|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I absolutely believe you are watching the arms race come to fruition here too (albeit differently). As to why...well the road to hell is always paved with good intentions. In an effort to keep long-term players who complain about the scenarios getting "too easy", the developers have tried a number of fixes all at once (6-player table scenario designs, beefed up encounters using more material). The result is scenarios that can (and do) eat new, and inexperienced PCs alive. The pendulum has swung from one end to the other.Players love powerful builds...until they are used against them. So, I don't think the authors/developers are specifically aspiring to boost the death-toll, but it is a by-productAs someone who "survived" the arms race in LG and LFR (and who had never had this sort of recurring experience in any other campaign), my question, I guess, is this: if the campaign is now being written to challenge the players who appreciate (and exploit) the "powerful builds", is there room in the campaign for those of us who don't?
This is pretty much what I'm sensing, too. I saw a couple of PC deaths, though not a huge number, in earlier season scenarios. In season 4, I'm seeing a lot more, especially in the higher tier adventures. Actually, my level 8 cleric is starting to believe she's cursed, since she's seen 7 different PCs die (including herself once) in the last 4 missions the Society has sent her on.
Personally, I've reached 2 stars as a GM without ever killing a PC. I've let a couple off easy when I could have killed them, because I didn't want to scare away newbies. Not by fudging dice rolls or anything, just with borderline rules calls. But the only season 4 scenarios I've GMed are The Disappeared (the easiest of season 4 from a combat perspective) and Rise of the Goblin Guild, which was a little tough, but not ultra-lethal.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Referring only to the OP, we hear your concerns and are watching the difficulty of the campaign closely to try to reach that ever-elisive balance that will both serve the overall needs of the campaign and players of all levels of experience. In terms of what your VL and 4-star GM friends told you, I don't know how they have insight into the difficulty of Season 5, as the only folks who know how the "hard mode dial" is going to be set are John, Mike, me, and the freelancers with whom we've already shared our Season 5 design guide.
I recall a post a few months ago in the GM thread of a certain Season 4 scenario, where a majority of posters were concerned with the difficulty of the final fight. The author chimed in and mentioned how, in his original writing, the BBEG was a different creature, with more powerful abilities, potent tactics, and was effectively created to instantly drop a PC or two in his opening volley. His version of the BBEG was toned down because it was deemed "too hard" for PCs of that level.
I'm glad Mark posted this. It's another indicator that, along with that post from before, that the leadership is listening. They're keeping a close eye on that "hard mode dial" and adjusting it to be just right.
That's not say that currently it's still a little to hard. But that's got to be an almost impossible thing to determine. CR is a good indicator, but it's not air tight. Harpies are often always harder than intended in the lower levels (flying wins fights). Hopefully they'll get it just right by Season 5.
They've even created additional options for people that want that impossible challenge (see Bonekeep). So hopefully more scenarios like that -- specifically marketed as "challenge mode" scenarios -- can hit the shelves and the average PFS game can remain challenging, but not a bloodbath.
-------------------------------------------
@ Mike Mistele: From my experience at the table, 95% of PC deaths are the result of poor planning, preparation, or teamwork. Rarely is it just a series of bad rolls (although I have gotten a handful of 20s in a row that has killed a PC or two). My own PC deaths have all been my own fault. But, in my defense, I think they were tactically appropriate.
My personal favorite was when I antagonized a bone devil while playing my bard to draw his attention off our wizard. He killed me in response for my hubris. I got hit with a breath of life and rather than stay down, spent my turn inspiring as a move, and then demoralizing the same bone devil with my standard. "Is that the best you can do," "you bloody pansy!" Needless to say, he killed me again. >.<
So worth the 16 prestige.
-
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This whole thing could be avoided by putting "challenge ratings" on each scenario. The challenge rating could be independent of tier. So each tier would have easy, normal, hard difficulty scenarios. The harder the scenario, the more $$ to keep risk vs reward balanced.
