|
DISCLAIMER: These are the views of one of my players, Not my own, But I found his email interesting and I wanted to get feedback from the community.
So here is his email:
P.S. - More of my soapboxing on the state of things in PFS. Just disregard this if you're not interested. This also has spoilers for 3-25, though I'll try to be vague.
I must say that I think PFS is straying. One thing that I've liked about PFS in the past is how realistic it has seemed. For my part, I have enjoyed the openness of the settings and encounters, and the willingness of the organizers and writers to let player planning and preparation win the day.
One thing I increasingly came to dislike in LFR was its set-piece encounters, where players are funneled through highly unrealistic combats designed to punish their characters regardless of planning, and further to demand a nearly impossible set of required abilities of all characters who will be sitting at a table full of strangers.
LFR's use of unrealistic and often unique terrain features and demands that combats take place in those prescribed locales, and in a prescribed way lent a feeling that the players were in a combination of boardgame and narrative that at first felt novel, but then became increasingly onerous.
This state of affairs appealed to the optimizers, who viewed these combats in the way most of us would view a wargame or complicated boardgame, while at the same time driving away non-optimizing roleplayers. The limited resources available to the campaign along with the requirements for writing such difficult modules has led to less modules for fewer players, and this cycle is playing out as LFR continues in a death-spiral. This death has been further hastened by the announcement of 5th edition (I refuse to call it "Next"), as some players who would otherwise play LFR have become unwilling to do so with no guarantee that it will continue to live on.
3-25 very much reminded me of an LFR module. Little to no roleplaying, ending in a large set-piece encounter that funnels the party through a meat-grinder combat. For the optimizers - fun, I suppose. For the rest, the very real possibility of a TPK, and if an RPG is an attempt to place the PCs at the center of their own heroic story, this is something that I would call unfun and a solid failure. In fact the layout of the terrain suggests that the scenario writer wants a TPK and that the organizers have no problem with that.
I know that a vocal group of players have been trash-talking and asking for tougher scenarios. But can this vocal, hyper-involved group really represent the majority of players? Are ALL PFS players really optimizers who have been destroying scenarios? Further, even if they have, was it unfun? Did the campaign dwindle because of it, or did it grow?
I've read on the boards that PFS is growing, but I think that the organizers are perhaps taking this the wrong way. LFR is dying. RPGs are in vogue. Casual gamers are looking for something somewhat regimented to spend their time on. WotC had some of this group with LFR, Encounters and Delves, but I think that even before 4th edition began to wane, some of that group wanted more RP and less wargame/boardgame.
I think that PFS is becoming more popular not in spite of its "too easy" scenarios, but because they are so open and offer greater flexibility and greater opportunity to roleplay. I think that Paizo is listening to a small group of vocal optimizers and at the sudden increase in the popularity of PFS and thinking they are linked.
Instead I think they are coincidental and that linking them denies the current success of the "easy" scenarios and the obvious source of new players - the demise of 4th edition and it's organized play options. PFS was already successful, and for good reason. Trying to turn it into LFR/Encounters/Delves, I think, is a mistake. Let the wargamers play wargames, and the boardgamers play boardgames ... can we please have a roleplaying game for our campaign?
I still like PFS, and I like June as a DM (he's great and can make almost any scenario fun), but I know that with another DM I might have hated this scenario. And I must admit that if all future scenarios are headed in this direction, I probably won't be playing PFS too much longer ... or if I do, it will not be to get my RP fix - that's for sure!
My rant is done. Sorry if by reading it you feel that your time has been wasted
So what do you all think? Constructive comments are welcome.
|
Gotta disagree, in part, myself.
Yes, the final encounter can be ugly, but this is far from the only scenario with a strong encounter. Only one of the most recent.
The main thing it does, IMO, is to teach the players that being a one-trick pony, whether that trick is pure combat or pure RP, is a bad thing in an RPG.
Think outside the box, and that encounter actually can become "easy". It did for our group, but it also cost some resources for our group to make it so.
I looked ta the map, said "ugly", and decided to bypass the bottlenecks on the map at the cost of a Potion of Fly that I had previously purchased.
If you let yourself be bogged down by a bunch of mooks in a good, tight spot, you will pay for it.
