Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Interestingly enough Eyes of the Ten part 1 has instructions built into the scenario for how to adjust it based on needed difficulty.
I thought I had seen that somewhere. Thank you for saving me the search.
I think Jason Wu has a good request, that I don't believe would be too hard to accomplish. Certainly no worse to manage than the current "adjust for 4" sidebar.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor
|
Should PFS be challenging or should progress be achievable simply by showing up?
I only ask because it seems a fair number are suggesting people should progress regardless of you player or character ability.
Also, if there are 'easier' alternates, should PCs get a greater reward for taking the tough option? They are ultimately risking more and likely require more healing and expendables to survive.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Should PFS be challenging or should progress be achievable simply by showing up?
I only ask because it seems a fair number are suggesting people should progress regardless of you player or character ability.
I think you would be surprised to find out how many people want it to simply be "show up and get my gold/XP/Fame."
Do they want the illusion of difficulty? Yes. But the reality of it brings out the competitive game player in many of them, and they hate losing. Ultimately, not getting your gold/XP/Fame is losing. Never doubt that perception exists and influences peoples' perception of the game.
Having said that, I think the number of people who understand what a role playing game is outnumber the people who simply want to win.
Edit: You, by the way, are among some of the best when it comes to striking the balance between story and challenge. Don't alter what you are doing.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Should PFS be challenging or should progress be achievable simply by showing up?
I only ask because it seems a fair number are suggesting people should progress regardless of you player or character ability.
I think you would be surprised to find out how many people want it to simply be "show up and get my gold/XP/Fame."
Do they want the illusion of difficulty? Yes. But the reality of it brings out the competitive game player in many of them, and they hate losing. Ultimately, not getting your gold/XP/Fame is losing. Never doubt that perception exists and influences peoples' perception of the game.
Having said that, I think the number of people who understand what a role playing game is outnumber the people who simply want to win.
This is actually what I think as well. In my eyes, the 'perfect' scenario is one that's filled with "Oh ****" moments where people think everything is going south, but in the end, everyone walks away. That's hugely difficult to achieve on a big scale though. You have a baseline expectation (CR) and groups that exceed that find it easy and groups that fall short get pounded.
Edit: You, by the way, are among some of the best when it comes to striking the balance between story and challenge. Don't alter what you are doing.
Hey thanks for the compliment! I try. If you like my scenarios, there is another coming... soon. I think it was outed on the Know Direction interview.
|
Should PFS be challenging or should progress be achievable simply by showing up?
I only ask because it seems a fair number are suggesting people should progress regardless of you player or character ability.
No I'm not. That's a strawman argument.
What I am saying is that at the moment the campaign is requiring more and more optimisation to survive. I don't think the campaign should be about punishing uber encounters which are likely to threaten the most optimised groups. If you do that then you are going to wipe out a lot of player groups.
Challenge is good, meatgrinders are not.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor
|
No I'm not. That's a strawman argument.Should PFS be challenging or should progress be achievable simply by showing up?
I only ask because it seems a fair number are suggesting people should progress regardless of player or character ability.
It is not an argument, it's a question.
It is not an argument, it's a question.No I'm not. That's a strawman argument.Should PFS be challenging or should progress be achievable simply by showing up?
I only ask because it seems a fair number are suggesting people should progress regardless of player or character ability.
Its loaded however, because it infers the answer is its okay for it to be challenging, or we can give you xp for raising your hand. Rather extreme.
Its okay for it to be a little challenging, but if its actively killing players or has a low survival rate I have a slight problem with it myself. I'd rather be in a casual environment than one where death is punishing and a real possibility. In my area I usually don't meet players who optimize or are always looking at builds and how to make themselves amazing. They are easy fodder for some of the scenarios.
YMMV of course.
|
|
Should PFS be challenging or should progress be achievable simply by showing up?
It would be nice if the table got to choose its level of challenge instead of being tied to what is written. If having a choice is the same as "progress by showing up," then progress in PFS should be achievable simply by showing up.
Personally, I believe the main problem is waaaaaay too much focus on combat, which is tied in, but another matter at the same time.
-Matt
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I may...