Honestly, I like this idea in principle, but of course I think in practice would be much more harder to do. Who gets to decide difficulty? The author? Developers? Playtesters? Does Paizo tell authors the difficulty they need to achieve, or is it done after the fact? Plus, difficulty is subjective based on the party, GM, players...
Then we would get complaints that there are not enough Tier 1-5 "easy" scenarios out there, or not enough "hard" 7-11s. People begin expecting equal distribution (at best. At worst they want whatever THEY think is the best mix).
I think the way it works now is acceptable. If you are a coordinator or store liaison, go to the product pages of the scenarios you want to schedule and read some reviews. Check out the boards and the GM threads about which are the "killer" scenarios. There are 3-4 threads making lists of them. Then when scheduling out scenarios, mark them as such in some way. Let people know "bring your a-game" etc...
Honestly, it comes with experience. I'd like to think of myself as a well-seasoned GM (now with 3 stars going into 4), and I do know which scenarios "have a reputation". So I feel ok toning it down for a table of new players or people who don't optimize. Just feel the table and see if they are having fun or not. Thankfully the local crowd of players are all regulars, and I get to GM for roughly the same pool of players every time. I know what type of players they are and I can rearrange accordingly.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remind people that Seasons 0 - 3 are still in circulation. I wouldn't necessarily throw brand new players into "Severing Ties" or "Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment", but I don't have to. "Mists of M'Wangi" and "Frostfur Captives" are still options.
It's good to have a variety: both easy scenarios and more challenging. There have always been plenty of easier adventures. It's good that players who liked "Heresy of Man" and "Dalsine Affair" have more meat, as well.
Having said that, a practice that discourages new players and GMs from playing the current scenarios is probably counter-productive to the health of the campaign.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me as a player, S4 is about my sweet spot because I am someone who gives very deliberate thought to my characters and their capabilities. I also enjoy the challenge and thrill of knowing they could truly die. I absolutely understand that is not everyone's cup of tea.
For me as a GM, S4 is a bit outside my comfort zone because I look at encounters and silently hope that I won't TPK the random FLGS people who sit at my table--for every player with good tactics and an optimized build there is a player with a less than stellar build or poor tactics. I honestly want everyone to have fun, but I rarely softball.
The one negative thing I think S4 has done, for me personally, is that it has made me worry about the capabilities of other characters at the table--no matter how well I build my character it's still a group endeavor. S1-S3 scenarios: I'm not too worried who I sit with. S4 scenarios: I definitely size up the abilities of both the players and their characters I game with...and I don't want to do that.
|
This whole thing could be avoided by putting "challenge ratings" on each scenario. The challenge rating could be independent of tier. So each tier would have easy, normal, hard difficulty scenarios. The harder the scenario, the more $$ to keep risk vs reward balanced.Honestly, I like this idea in principle, but of course I think in practice would be much more harder to do. Who gets to decide difficulty?
While not helpful in the year a mod comes out - what about adding a little box on the reporting (they already are adding items for what people did) on character deaths & character permanent deaths. Then the year following a game's release that data can be found with the games -deaths per game I'd just do a year because what is allowed in game can affect that number, but then one can compare. No one would make the call - there would be raw data to look at and compare. One can see that King of Storval stairs has .6 deaths per game (we had 2 deaths - but on a 5 person table - and a GM that shot unconscious PCs because otherwise they might get up again - NPCs playing 'intelligently' - and a reason I don't like playing my Merciful Healer much any more)
The powers-that-be could also track which GMs tend to have the most character deaths & character permanent deaths - which in my mind is also a good thing. Even if nothing is done - knowing the powers-that-be are tracking such data might restrain some.
Plus it also could give quantitative data on how often characters die, rather than the anecdotal data which is notoriously inaccurate in aggregate. it could answer if year 4 was deadlier than year 3, etc.
|
|
I have seen party after party walk through a lot of season 0-3 Scenarios without a problem, especially when they have 6 people, which is really what PFS strives for. I am happy that Season 4 is more difficult. Some of the mods are harder than others, but that's always going to be the case.
