|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The information on what knowledges apply to what is in the knowledge section. It is not an all inclusive list, and knowledge religion is the only one that makes sense since haunts are "undead" manifestations, not to mention that "haunts" in their current form were created after the K-Religion skill was detailed. It's a DC 10 check to identify a haunt for what it is.
The thing about Haunts is that they should have personality and not be treated as just a "trap" and this is where I think things can go a little wrong.
Personally I would allow Know History or Local to glean information about a particular Haunt.
Maybe the Bard knows a song about that tragic suicide or the PCs over hear the local children talking about the "Haunted House"...Invention and imagination work wonders with Haunts :)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Always nosig!
I really like Haunts, but there IS a rediculous amount of confusion about them. ENough that I have decided to support Chris Mortika's original post but with a caveat.
Let's lay off the Haunts UNLESS you can dedicate enough space in the Scenario to clear up possible confusion.
Most of the problems I see coming out of Haunts are from a misunderstanding of the rules. The next most common problem is Haunts write-ups that come across as confusing, such as in two of the Scenarios listed above. (I haven't played or prepper Hinojai).
PFS should be a nice go-to place to learn hard rules (I'm a better GM and Player due to PFS) but it hasn't been that way for Haunts. So, if we continue to use them, hopefully we can do a better job in describing them and their effects.
|
|
Well I agree to some extent with Chris. I haven't ran all of the scenario's that have haunts in them, so I can't judge haunts in PFS as a whole. I haven't ran much of season 3.
From my experience I think over 50% of the haunts have been a good addition to the scenario's. Some of them have really been a good way to introduce RP and history of the background of the scenario.
That being said a couple of them seam to be a substition for trap's. It also appears that trap's seam to be on the decline.
It seams the traditional role of a rogue in the party has been slowly replaced with classes that can do disables etc, characters with positive channeling or knowledge religion should be rewarded for their skill points.
Part of this has to do I think with the trap CR mechanic. Where a Haunt CR mechanic is easier for an author to create a unique haunt.
I think my opinion is to use haunts whenever it is a fitting replacement for a trap, in a situation to immerese a story element into a scenario. I know there are a couple haunts out there that have done a stellar job at providing a good chance of backstory.
I think the trend is that GM's see these as trap's. Without realizing the chance to futher a story. When prepping a scenario I try to spend allot of time trying to realize what a paticular haunt can provide through initial interaction.
The failure of PC's enjoing them I think is when GM's rely on viewing them as a trap mechanic. A couple times this may infact be the case.
A further side bar in the scenario could help describe Haunts better as well as a chance for PC's to interact with them. A haunt should also be used as a past event to describe something going on currently in the scenario. This is what some scenarios do a great job at.
Chris
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I know haunts don't work the way I listed, I'm just saying how I think they should work.
The concept behind a haunt is actually awesome; a supernatural effect or ghostly "scene" where there is nothing to kill per se. With a haunt and/or ghosts, the author can actually do anything within his imagination. Examples including completely changing the architecture of the building (erasing doors/windows/etc), setting the building on fire, or even transporting the PCs to a different time/place to see a scene. You know, the stuff you see in ghost stories!
If anyone has played the video game "Vampire: The Masquerade" and have done the haunted house at the beginning, that's how I imagine haunts should be played out. That's suspense gaming at its best.
The main problem with haunts is that the mechanics are always working against each other. Consider the following:
1) A haunt works like a trap and does a spell effect before most PCs can do anything; yet...
2) A haunt tries to introduce roleplaying and storytelling
The two mechanics don't work well together, which is why haunts feel so awkward at times, for both GMs and players.
Haunting of Hinojai was good (or can be) and tried to do some of the elements I listed, but I think it could have been taken several steps further (no offense to Jim Groves who did a good job within the rules).