Perhaps a better approach would be to increase the chance of mission failure, rather than the rate of death? If scenarios included an option that gave out reduced PP, Gold and/or XP if certain conditions were not met (The hostage not saved, the PCs arrested after losing the final battle, etc.), it would bring much-needed challenge without the fear of irrevocably setting players back or causing ill will amongst new players.
|
|
It is not an argument, it's a question.No I'm not. That's a strawman argument.Should PFS be challenging or should progress be achievable simply by showing up?
I only ask because it seems a fair number are suggesting people should progress regardless of player or character ability.
Your argument is that:
I only ask because it seems a fair number are suggesting people should progress regardless of you player or character ability.
That's not what people are saying. You are misrepresenting other's points.
Textbook strawman.
Personally, I believe the main problem is waaaaaay too much focus on combat, which is tied in, but another matter at the same time.
-Matt
I do tend to agree a bit. I've been seeing scenarios with potentially 5-6 combats in them, and that is getting WAY too much. Even 4 can strain a typical 4-5 hour timeslot.
Unfortunately, it also means rushing things and perhaps less roleplaying.
I recently played a game in another organized play campaign. It had no combat in it. None. 100% roleplay. I had a blast. I can't see Pathfinder ever doing that, though.
-j
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I only ask because it seems a fair number are suggesting people should progress regardless of you player or character ability.
It's certainly not what I'm asking or suggesting.
What I'm asking is whether PFS is going to be a campaign in which the casual player, the non-optimizer, and the new player can enjoy playing, and can have a good chance of succeeding and progressing.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Should PFS be challenging or should progress be achievable simply by showing up?
I only ask because it seems a fair number are suggesting people should progress regardless of your player or character ability.
I don't see anybody suggesting that.
What I do see is people suggesting that perhaps the Season 4 scenarios can be too much of a challenge for a randomly-selected table (such as you can end up with at a con or a game store), especially if one or more key roles are not filled by a well-built, well-played and well-equipped character, or if the dice are just not falling well that day.
Up until Season 4, PFS taught the player base that you can get away with significantly less than optimal character builds run by less than optimal players. The rules have changed with the current season, but most of us are still playing the same characters we were playing last year (at least until we play them in a season 4 scenario ...).
I've been lucky so far - in a couple of the Season 4 scenarios I've played I had just the right character, and on those occasions when I felt I wasn't really contributing my fair share the shortfall has been covered by others at the table. But I've also been aware that more than one of those characters making up for my deficiencies has been a lot more capable than anything I could bring.
I don't want to have to go back to square one and rebuild a whole new stable of characters (and run them up through the ranks) just to be able to play once a week or so with the friends I've made through PFS.
|
|
The problem is not at the lower levels of play. Non-optimizer, casual player, and the new player have few problems pre mid levels. The problems only come to the surface when you start getting to the mid levels and the game starts to change. When this happens the new player gets left behind as it is new to them. At higher level play the game changes again. This change is the most dramatic. It removed most of the effective tactics from the lower levels due to spells going off all the time. Along with making some ability's really shine most of them have not ben used much up till now. This is where the casual player drops off as they know what to expect but are unprepared to take care of the problem.
You have to do some optimization to be effective at levels 9+. If you don't you will see a drastic drop in your characters effectiveness. The level of optimization needed is low. If you are not prepared for how the game changes there is no way to prepare for it. So there is no easy fix for new players. The only way for them to bypass a lot of the build mistakes. Is to discus there character creation with a experienced player that is good at building characters. So they can help point the new player in the right direction.
Optimization is not bad. It is needed for Pathfinder be it for a home game, or PFSP. None optimized characters don't last long. As they are unable to preform the job they player made them for.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
It is not an argument, it's a question.No I'm not. That's a strawman argument.Should PFS be challenging or should progress be achievable simply by showing up?
I only ask because it seems a fair number are suggesting people should progress regardless of player or character ability.
Your argument is that:
I only ask because it seems a fair number are suggesting people should progress regardless of you player or character ability.That's not what people are saying. You are misrepresenting other's points.
Textbook strawman.
Assuming he's trying to defend a position, you are correct.
