathfinder Society currently. As we are starting from that base CR system and tweaking it by the same basic values that the CR system increased monsters abilities when increasing their CR rating, we already receive most of the benefits inherent in the system. I say, “most” but right now, it is not all. PFS already breaks the reasoning behind those rules already when it changed the rules for XP based upon CR and threw the rules for treasure by CR rating more or less out the window, too.
So, let’s admit right off the bat that by decoupling XP points and treasure from a given creature's CR, PFS has already undermined several key concepts behind monster generation. Near as I can tell, nobody's knickers got twisted up by that decision then and they shouldn't now, either.
When we talk about adding modest amounts to hit points, AC, to hit/damage, and saves, what we are talking about is modifying a creature by essentially giving it AT MOST a CR increase of either 1 or 2. Of course it isn’t actually getting a complete CR increase, as we have not increased skills or feats or other special abilities. We could increase existing skills across the board, but we can’t add feats on the fly as that brings us back to the problem of GM discretion and the sameness of the experience. The first GM who adds "improved sunder" to a foe with an exra feat is probably an event we would hear about on these forums. We just can't go there.
As for “where” the AC increase bonus came from, call it dodge, call it natural armor, call it luck, -- call it what you will. I call it what Jason Bulmahn calls it by refusing to even discuss the “why” of it on p. 291 of the Bestiary: which is to say, unimportant.
I agree that adding NPCs to the encounter can make that encounter run long in real time, even if each battle takes the same number of in-game rounds. But adding hit points and armor class is a worse solution. PCs are missing more frequently, and the NPCs take more damage before they drop. But the opponents aren't doing any more damage or posing a greater threat to the PCs. A large, well-run party is just taking longer to roll over the foes.
I disagree that it is worse overall. More foes is more rolls and more minis on the tbale with more flanking and more time taken to run the encounter, generally.
Look, there is no way to increase the challenge of an encounter without it taking longer to run. Whether you add foes, add only to the capabilities of existing foes, or could theoretically add entirely new challenging combat tactics, mixed terrain and traps, etc.. No matter what you do it is going to take longer to play out. Almost every single time. That is the neature of higher level combat in Pathfinder.
Adding to the capabilities of existing foes is, imo, the lesser of available evils and the easiest solution to implement. At its most elegant, its using auto-body filler and a grinder to repair a big-a~! h*%* on the rear quarter panel. It’s not the best way to fix the car – but it is the most practical way to do so on a limited budget.
If we want to pose a greater challenge to large parties of effective characters, we need to increase the encounters' challenge: stronger attacks, higher spell DCs, cleverer tactics.
Stronger Attacks: I already suggested moderate increases to hit and damage in accordance with the existing CR system. Please read the text of the post and not the headers.
Tactics: There is no way to add “uses more clever tactics” to all encounters across the board by fiat of the Developer and Coordinator and amendment to the Guide to Organized Play. If there was a “more clever tactics” button to press – we would surely have pressed it by now. But it simply doesn’t exist so this is not a helpful or practical proposal.
Spell DCs: I do, however, entirely dissent from increasing Spell DCs on spells cast by all foes holus bolus across the board. I left this out for a reason as I believe it is a potentially VERY bad idea. It isn’t that increasing spell DCs is necessarily a bad idea in some encounters -- or even in many of them. I am in agreement with you that in many (if not most) encounters, increasing the DC by 1 or 2 across the board is not going to throw the encounter or scenario into disarray and it will increase the challenge in a moderate manner. So that's all good.
But “most” is a far cry from “all”. What I proposed was an across the board fix to apply to every PFS scenario which has been released or will be released in the future. When you change a spell DC by increasing it 1 or 2 points in severity, you potentially break the spell and expose the party to a potentially crippling and game ending disadvantage depending on the spell in question. It’s just WAY too situational and can (and, imo, inevitably will) result in unintended TPKs. Nobody has the time to go back and evaluate a spell on a case-by-case basis for its DC in the 89+ PFS Scenarios published to date. For this “fix” to work, it has to be applied equally across the board without customization or the application of GM discretion.
Accordingly, across the board DC increases is not a wise or sensible course to employ when that effect is to be applied to the spell DCs to save against a foe’s spells or spell-like abilities. There are too many devils in those details.
Hit points and armor class are often not the crux of the issue.
I never said it was. What I identified as “the crux of the issue” was making a scenario more challenging to tables with a larger number of players at it (currently, 5, 6 or even 7 PCs instead of the 4 intended). The proposal was aimed at a practical broad-brush solution to the problem of increased CRs in the party without any corresponding increase in the CRs of the foes the PCs will encounter. An across the board fix to Hit points, AC, to hit and damage and the Fort/Ref/Will saves of the monsters encountered will do this without breaking the scenario and sending everyone off into unintended TPK land.
It is a modest proposal which will produce modest benefits. It is not a cure-all or a magic wand.
