Creative Director
|
I understand that future pathfinder society scenarios are going to be written on the assumption of 5 player parties...has any though been given to changing the assumption for the adventure paths as well?
None whatsoever.
The core game and things like CR and XP allocation, and thus the construction of how PCs advance in level over the course of several adventures, is too deeply based in the assumption of a 4 person game.
Pathfinder Society, which benefits (in theory... although I'm not sure on a micro level how much better it is to have more players at a table, frankly...) from being able to have bigger tables (and thus more players at the same time in the same amount of space), and which has its own advancement system that's tied to adventures and not individual encounters, is making this change because it make sense for the program (again, in theory... it might not work out; we'll see).
None of those considerations are significant reasons to change things anywhere else, and so it falls under the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" category.
Also might want to include "written for a party of X characters built on Y point array", unless such is already present.
|
Creative Director
|
Also might want to include "written for a party of X characters built on Y point array", unless such is already present.
That's already present in the Core Rulebook. No need to repeat that everywhere else.
Unless folks don't know about it, I guess, in which case that's a failing of the Core Rulebook. Still... I balk at putting something into print in an adventure that says "This adventure is for 4 players" or stuff like that since I think that could end up setting up more limitations than anything else...
Also might want to include "written for a party of X characters built on Y point array", unless such is already present.That's already present in the Core Rulebook. No need to repeat that everywhere else.
Unless folks don't know about it, I guess, in which case that's a failing of the Core Rulebook. Still... I balk at putting something into print in an adventure that says "This adventure is for 4 players" or stuff like that since I think that could end up setting up more limitations than anything else...
Fair enough. :)
What if such an approach is used for modules and/or an "experimental" AP? Say that at some point there's an itching to go "all out" and design an AP for 25 PB characters or 5 20 PB characters. Taking a look back wasn't Shackled City done for a pretty powerful group? I'm vaguely recollecting some very generous character generation methods in the hardcover of SC.
|
Creative Director
|
Also might want to include "written for a party of X characters built on Y point array", unless such is already present.That's already present in the Core Rulebook. No need to repeat that everywhere else.
Unless folks don't know about it, I guess, in which case that's a failing of the Core Rulebook. Still... I balk at putting something into print in an adventure that says "This adventure is for 4 players" or stuff like that since I think that could end up setting up more limitations than anything else...
Fair enough. :)
What if such an approach is used for modules and/or an "experimental" AP? Say that at some point there's an itching to go "all out" and design an AP for 25 PB characters or 5 20 PB characters. Taking a look back wasn't Shackled City done for a pretty powerful group? I'm vaguely recollecting some very generous character generation methods in the hardcover of SC.
We actually just did an experiment like this with "Dawn of the Scarlet Sun." To me... the results were not encouraging, and helped maintain my preference for a 4 PC assumption for the baseline.
Shackled City was done for a pretty powerful group because the design philosophy for many of the authors was that adventures should be hard. And there's a certain wisdom to that. Folks tend to remember the hard adventures better.
In the end... while party size and point buy totals can absolutely impact the power level of a party of PCs... what impacts that power level the most is player skill, and that's not something we can moderate. A specific GM needs to know his players, and needs to know the expected baseline of the adventure he wants to run, and by fiddling with that baseline we make it that much harder for a GM to keep up and/or be able to adapt adventures to fit his players' styles.
Change for the sake of change is not always a good thing.
|
Thanks James. I understand the design philosophy aspect, but in my area (sacramento) we've been playing organized play for so long a 6 person game, no matter the system, is typically the norm. We have a pretty good group of probably 10-15 players that meet regularly for games (myself am playing 1 weekly adventure path, running a bi-weekly adventure path, playing 1 bi-weekly savage worlds game, a monthly homebrew pathfinder set in an alternate england, and a monthly traveller game.) None of those games is a 4 player table. We have so many players I think that if we tried to get a 4 player game together some folks would feel "left out" :)
looks up "Dawn of the Scarlet Sun"...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, if it's not broken, don't fix it.
