|
I've played 8 PFS scenarios so far, and all of them have involved fighting one or more groups of NPCs - humans or PC races. It seems like the faction missions always involve chasing down this person or that, fighting some thugs and then cornering the leader near the end.
I prefer a game where the objective is not so obvious and involves mysteries that you just can't unravel by asking around town, and one where there are strange creatures, magical effects and traps that you have to slog your way through before you can achieve success - more of a dungeon crawl approach, I suppose. The frequency of leaving humanoids bleeding to death in city buildings or streets just doesn't feel like heroic fantasy roleplaying - seems more like what criminals or shadowrunners would do. I'd much rather fight stuff that is so evil that it clearly deserves to be hacked up and killed, and where doing so would win praise from the local authorities versus suspicion or arrest.
Are there PFS scenarios out there where the opposing forces don't include NPCs and the battles aren't fought within "civilized" population centers? Or do I have to go to sactioned modules or outside PFS organized play entirely to find an adventure that doesn't involve using lethal force against other "people" in order to succeed?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer a game where the objective is not so obvious and involves mysteries that you just can't unravel by asking around town, and one where there are strange creatures, magical effects and traps that you have to slog your way through before you can achieve success - more of a dungeon crawl approach, I suppose.
There are definitely dungeon crawl scenarios out there, but there aren't that many. The reason you're seeing what you're seeing is that most PFS players have been asking for roleplay and non dungeon crawl scenarios.
You don't like humanoids in scenarios, and there are a tonne of people who hate it when there is no roleplaying and all monsters in scenarios. You just want opposing things.
Imo, dungeon crawls are better in modules, where you can spread it out over 2 session. Paizo has modules you can use for PFS, and a lot of them have dungeon crawls. Get your GM / coordinator to try one sometime.
It's only an educated guess, but I think humanoids are used for the following reasons:
1) You can actually roleplay with humanoids, and a lot of us like roleplaying as opposed to just hack-n-slash.
2) #1 is especially true at low levels, where we see the same creatures again and again. For long time players, it gets really repetitive killing orcs, goblins, and skeletons again and again. *Yawn*. Sorry, I'd rather talk to some interesting human NPCs.
At higher levels, options open up and you'll see more variety in monsters.
I'd much rather fight stuff that is so evil that it clearly deserves to be hacked up and killed, and where doing so would win praise from the local authorities versus suspicion or arrest.
The Pathfinder campaign is a neutral campaign and isn't really about being a hero and "saving the world". Wrong campaign.
Pathfinder society is more about collecting stuff and stopping people from taking your stuff. :)
Also, PFS is about exploration and finding new things, which insinuates it's about a lot more than hack and slash.
Having said that, I wouldn't mind if the campaign were sometimes forced in a more heroic direction.
Are there PFS scenarios out there where the opposing forces don't include NPCs and the battles aren't fought within "civilized" population centers? Or do I have to go to sactioned modules or outside PFS organized play entirely to find an adventure that doesn't involve using lethal force against other "people" in order to succeed?
Of course. The scenario "King of the Storval Stairs" has hardly any NPCs, great setting, and was combat orientated.
So... you like hack and slash. Just tell your GM that and he should be able to purchase combat centric scenarios and/or tell you which scenarios to skip. And again, I'd focus on modules.
|
|
Thanks, Jason. I actually do enjoy the roleplaying part of the game, but I get nostalgic for an onslaught of terrifying monsters once in a while. And I do enjoy playing characters who are heroic, which doesn't fit well with all the faction objectives in PFS play, which are starting to seem like so much "lackey for hire" business. To truly play a hero, I think you need to feel free to take risks outside the standard recipe for PFS scenarios - which I suppose does require a different campaign and a GM willing to let you explore those challenges instead of just building your character in the service of some faction.
We have succeeded in some scenarios with some interesting roleplaying, including avoiding or talking our way around encounters. But overall the plot element of "put a bunch of opposing people on the ground, find the clues and move on to the next step" gets kind of stale, and it starts to feel like you're just playing a part in someone else's story instead of making your own. The drawbacks of organized play, I suppose. The illusion of freedom to choose your own path is difficult to maintain, when you know you must play through each of the acts in a pre-determined set in the time allotted.