Then again, bear in mind that I am not much of an RP type, myself, despite being a GM/Judge, so my impression is biased from that viewpoint.
I stopped playing/GMing LFR due to time constraints, and people leaving town.
Right now, in my area, it can be difficult to find much of anything in OP. PFSOP on game days, and we just lost the August Game Day; Shadowrun Missions, also mainly at Game Day; maybe some LFR at Game Day.
If I can get it setup, I will be starting up again, at a different venue, for PFSOP, that is closer to home for me.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I wonder what the player in the OP would think of Gods' Market Gamble. It has a very challenging combat encounter in addition to lots of roleplaying potential. I could be wrong, but the player in question sounds like maybe he thinks it's an either-or type of thing.
|
I mostly agree with the OP, I don't want every fight in PFS to be a fight for your life and ultra challenging.
Having said that, past scenarios had boss fights that were very unchallenging and unsatisfying. Those needed to be fixed. I really dislike boss fights that are overly easy. But there's a balance, but it's hard to find.
My personal wishes as a GM and player are that encounters are interesting and unique, without being a cake walk. But story and RP is probably the most important element.
Having said that, I've only played/GMed the 1st half of Season 3, so maybe things are different.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Perhaps it would be fair to say that the difficulty of a fight needs to match its perceived importance?
That is, if the entire scenario is building to a crescendo that culminates in the violent confrontation of a primary villain/monster, the fight needs to be tough enough that it matches the drama surrounding it. For it to be easy would be a let-down.
Meanwhile, if the scenario revolves around something less inherently combative (like solving a mystery, retrieving a macguffin, establishing diplomatic relations with an NPC, etc), then an overly challenging fight just feels like a meat-grinder and pulls your attention away from the story.
Does that sound like people's experience?
|
|
Perhaps it would be fair to say that the difficulty of a fight needs to match its perceived importance?
That is, if the entire scenario is building to a crescendo that culminates in the violent confrontation of a primary villain/monster, the fight needs to be tough enough that it matches the drama surrounding it. For it to be easy would be a let-down.
Meanwhile, if the scenario revolves around something less inherently combative (like solving a mystery, retrieving a macguffin, establishing diplomatic relations with an NPC, etc), then an overly challenging fight just feels like a meat-grinder and pulls your attention away from the story.
Does that sound like people's experience?
I agree. I hate it when the only fight that isn't a cake walk is mook fight #2 and the big baddies die like tied pigs.
I haven't played many Season 3 scenarios, but I'm another player who feels that "difficult" is a negative adjective to apply to a PFS scenario, not a positive one.
|
|
If the characters aren't challenged and at risk, where's the value in success?
Granted, Pathfinder (and RPGs in general) are built around the assumption that the players will win. It should occasionally feel like there's a risk of failure, however, to make the victories actually feel like victories.
If every scenario is built around encounters that are designed with APL or less, then the entire campaign feels like a "gimme." That would devalue the purpose of playing the game, in my opinion.
I'm not saying ever encounter should be designed around APL+, or that even most encounters should be, but there should be tough fights sprinkled* in throughout the scenarios so that the characters (and players) can walk away and say, with pride, "We beat those [expletive deleted], and everyone knows how tough they were!"
* About 10% of encounters should fall into the "really tough" category.
|
|
One thing that I've liked about PFS in the past is how realistic it has seemed.
I had a hard time reading after this point. PFS isn't a home game where the GM has all the time he needs to adjudicate player actions and plans. It's a limited format and, as such, is more railroady than a home game.
It's also a shared experience environment and you get the shared experience by having every encounter run in a similar manner so that, even for two players that played at different time and tables, they have a common frame of reference. However, you don't want every encounter to feel samey from scenario to scenario and you handle that by making some encounters feel different by using set dressings.
-Skeld
|
|
Please define "really tough"....
APL+2 through +4.
At APL+4 you're likely to kill a PC, so I'd try to avoid that except for climatic battles (like the end of a season). Of course I'm not doing the campaign development but as long as most fights are APL or below, with occasional fights being APL+ and very rare fights being APL+3 or 4, I think the campaign will be in pretty good shape from a challenge standpoint.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
For subtier 4-5, which could mean four 3rd-level PCs or six 5th-level PCs, what's the APL?
