|
If I may, inspired by recent discussions here, I have a suggestion for a segment of future PFS scenarios.
While I think that most of the players are quite happy with the current difficulty level of the majority of scenarios (and I include myself in that group), there is certainly some demand for very difficult scenarios.
This is what I would like to see: a couple of scenarios per season at each tier that are incredibly difficult, even for powerful parties. These suicide missions should be labeled distinctly as such. Because of their dire nature, it would be cool to waive the "repeat for credit" limits on these particular scenarios. Perhaps have failure on these missions not count against that limit, but success still does. The subtiers for these scenarios need to be very tight as well, with no playing up or playing down.
A group can take their favorite 5th-level PFS characters and risk it all against a group of storm giants, for example. The rewards should be greater, but not simply greater wealth. Maybe a fame bonus would be nice, along with a related boon.
The way that I picture it is such:
"There is a group of pathfinders who are surrounded by ________. We have sent wave after wave of pathfinders before you in attempts to rescue them, and none have returned. Do you have what it takes to reclaim _______?"
|
Highly recommend it. Some tables have made it through, some have experienced multiple deaths. Mine, sadly, experienced neither. We still did a good job, I think.
As far as other scenarios, I'm fine with the scenarios as they are. Season 4 does seem harder and overall more interesting than previous seasons. When I want more of a challenge, I try to play up. I sometimes just wish there weren't as big of a gap in CR between sub-tiers...
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
There are a number of threads regarding difficult scenarios. Tier 1-5 games have wildly fluctuating difficulty levels. Generally speaking, your newer scenarios will be more difficult than your older ones. You also should consider the tier - Tier 5-9 scenarios are much, much more difficult for the party than 1-5s.
If you find things too easy, I'd play modules to fast-track yourselves up to level 4, then play Carrion Hill [a great and somewhat brutal module], then play exclusively 5-9s and 7-11s. You will likely find things much more interesting that way. If you'd like to PM me, I can put together a suggested order of modules and scenarios.
|
|
If you read my original post, you will see that I have no complaints about the difficulty level of PFS scenarios. But honestly, even the scenarios that have a rep as hard are really not that tough. For people (not me) who want deadly DEADLY scenarios, it would be nice to have those available. I would certainly play in them. I don't consider Con-only scenarios as "available."
Note that I am not pushing for the bulk of the scenarios to be made more difficult. So I don't see any reason for those of you who agree with me that the regular scenarios are plenty difficult should push back so much against making OTHER scenarios that are more in line with the classic Tomb of Horrors or Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, and to have them available to everyone.
I want to stress that I am advocating rare but publicly available, nearly impossible scenarios that can be replayed over and over for credit until success is achieved. This is not at all about the scenarios that are already out there.
|
|
The problem with that theory is this: Paizo makes scenarios to sell and promote the Pathfinder Society. They make scenarios that the greatest number of players will want to sit through. Every scenario in the "Will Make You Cry" category of difficulty that is made is a scenario in the "People Will Buy and Play This" category that isn't made. There simply isn't a market for insane adventures. They release things like Bonekeep now and again, and that is about all that makes economic sense. It would cost them money to make a product no one would buy.
|
|
The problem with that theory is this: Paizo makes scenarios to sell and promote the Pathfinder Society. They make scenarios that the greatest number of players will want to sit through. Every scenario in the "Will Make You Cry" category of difficulty that is made is a scenario in the "People Will Buy and Play This" category that isn't made. There simply isn't a market for insane adventures. They release things like Bonekeep now and again, and that is about all that makes economic sense. It would cost them money to make a product no one would buy.
If it truly is a product that no one would buy, then I completely agree with what you said. My guess is that they have evidence on this one way or another. I know that I don't. I suspect that you don't either. But maybe you do? If so, I'd like to hear it.
