|
I was the GM at Drogon's event who doubled the # of opponents at the table. This is not something I usually do, but let me explain my reasoning:
Due to the "custom built" nature of characters playing this Ruby Phoenix (this was run under the last incarnation of module rules), the people who sat down at the table were not the organically evolved products of many sessions of adventuring, but generally min-maxed combat monsters. In a bit of bad luck, I got the following grouping:
-2 synthesists (one with 7/7/7 str/dex/con sans eidolon)
-1 gunslinger
-1 optimized trip-master (completely PHB, to his credit)
-1 bard, with one key spell: d-door (or synthesist deliver system, as I liked to think of him)
-1 well-rounded, but non-combat, cleric.
(As a side note, the gunslinger was level appropriate, not custom built)
One synthesist did leave the table about 1/3 of the way through the game (he had another engagement). However, the remaining synthesist was a pure combat monster (mister Lucky 7): 40+ AC, high saves, 5+ attacks per round at 30-40+ damage per hit (I'm still a little fuzzy on how he got 6 dice per hit, but I don't read the synthesist threads)
Talk about power creep!
By fight two, it wasn't fun for me as a DM to run anymore without modification. The 2nd fight didn't even make it past the 4th PC in the initiative, so players were missing out on the game.
I spent a LOT of time learning the many bizarre, esoteric rules used in Ruby Phoenix, I purchased the electronic mod (which I'll likely never run again), and drove 40 miles (well, carpooled). I was not about to about to sit through 10 hours of 1 round fights.
So I made the simplest on the fly modification I could... double the number of enemies. I actually went 50% increase at first, but that wasn't enough to significantly extend the fights.
In a different situation, I would have just had them move through the adventure at their accelerated pace and we could have all gone home early. However, this particular event was a bit odd: it had set timing with multiple tables running in parallel, and the timing dictated by the coordinator (Drogon). But there was no advantage for finishing early: unlike a true interactive, you couldn't go to another table and help out a struggling party. I still had time left over even after doubling the difficulty, so I did some background mod-related rp, but that can only take up so much time in this combat-focused adventure.
So I apologize if I hurt anyones sensibilities. Almost exclusively I run things as written, and simply under-utilize particularly fearsome foes when there is a weak party at the table. I don't go around picking on paralyzed or unconscious characters; I pull punches (which some players particularly detest!). However, exceptions do occur.
|
The mook's stat block is identical to another mook's statblock already appearing in the scenario in question.
I'm beginning to think you are being intentionally obtuse in this question.
Dude, relax. Did it not occur to anyone that there might not be any mooks spec'd out earlier the scenario? My comments were in a general sense. For the ones that do have a stat block to reference, great, but what about the ones that don't?
|
|
Since we can't change the scenario as written, we just need the advice of some of the veteran GMs on how to optimize the encounters with the tools that are given. Though I've never sat at one of the tables of the esteemed "killer GMs of PFS", I am sure that I could definitely benefit from their advice. I was under the impression this is what the GM's Advice Forum was for. Maybe that is the tool we should be using first.
Find me at PaizoCon or Gen Con. :)
|
|
In a different situation, I would have just had them move through the adventure at their accelerated pace and we could have all gone home early.
Sometimes if it's an entire table acting (or built) like this, I'll do exactly that. Have the NPCs just roll over and die quickly. No strategy, no role play, no enthusiasm. "Here, you win. Yay.."
|
|
If I put myself in my players shoes, what would I think of the whole situation? Well, I only have a few combat monsters in my repertoire, but I would hope that the GM would up the ante if we were significantly overpowered.
From the other side of table, I find that when I bring a combat monster to a table and the GM runs a moderate or low level difficulty adventure, I hold back with my character to allow other players to shine. I have a decent bruiser monk... who half the time serves as a rogue delivery service (helps that they are often halflings), or pins a flying monster so the (comparatively) slow two-handed fighter gets a chance at a full attack. 'Course, all the gloves come off when a real danger to the party presents itself.
In my Ruby Phoenix game, I particularly liked the tripping fighter: he not only fought well, but enacted battlefield control and enabled attacks from other melee characters. I'd much rather prefer that character at the table then the synthesist (not that I didn't like the player, who was a nice guy... I just didn't like the build).