My vote: average party level should be 4. Six 5th-level PCs should expect to cakewalk through the big fights, and a group of four 3rd-level PCs might well die to an "APL +2" encounter.
There have been a few encounters where a large number of PCs isn't that much of a help, and I'm designing a quest where a large party is an express disadvantage. (think "how many minutes of air do you have left?")
|
|
@Chris:
I would expect subtier 4-5 to be targeted at APL4. With the new design principles for Season 4 (6 player table default), I expect we'll see that change to essentially be APL5.
The four 3rd-level PCs have a choice of playing Tier 1-2 or Tier 4-5 in the example given. They play Tier 4-5 at their own risk (like the man says, "You buys yer ticket, you takes yer chances.")
Please define "really tough"....
TPK? or just half the PCs dead?
And is that "tough for a party of optimized characters" or "tough for a party of wimpy characters"?
As I've said before:
|
|
And is that "tough for a party of optimized characters" or "tough for a party of wimpy characters"?
"Tough for the assumed average but balanced Pathfinder RPG party."
Not overly optimized, not overly wimpy, not melee-heavy, not arcane-heavy...
You have to design these sorts of things* for the median value. If you design for the "I chose Skill Focus(Craft(Basketweaving)) on my half-orc barbarian because he comes from a culture that holds basketweaving as a religious observance" players**, then you won't challenge anyone. If you design for ragelancepouncebarbarian then you'll wind up with the kind of power creep we saw in Living Greyhawk and that everyone decries so much.
In my opinion, as long as some people are screaming that the scenarios are too hard, and some are screaming that they're too easy, then we're at the right place.***
*Organized play campaigns.
**This was a theoretical example and not meant to offend any basket-weaving barbarians in PFS play.
***You can't please everyone, and attempting to do so is a recipe for failure.
|
|
I haven't played 3-25 but I do feel like the OP's complaints are perhaps stemming from a strange way of viewing the game. I worry that he/she believes that you can approach the game holistically as a roleplayer, which isn't the case. Stormwind Fallacy, yah yah yah.
You don't choose roleplaying or combat optimisation. You don't just pick a path and follow it to it's extremes. Even if you love roleplaying and gain 90% of your pleasure from the game from RPing in character with all the great social skills, there's classes for you to do that and still contribute to the party's combat efforts (bard, sorceror, summoner).
If you are presented with a combat heavy module where the team are forced to act as a cohesive military unit in order to thrive and survive, there's no reason why a roleplayer can't keep on RPing, just carry on with the rest of the party.
Some RP conversation starters:
-"Dear gods, they're dug in deeper than an Ustalav tick!"
-"I've never been wounded so heinously! What's the most grievous wound you've ever suffered?" (to the party fighter/barbarian)
-"Stop now companions. Let's work out some hand signals so we can direct one another without alerting the curs to our presence."
-"We have taken the command site. There has been killing. A bit too much of it, really. I insist that we stop for two cold glasses of lemonade."
|
|
Please define "really tough"....APL+2 through +4.
At APL+4 you're likely to kill a PC, so I'd try to avoid that except for climatic battles (like the end of a season). Of course I'm not doing the campaign development but as long as most fights are APL or below, with occasional fights being APL+ and very rare fights being APL+3 or 4, I think the campaign will be in pretty good shape from a challenge standpoint.
APL+4 isn't allowed. APL+3 isn't normally allowed. There's only one fight I know about in a normal scenario that's APL+3 (it's in a really good scenario..).
APL+2 provides plenty of challenge for 98% of most parties when run by a 50% percentile GM.
The best authors can do is design encounters with enough options for both players and options that it can be run at a difficulty level that the entire table enjoys.As I've said before:
Some people like "hard mode".
Some people like "easy mode".
You can't please everyone.
Kyle -- it's possible to have people who like "hard mode" and "easy mode" at the same table. Trust me.
Saying "la la la everyone can be happy all the time la la la" is pointless.
|
|
I think the biggest issue is that it is difficult to balance out the scenarios to make it enjoyable for everyone given the wide variety of party compositions.