But what makes you think he's not simply interpreting what some people are saying ("It's too difficult for me to have fun") as meaning exactly what he says? Drawing that kind of inference is not unexpected, after all.
His scenarios are some of those that have a "reputation." They are often pointed at as examples of too deadly or too dangerous. But they are just as often pointed at as being challenging without going over the top, and difficult without being death-dealers.
So, considering the fact that he has a reputation, and that he may want to know whether he should adjust, is he really making an unreasonable argument? Or is he maybe just asking a question that he is genuinely curious about?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Perhaps a better approach would be to increase the chance of mission failure...Yes, please.
But then you are going against that "I want to win" feeling that resides in every gamer's heart.
Well, isn't that the feeling that we want to touch on? Personally, I think this would be a great way to make scenarios feel close and meaningful without there being a risk of completely grounding a character concept and losing a level 4 that you've put a lot of time and effort into.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Less chance of death, but more chance of failure? Not a bad idea. Harder to do than just ramping up the encounter difficulty though.Well, isn't that the feeling that we want to touch on? Personally, I think this would be a great way to make scenarios feel close and meaningful without there being a risk of completely grounding a character concept and losing a level 4 that you've put a lot of time and effort into.Perhaps a better approach would be to increase the chance of mission failure...Yes, please.
But then you are going against that "I want to win" feeling that resides in every gamer's heart.
I think it was accomplished in The Disappeared and in Fortress of the Nail. I'm sure there are others. Blakros Matrimony, Feast of Sigils, and Cultist's Kiss I think are certainly capable of being run in much the same way.
But I also witnessed many GMs cave to peer pressure and simply let their tables succeed at whatever they were trying to pull off. A table with zero social skills is not outside the realm of possibility, and they should have absolutely no chance, at all, of succeeding in Fortress of the Nail. But I don't know of ANY tables who failed merely due to the social challenges that make up the opening series of encounters.
|
|
It is not an argument, it's a question.No I'm not. That's a strawman argument.Should PFS be challenging or should progress be achievable simply by showing up?
I only ask because it seems a fair number are suggesting people should progress regardless of player or character ability.
Your argument is that:
I only ask because it seems a fair number are suggesting people should progress regardless of you player or character ability.That's not what people are saying. You are misrepresenting other's points.
Textbook strawman.
Assuming he's trying to defend a position, you are correct.
But what makes you think he's not simply interpreting what some people are saying ("It's too difficult for me to have fun") as meaning exactly what he says? Drawing that kind of inference is not unexpected, after all.
His scenarios are some of those that have a "reputation." They are often pointed at as examples of too deadly or too dangerous. But they are just as often pointed at as being challenging without going over the top, and difficult without being death-dealers.
So, considering the fact that he has a reputation, and that he may want to know whether he should adjust, is he really making an unreasonable argument? Or is he maybe just asking a question that he is genuinely curious about?
OK assuming that is correct here's my take.
When I started playing PFS I created characters who interested me, that had a story and reflected character options that I found intriguing and characterful.
Now I am creating characters in order to get the maximum AC or the maximum damage or the most powerful spells. I have to disregard duellists and Horizon Walkers and all the other characters that I want to play because they are suboptimal and as a result I will just get murdered. I have to flat out reject a good 60-80% of character options for a particular class because they would hamstring my character.
I am having much less fun playing the super challenging stuff. It's no fun for me to be continually dropped and brutalized by maxed out NPC's. There's a difference between being challenged and constantly outmatched. I'm having to work hard to be in the former camp.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor
|
Should PFS be challenging or should progress be achievable simply by showing up?It would be nice if the table got to choose its level of challenge instead of being tied to what is written. If having a choice is the same as "progress by showing up," then progress in PFS should be achievable simply by showing up.
A while ago, I suggested that people, individuals can dial in their challenge level. I still like the idea and think it would be cool if there were a way to do it systematically. Maybe if you survive to retirement age you get a special boon for your next character or a forum badge.
