|
I'm curious what players think of various scenarios they have played in. I think that DM's tend to have a very differnt view on hte adentures, both in that they tend to get a much fuller view of what is actually going on, and because they sit on the other side of the proverbial screen, tend to enjoy different aspects than the players. Particularly after reading various DM reviews that seem to have a very different experience with a scenario (in bth directions), I'm curious what other players think about various games they have been in?
Please either use Spoiler Tags or keep it fairly generic. This is not an attempt to start a war or point fingers, I'm just more curious what other players think. DM's, if you have played as well, feel free to comment also, but I ould rather see opinions from a players side than from a DM's. :)
What Scenarios have you loved? Have a favorate scenario?
What Scenarios have you not cared for? Not hated, but just didn't really do anything for you.
What Scenarios have you just outright hated? Have a most hated scenario?
Why? Was it the story elements? The ratio to skills, combat, RP, and other playstyles? Was it designed well/poorly for your character or due to the Faction Mission? Where there points when you simply couldn't "win", failed to understand what the heck was going on (or the point was), felt it was just too easy, etc. . .
Did the DM explain things to the group after the gam that changed your view? Did your DM step up and do something amazing that made the game?
|
|
Personally, I really liked the God's Market Gamble. I personally tend to like Seasons 0 - 2 the best, but that's my preference. I felt that The God's Market Gamble was (from my point of view) a very well balanced scenario (combat, RP, mystery, some skills, and some exploration), I as a player felt that it was one game that my character really mattered rather than just kind of being there as things happened. My GM did sort of go above and beyond in small ways personalizing it (with what the scenario aready included, Relic Vender), and I think that the entire group felt they had a place and enjoyed it.
On the other hand, I didn't care for the Quest for Perfection line. I felt it was on the more boring side, not bad, just not really engaging either. There where a lot of times when either combats (or non-combat encounters) just dragged on as people where waiting for good rolls for the character to do anything, and while there was an assortment of different challenge types, it seems extremely Monk-centric. Even the Chronicle sheets are basically Monk-only walkaway achievments. The Monk players and the party Rogue enjoyed it much more than the others, in my opinion, and I know a few GMs that want to push it just so they can get the final Chronicle sheet for their or the player's Monk, which seems odd and kind of against the spirit of the game or something.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
From a player's perspective, only, my favorite scenario was Sewer Dragons of Absalom. A close second was Hall of Drunken Heroes.
Sewer Dragons had so much role playing intermixed with interesting combats, and the final scene and the way it plays out in the hands of a good GM is awesome (and I had a great GM for it). That scenario will always be at the top of my list, as a player.
Hall of Drunken Heroes was good for many of the same reasons, though it was front loaded with the role playing and there wasn't much more once you got into the meat of the adventure. But, boy, when we got there we were all looking at each other and saying things like, "We're gonna die, aren't we?" Up until that game I don't think I had ever felt threatened. That game changed that.
I will point out, however, that I had two stellar GMs who were both really on top of their game for those two scenarios. I am quite certain that, in the hands of less adept GMs, I would have been seeing those scenarios in the same light I see most: fun, but not memorable. I honestly think that, when you look back at the ones you had the most fun in, your table mates (of which your GM is a big part) had a pretty big impact on the fun level. Well written scenarios mean a lot, but fun players and a great GM to play with mean more.
An aside: a well written scenario will make your GM more engaged in the game, I think. That's probably why you see so many GMs weigh in on topics like this from their viewpoint.
|
|
An aside: a well written scenario will make your GM more engaged in the game, I think. That's probably why you see so many GMs weigh in on topics like this from their viewpoint.
Oh I agree. I have no issue with GM's having fun too, I just feel sometimes that GMs ranks certain scenarios differently than players and wanted more of a player PoV, and possibly a little less "fanboy". Ive run Both Frostfur and Goblin Guild, and I can easily see them as prime examples of outstanding from the DM's side and anything from frustrating to fun on the player's side (regardless of the DM).
I'm thinking of running Sewer Dragons next, actually, so I'm glad you liked it from the players side.
One of the things my groups do after playing is sit around and discuss it, finding out the things we missed or why the unique mechanics worked a crtain way. What we liked or not, and I'm honestly curious if other grups do similar things and what they think about individual scenarios.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Agreed. Frostfur was really frustrating for me when I played it. I wasn't really sure what to do, and it felt very linear. To top it off, I was rolling horribly, and it was the final slot in a four day convention, so I was tired and hungry, and I'd swear the GM was running it cold. I didn't have a lot of fun, at all.