It's like politics:you're not going to make everyone happy
I hope the season 4 changes will allow for built in flexibility without compromising the integrity of the scenarios intent.
I guess We'll see what Season 4 has in store for us and maybe we can make more folks enjoy the game.
At the end of it the game is still about having fun...
|
|
Please define "really tough"....APL+2 through +4.
At APL+4 you're likely to kill a PC, so I'd try to avoid that except for climatic battles (like the end of a season). Of course I'm not doing the campaign development but as long as most fights are APL or below, with occasional fights being APL+ and very rare fights being APL+3 or 4, I think the campaign will be in pretty good shape from a challenge standpoint.
APL+4 isn't allowed. APL+3 isn't normally allowed. There's only one fight I know about in a normal scenario that's APL+3 (it's in a really good scenario..).
APL+2 provides plenty of challenge for 98% of most parties when run by a 50% percentile GM.
Is that APL+3 over the max level in the subtier or the min level in the subtier? (so like APL+4 for 4-5 would be 9 or 8?) I've seen one scenario with a CR = to APL+3 for the high end of the subtier that also had a set of minions such that having exactly one more of those minions would have raised the entire encounter to CR=APL+4 for the high end of the subtier. As expected by the CR, it was the most brutal fight I've ever seen in PFS for its level.
|
|
Is that APL+3 over the max level in the subtier or the min level in the subtier? (so like APL+4 for 4-5 would be 9 or 8?) I've seen one scenario with a CR = to APL+3 for the high end of the subtier that also had a set of minions such that having exactly one more of those minions would have raised the entire encounter to CR=APL+4 for the high end of the subtier. As expected by the CR, it was the most brutal fight I've ever seen in PFS for its level.
I'll let Mark answer this. I never know where that line is.
|
Since the original email keeps referring to the adventure by number, I had to look it up. He's talking about "Storming the Diamond Gate", which I played a few weeks ago at Dice Tower Con, and greatly enjoyed.
I'll admit that the plot's a little on the railroady side, but if you're designing an adventure to be played in 4 hours, it's pretty tough not to be. At least half of PFS adventures seem to be pretty much railroaded from one encounter to the next, with very little "sandbox" flexibility. But if the railroad is written well enough, it doesn't much matter, as it can still be a lot of fun. I've only played Living Forgotten Realms once, and the railroad in that adventure was WAY worse than anything I've EVER seen in PFS.
But I'm not sure why he's complaining about it being a non-RP combat meat grinder. It sounds like he just didn't like the final fight. My group had tons of non-combat RP fun in the earlier encounters.
We searched for traps, examined ancient ruins, talked to and made allies of two NPCs in two different encounters, and solved the puzzle of how to use a device. My gnome even used his racial once per day spell-like "Speak with Animals" for the first time, to talk a guard dog out of attacking us while the rest of the party fought its human masters.
As for the final fight, it was long, intense, and a little difficult, but our definitely un-optimized group of 6 at tier 3-4 were able to win with no PC deaths. In fact, I thought the final fight was great. I really enjoyed the unique terrain features and relatively large number of enemies, which made the fight more interesting and longer lasting, while not substantially adding to the threat of death.
|
|
]APL+4 isn't allowed. APL+3 isn't normally allowed. There's only one fight I know about in a normal scenario that's APL+3 (it's in a really good scenario..).
APL+2 provides plenty of challenge for 98% of most parties when run by a 50% percentile GM.
Thanks for the clarification, Kyle. I was basing my discussion on what I remember of the 3.x encounter building guidelines -- I really should have looked at the Pathfinder chapter on it before opening my big mouth.
My broad point remains that encounter difficulty should form a pyramid with the most challenging encounters being the most rare, but not absent entirely.
|
|
But I'm not sure why he's complaining about it being a non-RP combat meat grinder. It sounds like he just didn't like the final fight. My group had tons of non-combat RP fun in the earlier encounters.
Funny but I was just read the scenario again and in the intro the Master of Blades literally tells you...
