|
Yeah, I think David and Jeff hit on something pretty important: you can't count on hundreds of GMs with varying levels of experience and differing opinions of "hard" and "easy" to adjust appropriately, and if you add in some extra complexity, how can you know that GMs are using the extra tracking correctly (or at all)?
I suppose, if there was any adjustment to be made, a reasonable one that could be implimented with relative ease would be a GM-star ranking on scenarios based on the complexity and rules-bendiness built in to the particular scenario. I know that that could seem a bit arbitrary (especially for experienced homebrew GMs) but it at least allows for an existing metric to be used as an indicator of experience and assumed ability. If a scenario was ranked, for instance, for 3+ stars, you could potentially add in some conditions for options to adjust up or down with some amount of confidence that the GM wouldn't abuse the power.
Feel free to pick apart my idea; that is, after all, the point of brainstorming!
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
Well, as I said above, I think season 4 is pretty entertaining. There is the real threat of TPK in some scenarios if the group has a couple of particularly weak links. From what I've seen, there are far fewer mathematically futile encounters. In general, it's painful to DM seasons 0-2 and even 3 often, because I know there's nothing I can do to keep the group challenged.I agree with everything you're saying, but then we also have to consider the flip-side. People come on and post that season 4 has become too hard for them. I don't want to be dismissive of these people. Both sides are satisfied, however, if DMs have the ability to run the mods for whatever character levels they want. And if the DM wants to run a high tier mod for a lower level group and you think it's going to be too hard or don't want your character to die, don't show up for that game. It's a simple fix and doesn't require them to change anything about the way they design.
There are absolutely no plans to let GMs just do what they want willy nilly. And yes, that is exactly what it sounds like you are advocating. There are other OPs that allow for this, and if that is what you need, for GMs to change whatever they like about the scenario, or to run any scenario for any level character they like, then go and try those OPs out. PFS will most likely never allow for GMs to let 3rd level, super optimized characters play in a 5-9 or 7-11 scenario.
|
I would still leave the "hard" or "easy" choice up to the PCs. But the GM should be able to clue in the other PCs that there's a guy rocking a +33 grapple in the group so they can best decide. Having the players realize about encounter #2 that they are all meaningless with Capt Tetori around really deflates the table.
|
|
There are absolutely no plans to let GMs just do what they want willy nilly. And yes, that is exactly what it sounds like you are advocating. There are other OPs that allow for this, and if that is what you need, for GMs to change whatever they like about the scenario, or to run any scenario for any level character they like, then go and try those OPs out. PFS will most likely never allow for GMs to let 3rd level, super optimized characters play in a 5-9 or 7-11 scenario.Well, as I said above, I think season 4 is pretty entertaining. There is the real threat of TPK in some scenarios if the group has a couple of particularly weak links. From what I've seen, there are far fewer mathematically futile encounters. In general, it's painful to DM seasons 0-2 and even 3 often, because I know there's nothing I can do to keep the group challenged.I agree with everything you're saying, but then we also have to consider the flip-side. People come on and post that season 4 has become too hard for them. I don't want to be dismissive of these people. Both sides are satisfied, however, if DMs have the ability to run the mods for whatever character levels they want. And if the DM wants to run a high tier mod for a lower level group and you think it's going to be too hard or don't want your character to die, don't show up for that game. It's a simple fix and doesn't require them to change anything about the way they design.
This is why I propose an engineering solution, instead of a "people" solution. The "easy mode"/"hard mode" mechanic for each subtier now gives a combination of four enumerated possibilities instead of just two. And in many groups, playing up or down is dictated totally be APL; it's only a decision in the grey areas of the tiers.
GMs and willy nilly are not a good combination in organized play ever. But I think more choices is a good thing, as is more open table knowledge of what the power level of the PCs are at. I myself don't play at tables where my PC can't contribute, and it would be best for everyone to know up front if two uber-menschen are going to play the scenario on behalf of the rest of the group.
|
|
Not enough DMs are qualified to make this call. Too many DMs don't even understand the rules of the NPCs they are running in the printed scenarios.