Having run it just today, my players say they had a blast.
But all that personality was stuff I put in, so I'm kind of falling back on my above statements.
I really do recommend Sewer Dragons from a player perspective, though. It was an excellent, and well set up, adventure.
By far the most frustrating adventure I've played was Wrath of the Accursed. Figuring out what was going on and how to deal with it was a giant nightmare for our group. The combats were using tactics that I felt were incredibly over-powered for PFS (my 9th level character literally got one-shotted by a greater trip using fighter wielding a high crit range weapon, and there was a sorcerer using improved invisibility while flying around lobbing delayed blast fireball at us). Please note that I did not spoiler that. The reason is because those tactics and abilities aren't in the scenario. The GM was flat out cheating, and killed three of us in the process.
So, once again, a GM dependent experience, I guess. Sorry d-:
Murder on the Throaty Mermaid was also a bit stinky, from my perspective as a player, and that one gets a lot of good press. I just didn't have fun, to the point that I don't even want to GM it. I felt helpless throughout the whole thing, and basically just sat around waiting for the big reveal and rolling dice when I was asked to.
Oh, and Eyes of the Ten is awesome. It ties together so many story lines that I was part of, and has so many unique things going on...I just had a blast. And the one group of players that I've run through it talk about how much fun they had, as well, so it seems pretty universally enjoyed. If you can get a group of 12th level PCs together, and keep them together for the whole arc with the same GM, I think the experience can't be topped.
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
So, once again, a GM dependent experience, I guess. Sorry d-:
How true that statement is! A good GM can make even a mediocre scenario come to life. And good players can make the most linear scenario into a treat of a story for the GM. I ran The Disappeared yesterday.
I agree that Sewer Dragons can be a great scenario though! Especially if the GM presets up for the final encounter!
|
I agree that Sewer Dragons can be a great scenario though! Especially if the GM presets up for the final encounter!
Im curious as to what you mean by this.
As long as you actually enjoy GMing, I think GMs have an advantage is being able to appreciate a scenario more, because you get to see the entire picture, which isnt able to be repsented to the players a lot of the time because of how events play out (see also: PCs kill the guys with the info). The story alone really sells me on a scenario a lot of the time. However, if the encounters are lame or underpowered, that can really take away from the fun of a scenario for players and GMs alike.
Im not asking for all scenarios to be uber deadly, but, for example, having there be 6 dire rats in the tier 3-4/4-5 encounter instead of the 3 in the subtier 1-2 does not really work. Yes, the CR might add up right, but the rats are going to be just a speed bump, and a collosal waste of time. Example: I really like the story in Delirium's Tangle, but at least a couple of the encounters leave a lot to be desired.
On the other hand, when a scenario is well written, the story is solid, and the encounters are well balanced (See also: Sewer Dragons of Absalom, Wonders in the Weave, Part 1- The Dog Pharaohs Tomb, Murder on The Throaty Mermaid, etc) everyone gets to have fun, assuming you have a good GM.
|
There are two scenarios that were extremely frustrating to me as a player.
Below the Silver Tarn - Our group just missed hints about how we were supposed to play the final battle to win the scenario. So we showed up, fumbled around a bit, got our butts kicked, and barely got away alive. Then we regrouped and went back to do it again after doing more research (hints from the GM) to realize what we did wrong the first time. Even knowing exactly what we were facing and what we had to do, we barely succeeded the second time. So I can see how it's a good difficulty level when you're prepared, but the fact that the explanation of what we needed to do got so muddled just made it an awful experience the first time we faced that final battle. I'm not sure if that was the scenario or the GM that confused us so much. That GM is a good friend of mine, and usually a good GM who I enjoy playing with, but that session just went badly, so I suspect the scenario probably should have had clearer explanations for her to give us.