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
wow... I wonder if a player could switch PCs at that point. If I had heard that during my PC briefing(I missed it due to the noisy venue I guess, or my judge just didn't read it), I think I would have switched to a different PC.But I'm not sure why he's complaining about it being a non-RP combat meat grinder. It sounds like he just didn't like the final fight. My group had tons of non-combat RP fun in the earlier encounters.Funny but I was just read the scenario again and in the intro the Master of Blades literally tells you... ** spoiler omitted **
I did. I admit I also switched because of the "sphinx" reference in the briefing, though. I'm pretty sure my original character would have actually been better suited to the scenario. My second choice actually ended up pretty ineffective.
I will also note that I enjoyed the scenario, and am prepping it now to run at a convention multiple times, which I'm looking forward to. I think the options are there to keep it from being a fight-filled slogfest, and the OP's GM just didn't go that route. No biggie.
|
|
I just GMed 3-25 at PaizoCon UK and I have to disagree with the email mentioned above. The players had an absolutely fantastic time with this module. We had a ton of roleplaying in this. At one point, one of them was literally rolling on the floor laughing so hard from some of the comedy that came from the role playing.
The fight proved challenging as well and overall I received positive reviews back from all the players. The table was made up of several VCs and VLs, including Auke from the Netherlands, Karim from Paris, Diego from Copenhagen, and Benoit from Switzerland. I will let them chime in if they wish. I really think it boils down to the GM preparation. I took extra care in making one NPC in particular fleshed out so I could make interaction with him very memorable.
As for making changes by listening to the minority of vocal participants, that isn't what we are doing. We poll our 125+ VCs and VLs in almost all campaign change decisions. We take their feedback seriously. We also look at he data we have on hand, such as more than 90% of all tables are run with 6 or 7 players.
Mark and I do appreciate the feedback as we continually look to make improvements in the campaign. Please keep them coming.
|
|
Well thanks for posting I can go back and give some feedback to the OP.
For the record I was the GM in question and the NPC that Mike alludes to did not come up as I felt the PC's actions during the adventure didnt warrant an in-depth interaction from him.
On an aside its good to hear how much thought goes into making changes in PFS.
Sometimes its good for the game that the general PFS gamers know how the PFS leadership comes to these conclusions. They know they're not taken lightly and that there is a process. I'd compare Mike/Mark and the VO's to Congress, but I'm almost positive you guys have a higher favorability rating! ;)
|
|
I'm not sure what the writers can really do, other than make sure to include encounters that punish people with dump stats. 7 Wis fighter? We have a dominate person for him! Hmmm not quite sure how to punish int and cha though.........
Dumping Int is its own punishment, especially for low-skill classes. Running a 14 Int Lore Warden, with all his skill points, including Favored CLass, is a massive difference to a 7 Int plain Fighter, with his minimal skill points. The Lore Warden can contribute in non-combat encounters. The other, not so much.
|
|
Yes, really. I think plenty of folks abuse of the "stat dump" system. Why shouldn't every fighter dump their wis to 7 if PFS scenarios are not going to put in mechanics that force will saves? And endless stream of mooks will never challenge an optimized fighter.
The int is a big problem because I see so many DMs that give people their faction reward, even though they had no way to complete it. So, yes it should be a problem, but never actually seems to be.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
This?
"The int is a big problem because I see so many DMs that give people their faction reward, even though they had no way to complete it. So, yes it should be a problem, but never actually seems to be."
this is just cheating. there is no "fix" for cheating, except not doing it.
Calling it cheating is perhaps a bit harsh, but I do agree that not doing it is the correct fix. And that people just shouldn't do it. Handing out Fame for no effort is my biggest GM pet peeve in PFS.
|
|
I've seen two fighter archers now that basically turn any given scenario, combat-wise, into "Just give us the chronicles". I'm sure there are tons of other scenario-breaking builds out there that involve dump stat abuse.
I just want comeuppance for those who work the system to ruin everyone else's fun. I mean I can handle such nonsense in a home brew by having the big bad discover such weaknesses and exploit them. The best we can do in PFS is randomly try to hit every save once in a while and maybe use a few more templated NPCs to make things more interesting.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with some of the above posters...a lot of people have different ideas about what and how PFS should be. It is impossible for everyone to be happy, unfortunately, so a lot of times it comes down to trying to do the best you can and make the most people happy. Scenarios are going to vary, since they are all written by different people. GMs will always be different. Not only that, but the scenario can be vastly different depending on who you are playing with, how well you know them, and what mood everyone is in.