Perhaps the solution is to build a campaign outside of PFS play, with some like-minded players who want a similar gaming experience.
|
|
If you're looking for a heroic faction, you should choose Silver Crusade. In season 4, you can try to accomplish the overall objective which is
Silver Crusade: Learn about Thassilon and prepare the unsuspecting populace for a coming war with evil.
My guess is PFS will get more heroic?
I think your experience with defeating a lot of humans/elves is just a run of luck with scenarios. Some scenario feature beating up humanoids, some don't. Is it ok to attack goblins?
Freedom is relative. When I play PFs, I assume my PC WANTS to do the job that is offered. And to do that job, he'll encounter most of what is a scenario.
Even with an AP, there is the illusion of freedom, but you're still on rails, you just have more time to explore all avenues and plotlines. One of the benefits and drawbacks to PFS is that it fits into 4-5 hours, and is independent of other sessions. So that limits going off on a tangent. But, it's also means being more focused and getting more "stuff" done, which I like. Too many times in home campaigns we'd just waste hours of time, which I just don't have the time for now.
PFS has a lot to offer. There's a thread about it here. It definitely takes an adjustment of mindset, but once you make it, it's great.
|
Orrin, pleases go check out Seekers of Secrets and the Pathfinder Society Field Guide.
The opposition in PFS scenarios is based on the themes of the Golarion Pathfinder Society.
It's largely an urban / intrigue / fewer-than-50-shades-of-grey campaign. Hero concepts should expect to be presented with frequent moral dilemmas and uncomfortable actions.
If you're looking for Heroic High Fantasy.... this organized play campaign is not themed for it.
Actually, I think this is one of the biggest failing of the entire PFS, good guys are consistently side lined. I felt dirty while playing Race for the Rune Carved Key.
I mean it took till the third season to have a faction that was dedicated to good. Prior to that you were just the pawns of nations. However PFS is going the way of a post-modern society. I thank Brock for taking away some of the overtly evil arch-types, hopefully with his direction we will see a rise in good and monster slaying
To the OP. I completely agree with you, fighting humanoids consistently is bit of a letdown, I mean where are the Ogres and Trolls? Your best option is to write a review and beat the drum as loud as you can calling for more monsters and less humanoids.
|
Some reasons you see a lot of human/demi-human antagonists is (1) Golarion is a humancentric world. With humans taking up such a large percentage of the population, it makes sense you would encounter more of them. (2) The society's primary opponents, like the Aspis Consortium, are humancentric organizations. And (3) it is easier to build a stat block and justify the relationships between encounters when you use enemies without racial HD. So human/demi-human/humanoids are easier to stat up and adjust their CR using class levels. Adding class levels, or templates to base monsters can have a much greater affect on their power than the challenge rating system can represent. (4) Role-playing is less complicated when you are at similar to the opposition. It is reasonable to think that most player's will try social skills to overcome an encounter with a guard if said guard is humanoid. Much less if it is a demon, or dragon, etc. There is a lot of clamoring for more role-playing opportunities.
That being said there are plenty of scenarios, more often higher tier, with monsters. Evil outsiders, for example, are prevalent in high-tier scenarios.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't but hear Peter, Paul, and Mary when I see the title of this thread.
Where have all the monsters gone, long time passing?
Where have all the monsters gone, long time ago?
Where have all the monsters gone?
Gone to dungeons, every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
;-)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The title of the thread made me think about the monsters all saying "Screw you guys, I'm going home!" and going to some sort of monster preserve where people wouldn't constantly be trying to kill them and take their stuff. It's believable that after decades of populating dungeons and getting wiped out by min/maxed adventurers, the monsters would get a clue and go somewhere no one's going to look for them. OP, I'd suggest poking around South Dakota or Newfoundland.
|
|
I can't but hear Peter, Paul, and Mary when I see the title of this thread.Since I am a fan, The Kingston Trio recorded it first, but neither of them wrote it. :P
Nope, that would be Pete Seeger (who, like PPM, I've seen in concert, since my parents were folkies too).