Anecdotally, I know that I would buy such an adventure. I know that most of the people I play with would as well. And remember, I am NOT one of the people who are on these boards asking if they can ad hoc scenarios because they find them too easy.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
The problem with that theory is this: Paizo makes scenarios to sell and promote the Pathfinder Society. They make scenarios that the greatest number of players will want to sit through. Every scenario in the "Will Make You Cry" category of difficulty that is made is a scenario in the "People Will Buy and Play This" category that isn't made. There simply isn't a market for insane adventures. They release things like Bonekeep now and again, and that is about all that makes economic sense. It would cost them money to make a product no one would buy.If it truly is a product that no one would buy, then I completely agree with what you said. My guess is that they have evidence on this one way or another. I know that I don't. I suspect that you don't either. But maybe you do? If so, I'd like to hear it.
Anecdotally, I know that I would buy such an adventure. I know that most of the people I play with would as well. And remember, I am NOT one of the people who are on these boards asking if they can ad hoc scenarios because they find them too easy.
Well, the biggest problem that I see with Paizo offering more of them beyond those two sets of modules (which is, as I understand, about 10 scenarios worth), is the permanency of character death at low levels and how it would interfere with characters getting raised in other, less deadly and more normal scenarios. You have to remember - a failed mission often results in both a substantial loss of gold and PP, AND it gives you an XP, which boosts the challenges of your future scenarios. Another thing you have to remember is that players are not always afforded the luxury of choosing what they play. You play a home game, so this is less relevant to you, but the majority of PFS is played at local game days. Here, we have 3 scheduled scenarios on offer every week. We accommodate requests when possible, but most times, you just end up plopping yourself down at a table for which you have a relevant character. Someone who doesn't want to play one of these scenarios could end up with a sticky choice - sit out the game day, as it's the only seat left, or put your character in a situation in which character death is *extremely* likely.
|
|
I understand all of that, Netopalis. I actually play at a weekly event played in a game store. We have 3 to 5 tables offered each week.
Again, this isn't about the regular scenarios. Those are great, in my opinion.
These would be specials. They would most likely result in character death. Players would know that going in. Players would be allowed to replay (with new characters each time) these things as many times as it takes until they succeed. The rewards would be a really awesome boon, double fame (because you succeeded when so many before you have failed) and double XP (because the challenges were so much more difficult). If these were available at level 3, that would be great! I would be happy to throw 3rd-level characters at these, even if it meant that I kept having to play through Tier 1-2 for the opportunity.
I can certainly understand if Paizo says "we don't think it would be profitable." I just think it would be really cool.
I don't agree that either the currently available standard scenarios, modules, or APs fit the bill. The con-only specials might, but as far as I understand, they have roughly the same reward structure, are only slightly more difficult, and they are not replayable.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
The problem with that theory is this: Paizo makes scenarios to sell and promote the Pathfinder Society. They make scenarios that the greatest number of players will want to sit through. Every scenario in the "Will Make You Cry" category of difficulty that is made is a scenario in the "People Will Buy and Play This" category that isn't made. There simply isn't a market for insane adventures.
I'm not so sure - Wizards of the Coast seemed to have no difficulty filling tables for "Lair Assault" as well as for "D&D Encounters".
But IMO it would be a bad idea to try and satisfy both markets at once with the same product. If Paizo want to bring out a repeat-until-you-win series of scenarios I'm sure they'd find players, but this should not be part of PFS play - it should be a totally separate system.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
I understand all of that, Netopalis. I actually play at a weekly event played in a game store. We have 3 to 5 tables offered each week.
Again, this isn't about the regular scenarios. Those are great, in my opinion.
These would be specials. They would most likely result in character death. Players would know that going in. Players would be allowed to replay (with new characters each time) these things as many times as it takes until they succeed. The rewards would be a really awesome boon, double fame (because you succeeded when so many before you have failed) and double XP (because the challenges were so much more difficult). If these were available at level 3, that would be great! I would be happy to throw 3rd-level characters at these, even if it meant that I kept having to play through Tier 1-2 for the opportunity.
I can certainly understand if Paizo says "we don't think it would be profitable." I just think it would be really cool.