The reason the mechanics of the haunt worked in HoH is that watching the haunt was part of the investigation, but that won't be the case in most circumstances. Even so, many players didn't like it in HoH, but I did (although it wasn't plain what was happening at times and we had to ask a lot of questions).
|
|
1) haunts regularly appear out of nowhere, with little or no forshadowing. Often none if you miss the Perception roll, or a single action if you make the perception roll and beat a DC 10 init. (no time to draw anything, just whatever the PCs have in hand).
Well, yeah, this is why I'm saying that haunts are a weak experience. Traps aren't scary (and are often not interesting), so if you want haunts to be a supernatural traps, they're also going to non-scary and uninteresting. Which is a complete waste when haunts can do everything traps can do and more (see ghost/horror movies for examples).
2) All haunts are set off like a trap, though undetectable traps. In fact that appears to be one of the major appeals of haunts to some Judges - "they are what traps SHOULD be".
I gotta wonder why some judges think that an undetectable trap would be fun. As a player, I can tell you that getting hit with unavoidable damage or effects is not fun.
Part of the fun with haunts (in movies and horror gaming) is the ANTICIPATION. Either you think something normal is happenning (and it turns out horrific, surprise) or you know something bad is happenning and you have a CHOICE in how you react to it. Maybe running away is a really bad idea (and often is in horror films, and don't we chastise the characters for doing it?).
There is no anticipation or choices involved in undetectable and unavoidable damage and effects.
Also, I gotta wonder about party composition. In my groups I've seen, we don't have a rogue (for magic traps) and/or we're not searching for traps everywhere, so for all intents and purposes 90% of the time traps are undetectable.
I think part of the problem is that traps have been kind of wimpy compared to how powerful haunts have been. Maybe it's a CR problem, or maybe authors are afraid of killing PCs with traps but apparently it's ok with haunts for some reason. << I think that's what some GMs like about haunts, but personally I find no satisfaction killing PCs.
3) Standard advice I have read on this board as what to do if you realize you have encountered a haunt is to run. You made the Perception check? and you beat Init 10? RUN AWAY!
That's what I'm saying, the mechanics are in opposition to each other:
- On one hand you want to get away as fast as possible- On the other hand we want to tell a story or describe a scene
4) After running, if you have to deal with it, come back with positive energy damage (channel, holy water, disrupt undead) and get a PC with high perception and Init to trigger it again so you can "kill" it.
If the point of every haunt is to "kill it", it's just like every other encounter in PFS. And that's boring when compared to what you could be doing.
If the idea is to kill/neutralize a haunt and then talk to "rapping spirits", I don't think whoever wrote that understands horror gaming very well.
5) Haunts are often a mystory - just random traps.
6) (See #5 above)
I think it depends, not all haunts need a story up front, but the grisly details should be revealed later (or it should be obvious). Every PC affected by a haunt will know that something ghostly, supernatural, and undead just affected them. If they don't, it's the GMs poor description of what happened that prevents that.
It just goes back to what I said before. Unavoidable damage/spell effects are not fun, and really serve no purpose at all.
7) "Not all haunts should follow the same formula (see above for variations). Be creative." wow... one that fits. except replace Haunts with Traps. "Not all TRAPS should follow the same formula (see above for variations). Be creative."
Haunts are more than traps. Watch some horror films, watch "The House on Haunted Hill" or "Rose Red". Haunts can do anything. They can "transport" victims to a different time/space. And that's what (potentially) makes them so great. The only limit is your imagination.
And yes, I think traps should be more avoidable and creative. Some of the best PFS traps (Ex. Sewers of Absalom; Delirium's Tangle) are creative and are completely avoidable without rogues.
8) "Most of all, haunts should be interesting and tell a story." - wow... almost none do this. Except perhaps to the Judge (reading the scenario).
Haunting of Hinojai definitely told a story. "The Skinsaw Murders" (which introduced the haunt mechanic) also told a story for some of the haunts.
Again, I'm saying what I think haunts should be, not the current paradigm of it's a "supernatural trap". I want to recreate the scenes we see in horror films (or gaming), not just have another encounter type where we have to kill something.