The reality is, some people are always going to complain. Some will say they are too easy, others too hard. I applaud Mark for mentioning they are looking at the difficulty to try and tweak it appropriately.
|
|
Aren´t tiers and CR tied to them supposed to be the challenge rating already?
The key words there are "supposed to be". I believe they upped the CRs by 1 in season 4 intentionally, as part of the planning for 6 player tables instead of 4 like in earlier seasons.
But there are often environmental factors besides the enemies that make encounters more difficult than the CR says. For instance, an ooze in a room would be dangerous, but usually avoidable if things get out of hand in combat. An ooze in a pit is pretty much insta-death if someone falls in.
|
|
But to be honest, from a roleplaying perspective even from a gaming perspective, it's not an individual endeavor. It's a team effort so you have to also be responsible for ensuring the team performs well.
Agreed. But, we have to recognize that many new players aren't going to be good yet at that teamwork function, some players just aren't ever going to really get it, and some players actively eschew doing anything in a cooperative manner.
If the game has transitioned to a difficulty level in which strong teamwork is not only prized, but fundamentally necessary for success, that's an important thing to note, as I think it makes it a lot less newbie-friendly.
|
|
But to be honest, from a roleplaying perspective even from a gaming perspective, it's not an individual endeavor. It's a team effort so you have to also be responsible for ensuring the team performs well.Agreed. But, we have to recognize that many new players aren't going to be good yet at that teamwork function, some players just aren't ever going to really get it, and some players actively eschew doing anything in a cooperative manner.
If the game has transitioned to a difficulty level in which strong teamwork is not only prized, but fundamentally necessary for success, that's an important thing to note, as I think it makes it a lot less newbie-friendly.
I think there's a difference between requiring strong teamwork to survive and being hard enough that some of the extremely poor teamwork you mentioned leads to failure. There's a middle ground--I would call it "competent teamwork". Season 4 requires either competent (or better) teamwork or tricked out characters or high dice rolls. The gunslinger and bard examples you gave, for instance are not at the level of competent teamwork. I've actually rarely met even a completely new player (let alone a player who is playing a 3-7 scenario) who doesn't use their bard's inspire--performance is so salient for bards, that most newbies who choose to make their first character a bard are all about it (in fact, I sometimes see the opposite problem, though it's much less of a problem, where all the bard does is perform and nothing else).
|
|
S1-S3 scenarios: I'm not too worried who I sit with. S4 scenarios: I definitely size up the abilities of both the players and their characters I game with...and I don't want to do that.But to be honest, from a roleplaying perspective even from a gaming perspective, it's not an individual endeavor. It's a team effort so you have to also be responsible for ensuring the team performs well.
That wasn't his point, or at least I didn't get it that way. I think his point was that he's bringing enough to the table, but because it's a group effort, that's not enough. The other characters should be able to pull off their weight as well.
And I feel exactly the same way. I know what my characters can do, and how they contribute to the team. But I see a lot of characters who I constantly worry about. Maybe they're starting fights when they shouldn't. Or they don't know the concept of retreat. Or they don't have any ability to see invisible, to handle darkness, or to fly. And I wouldn't want to worry about them (as a player, in-character that's cool).
Heck, if there are season 3 and season 4 scenarios to choose from, I don't want to pick the season 3 one just because I fear the other characters might die. Still, that's kinda what I did today.
No.
|
|
I think his point was that he's bringing enough to the table, but because it's a group effort, that's not enough. The other characters should be able to pull off their weight as well.
Exactly.
Again, this is in regards to S4. For the vast majority of S0-S3 scenarios, I don't worry that much. For S4, I bring my A game and hope everyone else at least brings their B- game.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's a difference between requiring strong teamwork to survive and being hard enough that some of the extremely poor teamwork you mentioned leads to failure. There's a middle ground--I would call it "competent teamwork". Season 4 requires either competent (or better) teamwork or tricked out characters or high dice rolls.But to be honest, from a roleplaying perspective even from a gaming perspective, it's not an individual endeavor. It's a team effort so you have to also be responsible for ensuring the team performs well.Agreed. But, we have to recognize that many new players aren't going to be good yet at that teamwork function, some players just aren't ever going to really get it, and some players actively eschew doing anything in a cooperative manner.