Anyways, I feel I'm drifting from the main thrust of the conversation...
|
|
It would take much more than that, IMO. What are the mook's stat block? Are they human warriors? Bestiary creatures? GM choice?I suggest allowing the GM the option of adding mooks to a solo boss fight. Possibly at the maximum number equal to the number of players minus two.
This could add all of a third sentence to the rules change proposed to Mark. But don't you think a change of this magnitude is worthy of more than two sentences?
Usually the answer is obvious from the scenario. Otherwise if we are restricting ourselves to an extremely short rule it would have to be GM choice. I would be in favor of a longer set of guidelines - something between a half and a full page.
|
|
Every time I'm aware of.
I suppose people would get away with it more often if I didn't judge as much.
Feral, no one is proposing that judges make changes on the fly. Some people are proposing limited guidelines that allow consenting GMs and players to increase scenario difficulty in a limited, organized way. Specific proposals are posted above.
I would be interested to know where you are on some of the specific, limited ideas expressed by myself and other posters.
|
|
Since we can't change the scenario as written, we just need the advice of some of the veteran GMs on how to optimize the encounters with the tools that are given. Though I've never sat at one of the tables of the esteemed "killer GMs of PFS", I am sure that I could definitely benefit from their advice. I was under the impression this is what the GM's Advice Forum was for. Maybe that is the tool we should be using first.
Note the opening post. The purpose of this thread is to discuss GMs making changes in scenarios. This has been encouraged by Mark part way through the thread. I would be very interested in your thoughts regarding specific suggestions made by myself and others.
I think it would also be a fine thing to have a thread on "optimizing the tools" that the GM is given.
|
|
encouraged by Mark part way through the thread
Just to be clear, Mark wasn't encouraging GM's to make changes, he was encouraging us to discuss what those rules would look like IF a greater level of GM freedom was granted.
If know that's what you meant, Brother Mortimer, but I wanted to make sure no one misread that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My three biggest issues are as follows:
1)
Single BBEG fights. The action economy alone wipes out the boss.
It is not a GM's responsibility to "fix" (AKA rewrite) a lousy module. -- That is the campaign's responsibility; and it only happens when GM's complain up the chain.
|
|
It is not a GM's responsibility to "fix" (AKA rewrite) a lousy module
Most of the time, it's not a matter of the scenario being of poor quality. It just might not be a challenge for a particular group of players. Or maybe it's too challenging. And it doesn't have to be a matter of optimized builds or such. The group may just have the "perfect" character to essentially nerf the challenges. Maybe it's an undead-based scenario and you have a mix of channeling cleric/s and paladin/s.
What we're looking for are quantifiable ways to make the scenario adjustable for large/small groups and perhaps those adjustments can be made at the player's request to accommodate power-builds.
It would be easier to do something like this if we knew what type of average party the scenarios are supposed to be written for. Is this somewhere in the writing guidelines or do we just assume that most writers base it on the average party of a fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue?
I should have been more specific, as in the classic set of character types and typical skills/abilities they represent: primary combat, healer, caster, trap-detector. After all, with the books in the Core Assumption, the scenario writers are limited on what type of characters they can challenge in each encounter. This is part of why Mark and Mike wanted to know if the APG should be added to the Core Assumption, not just for the players, but for the scenario writers to have more choices too.
|
|
There does not seem to be a restriction from using using classes/traits/etc from the non-core assumption books other than you have to enter that information in the stat block. From that perspective, authors may shy away from them. The same would apply to monsters from the various Bestiary. It seems that in many/most cases, either the author pitched the concept to Mark, or he provided an outline to a hired free-lancer (probably common for meta-plot scenarios). I would expect the author has some freedom as to the challenges unless they are specifically tied to the plot. All of this is speculation of course. Even if Mark responds, I wouldn't expect anything more than a very broad overview of the process.
|
|
Bob has a real good handle on this. Different groups have different builds. The CR system used is for apl calculations based on 4 players.
I can't think that any simple numerical solution of adding +x to hit points etc will work.