1. How can you be sure of this?
2. It's still a good option for the ones that are qualified. In fact, it is explicitly a move to give additional flexibility to the kind of DMs that know what to do with it.
3. People would of course still be welcome to run the mods at the traditional levels if they don't want to make the call to change things up.
|
|
There are absolutely no plans to let GMs just do what they want willy nilly. And yes, that is exactly what it sounds like you are advocating.
I would say that I am advocating that you have more faith in your GMs and "allow them to do what they want" (is that a shocking thing for people [i.e. GMs] who are putting a great deal of time, for free, into making PFS work to ask for?) in exactly one regard only.
There are other OPs that allow for this, and if that is what you need, for GMs to change whatever they like about the scenario, or to run any scenario for any level character they like, then go and try those OPs out.
That is neither what I need or what I have advocated, and those other OPs aren't, to my knowledge, running Pathfinder, the game I love.
PFS will most likely never allow for GMs to let 3rd level, super optimized characters play in a 5-9 or 7-11 scenario.
Okay, why not? I'm open to hearing the problems with doing so.
|
|
I'm sure of this from anecdotal evidence, and testimonials on these very boards. I consistently play with GMs at conventions that I have a better grasp of the rules than. What other conclusion about this am I supposed to draw? I don't trust myself to get these kinds of changes right, but I'm supposed to trust those guys? I don't think so. I'd say about 1/4 of the GMs I've played with have no idea what happens after a PC grapples one of their NPCs. They also demonstrably do not know how to best make use of what limited spells their NPCs get access to. That's a problem.
Also, Mr. Brock was kind enough to chime in and basically rule this option out. Additionally, I don't see adding the complexity of 3's playing in 5-9 scenarios. Usually the problems come in when level 5 build A can only contribute a fraction of level 5 build B can to a scenario.
As I posted up above, engineering solutions are always better. There is less variation, and far fewer ruffled feathers over perceived bad judgment.
Consider tier 3-7. If there is the possibility of playing 3-4 on easy or hard, and 6-7 on easy or hard, that will cover a lot more PC group situations than the current set up covers.
|
|
This is why I propose an engineering solution, instead of a "people" solution. The "easy mode"/"hard mode" mechanic for each subtier now gives a combination of four enumerated possibilities instead of just two. And in many groups, playing up or down is dictated totally be APL; it's only a decision in the grey areas of the tiers.
GMs and willy nilly are not a good combination in organized play ever. But I think more choices is a good thing, as is more open table knowledge of what the...
Some plan along these lines would also work. More choices is indeed a good thing.
|
|
I'm sure of this from anecdotal evidence, and testimonials on these very boards. I consistently play with GMs at conventions that I have a better grasp of the rules than. What other conclusion about this am I supposed to draw? I don't trust myself to get these kinds of changes right, but I'm supposed to trust those guys? I don't think so. I'd say about 1/4 of the GMs I've played with have no idea what happens after a PC grapples one of their NPCs. They also demonstrably do not know how to best make use of what limited spells their NPCs get access to. That's a problem.
Also, Mr. Brock was kind enough to chime in and basically rule this option out. Additionally, I don't see adding the complexity of 3's playing in 5-9 scenarios. Usually the problems come in when level 5 build A can only contribute a fraction of level 5 build B can to a scenario.
As I posted up above, engineering solutions are always better. There is less variation, and far fewer ruffled feathers over perceived bad judgment.
Consider tier 3-7. If there is the possibility of playing 3-4 on easy or hard, and 6-7 on easy or hard, that will cover a lot more PC group situations than the current set up covers.
Absolutely. I appreciate Mr. Brock's response. I was only asking for some elaboration on it.
As for the issue of bad or unqualified GMs, I would say that we just have to accept that the nature of this thing is working with human beings, some of which may not know what they are doing. Well, so be it. But restrictions on GM flexibility do not cause those people to suddenly know what they are doing. They only shackle the people who do know what they are doing and inhibit their ability to run the game to the best of their ability.