I don't agree that either the currently available standard scenarios, modules, or APs fit the bill. The con-only specials might, but as far as I understand, they have roughly the same reward structure, are only slightly more difficult, and they are not replayable.
I still maintain that this would lead to some awkward situations where people who *really* don't want to enter a particularly gruesome scenario are sort of forced to by the fact that it's the only legal table that they can enter. Personally, I'm still not particularly pleased about the whole perma-death thing that PFS has going on, but am consoled by the fact that at the lower levels, it is rare, and at the higher levels, it is easily remedied.
|
|
I still maintain that this would lead to some awkward situations where people who *really* don't want to enter a particularly gruesome scenario are sort of forced to by the fact that it's the only legal table that they can enter.
Why would this be a problem for my suggested scenarios, but not for Bonekeep?
|
|
I'm not so sure - Wizards of the Coast seemed to have no difficulty filling tables for "Lair Assault" as well as for "D&D Encounters".
From my experience, Lair Assault attendance dropped shortly after the first one for one reason or another. The second did maybe two sessions in as many weeks, the rest went unplayed despite being offered weekly. It was too hard (not impossible), not enough rewards. But that's my experience with it.
As for these play-til-you-win thoughts, I agree it shouldn't be PFS, as in not within the season. Pin 'em on, like Bonekeep.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
I still maintain that this would lead to some awkward situations where people who *really* don't want to enter a particularly gruesome scenario are sort of forced to by the fact that it's the only legal table that they can enter.Why would this be a problem for my suggested scenarios, but not for Bonekeep?
Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of Thornkeep or Bonekeep either...but I'll save that rant for another day. :P
|
I still maintain that this would lead to some awkward situations where people who *really* don't want to enter a particularly gruesome scenario are sort of forced to by the fact that it's the only legal table that they can enter.Why would this be a problem for my suggested scenarios, but not for Bonekeep?
Bonekeep is only currently being held at conventions that have 50 or more tables running. As a result, it's a lot easier to find a table for the people who don't want to play Bonekeep.
|
|
Bonekeep is only currently being held at conventions that have 50 or more tables running. As a result, it's a lot easier to find a table for the people who don't want to play Bonekeep.
I guess this is an argument in favor of them never releasing Bonekeep outside of conventions then. *sigh* Too bad, I would have purchased it and offered it our weekly game.
|
|
No. But, if we offered it locally, I don't know that some people would have much of a choice. It hasn't been offered around here.Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of Thornkeep or Bonekeep either...but I'll save that rant for another day. :PWere you forced to play them?
I guess that is lucky for you and unlucky for those in your area who would like to play it.
|
|
Here is an analogy. There are two groups of ball players. There is the majority who like to play softball, and the minority who want to play hardball.
Right now, the only game in town is softball, with the occasional hardball game if you are willing to travel to other cities and only at certain times of the year.
So everyone plays softball all the time. Most people are okay with this; the majority prefer softball anyway, and the hardball lovers accept that softball is better than no game of ball at all.
Someone--in this case, someone who is happy to play softball--suggests that maybe we should offer hardball games every now and then for people who want to play that game, and without requiring them to travel to other cities to do so, and at any time they want to organize them. They even suggest that these hardball games should be announced as such so that people who want to play only softball don't accidentally find themselves playing a game they don't want to play.
The reaction from the softball players is "but we might have to decide playing hardball, a game we prefer not to play, or walking away playing no game at all." When looking at it this way, from only their own perspective, they cannot see that every week, week after week, hardball players must make the same decision.
Of course, the hardball players can go play sand lot games of their own, but they really like the organized play of the softball games. They just want to bring that to hardball every once in a while, but continuing to play softball most of the time.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually Fox, it should be the other way around. No replay, 1 XP, 1/2 gold & 1 Fame. Of course, there would be a really cool boon included on the chronicle. People are coming for the challenge first, rewards second. That's what you want, correct? Not just a money grab.