If the game has transitioned to a difficulty level in which strong teamwork is not only prized, but fundamentally necessary for success, that's an important thing to note, as I think it makes it a lot less newbie-friendly.
I'd pretty much agree with this. If there's an under-contributing character at the table you're often fairly close to playing with one less character. That's tough enough for a full six-member table; it's significantly harder with only four players. Not only are you losing a larger percentage of your party, you can also run into problems with the scaling adjustements (which sometimes aren't quite as effective as one might wish).
From a purely anecdotal standpoint I've found that the season 4 scenarios that have given me the least trouble have been ones where I've been playing my bard, or where there have been there have been other buffing characters in the party. While just giving your allies a plus to their to hit and damage rolls (and some saving throws) doesn't seem all that exciting at first glance, it's amazing just how much of an effect it has over time. Haste or Enlarge Person add to the average party DPR as well, yet I see far too many adventuring parties lacking anything along those lines.
Season 4 scenarios also emphasize the importance of covering most of the bases. If you don't have a way to overcome such things as terrain advantage (at all levels), DR, and enemies with SLAs (especially at the higher levels) you are likely to have problems.
|
|
Season 4 scenarios also emphasize the importance of covering most of the bases. If you don't have a way to overcome such things as terrain advantage (at all levels), DR, and enemies with SLAs (especially at the higher levels) you are likely to have problems.
Yup. I've generally found that Tactics > Gear > Build. The good news is that the first two are also the easiest to fix.
When I GM, especially at lower levels, I always try to encourage my players to share their characters' preferred tactics before or after the mission briefing. If nothing else, I hope this gets them thinking about thinking about tactics.
The Field Guide, which is part of the core assumption, actually has gear suggestions, albeit meted out by creature encounter and using in-character language:
Incorporeal undead like ghosts and wraiths pose a significant challenge, as
nonmagical attacks have little effect on these bodiless monsters. Against such foes, ghost touch weapons and force effects work best, but for agents on a budget, ample supplies of holy
water work wonders.
Of course, I imagine 80% of the people playing PFS have never even cracked that book open, much less own it.
|
Have authors and developers actually begun approaching each encounter with Kill Someone in mind? Have GMs begun approaching them that way?IMO, no. It just seems that way because they are starting to use the same skills/powers/tactics that PCs use against them. If my uber-archer build can stand in the back of a few blockers and destroy the baddies, sounds like there just might be an evil guy somewhere who develops the same idea. Players love powerful builds...until they are used against them. So, I don't think the authors/developers are specifically aspiring to boost the death-toll, but it is a by-product
Let me 'splain. No, no, that takes too long. Let me sum up. ;-)
More books -> more character options -> inevitable supply of power-gaming uber characters that roll over combat encounters like a bulldozer on steroids -> authors using same power-gaming uber combos to challenge parties of uber characters (or crush parties without several uber characters).
The only way I can can think of avoiding what I describe above is to restrict the 'power creep'. That said, the PFS campaign has pretty much 'already handed out the candy' (or cheese, if you prefer). Once you hand it out, it's damn near impossible to take it back. The only way to do that I have seen is to have a campaign (or game rules) reset. Welcome to Pathfinder RPG 2.0. $$$ (And, there, folks, lies the genius of what an organized play campaign can do for your business model). :-p
|
|
From more of a numbers stand point, a season 4 scenario with an APL 7 party runs up against a CR 9 (Hard) combat followed up with a CR 11 (Epic+) combat. Both were surprises and both times the players were at a disadvantage that should probably add another CR to the encounter.