I'm personally very glad PF is based on a 4 person party for a few reasons.
1) It's hard to find good, dependable roleplayers. It was easy in high school and college, but as an adult, it can be difficult to find 4 people who can make the time commitment and whose schedules mesh well enough we can find a good time for all to play. Increasing group size only makes this harder.
2) It seems to me to be much easier to scale an encounter up for a larger group than it is to scale it down for a smaller group. Part of this is thematic--in my mind each encounter has a vision to it. If you start removing NPCs/monsters, or making them less powerful, it can easily water down or even ruin this vision. On the other hand, adding a few more henchmen to assist the evil overlord only builds the tension and scale of the encounter. Making existing NPCs/monsters more powerful does the same, especially with the ease of adding the quick Advanced template.
3) In my experience as GM, a 4 player group seems to be the sweet spot. With fewer than 4 players, not only is the group less effective and more vulnerable, but there's less possibilities for interactions between players. With more than 4 people, combat rounds start taking a lot longer, and it gets a lot harder for quieter players to get a word in edgewise. The farther above 4 players you get, the more of a circus it becomes. At first blush a larger group may seem more "epic", but in reality it boils down to each player having less face time with their character, or only a couple players getting all the attention while others are marginalized.
Thank you, Paizo, for the thoughtfulness you put into every aspect of your game. It's much appreciated!
looks up "Dawn of the Scarlet Sun"...
After perusing the reviews, the flaws are not with it being written for a 6 character PFS group. The flaws are in the writing of the module itself, not the headcount required to play it.
What was the line, something about 'if we don't push to innovate, we stagnate and the game dies'?
To be fair, this really should have been a 32 page module, not a 16 page FGD PFS-compatible scenario. A shame really as the extra pages would have helped a lot.
The core game and things like CR and XP allocation, and thus the construction of how PCs advance in level over the course of several adventures, is too deeply based in the assumption of a 4 person game.
On a side note, didn't the Dungeon magazine adventure paths say they were for a party of 5 PCs?
|
Creative Director
|
The core game and things like CR and XP allocation, and thus the construction of how PCs advance in level over the course of several adventures, is too deeply based in the assumption of a 4 person game.On a side note, didn't the Dungeon magazine adventure paths say they were for a party of 5 PCs?
I believe we said that for Shackled City, not the ones that appeared in print. The game was a different game back in those days though.
The game was a different game back in those days though.
*Crusty Old-Timer Voice*
I remember the AD&D 2E Dungeon days, when an adventure would have a suggested level range and a suggested range of PC numbers (including no small number of solo scenarios). I find it interesting how standardized things became at the basic balance level once game balance got adopted as the holy grail...
|
looks up "Dawn of the Scarlet Sun"...After perusing the reviews, the flaws are not with it being written for a 6 character PFS group. The flaws are in the writing of the module itself, not the headcount required to play it.
What was the line, something about 'if we don't push to innovate, we stagnate and the game dies'?
To be fair, this really should have been a 32 page module, not a 16 page FGD PFS-compatible scenario. A shame really as the extra pages would have helped a lot.
Putting the pre-gens back to 1 page would have given 5 more pages for adventure text.
|
Creative Director
|
The game was a different game back in those days though.*Crusty Old-Timer Voice*
I remember the AD&D 2E Dungeon days, when an adventure would have a suggested level range and a suggested range of PC numbers (including no small number of solo scenarios). I find it interesting how standardized things became at the basic balance level once game balance got adopted as the holy grail...