The other really frustrating one was Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment. In their effort to respond to the complaints about "too easy" scenarios in season 0-2, Paizo made this one way too difficult. The RP aspects were terrific, but the fights were just atrociously difficult. I kind of want to try GMing this one in the future, because of the fun RP, but I'd refuse to run it for less than 6 PCs who are at least somewhat combat optimized. Our 4 player group didn't stand a chance. It wasn't a fight - it was a slaughter.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mean to discourage conversation on this (please carry on!), but I'd like to remind everyone that whether you love a scenario, hate it, or somewhere in between, you should take a moment to write a review on the scenario's store page. Mike & Mark have repeatedly stated that they look at the reviews for feedback to see what players like and don't like. It's a great way to make your opinion known to the creative team.
|
|
They look at reviews, whether they're GM or player reviews is beside the point. My reminder wasn't specific to players, but to everyone involved in the campaign that there's a focused venue for expressing your thoughts on the scenarios you play (or GM). While Mike and Mark certainly read the boards, if they go looking for feedback on a specific scenario it's going to be a lot easier to find on the review pages than buried in the General Discussion forum. That's enough of a derail, please continue the discussion.
In aid of that, one of my favorite scenarios is still Intro 2 - To Delve the Dungeon Deep. I guess I just love the simplicity of a dungeon crawl as a player and GM. Sandboxes are fun when you have unlimited time, but we don't have that luxury with PFS scenarios. Not that I want every scenario to be a dungeon crawl, but I definitely enjoy running them as well as playing them.
|
|
So another question. As a player, what sort of scenarios would be the biggest draw for you? What I mean is, what elements would make a perfect cenario for you? What elements absolutely ruin a scenario?
I don't like scenarios where it's nothing but combat. Throw in some interesting NPC interaction, traps, and stuff, and even a dungeon crawl can be interesting.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
It's very hard to evaluate a scenario if all you have is the experience of playing through it once (and, by PFS rules, once is generally all you get).
So much of the feel of the session comes filtered through the channel of the GM. And the GM can make so much difference (for better or for worse) without the players knowing this is happening that all you are going to get is a combination of the GM and scenario, with no sure way of telling what comes from the scenario and what from the GM.
Come to that, unless you always play with the same group of fellow players you're going to have to adjust for the table make up too. The worst experience I have had at a PFS table came (at a convention) because one of the other players ruined it for everybody else; the best experience (again, at a con) was when I was lucky enough to sit in with a group of first-rate players who played together regularly (and a GM who could feed off that). That table could have made any scenario interesting.
The nice thing about also acting as GM occasionally is that I get to see under the covers of the scenario (though not before I play it, of course).
I've found that quite often the text in the scenario doesn't match what I remember from when I played it.
So another question. As a player, what sort of scenarios would be the biggest draw for you? What I mean is, what elements would make a perfect scenario for you?
My Platonic ideal of a PFS scenario is Silent Tide. It's got an actual story (not just "go fetch X") that doesn't require a GM explanation afterwards, interesting gimmicks in the combats (not just dialing the difficulty level up to 11), a fun skill challenge, opportunity for some fun interaction with NPCs, and an ending that lets the PCs feel like heroes instead of (borderline) criminals. A little bit of everything!
|
|
The above mentioned ones are good, I'll add a couple - Tide of Twilight and Prince of Augustana. They're simple scenarios with simple stories, and even if they are some of the easier scenarios to play, I tend to enjoy the games more when I don't feel like I need an optimised-to-pieces character to play through them and enjoy them. Green Market does a great job of this as well, though with some added (although not overdone) difficulty.
Creative thinking or an interesting outcome is always more fun than trying to knock off as many hp as possible. Creative combat is fun too, but honestly, I think a lot of designers can fall into some traps with working out the best stat blocks rather than thinking more about simpler NPCs with an amazing setting.
Having said that, for example: giving NPCs a way to knock out flyers more often is never a bad thing. That's a simple matter of offering more options for what NPCs carry though - players get used to flank-'em tactics easily.
I added more good scenarios to this list with the why's and how's and the Paizo site just ate half the post so I'll just list the good ones here and let you use your imagination - We Be Goblins and You Only Die Twice, Red Harvest, Storming the Diamond Gate and Portal of the Sacred Rune - all deserve honourable mentions.
I didn't care so much for The Golden Serpent, Wonders in the Weave 2 (1 was great, though), The Icebound Outpost, Among The Dead. Echoes of the Overwatched had a decent setting, but didn't seem to take much advantage of it. I can't explain what was wrong in some of these, but there was a feeling of boredom through them, and I don't think the GM was at fault here.
I liked all 3 parts of Quest for Perfection, but Shades of Ice 3 struggles to feel like a continuation in what should be an epic series. I think when I GM'd it I managed to make it enjoyable, but there is a key element that I think is easy to miss, and that's the storytelling-prophecy type moment you get later. I am not great at roleplay at the best of times, but giving the players a sense of purpose by slowing right down at an important plot point like this is something that should be emphasised in the books as it's just that important to making the scenario go from a 3-star to a 5-star.
|
|
It's very hard to evaluate a scenario if all you have is the experience of playing through it once (and, by PFS rules, once is generally all you get).