However, given that what it needed is a practical fix which can be implemented across the board without the need for the exercise of the discretion and review of a GM or a developer, I don’t think we can dare go farther with such a blunt and inelegant instrument.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are currently no official methods for adjusting encounters, whether it's by adding extra foes or bumping up people's stats out of thin air. Until such time as rules are put in place to do so*, GMs are expected to continue running adventures as written. If that means that coordinators need to run more tables of fewer players in order to maintain a particular level of difficulty in a scenario, then that falls to those coordinators and the GMs who feel the need to make things harder.
*This is not to be construed as a promise that such rules are forthcoming, nor even that they have been considered.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
There are currently no official methods for adjusting encounters, whether it's by adding extra foes or bumping up people's stats out of thin air. Until such time as rules are put in place to do so*, GMs are expected to continue running adventures as written. If that means that coordinators need to run more tables of fewer players in order to maintain a particular level of difficulty in a scenario, then that falls to those coordinators and the GMs who feel the need to make things harder.
*This is not to be construed as a promise that such rules are forthcoming, nor even that they have been considered.
Favorited. Favorited soooo hard.
Some days it feels like there's a whole contingent of GMs who think it's their solemn duty to customize PFS scenarios, using what's written as a mere guideline, and think running anything as written is a cardinal sin and any player trying to suggest such practice is obviously trying to pull something over on them.
Phew. Sorry, today's been one of the aforementioned "some days". Just needed to vent that.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are currently no official methods for adjusting encounters, whether it's by adding extra foes or bumping up people's stats out of thin air. Until such time as rules are put in place to do so*, GMs are expected to continue running adventures as written. If that means that coordinators need to run more tables of fewer players in order to maintain a particular level of difficulty in a scenario, then that falls to those coordinators and the GMs who feel the need to make things harder.
*This is not to be construed as a promise that such rules are forthcoming, nor even that they have been considered.
Which is why you will continue to loose people like myself from your "society".
|
|
Until such time as rules are put in place to do so, GMs are expected to continue running adventures as written
I understand that making a rule that applies universally is impossible to do without making more issues than you had in the first place by making the first rule.
It's still awfully shortsighted to put a foot down and say a GM has no authority to tailor the experience. (EDIT: Or that his only option to tailor the experience is to TURN PEOPLE AWAY FROM THE TABLE) It's akin to making a formal decree that in PFS OP a GM must roll dice out in the open rather than behind a screen. (or never out in the open.. the point is you're decreeing HOW to GM)
Mark I believe you just made a very serious mistake by stepping away from a policy of deliberate ambiguity on this (and potentially similar) topics.
|
|
PFS is not the cake walk it used to be. There has been a decent increase of the difficulties of scenarios, starting with Season 2. And from my experiences with Season 3, that level of difficulty is being maintained.
Druid 4
Wizard 4
Cleric of Asmodeus 3
Sorcerer 3
Blight Druid 2
Bard 2
Since it was 6 players, the APL was 4. Sure enough 4 out of 6 of those players ended up meeting their demise. Luckily almost all of them had to resources at that point to raise themselves. But it was still nasty.
One thing I don't think many GMs are aware of is the terrain. Some encounters are actually more difficult than they first appear when you read it because you don't notice the area in which the fights are supposed to take place. I can name a couple scenarios off my head where the terrain makes all the difference in the challenge of the encounters.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
PFS is not the cake walk it used to be. There has been a decent increase of the difficulties of scenarios, starting with Season 2.
For what it's worth, I GMed a TPK this weekend with a Season 1 scenario. (And that was after deciding that the scenario as written was wrong, and that natural attacks shouldn't get iteratives for high BAB.)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Which is why you will continue to loose people like myself from your "society".There are currently no official methods for adjusting encounters, whether it's by adding extra foes or bumping up people's stats out of thin air. Until such time as rules are put in place to do so*, GMs are expected to continue running adventures as written. If that means that coordinators need to run more tables of fewer players in order to maintain a particular level of difficulty in a scenario, then that falls to those coordinators and the GMs who feel the need to make things harder.
*This is not to be construed as a promise that such rules are forthcoming, nor even that they have been considered.
To clarify:
Is it that you'd consider quitting due to having to run an adventure as written, or that you'd consider quitting rather than try to wrangle up enough GMs to afford smaller tables? Both were referenced in Mark's post, so I just wanted to check which you were replying to (or both).|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
PFS is not the cake walk it used to be. There has been a decent increase of the difficulties of scenarios, starting with Season 2.For what it's worth, I GMed a TPK this weekend with a Season 1 scenario. (And that was after deciding that the scenario as written was wrong, and that natural attacks shouldn't get iteratives for high BAB.)
And for what it's worth, the game I was in yesterday could've been a LOT nastier if it weren't for FOUR FREAKING CRITS at the hands of myself and my local VC (playing, for a change).