In Living Greyhawk, they had special missions, dungeon delves & battle interactive that followed those same guidelines. While the overall rewards were less, the fact that you were there, man. It was really cool. Stories still ring in gaming circles from such events. Some of those were meat grinders, like the Core Specials. You were lucky if you finished one of those, let alone lived through one.
So it sounds like this Bonekeep is in the same vein as I described above, therefore what you want is already out there!
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bonekeep is only currently being held at conventions that have 50 or more tables running. As a result, it's a lot easier to find a table for the people who don't want to play Bonekeep.I guess this is an argument in favor of them never releasing Bonekeep outside of conventions then. *sigh* Too bad, I would have purchased it and offered it our weekly game.
Alright, fine, I guess I'll do my rant. Spoilered for those who don't really want to read it.
PFS, on the other hand, is built to accommodate both the inexperienced and experienced player. It must, by necessity, run things a little easier than a fully optimized home game (not really going into the RAW vs. adding monsters debate here). Thornkeep and Bonekeep punishes non-optimized PCs and doesn't really exactly teach them *where* they went wrong. Many of these players won't understand why they failed, and will be very upset. Furthermore, without the guiding hand of an experienced player [and trust me, mentoring new players in PFS can be somewhat awkward at times, because nobody wants to tell someone that they're wrong, especially if they don't know the person well], these players won't ever be able to beat the challenge.
Furthermore, let's take a look at the effect this has on PFS. When a player goes to build a character, they consider a number of things - primarily how the character will interact and how the character will engage in combat. At times, points in one must be sacrificed for points in the other. PFS is a great arena to play these characters in, because you know you will always meet a uniform difficulty, and you will always find yourself in a different and unique situation with other PCs that you may not have encountered before. Thornkeep punishes players from taking these flavorful choices. Would you *ever* want to bring a Lore Master into an uber-dungeon? I wouldn't - but I've loved seeing one played in PFS. Proliferating these scenarios would encourage the view of PFS as a video game, where you are simply trying to eke out every last bit of DPS from your character, rather than thinking about your character's storyline and personality.
Another issue we must consider is scaling. Many early scenarios feel very weak, because they have not been scaled to new options available to players. That's fine. You know what always scales perfectly? Roleplay. A roleplay encounter will always be uniformly challenging; a combat encounter will most certainly not.
Finally, let's consider the good of the campaign. The temptation to play these scenarios will be too great to refuse for many new players who may not know what they're getting themselves into. Their characters will die and they will have to start back at level 1. As it stands, our high level scenarios don't get played nearly enough - do we want to make it even more difficult to arrange for higher-leveled tables? I don't personally think so.
So, there it is. Please feel free to skip over this if you are not interested in reading several paragraphs of only tangentially-related pontificating.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
I guess that is lucky for you and unlucky for those in your area who would like to play it.No. But, if we offered it locally, I don't know that some people would have much of a choice. It hasn't been offered around here.Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of Thornkeep or Bonekeep either...but I'll save that rant for another day. :PWere you forced to play them?
If somebody asked for it, I'm sure a table would be organized. It hasn't been requested. I wouldn't go near it, and I'm sure that there are others who wouldn't either.
|
|
@The Fox
Difficulty is very Very subjective. What you find hard other groups find easy.
I would recommend a home game.
I play a Slumbering Tsar 15 point buy CRB only game. Tough brutal batttles. I died on the second round of the first encounter on the first game. So far it has been the groups only death.
I don't think many people would enjoy this game.
If PFS became that difficult I don't think there would be many happy people.
Or
You could start a group and play modules at the lowest PFS level possible. I am not sure were you live but thornkeep is pretty tough. I would love to run level 3 (3-5) for a group of 3's. Or From Shore to Sea. Or Fellkinght Queen or Cult of the Ebon Destroyers Mask of the Living God , Carrion Hill.
The module approach may be the best option.
|
|
Right now, the only game in town is softball, with the occasional hardball game if you are willing to travel to other cities and only at certain times of the year.