This is excessive no mater how well your character is built. I am all for having varied challenges in a scenario, that’s one of the things that makes them fun, but there is a fine line between challenging and deadly to the point of being ridiculous. I think we have crossed it.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor
|
From more of a numbers stand point, a season 4 scenario with an APL 7 party runs up against a CR 9 (Hard) combat followed up with a CR 11 (Epic+) combat. Both were surprises and both times the players were at a disadvantage that should probably add another CR to the encounter.
Possible scenarios for APL 7 include:
You are obviously familiar with the charts in the GM's section, so it should be pretty clear why an "APL 7" group is hitting epic encounters. Most likely they are playing Subtier 8-9 or subtier 7-8 and facing encounters designed for APL 8 or APL 9.
I say this because I've built a CR 9 encounter which is followed by a CR 10 encounter, but they were designed as "Challenging" and "Hard" respectively, based on the assumption of an APL 8 group.
Scenarios are written to be challenging to a range of character levels and targeted around the middle of that range. If you are below that target APL, you are going to struggle a bit, above and you will likely find it easy. There is no way to avoid that.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have authors and developers actually begun approaching each encounter with Kill Someone in mind? Have GMs begun approaching them that way?IMO, no. It just seems that way because they are starting to use the same skills/powers/tactics that PCs use against them. If my uber-archer build can stand in the back of a few blockers and destroy the baddies, sounds like there just might be an evil guy somewhere who develops the same idea. Players love powerful builds...until they are used against them. So, I don't think the authors/developers are specifically aspiring to boost the death-toll, but it is a by-productLet me 'splain. No, no, that takes too long. Let me sum up. ;-)
More books -> more character options -> inevitable supply of power-gaming uber characters that roll over combat encounters like a bulldozer on steroids -> authors using same power-gaming uber combos to challenge parties of uber characters (or crush parties without several uber characters).
The only way I can can think of avoiding what I describe above is to restrict the 'power creep'. That said, the PFS campaign has pretty much 'already handed out the candy' (or cheese, if you prefer). Once you hand it out, it's damn near impossible to take it back. The only way to do that I have seen is to have a campaign (or game rules) reset. Welcome to Pathfinder RPG 2.0. $$$ (And, there, folks, lies the genius of what an organized play campaign can do for your business model). :-p
This could not be farter from the truth. You can destroy encounters just with base classes and feats from the core rule book. The extra books make it so you can customize your character more. More books only means more options for the characters. A min/max Fighter, or Wizard using just the core rule book can make scenarios a cake walk. I have made many builds that people have clamed where bad. Though they tend to work as I intend for them to. So I can play them according to there strengths and try and avoid where they are weakness.
No writer or editor can make a challenge for any group. So then make encounters for general group to over come. Some groups have higher skilled players. Some can have special abilities or spells to turn them in to easy battles. That dose not mean other groups will have characters that do not have that ability will have a TPK. It just means they need to be smarter then the other group.
The problem I have seen with PFSP. Is underperforming characters. So many characters in PFSP can not do the job there made for. That are they can barely do the job they are needed for. Most of them are made by new players or players that do not build characters. They like to free form characters and make them as they level. With out either looking though classes/trait's/feat's to find there characters path to power, or asking for help building there character. From what I have seen most problems / deaths in scenarios including season 4 are from underperforming characters. Some times crits happen or the DM have hot dice that game. Character deaths happen it's part of the game. I find that season 4 is not much harder then season 3. Unless I'm in a group that has two or more underperforming characters.
|
|
This could not be farter from the truth. You can destroy encounters just with base classes and feats from the core rule book. The extra books make it so you can customize your character more. More books only means more options for the characters. A min/max Fighter, or Wizard using just the core rule book can make scenarios a cake walk. I have made many builds that people have clamed where bad. Though they tend to work as I intend for them to. So I can play them according to...Have authors and developers actually begun approaching each encounter with Kill Someone in mind? Have GMs begun approaching them that way?IMO, no. It just seems that way because they are starting to use the same skills/powers/tactics that PCs use against them. If my uber-archer build can stand in the back of a few blockers and destroy the baddies, sounds like there just might be an evil guy somewhere who develops the same idea. Players love powerful builds...until they are used against them. So, I don't think the authors/developers are specifically aspiring to boost the death-toll, but it is a by-productLet me 'splain. No, no, that takes too long. Let me sum up. ;-)
More books -> more character options -> inevitable supply of power-gaming uber characters that roll over combat encounters like a bulldozer on steroids -> authors using same power-gaming uber combos to challenge parties of uber characters (or crush parties without several uber characters).