But isn't that why we are playing PFS? Don't we want a variety of adventures, to have something new and exciting each time? Don't we want to play with a variety of GMs? Don't we want to meet new people and have different play experiences? I think that's a part of what makes PFS awesome. I've had tables where the game is utterly silly, where we spend fifteen minutes solid laughing at the ridiculous thing that the player just said to an NPC. I've had tables where folks are engaged in teeth-gnashing, edge-of-your-seat, harrowing combats. And I've had tables where the roleplaying really transcended, where players had to really *really* think about what they were going to say in high-stakes negotiation. And I've had tables where there's only new people sitting down...and hitting the big bad buy by rolling a dice was the most astonishing thing in the world.
I believe that any scenario, with any GM, and any group of players can have a good time. I'm not saying that player input isn't important...it is. The campaign needs to know what was wonderful and what was meh about scenarios. Player input has shaped this campaign...just look at the changes since season 0. However, I encourage players and GMs to give a every scenario a chance, and to actively contribute to making the experience fun. Hopefully, in the end, everyone wins.
|
|
/blush
'Course, I have bad games, both as a player and as a GM. I'm not some sort of rose-tinted glasses gal. You just have to do the best you can...bring your own party! The kind with confetti. Not the other kind. *ahem* VC announcement voice: You are not permitted to bring four of your own characters to a Pathfinder Society game.
I always say that the best game is the kind where everyone stands up at the end and says, WOW, That was awesome! That's what we should aim for, it doesn't matter how you get there.
|
|
Yes, really. I think plenty of folks abuse of the "stat dump" system. Why shouldn't every fighter dump their wis to 7 if PFS scenarios are not going to put in mechanics that force will saves? And endless stream of mooks will never challenge an optimized fighter.
So I have a level 8 Fighter with a 7 Int and I feel I have to "represent". If I actually play him as 7 Int, I don't know why anyone would have a problem with that. No, I didn't dump Wis.
If dump stats weren't possible, PF wouldn't allow them and they'd make everyone have a minimum of 10 in every stat. Would you prefer that? Would that make the game better?
Regarding it not hurting, it hurts a LOT not having skills. It's a challenge even getting 3 ranks in Acrobatics (for improving Fighting Defensively) let alone putting points into Perception, class skills, or fun skills (like Linguistics, to account for all the new locations and friends I've met along the way). So yes, it hurts.
Having said that, even if he had an Int of 10, it wouldn't matter regarding factions missions. After 21 missions, even with extra skill points, if I were doing those missions solo, I'd be unable to accomplish almost all of them, because:
1) Fighters lack class skills
2) Skill checks are often too high. If just dropped 1-2 points into each skill it just wouldn't be enough to be successful.
3) Skill checks in scenarios are varied across many skills. It would basically force me to go Diplomacy since it's the most common, but I'd still hit maybe 20% of the need skill checks (assuming I rolled well).
My point is that the dump stat doesn't make a significant difference with faction missions.
Not everyone in a party has to be good at everything. That's why we have diversity.
The int is a big problem because I see so many DMs that give people their faction reward, even though they had no way to complete it. So, yes it should be a problem, but never actually seems to be.
It's not a problem at most tables because most players cooperate. You almost have to, because even skilled PCs don't have every skill.
I've seen two fighter archers now that basically turn any given scenario, combat-wise, into "Just give us the chronicles". I'm sure there are tons of other scenario-breaking builds out there that involve dump stat abuse.
Ranged PCs are too powerful in general compared to melee, especially when scenarios are being built to punish melee PCs.
But part of the problem with ranged PCs being too powerful is that most GMs don't follow the rules for ranged combat. In particular, they let ranged PCs shoot through other PCs without penalty... and Improved Precise Shot isn't available to fighters until level 11. Until then a lot of times they should be taking heavy penalties for cover (-4 or even -8) as they try to fire through their teammates. (I've seen an archer fire through 4 teammates with no penalty before... which is just wrong). If there are no melee teammates, the enemy is probably in their face.
Getting derailed a bit. If you'd like to continue this conversation, maybe make up a new thread about how certain classes are dominating your game.