You have different style of combats that would likely cause more death's than would otherwise happen.
If a short rule was to be placed. I would say add +1 to the apl at 5 players +1 at six.
I think the tier system could be shuffled still. Removing the level between tiers. For instance a 1-4 scenario with tiers 1-2 and 3-4.
|
|
So?It is not a GM's responsibility to "fix" (AKA rewrite) a lousy moduleMost of the time, it's not a matter of the scenario being of poor quality. It just might not be a challenge for a particular group of players. Or maybe it's too challenging. And it doesn't have to be a matter of optimized builds or such. The group may just have the "perfect" character to essentially nerf the challenges.
Maybe it's an undead-based scenario and you have a mix of channeling cleric/s and paladin/s.
Again, so?
Sometimes an adventure is a cake-walk for an uber-optimized group.
-- What a refreshing change of pace it would be to in-character roleplay for an extra half-hour.
What we're looking for are quantifiable ways to make the scenario adjustable for large/small groups and perhaps those adjustments can be made at the player's request to accommodate power-builds.
Well, that would be an example of the campaign doing something, not a GM solo adding creatures willy-nilly.
BTW, I think single-BBEM fights suck. "Not Superstar", etc. It wouldn't bother me in the least if I never saw another one of them.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I think the tier system could be shuffled still. Removing the level between tiers. For instance a 1-4 scenario with tiers 1-2 and 3-4.
On first glance this struck me as something that would be neat, but require more scenarios to be printed, as there would be smaller brackets.
Then I broke it apart:
Current brackets are: 1, 1-5, 1-7, 3-7, 5-9, 7-11, 12. 7x.
Proposed Brackets would, probably, be: 1, 1-4, 3-6, 5-8, 7-10, 9-11, 12. Still 7x
However, it may still require more scenarios to be printed, as Paizo staff has told us that the most popular scenarios are something like the 3-7 or 1-7s -- meaning more people play lower, wide level brackets. If the brackets were smaller, there would have to be more printed to accommodate their sales pool. So that's bad. However, smaller brackets are more accurate, so that's good.
I don't quite know where I stand, though. It's much easier to have the 1-6 or 1-7 scenarios as a coordinator, (less money I'm spending :P) and my players don't seem to mind one way or the other. On the other side, I want to provide the best game to my players, which smaller brackets foster by their very structure.
Color me conflicted on the idea.
|
|
It is not a GM's responsibility to "fix" (AKA rewrite) a lousy moduleMost of the time, it's not a matter of the scenario being of poor quality. It just might not be a challenge for a particular group of players. Or maybe it's too challenging.
emphasis mine.
I have more issues with a GM making a scenario easier, than a little tougher. Players can poorly choose to play up, make tactical errors, be really dumb, or just have a really bad luck on the die rolls. These are not reasons to make the scenario easier. I especially don't want to reward player for playing up by making it easier (or punish them by making it harder).As has been mentioned, some scenarios are overly deadly because of published mistakes. When that happens the staff is quick to fix the mistakes.
|
I have more issues with a GM making a scenario easier, than a little tougher. Players can poorly choose to play up, make tactical errors, be really dumb, or just have a really bad luck on the die rolls. These are not reasons to make the scenario easier. I especially don't want to reward player for playing up by making it easier (or punish them by making it harder).
In my experience the issue is a table of new players or the wrong character mix for the scenario (e.g. no fighters in a combat heavy scenario).
My concern is that not allowing GM flexibility will lead to more TPKs. Though it is beginning to sound like that is what the player community wants.
|
|
The group may just have the "perfect" character to essentially nerf the challenges. Maybe it's an undead-based scenario and you have a mix of channeling cleric/s and paladin/s.Or if the player with a scythe happens to roll an early crit, or the wizard shuts down the encounter in round 1 with a spell?
These things are part of the game.
In fact thinking of the fringe character that gets his 'perfect storm' chance to shine, you could easily be robbing him of that without even realizing it.
That's part of the dangers of trying to scale all the encounters for a given party, you rob the players of random chances to shine and memorable, genuine moments where things came together.