So much of the feel of the session comes filtered through the channel of the GM. And the GM can make so much difference . . .
Come to that, unless you always play with the same group of fellow players you're going to have to adjust for the table make up too.
I will agree with that to a point. Moreso the GM part than the player make-up. In both cases everyone wants to play witha "good" DM and a "good" party of both characters and players. Exactly what they define as good, well that's altogether a different thing. But a basic premise of PFS is that you bring your character and jump into a game regardless of what the party needs or already has. That is a big part of my evaluation of a scenario, expecting that a certain Class, Skill, or Spell will be available.
On the other hand, a GM can really make a good scenario great and a poorer scenario good. But the scenario still plays a big part. One of my most hated play experiences was with Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment, and it had nothing to do with the GM. The DM did a fantastic job, but that one was just terrible in our opinion, and I wouldn't want to see a not so great/experienced GM run it.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor
|
It's very hard to evaluate a scenario if all you have is the experience of playing through it once (and, by PFS rules, once is generally all you get).
Feedback from people who have only played through a scenario once is infinitely better than no feedback at all. It's expected that feedback is 'tainted' by bad GMs or good GMs. With enough reviews, this stuff averages out.
|
|
I've played three different temple spelunking scenarios, and they don't inspire me. Temple of Empyreal Enlightment, Icebound Outpost and In Wrath's Shadow. The last one was my favorite though, didn't care much for the rest.
I appreciate environment and atmosphere the most. A story set in a place with little flavor is gray and bland, no matter how grand. Weather effects, people, weather effects! I recently ran #29 Shipyard Rats (and awful scenario, btw) online and constantly mentioned an approaching storm, although it didn't affect mechanically. The players enjoyed that a lot.
The absolute worst scenario I've ever played is Drow of the Darklands Pyramid. 1½ stars out of five, should say it all.
Favorite scenario was Sewer Dragons of Absalom, and mostly because Sczarni faction mission was so awesome. :) Golemworks Incident was cool too.
I've noticed I enjoy tables with four players a lot more (don't we all?). They give you more time in the spotlight and there's less hassle, so that affects the overall experience.
|
|
I agree. Five Player's isn't bad, but 6 or more pushes it. I can't say that I like the newer guide's emphasis on making 6+ the norm.
Can I ask, what was it more specifially about Drow of the Darklands that made you hate it so much (I haven't played it), and what was it about Sewer Dragons and Golemworks that you loved?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010
|
Feedback from people who have only played through a scenario once is infinitely better than no feedback at all. It's expected that feedback is 'tainted' by bad GMs or good GMs. With enough reviews, this stuff averages out.
It's very hard to evaluate a scenario if all you have is the experience of playing through it once (and, by PFS rules, once is generally all you get).
I agree with both of you, just playing a scenario gives only gives one point of view (but to be honest, this is the most important point of view - was the scenario fun to play?). However, this can be subjective due to the make up of the table, the quality of the GM, and other random factors on the day.
In my opinion, a review of a player's experience is ok but a review from player who has read the scenario afterwards is likely to be more accurate, and someone who has played, read, and GMed a scenario, is the best review.
There are some scenarios that I've only had an ok experience with as a player, but when I read it and GMed it found that my players loved it.
|
|
Can I ask, what was it more specifially about Drow of the Darklands that made you hate it so much (I haven't played it), and what was it about Sewer Dragons and Golemworks that you loved?
Drow of the Darklands Pyramid was an extremely bland, unmemorable experience. On subtier 7-8 you will have encounters that have, say, 4x CR 2 monsters, which further makes it bland. I described the scenario as a linear non-challenging dungeon crawl with no plot, atmosphere, or environment. Also map development makes you gag as well.
Sewer Dragons of Absalom has many places of interest, and a good balance of various roleplaying activities (not just the friendly social type), ingenious encounters which have been thought out, challenging fights, and an especially grand last battle ... although ours ended in one round thanks to a fast barbarian and her power attack...
Golemworks Incident held intrigue to the last battle, as it had nearly the same elements. Various roleplaying activities, battle encounters made sense, well thought out, and the final fight was epic. I guess the last encounter means a lot to me. :)