I'm not sure doing it on a table by table basis works though, when people suggested characters playing up would get a lower reward players got up in arms. Unless there is some benefit, I doubt anyone would play "Hard Mode" even as they claim to want the challenge.
|
|
Not all understand the teaching of the Sun Spirit, who your people call Sara-Anne Ray. If they cannot see any other path, perhaps you can convince them to strike for nonlethal force so you can preserve the lives of your foes and at least question them afterwards?
Silly response: I hate to say it, but 'Sara Anne Ray' sounds like the name of a country music singer.
More on topic: This is part of why I tend to try to pick up Merciful Metamagic (Lesser) Rods for my characters, and am hoping a PFS chronicle sheet will make them available. Otherwise will spend a feat on it. I can't do much to stop "AM BARBARIANS" or "am gunslinger" or whatever (seen a lot of the latter outside PFS, sadly), but may be able to mitigate their lethality when said lethality is unwarranted at least.
And on the other topic, I really like the idea of a very brief supplement for PFS scenarios that would give very quick advice, without meaningful spoilers, on what sort of challenge to expect. Adventure Paths already offer this with their Players Guides, a scaled down/even-lower-details version for PFS adventures might be cool. An example might look like...
Bards: This scenario is well removed from society and the odds of running into sentient creatures are low so don't expect much use from your social skills. Your other more subtle talents may remain relevant, however.
Paladins: You will be facing a variety of opponents that will not make it obvious how to pace yourself. Keep a flexible mindset and take care not to spend all your resources in a single fight.
(And so on)
Obviously this would have to be tweaked; you don't want to give too much away. Still, a fair warning to the effect of "Very hard scenario, and conventional (build here)s may be at a severe disadvantage" might be nice? It's worth considering.
This is of course wholly separate from whether Season 4 content was too hard or not; I don't have enough experience with it to weigh in on that.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
increase the chance of mission failure, rather than the rate of death? If scenarios included an option that gave out reduced PP, Gold and/or XP if certain conditions were not met (The hostage not saved, the PCs arrested after losing the final battle, etc.)...
We already have that, its just that players refuse to run away when the challenge is too much for them. Gamers, by their nature, want to "win" as was stated above. When players seem to be over-matched and are deciding what to do, I often hear the GM say that running away is an option, but I have never seen that option taken. That would be a failed mission, and might involved lower gold, fame/prestige, and may even a loss of the XP award depending on how far into the scenario they progressed.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see anybody suggesting that.
When someone is complaining that their (in their words) sub-optimal character is struggling and they don't think that's right, what does that suggest to you?
To me, that suggests something somewhere below where typical PCs are. Maybe that's not what he meant. Maybe he meant "My typical character", but that's not the impression I get from the phrase "sub-optimal".
I don't see how you can have a system where it's challenging for a typical group and survivable for a "sub-optimal" group.
Similarly, when someone says "if the party is having it too easy/hard, do this." What is the point of this if not to help groups that aren't capable of completing the scenario?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My first adventure we tried to play up with barely the legal ability to do so. (with my brand new level 1 trying to survive)
[dr horrible]The redacted. threw. a foo dog. at my head. [/drhorrible]
We ran.
Still got a PP and more gold than we would have playing down...
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor
|
increase the chance of mission failure, rather than the rate of death? If scenarios included an option that gave out reduced PP, Gold and/or XP if certain conditions were not met (The hostage not saved, the PCs arrested after losing the final battle, etc.)...
I'm trying to figure out how you could implement this.
There was a scenario where you could get captured and ransomed back, but characters would lose all their wealth and many/ most players said they would just mark the character as dead at that point.
Well how other than the current way of running away.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
increase the chance of mission failure, rather than the rate of death? If scenarios included an option that gave out reduced PP, Gold and/or XP if certain conditions were not met (The hostage not saved, the PCs arrested after losing the final battle, etc.)...I'm trying to figure out how you could implement this.
Why? I think it's already been implemented. I don't know that it's being ACTED ON, however.