Now, that doesn't mean I want to let GMs do what they want "willy nilly." I'm not even suggesting they be allowed to change a single thing about the mods, or be given any flexibility whatever within the mods (a move that, I understand, would require a lot of design changes). The only power I'm advocating giving them is the power to decide which PCs they let in, which has got to be the main agreed upon power of GMs since the hobby began.
And yes, I understand that Dave has said it isn't going to happen. Okay, that's fine. I'm asking if he would kindly take a few more minutes of his time to tell me why. If not, that's fine too. I'm not trying to be difficult. I don't know how I can ask this in a more reasonable or measured way. Is it altogether unreasonable to ask for an explanation? If he said something like "We are not prepared to abandon the notion of CRs being associated with party level, as that has traditionally been a fundamental facet of the game," then I'd say "Okay, thank you for your response." Because what else is there to say at that point? If it's just too radical, it's too radical. But I sincerely felt that what I am advocating was mischaracterized in Mr. Brock's response, which, although admittedly generous, was also opaque.
|
|
I'm sure of this from anecdotal evidence, and testimonials on these very boards. I consistently play with GMs at conventions that I have a better grasp of the rules than. What other conclusion about this am I supposed to draw? I don't trust myself to get these kinds of changes right, but I'm supposed to trust those guys? I don't think so. I'd say about 1/4 of the GMs I've played with have no idea what happens after a PC grapples one of their NPCs. They also demonstrably do not know how to best make use of what limited spells their NPCs get access to. That's a problem.
What if there was, as was suggested somewhere upthread, some sort of "on the fly" adjustment (detailed in the scenario, of course) for "too easy" or "too dificult" portions of a scenario according to certain conditions being met? There wasn't a "for instance" bit there, so I'll make one up:
In 5-#, there are four combat encounters, first and second being "feelers," so to speak, to determine if third and forth need adjustment for the party make-up. If first or second last more than five rounds, adjust for "too hard," by giving two critters the "young" simple template and if they last only one or two rounds, for "too easy" by giving the same to critters the "advanced" simple template. (This is a really simple example; if it was implemented, I would imagine that it would be a little more complex)
I would still, if I were in charge and deciding to implement this, only have these kind of rules in scenarios limited to more experienced GMs to alleviate the pressure of tracking so much information on potentially weaker GMs.
|
|
I'm sure of this from anecdotal evidence, and testimonials on these very boards. I consistently play with GMs at conventions that I have a better grasp of the rules than. What other conclusion about this am I supposed to draw? I don't trust myself to get these kinds of changes right, but I'm supposed to trust those guys? I don't think so. I'd say about 1/4 of the GMs I've played with have no idea what happens after a PC grapples one of their NPCs. They also demonstrably do not know how to best make use of what limited spells their NPCs get access to. That's a problem.What if there was, as was suggested somewhere upthread, some sort of "on the fly" adjustment (detailed in the scenario, of course) for "too easy" or "too dificult" portions of a scenario according to certain conditions being met? There wasn't a "for instance" bit there, so I'll make one up:
In 5-#, there are four combat encounters, first and second being "feelers," so to speak, to determine if third and forth need adjustment for the party make-up. If first or second last more than five rounds, adjust for "too hard," by giving two critters the "young" simple template and if they last only one or two rounds, for "too easy" by giving the same to critters the "advanced" simple template. (This is a really simple example; if it was implemented, I would imagine that it would be a little more complex)
I would still, if I were in charge and deciding to implement this, only have these kind of rules in scenarios limited to more experienced GMs to alleviate the pressure of tracking so much information on potentially weaker GMs.
I think its better to do a quick PC audit up front and let the PCs understand their total group make up. Then let them decide to go "hard mode" or "easy mode". If you've got a couple optimizers, go "hard mode", to make sure everyone gets to play.
|
|
I do accept this. That's why I favor the engineering solution. The authors put in a few extra stat blocks for templating some NPCs and BOOM instant hard mode. Some NPC critters are just so much more entertaining with two or three levels of fighter or rogue.