Might as well make Bob feel old more than once. ;-)
|
|
There are bunch of scenario's with a bunch of different types of creatures.
A lot of the modules in earlier seasons were more monster centric. Also as you go higher up you'll see more monsters.
In Wrath's Shadow (a newer module) has a lot of monsters in it.
I think part of your experience has been a bit unlucky :D there are a lot of monsters and a lot of humanoids. Certainly a bit weighted towards humanoids, but a bunch of pure combat scenario's are kinda boring (honestly, video games do that better :D)
|
|
Just for a quick list off the top of my head of some lower-tier scenarios with creatures/monsters in them:
First Steps, Part 2: To Delve the Dungeon Deep (that's a clue, son)
First Steps, Part 3: A Vision of Betrayal (most of the scenario is a wilderness trek)
5: Mists of Mwangi (First visit to Blackros, the museum you love to hate)
6: Black Waters (Suggested for on or around Oct. 31st)
35: Voice in the Void (Another visit to Blackros, how come a museum never has any people in it?)
39: The Citadel of Flame (another abandoned? location)
2-02: Before the Dawn, Part 2: Rescus at Azlant Ridge (recommended to bear with the RP of 2-01: Before the Dawn, part 1: The Bloodcove Disguise first)
2-11: The Penumbral Accords (Welcome to Blackros Museum. Again. There may be people in there this time.)
3-01: The Frostfur Captives (May not suit, you have to try and keep some monsters alive)
These are just the ones that hit me as creaturized, from looking at the partial list I have in my download area, and my memories of playing and/or GMing some of them.
Pardon the humorous (or attempts to be humorous) in the parenthetical notes on some of the scenarios.
Side note: Module that is the exact opposite of what you want: The Ruby Phoenix Tournament. Great module, lots of fun, but most of the combats are against humanoids with a "we prefer you do not kill your opponents" proviso. Some of the opponents are monsters with no leave 'em alive tagline.
|
I will concur with kinevon on Black Waters, Voice in the Void, The Citadel of Flame, and Prenumbral Accords. I've played those, and I think that they might be a bit more what you're looking for.
As has been said, as you go higher in level, you'll face more monstrous adversaries. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of variety in creatures that have low CRs. As has also been stated, there's still a strong leaning towards humanoids, but, I think that with a little bit of luck and careful selection of scenarios, you'll find a decent balance of monters and humanoids.
|
|
There are definitely dungeon crawl scenarios out there, but there aren't that many. The reason you're seeing what you're seeing is that most PFS players have been asking for roleplay and non dungeon crawl scenarios.
You know I have been hearing comments like this on message boards for over a decade now. First with LG, then with LFR and now Pathfinder. Yet, strangely, when I ask people face to face at gamedays and conventions, the answer I usually get is that they want more dungeon crawls. And the reason they usually give isn't because dungeon crawls are better than RP mods but simply that they want to see more variety in the types of adventures they play.
Also, my 38 years of playing D&D has taught me that, by far, the most vocal players out there for stating what they want in adventures is the Heavy RP crowd.
And, finally, my 12 years of reading D&D message boards, including 2 years of moderating the WotC forums, has shown me that people who post on message boards are a skewed demographic of the actual player base.
Given all that, I have to question the veracity of that statement. So is there actually any statistical evidence showing that 'most PFS players have been asking for roleplay and non dungeon crawl scenarios?'
|
|
You know I have been hearing comments like this on message boards for over a decade now. First with LG, then with LFR and now Pathfinder.
ORLY?
Also, my 38 years of playing D&D has taught me that, by far, the most vocal players out there for stating what they want in adventures is the Heavy RP crowd.
I think you mistake me for someone advocating more RP scenarios rather than someone explaining to the OP why there are so many humanoids in scenarios.
Btw, there are hardly any pure roleplay scenarios out there. I just thought I'd point that out.
But there are a number of dungeon crawls, you just have to know which scenarios.
Most PFS scenarios feature cities or travel/wilderness, and have humanoids.
And, finally, my 12 years of reading D&D message boards, including 2 years of moderating the WotC forums, has shown me that people who post on message boards are a skewed demographic of the actual player base.