The scenarios I listed above all have an element that involves non-combat encounters. If you fail at those encounters, you'll ultimately fail at the mission. If this kind of thing is pushed, characters will have to become more well rounded, less optimized, and more in line with what is viewed as "sub-optimal" merely because they aren't combat machines. If all you do is kill things, and all anyone ever does is kill things, then the scenarios that REQUIRE a social resolution will ultimately be the most impossible scenarios those characters will ever go through. And, yet, no one will die.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
increase the chance of mission failure, rather than the rate of death? If scenarios included an option that gave out reduced PP, Gold and/or XP if certain conditions were not met (The hostage not saved, the PCs arrested after losing the final battle, etc.)...I'm trying to figure out how you could implement this.
There was a scenario where you could get captured and ransomed back, but characters would lose all their wealth and many/ most players said they would just mark the character as dead at that point.
Well how other than the current way of running away.
Well, it won't work well for your typical dungeon encounters, but...let's look at some classic scenarios and how it could have been implemented.
As a side note, Dennis, in the one scenario of yours that I've interacted with[which I've expressed my fondness for in the past...]
I should note if the success or failure of my mission depends on a single skill check or multiple successes something may have gone horribly wrong.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
What Netopolis said.
The only fault is in what I said: peer pressure against the GM to let the kill, Kill, KILL! table still "win" when everything is dead.
I should note if the success or failure of my mission depends on a single skill check or multiple successes something may have gone horribly wrong.
The success of your current missions depends on multiple successes (to hit rolls) and often on the back of a single skill check (saving throw). Why can't social encounters be engineered the same way by authors and developers? And why can't players be expected to approach them the same way they approach combat?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor
|
It's not clear to me whether sub-optimal is supposed to be "below standard" here. Or "less than the best". The word can be used for either.
I agree. And I'm not trying to put words into people's mouths, all I can say is the mental picture someone's words put into my head.
If I were to tell you someone has a suboptimal car, do you picture a Yugo or a Honda Civic?
From the context I think he means the latter. He's having to do his best just to have a decent change, which in a RPG means ruling out a lot of fun, but not top-notch options. Which seems like a bad idea.
This isn't a problem with PFS, it's a problem with Pathfinder. The system has lots of options which are not perfectly balanced against each other. Do you target the weakest options or the most powerful?
I think most designers try to target something in the middle where most of the players will have maximum fun. That means people who choose the weaker options are going to have problems, I'm not sure there is an easy fix for that. I certainly don't think targeting the weakest options is going to make people happy because most players self-filter those options out.
If you target the weakest choices then you wind up with the majority of your player based bored out of their minds.
Well the fundamental question is how many deaths are you getting? And are the players enjoying it? If deaths go up and numbers go down, ease up. If deaths go down and numbers go down, crank it up.
This is a reasonable way of looking at it. Reviews are a big help also.
I should note if the success or failure of my mission depends on a single skill check or multiple successes something may have gone horribly wrong.The success of your current missions depends on multiple successes (to hit rolls) and often on the back of a single skill check (saving throw). Why can't social encounters be engineered the same way by authors and developers? And why can't players be expected to approach them the same way they approach combat?
Yes, but combat and skill checks are very different things, even if they are both controlled by the mighty D20. One of the bigger differences is in combat you can win without rolling anything (Witch/wizard for instance, make everyone else roll.) All characters have a use in combat also, though some are better than others at certain things.
However, if you lack a party face and fail the whole mission because of this...
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I don't see how you can have a system where it's challenging for a typical group and survivable for a "sub-optimal" group.
That depends on what you think a 'typical' group consists of.
My experience is that most of the characters I see at the table (mine included) are "sub-optimal". My gunslinger, for example, has put a feat or two into other things, so he doesn't (yet) have rapid reload on his long-distance weapon (a musket). And while he is just about to get two-weapon fighting (and a 2nd +2 pistol) he still doesn't do all that much damage per round. My monk is built to explore the advantages of teamwork feats shared with my wife's rogue character. They're a lot of fun to play (and seem to be fairly well received at the table), but they're not as effective as a character that has been designed with a single purpose.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I should note if the success or failure of my mission depends on a single skill check or multiple successes something may have gone horribly wrong.The success of your current missions depends on multiple successes (to hit rolls) and often on the back of a single skill check (saving throw). Why can't social encounters be engineered the same way by authors and developers? And why can't players be expected to approach them the same way they approach combat?Yes, but combat and skill checks are very different things, even if they are both controlled by the mighty D20. One of the bigger differences is in combat you can win without rolling anything (Witch/wizard for instance, make everyone else roll.) All characters have a use in combat also, though some are better than others at certain things.