So everyone plays softball all the time. Most people are okay with this; the majority prefer softball anyway, and the hardball lovers accept that softball is better than no game of ball at all.
Your analogy actually highlights the problem with this sort of suggestion, and with Bonekeep. The existence of super-tough scenarios and of Bonekeep encourages the "hardball" players to get better at hardball, and bring those hardball skills and tactics to softball games. This is bad for the softball players, whose fun is hurt by the hardball players' participation.
The problem with this sort of suggestion and with Bonekeep is that their existence encourages players to build superpowered characters in order to take on the supertough challenges. These characters then stomp everything else they encounter into the ground, and hurt the fun of their tablemates.
Instead, what we should be doing is encouraging players to not do that. We should be encouraging the "hardball" players to get better at playing softball with a group of softball players..
-Matt
|
|
If you're looking for a higher challenge and are willing to play Modules many of them are very challenging if you play them at the lowest level available. (Meaning you're a level under expectation for the two thirds of the adventure and two levels under for the final third) You can further increase your challenge by limiting your table size at the module to 4 since they have no scaling based on the number of players.
I have over 100 tables played in PFS and the only time I have required a raise dead was from a module, while fighting a "monk" that attacked my 8th level character 8 times in one round.
Also who your GM is can affect your challenge a lot. Take one of the vicious bloodthirsty players and ask them to run a scenario on the higher side of the difficulty scale as lethally as possible. There are lots of tactics a GM can use to ramp up the deadliness of a scenario, that for the most part aren't very fun or reasonable for the players, but if challenge is what you're looking...
|
|
The rewards would be a really awesome boon, double fame (because you succeeded when so many before you have failed) and double XP (because the challenges were so much more difficult). If these were available at level 3, that would be great! I would be happy to throw 3rd-level characters at these, even if it meant that I kept having to play through Tier 1-2 for the opportunity.
I think there would be too much cheating if killer scenarios were released publically. Especially if they offered substantial awards. No one wants to die, everyone wants an edge, and most people like extra cool rewards or boons. People would read them or get spoilers from friends.
It wouldn't be fun to GM them either and you'd suddenly become suspicious as the group buffs with protection from electricity as they enter room X.
Honestly, few GMs can run scenarios accurately and properly, especially challenging ones. Some GMs would either run these scenarios too hard (not playing the monster properly or even playing too strategically) or make it a cake walk.
The best option is to have 1-2 killer scenarios per year available only to VCs and VLs for conventions (like Bonekeep).
Also, if we're going to talk about challenge level, I don't particularly want them to be instant death. Pushing the CR limits, sure. But not "impossible". If you want Tomb of Horrors, play that in your home games, this isn't something most of us want for PFS.
I guess that's what I don't understand, if you have a super commando group of players with awesome (and broken) PCs, why not just run them through "impossible" sessions in home play? Because the way you're talking, it doesn't sound like you'd play Bonekeep with 5 strangers.
After you're successful with your super group, what are you going to do with these super monkeys afterwards? You just got amazing rewards. If you continue with the PFS system, you'll F up tables that you participate and dominate them. And then you'll complain even more that PFS doesn't offer enough challenge for your group of commandos. The problem is that your monkeys aren't designed for PFS. And PFS can't be everything to everyone.
From my experience, Lair Assault attendance dropped shortly after the first one for one reason or another. The second did maybe two sessions in as many weeks, the rest went unplayed despite being offered weekly. It was too hard (not impossible), not enough rewards. But that's my experience with it.
^^^ Experience.
|
|
The problem with having something like Bonekeep at a convention, though, is that you can end up with a really bad mix at your table, whereas if you are playing it at home, or in your usual hang-out, you can organize a solid, balanced party before committing to go in.