What we're looking for are quantifiable ways to make the scenario adjustable for large/small groups and perhaps those adjustments can be made at the player's request to accommodate power-builds.I can't imagine that there is an easy 'one size fits all' solution that can be applied blindly to adjust ALL the scenarios out there that won't cause a problem or two with some specific ones.
Rather just let the table choose play out of tier if the other tier is more appropriate for them. That way you're running something that's been vetted and doesn't require any alteration of the scenario in question.
As far as 'easy solutions' I think that will work in a limited scope, but after all when you consider the parameters and a motto of 'first, do no harm' it seems a reasonable one.
-James
Sometimes playing up works, often it doesn't. This thread is about finding a more fine grained solution.
This idea is to create an option short of playing up when the GM and all players so wish it. It is intended to "do harm," in other words to make a more challenging game with increased resource expenditure and chance of death.
Those who have posted specific suggestions do not advocate blindly applying one size fits all changes to ALL scenarios, rather they advocate for GMs using judgment within a narrow range of choices.
I very much agree with the opening part of the post - just because a party starts off well and walks over the first encounter is not a reason to upgrade the difficulty of a scenario.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Usually (again, in my limited experience) if the scenario doesn't provide a combative challenge for 6 players, it doesn't provide one for 4.
Now that you mention it, I'd have to agree (in my even more limited experience). I recently played in a scenario that I had already GM'd. As I recall, when I GM'd it I had a table of about 6 players, and they cakewalked it (including my not-really-a-gamer wife).
When I played it, it was me, my brother, his not-really-a-gamer wife, and a pregen. We still cakewalked it.
|
|
Usually (again, in my limited experience) if the scenario doesn't provide a combative challenge for 6 players, it doesn't provide one for 4.Now that you mention it, I'd have to agree (in my even more limited experience). I recently played in a scenario that I had already GM'd. As I recall, when I GM'd it I had a table of about 6 players, and they cakewalked it (including my not-really-a-gamer wife).
When I played it, it was me, my brother, his not-really-a-gamer wife, and a pregen. We still cakewalked it.
Was this due to the level of the characters? Would the advanced monster template have made a difference?
Are you saying that some scenarios are so weak that the suggestions you and others have made for GM adjustments are not powerful enough to make a difference?
Are there a significant number of scenarios that are just so easy that people looking for a challenge should avoid playing them?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Usually (again, in my limited experience) if the scenario doesn't provide a combative challenge for 6 players, it doesn't provide one for 4.Now that you mention it, I'd have to agree (in my even more limited experience). I recently played in a scenario that I had already GM'd. As I recall, when I GM'd it I had a table of about 6 players, and they cakewalked it (including my not-really-a-gamer wife).
When I played it, it was me, my brother, his not-really-a-gamer wife, and a pregen. We still cakewalked it.
Was this due to the level of the characters? Would the advanced monster template have made a difference?
Are you saying that some scenarios are so weak that the suggestions you and others have made for GM adjustments are not powerful enough to make a difference?
Are there a significant number of scenarios that are just so easy that people looking for a challenge should avoid playing them?
I'm afraid I don't remember the levels from when I ran it. My wife was 1st level and I'm pretty confident the rest of the table included some "firsties", but I don't know the exact makeup.
When I played it, my brother and I were each level 2 (he was an oracle, I was a fighter1/wizard1 with 10% ASF), my sister-in-law was a freshly-made wizard who mostly just shot force missiles and ray of frost, and we had the Kyra pregen (level 1).
I couldn't really say how much the advanced template would have changed things. I do know that I had a +5 to hit with my sword, so the template's +4 to AC could have been too much. But again, I don't really know.
Dude, relax. Did it not occur to anyone that there might not be any mooks spec'd out earlier the scenario? My comments were in a general sense. For the ones that do have a stat block to reference, great, but what about the ones that don't?The mook's stat block is identical to another mook's statblock already appearing in the scenario in question.
I'm beginning to think you are being intentionally obtuse in this question.
Dude, I am relaxed. But were I not, it would be because people intentionally reply to my posts, putting words in my mouth, ignoring my clarifications, and trying (unsuccessfully) to build strawman argements. I am not advocating the addition of mooks where there were none already in place, so there would never be a need to have some database of officially appoved, tier-sensitive cannon fodder statblocks.