This is still a people solution, because people choose to implement it thereby making the mods harder, i.e. increasing the CR and therefore, effectively, running a higher tier mod for a lower level party. You are proposing the same thing I am proposing, but suggesting a much more complicated method of implementation that actually requires Paizo to do more work, unlike my method which does not require it.
|
|
Just to play Mike's advocate for a minute, how much empowerment do you propose to give players or GMs? If you let either alter the campaign without relatively strict guidelines, you run the risk of exacerbating the "problem" by allowing groups to play up or down (well- hard or easy, at any rate) "willy nilly."
The only way any kind of adjustment for power level could work, in my opinion, would be if it followed very specific rules to maintain the integrity of the "same experience" standardization inherent to organized play.
EDIT: just to be clear, I have no way of knowing if this would or wouldn't be how Mike sees this all...
|
|
There is a world of difference between the PCs choosing it and the GM making a judgment call. And the amount of work is completely trivial for an experienced writer. We're talking what here? Maybe eight templating blocks total?
Again, the big advantage to my system is that it is codified, and limits the judgment calls to one: the one the PCs make at the start. The GM has no additional things to keep track of, just apply the templates to the existing critters.
|
|
A bimodal choice of "easy/normal" or "hard" is not "willy nilly". This is the only level of empowerment I'm proposing. What kind of specific rules would you propose? I mean the PCs can tell if they have optimizers in their midsts.
In fact, "easy", "normal", and "hard" might even be better, because that would really help out groups with say, no healing capabilities. I seriously wouldn't even know how to write a module with a clear conscience without having some provision for the healing/no healing dichotomy of the 3.X system. The 'easy' mode could cater to those kinds of parties.
|
|
Additionally, the whole "same experience" thing is a very problematic concept. If my "same experience" is mind-numbing boredom because I know every NPC encounter is going to be a rofl stomping, I'll quit wanting those experiences pretty quickly.
I think it would be better to have "similar experiences" that are more interesting for the PCs across the board.
|
|
The inclusion of a choice would not, in and of itself, be "willy nilly." I'm just saying that there would have to be some kind of hard rule to determine if a party would merit the template or whatever change. I do not know what those specific hard rules would be, just that I wouldn't want them to just be a judgement call (I can't trust GMs to all have similar judgement).
As for three modes, I like that a lot. (1)Standard or adjusted (2)up or (3)down as necessary seems reasonable and shouldn't be too onerous a job for the writers.
|
|
This type of discussion scares me. The hundereds of dollars and thousands of hours I spent on the game would be near worthless if the types of changes to allow DMs more control. Because I would leave the game.
There are already DMs(I do nto care if it is trademark I am using it under free source as a nonprofit for informational pursuit only) who would personal grudges. Look through the advice board they are on on there all the time. I seen with my own eyes in front and with a venture lieutenant people conspire to kill other characters PCs. Now this maybe be a rare circumstance but it happens. I have seen DMs cheat and fudge rolls to make things harder. On this same adventure a player was killed(I was not going to run out and expose myself to help in the fight if the GM is fudging rolls against me).
If you saw over 200 games and never seen a player die, well that I just do not believe is right. Either you are omitting occurances, or your group softballs games so no one can die. I have been playing just short a year now. I have gone to 5 cons. I never met another player that did not witness a player death. Now you are telling me there are a thousand people on yourside of the wolrd that never has seen a character die. I am sorry I just do not believe that.
I am a very opinionated person. I have a group of people I met through PFS and am now very vclose friends with. Due to my big mouth and refusal to allow people to lie cheat or steal infront of me I have DMs that target me. I had the store personal of the game place warn me one of the GMs was bragging about how he would kill me when I was not there. Your changes would give legal reasons for people like that to smote everyone of my characters.
|
|
No, the PCs decide the difficulty level. Every time. Not the GM. As a GM, I want my PCs to have as much challenge as they like. I am not there to fudge, cheat, manipulate. Just run the NPCs as realistically as possible. But if the NPCs mathematics are non-threatening, there's nothing I can do.