However, if you lack a party face and fail the whole mission because of this...
I think social encounters can be prosecuted the same way that combat encounters are. The NPC has a DC (the number you need "to hit") and can be assigned a number of successes necessary to overcome (just like hit points). All characters can contribute to the encounter, depending on their skill set, just like currently happens in combat. At the end of it all, you get to move past the encounter.
Let's examine the reverse of your "lack of face" concept: what if the entire party that shows up for a game of, say, Severing Ties, is a group of socially optimized diplo-monkeys. They'll tear through the opening sequence, then run into the <you know what> and all die after failing their FORT saves. I don't see that situation as any different than a group of all fighters failing miserably at the "Infiltrate the Cult" mission because they couldn't get anyone to believe they were just a bunch of down-on-their luck thieves looking for a good score of drugs.
Edit: Heh. I'm sorry. There is a difference: the fighters will all live and get to try again in the next mission.
|
increase the chance of mission failure, rather than the rate of death? If scenarios included an option that gave out reduced PP, Gold and/or XP if certain conditions were not met (The hostage not saved, the PCs arrested after losing the final battle, etc.)...I'm trying to figure out how you could implement this.
There was a scenario where you could get captured and ransomed back, but characters would lose all their wealth and many/ most players said they would just mark the character as dead at that point.
Well how other than the current way of running away.
Well, it won't work well for your typical dungeon encounters, but...let's look at some classic scenarios and how it could have been implemented.
** spoilers omitted **
Commenting, because I have played in a good number of these, and have some comments about them.
I sort of thought the final fight with the murderers was a little contrived, but by the time this had happened, we had figured it out. Of course, it certainly didn't help that the primary "investigator" was my skill monkey rogue. ;)
The cook did throw us off for a little, but we got over it (as well as getting over her cooking).
I honestly thought this one was a blast, even though we had to run from the final fight. We had solved the mystery by then, and had collected everything that our official mission had required of us. Two of us ended up failing our faction missions (myself included), mostly due to insanely bad Diplomacy rolls to get the Aasimar guards to help. Only my Gunslinger was really able to affect the BBEG, since I had cold iron bullets, but I could not shoot 'em fast enough at 2nd level. We ran, hoping the Society would free the poor people there.
The GM said many times that the only time he had seen TPKs was when people didn't run. Sounds like some thing Bob would say, but I am pretty sure it wasn't him running (or was it).
This one was Bob Jonquet running, also at CotN. Was a blast... I had a lot of fun doing the investigation, and Silbeg (my rogue) still wears the silver clasp that he bought at the shop when investigating. There was a good mix of fighting and investigating in this one... we even left the twins alive!
This combat light game was also a lot of fun for me... also played at the same Con of the North... with the same rogue (who was my only character at the time). Had to do a lot of thinking, and a lot of RPing. We could have done better at time management, but it really was a lot of fun... so much so that I decided that I HAD to run it at the first possible chance!
It also taught me the value of being prepared. The fight with the imps was a PITA, since none of us had silvered weapons. From then on, I have kept to the caveat that every character should have 2 supplemental weapons... a silvered light mace for 25gp, and a cold iron dagger for 4gp. No brainers!
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor
|
I don't see how you can have a system where it's challenging for a typical group and survivable for a "sub-optimal" group.That depends on what you think a 'typical' group consists of.
My experience is that most of the characters I see at the table (mine included) are "sub-optimal". My gunslinger, for example, has put a feat or two into other things, so he doesn't (yet) have rapid reload on his long-distance weapon (a musket). And while he is just about to get two-weapon fighting (and a 2nd +2 pistol) he still doesn't do all that much damage per round. My monk is built to explore the advantages of teamwork feats shared with my wife's rogue character. They're a lot of fun to play (and seem to be fairly well received at the table), but they're not as effective as a character that has been designed with a single purpose.