How about this, I'll put the ball in your court. Name some scenarios, real or hypothetical, where my proposed two-line modifications absolutely will not work.
|
I think I'll just abandon this thread because in reality I've run very few scenarios where I had a problem challenging a table of six players. Usually (again, in my limited experience) if the scenario doesn't provide a combative challenge for 6 players, it doesn't provide one for 4.
I agree, an experienced GM will be able to challenge a 6 person group as well as a 4 person group with the same content. Not as likely to get a TPK, but at least stress them.
In my limited experience, it tends to be a GM is either intentionally or unintentionally softballing his group in fear of being "The Bad Guy".
I had a GM at M-Dog who refused to deviate from written tactics, even when the group invalidated those tactics, until I pointed out that the enemy was intelligent, and had a much better option when forced into that situation. The scenario went from cakewalk to 3 people on the ground bleeding out, and the rest of the group fighting for their lives 2 turns later. They all left after that going "That was AWESOME", and I was told to stay away from their GM's because I make the tables dangerous when I give advice. I hope and suspect those comments were tongue in cheek. Though, I pointed out that the newer GM had moved and then full attacked with the BBEG which would have killed a player while I was observing. They seemed to have "overlooked" that.
|
|
Players can poorly choose to play up, make tactical errors, be really dumb, or just have a really bad luck on the die rolls. These are not reasons to make the scenario easier.
organised play guide says: "We understand that sometimes a Game Master has to make rules adjudications on the fly, deal with unexpected player choices, or even cope with extremely unlucky (or lucky) dice on both sides of the screen.
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever calls you feel are necessary at your table to ensure that everyone has a fair and fun experience."|
|
Players can poorly choose to play up, make tactical errors, be really dumb, or just have a really bad luck on the die rolls. These are not reasons to make the scenario easier.organised play guide says: "We understand that sometimes a Game Master has to make rules adjudications on the fly, deal with unexpected player choices, or even cope with extremely unlucky (or lucky) dice on both sides of the screen.
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever calls you feel are necessary at your table to ensure that everyone has a fair and fun experience."
Fair to me means rolling in the open where everyone can see where the dice lay when they're done rolling.
|
|
Fair to me means rolling in the open where everyone can see where the dice lay when they're done rolling.
organised play guide says: "We understand that sometimes a Game Master has to make rules adjudications on the fly, deal with unexpected player choices, or even cope with extremely unlucky (or lucky) dice on both sides of the screen.
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever calls you feel are necessary at your table to ensure that everyone has a fair and fun experience."
The point is, it is the GMs right and responsibility to make the call what is fair and fun on the spot.
|
|
The point is, it is the GMs right and responsibility to make the call what is fair and fun on the spot.
True, But some GMs like skipping the next line..
This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com, but only you can judge what is right at your table for cases not covered in these sources.
|
Fair to me means rolling in the open where everyone can see where the dice lay when they're done rolling.
That's a valid view. I wouldn't complain if a GM at my table shared it.
OTOH I believe that there's a Goldilocks principle to aspire for.. If the scenario is proving, for this particular table...this particular time, to be too easy or too hard then something needs to be fudged or nudged to bring the experience back closer to the 'just right challenge level' that was intended by the writer.
This may be another discussion, but it's my assumption that the players are expected to be successful in PFSOP scenarios. Not just most of the time, damn near all the time. As in, players failing to complete the mission or characters suffering a TPK is an even bigger failure on the part of the GM than it was the players'.
To elaborate: In my view, and I'm sure there's those who will gnash their teeth and wail about how wrongbad it is, survival/success isn't pegged to some ratio like rate of PA accrued. No, we don't assume players will get 2.0 PA per adventure, the assumption is closer to 1.5. 100% expectation of success/no TPK is obviously too high, but IMO its intended rate is close enough to 100% to be pointless to argue about how many percentages (or fractions of percents) shy of 100% the expectation is.
|
|
Fair to me means rolling in the open where everyone can see where the dice lay when they're done rolling.