The only way I can can think of avoiding what I describe above is to restrict the 'power creep'. That said, the PFS campaign has pretty much 'already handed out the candy' (or cheese, if you prefer). Once you hand it out, it's damn near impossible to take it back. The only way to do that I have seen is to have a campaign (or game rules) reset. Welcome to Pathfinder RPG 2.0. $$$ (And, there, folks, lies the genius of what an organized play campaign can do for your business model). :-p
Holy crap. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are much better at building combat effective characters than you are at writing in English. If you are ESL (English as a second language) I commend you on doing a decent job of communicating in what isn't your native tongue. If you aren't ... ouch.
ANYWAY, just because you can make effective characters with the CRB doesnt mean you can make even 'more effective' characters using some of the feats, traits, and spells from the Ultimate and other books. When you have more options, you can work synergy of your choices -- you just get more. Also, the more choices that are built into a game, the HARDER it is to try and keep it balanced. I've played at least a half dozen different RPG's over 30 years, and I've had that same experience in most. If you have found an RPG that gives you tons of choices for character building but still maintains reasonable balance and doesnt have [MASSIVE POWER CREEP]TM , please tell me it's name, because I want to buy it RIGHT NOW!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP.
Yes it is too difficult.
Since the start of season 3 I have gone from looking to play interesting characters to being forced to work hard to make my characters into combat monsters just to keep up.
I notice that people are describing other people's characters as "underpowered" or "underperforming" as if there is a right way to play the game and you are wrong for not squeezing out every mathematical advantage they can. To me this philosophy runs counter to an inclusive campaign.
I want to sit at a convention to have fun. I hate the idea that there is a right way to play. If someone wants to play a sub optimal character because they like the look of it then they should be able to.
I have a cleric that I love playing, he is sub optimal having taken choices I thought were characterful. I am feeling forced to play season 2 and earlier scenarios because I feel that the campaign has gone so far into hardmode that it would be no fun to play him in a season 4 scenario.
Now I am not saying that you can't play optimised characters that are characterful, of course not. My point is that I should be allowed to take the odd feat or archetype purely for character reasons without feeling that I am dooming myself as a result.
|
|
It is all how you approach them, and the DM you are playing with. If the Dm you are playing with makes mistakes it can drastically change the difficulty. I was critted by a trap that you fall and get hit by thorns. The thorn crit me and he doubled the fall damage too. That could have easily killed me if I did not build my character for a ton of HP. Then again you could get them to softball the game by not knowing the rules. Also you could have a poor Dm that does not allow creative solutions.
Tactics is all you need to win. If you play the pregens and roll ok with great tactics you will win. These are written by one person, and built with an solution to win. 4 people at the table should be able to outthink that one person. If you do not have a clever person at the table that is smart enoguh to bypass the dangers, then you need to encourage the group to out think the dangers. If you do not wish to be clever, help the group be clever, or have a poor GM. Then you may need more help to survive.
I honestly think they are not hard enough yet. When I DM I very much so want people to surprise me and make me scramble to think of how the scenario should respond to their creative ideas. I would love the writters to continue this trend.
|
|
I can't with good conscience say that Season 4 is too difficult. I will say that maybe they should stop here.
Clerics are not feat-driven classes. Yes, feats can enhance their effectiveness, but you should be able to do your job without a laundry list of specific feats. Even in Season 4. My cleric has weapon focus: warhammer and spends most of his time casting. Talk about a wasted feat!
|
|
This season is just right. The encounters are assuming 6 people and maybe should be scaled a little bit back when dealing with 4 people. That is my only critique.