And no, no codified rules for easy, normal or hard. The PCs assume the burden of determining the level of risk/reward.
I think its absurd to target characters in PFS. I don't take any PCs abilities personally. It's not my fault as a GM if the author made encounters weak sauce encounters. I just do the best I can, but I'm not such a good actor that the PCs can't tell when they're not in any real danger. I'm also not here to try to cover for weak sauce encounters.
I've seen players die, but almost always because half the group couldn't contribute meaningfully in a combat. The PCs in question had the money and feat selections to make functional characters, but chose not to, or was unaware of how to. That's why I think my "fix" is the best: a 5 minute PC audit followed by a PC decision on difficulty level. The GM mindlessly adds the numbers, class abilities and feats to the critters and plays to the best of his abilities.
Another beautiful thing about templating is that the class abilities granted by them are usually well known, as opposed to subbing in bizarre, hard-to-run creatures constantly. Some bizarre creature is good, but not a good mechanism for "hard mode".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry if this is a wall of text. Make it to the bottom to collect your cookie.
OP is hitting the nail right on the head. We have two systems in place to measure the relationship between PCs and encounters: Character level and CR. Both of these systems give an approximate level of threat capability. Both are becoming less effective as players are becoming more sophisticated about how to deploy characters that are more effective that their nominal level, and as writers are writing more more sophisticated encounters. The range of capability in both character level and CR is at the point where the they are, or are becoming, of limited value.
Some options for addressing this come in a few forms, which are not exclusive to each other:
Changing character building rules to reduce the size of the range in character capability essentially exclusion of over and/or underpowered options. I don't think this is in the interest of the campaign in broad strokes, but there may be some ways in which this can address the most egregious issues. PFS has been exceptionally permissive in terms of allowing rules resources. This serves the marketing goals, but it also introduces challenges for PFS administration. These are competing challenges that pull in different directions.
I am seeing more encounters, and series of encounters, that are combining opponents, terrain, etc. in ways that are force multipliers. These are more interesting encounters, but they also require a degree of restraint and examination of the CR math. CR is an approximate number, and creativity can result in encounters that can be overpowered for the total CR by the selection of creatures that are on the high end of their range, which are very swingy in terms of specific weaknesses or strengths, or in finely tuned terrain and other external conditions. Examples include terrain that is highly attuned to the capabilities of the opponents, or synergies that dampen weaknesses.
The examples above are situations where creative design results in encounters where CR math using the creatures alone will give a false evaluation. The synergies provided by the design also need to figure into the CR.
Disclosing character expectations in adventure blurbs gives players more information to make decisions regarding what characters to play in the adventure. "Combat intensive" probably isn't a place to bring a character who hasn't yet hit its stride, nor necessarily a diplomatic face and/or skills character. "Role play intensive" probably isn't the place to bring a double min-maxed melee character with a Charisma of 5 and an Int of 7. Some players will ignore these disclosures, and human nature will lead to people playing them anyway rather than wait. But, at least there can always be a wry grin, a sad nod of the head, and an unvoiced, "Dude, you should have known better..."
Changing the way of determining character capability basically means to evaluate characters on factors other than just their character level. This is a pretty complex thing to do both effectively and efficiently. There is talk about how something like a 4th level character might play as weak as 2nd level or as strong as 7th level. Make it so. Make that weak 4th level character play as a 2nd level norm. Make that strong 4th level character play as a 7th level norm. How to do it would take some brainstorming; it might include some rubric, or a system of GM evaluation and appeal; maybe each table votes on most effective and least effective character at the table, and when a character gets a certain number of votes, they are treated as a level lower or higher tier calculations and module qualification. These are possibly harebrained or unrealistic ideas on their own; I'm brainstorming here.
|
|
We don't have collected data on lethality. No data means decisions are based on anecdotes and squeaky wheels. We do, however, have an already collected body of data that provides a filtered view of success/failure, player capability, character capability, GM contribution to these factors, change in success/failure over time, etc. This is the data on prestige gained. This data is available for analysis. The data is there for prestige gained, table size, by character, by player, date, and by GM.