You've obviously put a lot of thought into your characters and it sounds like they can do some neat things which is cool. I wouldn't call that sub-optimal at all.
There is a 5th level character melee focused character in my local group who deals out 5-10 points of damage per round (if they hit) and that's what their character does all the time. When someone says "suboptimal" that's the image I get. I'm going to sit down with the player and see if I can help her achieve something beyond what a typical first level character does on a consistent basis.
Again, I see Yugos when I hear the word.
Would you be happy if at your table the whole game was stopped because n one in the party could make the DC 26 sleight of hand or the obscure knowledge check no one had a point in?
Its good to have skills used, just not interested in a game where it becomes a brick wall.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor
|
increase the chance of mission failure, rather than the rate of death? If scenarios included an option that gave out reduced PP, Gold and/or XP if certain conditions were not met (The hostage not saved, the PCs arrested after losing the final battle, etc.)...I'm trying to figure out how you could implement this.
Why? I think it's already been implemented. I don't know that it's being ACTED ON, however.
The scenarios I listed above all have an element that involves non-combat encounters. If you fail at those encounters, you'll ultimately fail at the mission. If this kind of thing is pushed, characters will have to become more well rounded, less optimized, and more in line with what is viewed as "sub-optimal" merely because they aren't combat machines. If all you do is kill things, and all anyone ever does is kill things, then the scenarios that REQUIRE a social resolution will ultimately be the most impossible scenarios those characters will ever go through. And, yet, no one will die.
I'd love more PFS scenarios where role playing is a bigger part of the scenario, I love writing them. I also love non-combat encounters, but they tend to get a lot of hate on the forums.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Note to Silbeg: For the record, lest anybody misconstrue my comments above, I'm not putting those scenarios down - they're some of my favorite memories in Pathfinder - I'm just using them as examples of an interesting way to add difficulty to the game without killing off every third player character. [Also, not saying that you were saying that I was criticizing, just putting this out there for posterity's sake.]
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
I'd love more PFS scenarios where role playing is a bigger part of the scenario, I love writing them. I also love non-combat encounters, but they tend to get a lot of hate on the forums.increase the chance of mission failure, rather than the rate of death? If scenarios included an option that gave out reduced PP, Gold and/or XP if certain conditions were not met (The hostage not saved, the PCs arrested after losing the final battle, etc.)...I'm trying to figure out how you could implement this.
Why? I think it's already been implemented. I don't know that it's being ACTED ON, however.
The scenarios I listed above all have an element that involves non-combat encounters. If you fail at those encounters, you'll ultimately fail at the mission. If this kind of thing is pushed, characters will have to become more well rounded, less optimized, and more in line with what is viewed as "sub-optimal" merely because they aren't combat machines. If all you do is kill things, and all anyone ever does is kill things, then the scenarios that REQUIRE a social resolution will ultimately be the most impossible scenarios those characters will ever go through. And, yet, no one will die.
Uhhh...Blakros Marimony is one of the most popular PFS scenarios of all time. It is probably the favorite scenario of both my local lodge and my online PFS group, which tends to be a bit combat-heavy. Seriously - RP-heavy scenarios are becoming quite popular, and I love that.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
I will say there have been some terrible scenarios I would never ever run for new players.
"Severing Ties" and "Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment" is another. There are some terrible things that low tier players honestly can't deal with
Sorry to jump this comment a couple pages.
But, I want to attest to the Temple of Empyreal Enlightment.
I go on the boards often enough to have a good handle of optimizing characters.
My level 2 died with little-to-no chance to save by walking into a room.
Then your GM likely ran it wrong. That's one of the most often-misran rooms in PFS history.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Would you be happy if at your table the whole game was stopped because n one in the party could make the DC 26 sleight of hand or the obscure knowledge check no one had a point in?
Its good to have skills used, just not interested in a game where it becomes a brick wall.
Well, frankly, that's why you don't see a lot of characters with those abilities. If scenarios started *requiring* them, you'd see them come up more.
You wouldn't walk into a scenario without a melee fighter or any sort of healing at all. Why should you expect to be able to walk into a scenario without somebody who can talk or pick locks?