I played Bonekeep at a con a couple months ago, where it was substituted for Day of the Demon, which had not published on time. My experience was negative (and people on these boards have already implied that I must be a moron and a bad player for being negative on it, so there is no reason to repeat that), but in truth a poor party make-up can make an adventure like this really painful. I think hard-ball can be fun, but only if you are confident that the others players really are bringing (1) a character appropriate for that kind of scenario and (2) their "A-game".
I like Fox's idea of making the tier for this kind of thing really narrow, because Bonekeep still had two subtiers, and the range of experience that was brought to our table was a problem.
|
|
I think there would be too much cheating if killer scenarios were released publically. Especially if they offered substantial awards. No one wants to die, everyone wants an edge, and most people like extra cool rewards or boons. People would read them or get spoilers from friends.
Honestly, I think this is the best criticism of my idea so far.
|
|
There are a lot of people replying to my original post who obviously have not read what I wrote. So I will try to make it easier:
(1) I am happy with the difficulty of the scenarios as they are now.
(2) It seems to me that there is at least some demand for incredibly tough scenarios.
(3) Even with (1) being true, I would include myself in the demand group stated in (2).
(4) I have a home game. I GM in it. I love it. I run things in there mostly by the book, but have made some small changes here and there to suit my taste and that of my players.
(5) I play in a PFS game weekly. I GM in that from time to time. I love it. I run these as written, and want nothing more than other GMs to do the same when I am a player.
(6) I am happy with the difficulty of the scenarios as they are now.
(7) I am happy with the difficulty of the scenarios as they are now.
|
|
Chris, I am not trying to pick on you, but your post is conveniently exemplar of people misunderstanding me. So I am replying to it.
@The Fox
Difficulty is very Very subjective. What you find hard other groups find easy.
I understand that.
I would recommend a home game.
I have a home game. It is great. I am running Shattered Star. I will give PFS credit to my players for it. I will claim PFS credit for myself for it. My home game does not address the issue of other players wanting a very challenging game for PFS credit.
I play a Slumbering Tsar 15 point buy CRB only game. Tough brutal batttles. I died on the second round of the first encounter on the first game. So far it has been the groups only death.
I don't think many people would enjoy this game.
If PFS became that difficult I don't think there would be many happy people.
I have stated REPEATEDLY that I am not advocating for PFS to become harder. I LIKE THE DIFFICULTY OF THE SCENARIOS AS THEY ARE! I just see room to have occasional killer scenarios, offered as specials, available to people who don't happen to live in cities with big conventions.
You could start a group and play modules at the lowest PFS level possible. I am not sure were you live but thornkeep is pretty tough. I would love to run level 3 (3-5) for a group of 3's. Or From Shore to Sea. Or Fellkinght Queen or Cult of the Ebon Destroyers Mask of the Living God , Carrion Hill.
The module approach may be the best option.
Still missing the point.
|
|
Let me just add Bonekeep fills the game for what your talking about. As well as Thornkeep. To a smaller degree most modules also fill that gap.
These exlcusives good reasons to travel to cons. If nothing else it is a good reason to help organize a con.
There are some amazingly deadly scenarios out there. Check my reviews.
Last month at a free con, I ran thornkeep level 1 2 and day of the demon. I killed characters at each one except Bonekeep.
I would ask your local VO to run Thornkeep or Day of the Demon.
I am not sure where you live Fox. But if you live near Indiana, come play. Hell in 6 hours I am driving to a con for the day to GM 2 games. For me this will be my 4th con this year that is in Indiana some are 2-3 hours away.
Carpool and visit other areas for these exclusives.
|
|
Oh well. It was just an idea.
For the record, I like your idea. I just think that if it's public and there are good rewards, players will cheat (players already cheat with Dalsine Affair and there are no rewards).
If the rewards are the same, players will avoid it (and the players that don't know about it (and have no business playing it) will be crushed). It would be played minimally. Or softballed (like Dalsine is often softballed, and that scenario isn't even close to the "impossible" level you're looking for).
After a year, hopefully Paizo will release Bonekeep to the public (with only slightly elevated rewards) and you'll get your wish.