I think this means different things to different players. Before PFS, I always used a GM screen and I occasionally fudged dice results. Sometimes in favor of the players, sometimes against. It depended on the situation and if I felt it would enhance the story. Sometimes, you need to enhance the "fright" factor. Other times, you need PC's to succeed at something regardless of what the dice say. Those are decisions I trust to the GM's judgement.
Since joining PFS, I started rolling out in the open because I thought it was "more" fair. I'm not sure it that is right or not, but I have found times when I wish I hadn't rolled in the open and could fudge a bit.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
I have rolled in the open for... a long time. That said, there are a few rolls I will roll and not tell the players what they are for.
and to "enhance the "fright" factor." Nothing does that better than to roll a D12 for the damage dice when the monster does 1d1+1 (eyes get very big when rolling a d12). Rolling right out that like always. (and I use really big dice to be seen across the table.) Or the famous roll of 6d6 (or more), but only the white one (or ones) count. "rattle rattle, take... mmmm..." shift dice around to group the 5's and 6's " 4 points damage.
But I also run with out a screen between me and the players... makes me feel more like we're "a group" and less like "Them against Me"
A new tactic I started using for the "fright factor" is rolling a huge handful of different colored dice, with the right one ones all being the same color. When 12-15d10 hit the table, but only 6 count, the players have no way of knowing that at first. LOL!
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I have rolled in the open for... a long time. That said, there are a few rolls I will roll and not tell the players what they are for.
Isn't that standard GM technique?
I'll also occasionally ask the player to roll a d20. It might be for a saving throw, or it might be for a perception/knowledge check, or it might just be to keep them guessing ...
|
|
Isn't that standard GM technique?
Occasionally rolling a random d20 and then appearing to read the adventure has always been disturbing to players, especially when they are not actively in an encounter or whenever they are in a hostile environment and they are spending a lot of time discussing things amongst themselves.
The look on player's faces when you roll, look in the scenario, make a quick note, and then mumble something like "huh" is priceless. muahahaha
|
|
I want to acknowledge Euan for facilitating this thread in such a measured fashion, and appreciate the similarly balanced tone that folks, including Mark, have used.
I am afraid what I have to say in this spoiler might disrupt that careful approach, and apologize if my words are too strong at some points.
This is slightly off-topic of me to say, but pertinent to the larger conversation:
One thing that I hear from both folks who support GM fiat / flexibility and those who do not support it is this: we all care about PFS, and want it to be the best experience for us as individuals, and newbies who come in the door each week.
Whether we're volunteers who put in countless hours to produce conferences, bottom-feeder (irony intended) players like myself who dislike judging, or Paizo staffers, we pour quite a bit of ourselves into this game. Really important things come into play for all of us: creativity, friendships, grey hairs from trying to make publication deadlines.
I was disturbed by the 'cheating' post by Mike last week, which labeled one side of this discussion as 'cheaters,' a term that's being applied to friends who pour COUNTLESS hours and energy into making PFS grow.
I'm sure Mike didn't intend to disrespect anyone. However, I wish the tone had been more inclusive, rather than off-putting. We need everyone in this community, if we're going to continue to make it grow and deepen in quality. It's just not helpful to cast a good 1/3 or 1/2 of the PFS community as cheaters or villains, when we're all trying to make the community strong. And if we're bringing more players in the door and showing them a good (PG- or PG-13 rated) time, that has direct benefit to Paizo's revenues and the sustainability of our FUN together!
If Mike is reading this: please know I don't mean to attack you. I can tell that you and Mark are enormously hard working. I am a huge fan of Paizo as a company, and feel an Apple-like loyalty to the stuff you're producing. (Of course, I hope the people in your Chinese manufacturing facilities are treated better than folks at Foxconn...).
Frankly, coming down hard on folks with regard to this discussion is a sure way to damage that brand loyalty among Paizo's most devoted fans. I know that Paizo staffers understand this, and appreciate that discussion since last week's post have been more measured in approach.
. . . . . . . . . .
I am a bit of a power gamer myself, although one who highly values roleplaying. I power-game through being tactically creative, and by leveraging the abundance of new rules that Paizo has released outside of the core assumption. I don't spend hours and entire discussion board threads crunching numbers so I can do 500 hp DPR, but I usually create characters that are more effective than Seasons 0-3 scenarios are designed to challenge.