For all the people who say this season is too hard, I have to firmly disagree. It makes us play in tier, which we're suppose to be doing anyways. I have only seen people complain when they played up and 2 or more people died or they had a horrible party composition. The CR assumes we have have a Cleric, a Wizard, a Rogue and a Front liner. If we walk into an encounter without that base there, then we are fighting an uphill battle.
If the CR is right for the group, the second biggest variable is the GM. A poor GM who doesn't know the rules will always hand you the fight. Stay away from those GMs, they give us a false sense of security until you meet a GM that knows the rules and expects you to be able to play the game at the level you're at.
Now if the build is in question, if we're making characters that are worse then the pregens then that is the builders fault. I live in St. Louis, our judges know the rules well, our players use good tactics (most of the time) and we have a great community. I have seen poor players become good players in just a few months at our weekly game night and that is due to the hard work of all of our judges and community. If the community isn't actively trying to grow in knowledge and enjoyment of the game then I really don't see the point in playing.
This season has been wonderful by incorporating new monsters, interesting fields of battle, and great stories. Please do not scale the fights back. They have been a breath of fresh air compared to most season 0-2 pushovers, that give us a single bad guy and we dog-pile him with 6 characters. Please keep this goodness coming.
Agreed. But, we have to recognize that many new players aren't going to be good yet at that teamwork function, some players just aren't ever going to really get it, and some players actively eschew doing anything in a cooperative manner.
If the game has transitioned to a difficulty level in which strong teamwork is not only prized, but fundamentally necessary for success, that's an important thing to note, as I think it makes it a lot less newbie-friendly.
It is a co-operative game, there's no way to get around that. Co-operation should be fundamentally necessary for success and a well-written scenario should force players to play as a team or lose (maybe not die, but at least lose). New players also shouldn't expect to have an easy time of it right away, not that it should be impossible, but not easy. While "too hard" can drive a new player away, so can "too easy." I think "First Steps" does a good job of being challenging (for new players) and forcing teamwork without easily killing the players. But that's why there are introduction scenarios for new players - because not every scenario should be aimed at making it easy for the newbies.
For players who just don't seem to get how to play a cooperative game, I think part of being on a team is to help them.
I sympathize that sometimes there are people who just don't want to cooperate, but that's just people.
|
|
It is a co-operative game, there's no way to get around that. Co-operation should be fundamentally necessary for success and a well-written scenario should force players to play as a team or lose (maybe not die, but at least lose). New players also shouldn't expect to have an easy time of it right away, not that it should be impossible, but not easy. While "too hard" can drive a new player away, so can "too easy." I think "First Steps" does a good job of being challenging (for new players) and forcing teamwork without easily killing the players. But that's why there are introduction scenarios for new players - because not every scenario should be aimed at making it easy for the newbies.For players who just don't seem to get how to play a cooperative game, I think part of being on a team is to help them.
I sympathize that sometimes there are people who just don't want to cooperate, but that's just people.
Excellent excellent excellent point.
Many people new to roleplaying are fresh from video games where they play a one person killing machine that can practically do everything. They want the same in PFS. This would be alright but there are alteast three other people at the table. The encounters are built for a team not a one person killing machine.
After all it is "Explore, Report, Cooperate" Cooperate being one of the 3 main tennents of the society. If the group ignores that then that is their own fault.
|
|
Personally, I've reached 2 stars as a GM without ever killing a PC.
Yeah, I thought I posted something like this earlier today. And roughly 12 hours later, it's no longer true. I wasn't even supposed to GM tonight, but we had a bunch of walk ins to our weekly game day who are new to PFS, but not RPGs or Pathfinder, so I volunteered to do First Steps 1 to introduce them to the Society. Ledford got a crit.
How many xp do I get for killing level 1 Ezren? :D
|
|
With regards to 4-player scaling (and encounter design as a whole), all I can say is: please spend some more time adjusting it properly.