And know what? The vast majority of those level ranges and suggested range of PC numbers were mostly just made up. There wasn't really a CR-like mechanic in 1st or 2nd edition that let you assume a standard level of challenge. So adventure writers back in those days just did their best guess, often based on their own game play styles which likely didn't really translate to game styles in other states or countries.
|
|
And know what? The vast majority of those level ranges and suggested range of PC numbers were mostly just made up. There wasn't really a CR-like mechanic in 1st or 2nd edition that let you assume a standard level of challenge. So adventure writers back in those days just did their best guess, often based on their own game play styles which likely didn't really translate to game styles in other states or countries.The game was a different game back in those days though.*Crusty Old-Timer Voice*
I remember the AD&D 2E Dungeon days, when an adventure would have a suggested level range and a suggested range of PC numbers (including no small number of solo scenarios). I find it interesting how standardized things became at the basic balance level once game balance got adopted as the holy grail...
The FR grey box had a starting adventure with drow and awkward traps that was so lethal for novices that it nearly killed my gaming group after two sessions. Plus a bizzare Elminster interlude that only the GM understood.
Hello James,
First off. Thanks for what you've done with pathfinder :) I really love what you guys have put to together.
On topic:
From reading the boards here it sounds like there'd defiantly be a market for either a smaller than 4 player AP or a larger than 4 player AP. Obviously with limited resources you want to focus on the biggest market and continue to write to the standard 4....so why not offer official conversion kits? They could be electronic only PDF available for download off the website and could offer updated encounters ( on page 7, if playing with 5 people add 2 orcs (insert stat block) to this battle; If playing with 3 lower the BBEG level by 1 and reduce loot (insert new stat block)) or minor changes like raising or lowering DCs to adjust for party sizes and skill allocations. By just converting the current APs you make it a cheap, easy option for different groups to get what they need. Depending on the time requirements needed to convert and playtest you could offer the PDFs as free downloads or for a nominal fee. It would probably even be a great tool for driving business to some of your older APs. Larger groups that previously passed on an AP might take a second look if they see it can be scaled to fit their party size. It would also give you guys valuable experience in scaling encounters which could assist you in writing the future 5 person PFS scenerios. It would seem like a win win idea to me.
Just a thought, Keep up the good work!
|
|
Hello James,
First off. Thanks for what you've done with pathfinder :) I really love what you guys have put to together.
On topic:
From reading the boards here it sounds like there'd defiantly be a market for either a smaller than 4 player AP or a larger than 4 player AP. Obviously with limited resources you want to focus on the biggest market and continue to write to the standard 4....so why not offer official conversion kits? They could be electronic only PDF available for download off the website and could offer updated encounters ( on page 7, if playing with 5 people add 2 orcs (insert stat block) to this battle; If playing with 3 lower the BBEG level by 1 and reduce loot (insert new stat block)) or minor changes like raising or lowering DCs to adjust for party sizes and skill allocations. By just converting the current APs you make it a cheap, easy option for different groups to get what they need. Depending on the time requirements needed to convert and playtest you could offer the PDFs as free downloads or for a nominal fee. It would probably even be a great tool for driving business to some of your older APs. Larger groups that previously passed on an AP might take a second look if they see it can be scaled to fit their party size. It would also give you guys valuable experience in scaling encounters which could assist you in writing the future 5 person PFS scenerios. It would seem like a win win idea to me.
Just a thought, Keep up the good work!
I second wally's suggestion - I'd love "official" 6-player conversions of encounters and loot via pdf. It could even be for a small fee, I'd be willing to buy it. Another enhancement (like the map pdf supplement for subscribers?) would be awesome.
|
Honestly you could just start a thread in each AP's board asking for help converting the adventure for 6 PCs and the community will do the work for you without throwing more onto the shoulders of Paizo. They had a hard enough time getting Skull and Shackles out, more workload is not encouraged, especially when not really a necessity =p
The FR grey box had a starting adventure with drow and awkward traps that was so lethal for novices that it nearly killed my gaming group after two sessions. Plus a bizzare Elminster interlude that only the GM understood.
I remember that! There were two adventures - Halls of the Beast Tamers and something else about caverns under a school of wizardry in Myth Drannor. I loved the doe-eyed ignorance with which I led unsuspecting players into those unexpectedly deadly encounters. Those were the days.
*wistful sigh*