OK, so if the hidden demographic doesn't speak up and tell us what they like, how is Paizo supposed to know? Communal mind meld?
On the other hand, a lot of GMs are on the forums, so assuming the players can give feedback in person, they're still covered. For example, the players in my home game are represented because I regularily ask for their feedback.
So is there actually any statistical evidence showing that 'most PFS players have been asking for roleplay and non dungeon crawl scenarios?'
Nope, just the feedback from the people on the message board, the scenario reviews, 6 out of 7 players at my home game, and everyone I speak to at conventions. So obviously, we hang out with different crowds.
If you want your voice heard, there's a really simple way, you write a positive scenario review for the things you like.
If you like dungeon crawls, then write a positive scenario review saying how much you liked a certain dungeon crawl and why.
If the OP likes non-humanoid encounters, write a positive scenario review for a heroic monster bash.
If you can write a rant, you can write a review.
|
|
You know I have been hearing comments like this on message boards for over a decade now. First with LG, then with LFR and now Pathfinder.ORLY?
Yes, it seems to be a very common trope. And it is almost always put forth by someone who presents the comment as if they are speaking for the majority of gamers rather than simply voicing a personal opinion. Why this is, I couldn't tell you. It is just something that I have noticed over the years.
Also, my 38 years of playing D&D has taught me that, by far, the most vocal players out there for stating what they want in adventures is the Heavy RP crowd.
I think you mistake me for someone advocating more RP scenarios rather than someone explaining to the OP why there are so many humanoids in scenarios.
While I wasn't necessarily making that accusation, I apologize if it came off that way. The subject is a sore point with me (in case that wasn't obvious).
Btw, there are hardly any pure roleplay scenarios out there. I just thought I'd point that out. But there are a lot of scenarios with humanoids, which is what the OP doesn't like.
I admit I was not responding directly to the OP in this, so point taken.
And, finally, my 12 years of reading D&D message boards, including 2 years of moderating the WotC forums, has shown me that people who post on message boards are a skewed demographic of the actual player base.
OK, so if the hidden demographic doesn't speak up and tell us what they like, how is Paizo supposed to know? Communal mind meld?
Polls. Preferably ones that are not conducted online as you are only going to get the same people responding to online polls as you do posting on message boards. One good way to get a more accurate picture would be to send out questionaires to Venture Captains and event organizers to hand out to their players, though you might have to provide them with some incentive to make sure they report the results.
So is there actually any statistical evidence showing that 'most PFS players have been asking for roleplay and non dungeon crawl scenarios?'
Nope, just the feedback from the people on the message board, the scenario reviews, 6 out of 7 players at my home game, and everyone I speak to at conventions. So obviously, we hang out with different crowds.
I realize my demographic may also be skewed. Which is why I actually asked the question. Seriously? Is there any statistic evidence? I really would like to see it if there is.
If you want your voice heard, there's a really simple way, you write a positive scenario review for the things you like.
If you like dungeon crawls, then write a positive scenario review saying how much you liked a certain dungeon crawl and why.
If the OP likes non-humanoid encounters, write a positive scenario review for a heroic monster bash.
If you can write a rant, you can write a review. Simple.
This still leaves the Vocal Minority problem. Which, from a business point of view is problematic. Most people, when dissatisfied with a product, simply don't use that product anymore. They don't voice their complaints/opinions to the company that people like us, who post on message boards, do. So when message boards become the primary source of feedback for a company, they start skewing their products towards a segment of the population that may not actually represent the majority of that population. That is why I advocate against such a limited focus.
Does Paizo do this? I don't know. One of the reasons I asked if there was actually hard evidence was to see if Paizo had actually done a comprehensive study of the matter and published the results.
|
|
The forums are definitely skewed with hardcore players.
On the other hand, the forums also have a lot of GMs, which I'm hoping represent and provide feedback for their players. For example, I represent about 8 players who never post here.
Of course Paizo has no statistics on who likes what, especially for something as specific as dungeon crawl vs roleplay vs mix. A better question would be to ask if you like difficult scenarios.
Having said that, Moreland has asked for feedback on recent scenarios that featured roleplay. If you have an idea of how to reach the masses, I'm sure they'd like to hear about it.