Most of the players in my store are similarly smart. It's pretty common wisdom among us that PFS scenarios are under-powered for skillful players. That's where our judges often crave (and have sometimes 'cheatingly' used) the kind of simple power boosts that Euan is suggesting.
Frankly, I feel pretty bored with the Season 0-2 mods that continue to fill our schedule. Some are great, while quite a few are flat on both story and challenge. It will take time to create enough newer mods that address some of the power balancing issues that we've been discussing. Therefore, it'll be especially helpful to create some simple policies/allowances that can be applied retroactively.
Anyway, it's because of the good humor and friendship of other players, many of whom might be labeled 'cheaters,' that I keep coming back to PFS and deepening my involvement, despite not feeling very satisfied with the scenarios.
Having said all of that off-topic stuff, I like what I'm hearing about mods that include finer detail about customizing for large or differently balanced parties. I also like the sound of designing Season 4 scenarios to be for 6 person tables.
For older scenarios, Euan's suggestion for judicially using advanced templates is a good one. I'd suggest the simple advanced template, and not the one that gives a +4 AC boost. I don't have a particular suggestion for traps, but I don't see a reason to not apply the simple advanced template to monsters with class levels. (I will admit, I have used the advanced template when judging in the past, and avoided applying it to NPCs with class levels—I shared the concern that Mark sited previously.)
I might also suggest a rule about tier mustering: Why not allow players to play up one tier, if everyone at the table consents and acknowledges maturely the risk of character death? My suggestion would be to allow this, but to also stipulate that the character can only get credit at their actual, appropriate tier level.
In fact, I suggest that this should always be the case—if table mustering means that the average level is four (even though I'm level 2), I should always just get Level 2 rewards, even if we play 'up.' This would help prevent character power-level bloat...
|
|
"If you don't want to follow the rules we have established for Organized Play, then don't play our campaign."
- Michael Brock
The quoted text is a strange form of community outreach.
On topic suggestion:
1. Some mods are clunkers, some days DMs feel creative. Let them redecorate. What problem is solved by conformity to boxed text?
2. Combats are too easy with a table of 6 that has three optimized characters. If just three characters are optimized to fight against monsters of their individual CR +2, the Average Party Level will effectively be +2 for every level from 1 through 12!
Fortunately getting that CR +2 "Hard" mode encounter turns out to be simple. Just double the bosses & solos! Two creatures is equivalent to CR +2! (Core 398).
This also makes more sense than adding minions. Those minions will basically be ignored, while more bosses means more spells, special abilities, and better numbers to challenge optimizers. Plus, no fiddling with monster stats.
Afterwards write something like "Hard Mode: CR +2 vs. double bosses and solos" on their reward sheet so they have a record of their conquest. Just make sure everyone knows what they are getting into!
Average party level grid
____________0____1____2____3____4____5____6 # of party members optimizing to +2 CR
Level__1:____2____2____2____3____3____3____4
Level__2:____3____3____3____4____4____4____5
Level__3:____4____4____4____5____5____5____6
Level__4:____5____5____5____6____6____6____7
Level__5:____6____6____6____7____7____7____8
Level__6:____7____7____7____8____8____8____9
Level__7:____8____8____8____9____9____9___10
Level__8:____9____9____9___10___10___10___11
Level__9:___10___10___10___11___11___11___12
Level_10:___11___11___11___12___12___12___13
Level_11:___12___12___12___13___13___13___14
Level_12:___13___13___13___14___14___14___15
|
|
True, But some GMs like skipping the next line..
This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com, but only you can judge what is right at your table for cases not covered in these sources.
Yup, no breaking rules or restrictions. Neither of which obviously appear to apply to encounter makeup in scenarios, at least by my understanding of those terms. Maybe its a British English versus American English thing?
And note the bit not far above about providing "an even, balanced experience" and scenarios not being a "stiflingly oppressive script" seems to positively encourage GMs to make balanced changes.
Later on it even talks about changing tactics in certain circumstances.
I can easily see why this is considered a change by many.