Having a epic BBEG with a couple mooks that can be one-shot in 6-player, dropped to the epic BBEG by himself in 4-player does not do the players any favours.
I know word-count and testing force this, but it's always a lot less swingy on the party if they don't have to deal with a single creature that comprises the entirety/majority of the CR budget. High relative CR enemies run the huge range of dying immediately from a lucky save-or-lose, to being nigh-untouchable while crushing anyone in range, depending only on luck and party composition.
As a GM (and as a player), whenever I see an encounter with a single opposing creature, I get very disheartened.
Ummm lazaRX, ALL season 4 has adjustments for four person tables.
|
|
From more of a numbers stand point, a season 4 scenario with an APL 7 party runs up against a CR 9 (Hard) combat followed up with a CR 11 (Epic+) combat. Both were surprises and both times the players were at a disadvantage that should probably add another CR to the encounter.Possible scenarios for APL 7 include:
Subtier 6-7 on a tier 3-7 - Assume APL 7
Subtier 5-6 on a tier 5-9 - Assume APL 6
Subtier 8-9 on a tier 5-9 - Assume APL 9
Subtier 7-8 on a tier 7-11 - Assume APL 8 You are obviously familiar with the charts in the GM's section, so it should be pretty clear why an "APL 7" group is hitting epic encounters. Most likely they are playing Subtier 8-9 or subtier 7-8 and facing encounters designed for APL 8 or APL 9.
I say this because I've built a CR 9 encounter which is followed by a CR 10 encounter, but they were designed as "Challenging" and "Hard" respectively, based on the assumption of an APL 8 group.
Scenarios are written to be challenging to a range of character levels and targeted around the middle of that range. If you are below that target APL, you are going to struggle a bit, above and you will likely find it easy. There is no way to avoid that.
I was refering to a Subtier 6-7 game, so the assumtion was APL 7.
|
|
Having experienced both seasons, I can certainly say that Season 4 is more difficult, and players are having to learn to be more cautious (and playing up a lot less often). I have not killed a player in a Season 4 deal yet, but have come close a few times. I agree with some earlier posts that mention that both player and GM have to learn to adjust to get the best out of these situations. For example, if a party is fighting something with a special attack (that you would never see in earlier seasons, especially), it would be good for the GM to review those rules with the table once the attack is known to the party (through knowledge check or first hand experience) so they know all their options.
I have noticed that certain 'specialized' builds really struggle in some of the season 4 stuff. The sapmaster ninja that normally does crazy non-lethal damage had a really hard time against some of the early encounters in a Season 4 I played as the monsters there were immune to it.
|
|
Dropping back into this thread to note that, at least on "Blakros Matrimony", my reaction, based on playing it, may have been overstated.
I downloaded the adventure, and I immediately noticed two glaring issues with how it was run for our table.
Most notably, we were a table of 4 characters, at levels 4 and 5, so we definitely should have been at "low". Based on reviewing the stat blocks for the combat we faced, I'm 99% certain that the GM (a) ran us at "high", and (b) did not scale the combat for 4 PCs.
Secondly, the GM either misinterpreted or ignored an important factor in the scenario (spoiler follows):
I have no idea if either of these were intentional efforts by the GM, or errors, but they certainly affected the difficulty level we experienced.
|
|
Season 4 is not only much more lethal but the missions themselves are harder to succeed. I like this. Up until season 4 I almost always felt like my actions as a player wouldn't really determine success of failure of the mission unless I did something really stupid. In season 4 there are several scenarios I have played and GM'd where how well the players perform is very important for success or failure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We have been told to always run scenarios as written.
Okay.
What I would like to see in the future is encounters including 'debugging' sections, where the author directly puts "if the party is having it too easy/hard, do this."
Like, "if the party is plowing through the minions too easily, have two lieutenants show up instead of one. If they are having a hard time, don't use any of the lieutenants at all and let them just engage the boss directly."
Flexibility. It would be a good thing.
Yes, this would put more work on the writers. But I think it'd be worth it.
-j