As a matter of fact, Mike Brock was asking for that exact kind of feedback in the Gencon feedback thread. My idea was to have anonymous comment/rating/question cards, and have players hand them into a box to get their boon rolls. That's the only way I can think of to get feedback from the silent masses.
|
|
I personally like difficult scenarios, but I know a lot of the players that play consistently in our Local chapter of PFS prefer things to be on the "easy" side of things.
I really wanted to "play up" in blakros part 1 (a 4, 5, 6, and it would have been a 7 pregen) but everyone else wanted to (as I put it) Trounce encoutners. I think a lot of people would simply prefer to have no risk of death.
|
|
The forums are definitely skewed with hardcore players.
On the other hand, the forums also have a lot of GMs, which I'm hoping represent and provide feedback for their players. For example, I represent about 8 players who never post here.
Of course Paizo has no statistics on who likes what, especially for something as specific as dungeon crawl vs roleplay vs mix. A better question would be to ask if you like difficult scenarios.
There are two problems with that question.
The first is that it is very limited in scope. As I stated earlier, the reason my players (I run a monthly game day of around 20 players) want more dungeon crawls isn't because they like dungeon crawls especially. It's because they want more variety. Do they want difficult mods? Yes. But they also want easy mods and average difficulty mods so that they get a variety.
Second, difficult in what way? Mods that may present difficult and sometimes frustrating combats to casual players or heavy RP players, may be easy for power gamers. On the other hand, investigative mods in particular can prove to be difficult and frustrating to power gamers while being easy for the heavy RPers.
My idea was to have anonymous comment/rating/question cards, and have players hand them into a box to get their boon rolls. That's the only way I can think of to get feedback from the silent masses.
I think that is an excellent idea.
|
|
there are a bunch of different things that qualify as "difficult"
personally, my biggest weakness is puzzles, I'm just straight up bad at them.
I want at least one RP style "encounter" be that questioning bad guys, talking to someone for information, searching for clues. one "major" part of the story without attack rolls.
I like it when there are more, but scenario's devoid of any socializing at all do kind of bore me.
it seems to me that most scenarios have 4-6 "encounters". An encounter consists of finding information, fighting, disabling a trap, dealing with a haunt, converting someone to your cause (or questioning a prisoner).
I get a little sad when they are too heavily weighted in either direction, but I would rather have 0 combats than only combats.
|
|
there are a bunch of different things that qualify as "difficult"
personally, my biggest weakness is puzzles, I'm just straight up bad at them.
I want at least one RP style "encounter" be that questioning bad guys, talking to someone for information, searching for clues. one "major" part of the story without attack rolls.
I like it when there are more, but scenario's devoid of any socializing at all do kind of bore me.
it seems to me that most scenarios have 4-6 "encounters". An encounter consists of finding information, fighting, disabling a trap, dealing with a haunt, converting someone to your cause (or questioning a prisoner).
I get a little sad when they are too heavily weighted in either direction, but I would rather have 0 combats than only combats.
Even Dungeon crawls can have RP in them, albeit it isn't as easy to put in for an author. First Steps, Part 2: To Delve the Dungeon Deep is a dungeon crawl with two RP encounters, though both are optional on the part of the players so both the RPers and the Slayers are covered.
|
|
Even Dungeon crawls can have RP in them, albeit it isn't as easy to put in for an author. First Steps, Part 2: To Delve the Dungeon Deep is a dungeon crawl with two RP encounters, though both are optional on the part of the players so both the RPers and the Slayers are covered.there are a bunch of different things that qualify as "difficult"
personally, my biggest weakness is puzzles, I'm just straight up bad at them.
I want at least one RP style "encounter" be that questioning bad guys, talking to someone for information, searching for clues. one "major" part of the story without attack rolls.
I like it when there are more, but scenario's devoid of any socializing at all do kind of bore me.
it seems to me that most scenarios have 4-6 "encounters". An encounter consists of finding information, fighting, disabling a trap, dealing with a haunt, converting someone to your cause (or questioning a prisoner).
I get a little sad when they are too heavily weighted in either direction, but I would rather have 0 combats than only combats.
true enough, and good point :D