A mod whose theme is somewhat more magical, is going to likewise have elements in it that favor magical classes.
A mod whose theme is somewhat more martial, is going to likewise have elements in it that favor martial classes.
Depending on which type of class any particular hater favors, he is going to perceive one or the other mod to be "revealing" the "overpowered" nature of the opposite type of class. He is then going to use his false conclusion to bolster his theories about "power creep" and "imbalance," in a classic example of Confirmation Bias.
You have all been served. Embrace your Wrong or you'll never get over it.
Thread may be closed.
|
|
If you saw over 200 games and never seen a player die, well that I just do not believe is right. Either you are omitting occurances, or your group softballs games so no one can die. I have been playing just short a year now. I have gone to 5 cons. I never met another player that did not witness a player death. Now you are telling me there are a thousand people on yourside of the wolrd that never has seen a character die. I am sorry I just do not believe that.
I never said that. I said I've seen around 3 characters die, and that my own characters have never died, though in fairness I think a GM did softball something for me one time when an Eriynes put my inquisitor/monk down...not 100% sure. But let's say I'm forgetting one instance, and that I should have died in that Eriynes fight. That's still 5 deaths witnessed in around 200 games. That number still seems incredibly low to me. And again, where I live there are a lot of rotating players and many skilled DMs.
|
.
Let me hear your thoughts. I'm not picking on anyone in this thread. I'm going to play devils advocate and welcome others to join me. If we are going to consider something like this, then we need to poke as many holes as possible in a suggestion to see if it would actually work as people intend it to do so.
Everyone is going to disagree about what factors make easy and hard - and yes the can GM make a big difference.
So my suggestion is track deaths in game - include the ones recovered from - because even if the character comes back their overall resources (GP or PP) are reduced significantly.
It does not help the game the first year it is out - but it would give an objective measure of difficulty by a measure many people use to measure difficult games.
A death total would perhaps need to be put on the reporting form in a way that is clear. It would combine all the great GMs and poor GMs into a number - I'd go with deaths per game average rather than a pure number - a person could look at a website and know that a game with .9 deaths per game average is likely tougher than a .05 deaths per game average, without getting into what is causing it.
|
|
I find it amusing that the OP assumes that the power gap is there because of the splat books. Core only, you will have that gap...and that gap doesn't actually get all that much bigger with the splats. What the splats generally does is let you have the gap in different ways honestly...which means for the most part, paizo has done a good job of the splats. So the REAL issue is that some people like to make ubers and some like to make gimps...which will be out of whack for the general gaming community. The solution? IGNORE THEM. Bad bad things happen when you start to cater to the extremes.I don't assume that and never said that. I'm talking about the Ultimate books too, and I already said that the problem has always existed. My point is it's only getting and only can get worse. And I find it amusing that you think that "ignore it" is a legitimate solution to the problem.
You assuming that there IS AN ISSUE to begin with. And even if there is an issue, your going about it the wrong way. You don't focus on how to deal with the uber or gimp, you focus on how to make the game more fun for the vast majority of players. You seek to change the game to minimize the impact of the extreme. You should seek a change to the game that makes it more fun then it is now.
|
|
Sorry, I just want to circle around to the OPs idea again.
Why don't we just add a (easy, normal, hard) rating to the scenario's web page?
The rating could be reached by a consensus of VC/VLs and 5 star GMs who have read/run the scenario. Community opinion could also be factored, but the rating would be empirical.
Benefits
- GMs know the challenge rating and players can find the challenge rating if desired (without the risk of reading spoilers). It could drive more traffic to Paizo.com.
- No extra work for authors and very little extra work for Paizo.
- No changes to the scenarios themselves and no need to worry about backward compatibility.
- The rating can be easily updated if a mistake was made or it becomes outdated.
- No changes to the PDF.
- No changes to organized play or forcing a change in player's play style.
Simple solutions work.
|
|
You assuming that there IS AN ISSUE to begin with. And even if there is an issue, your going about it the wrong way. You don't focus on how to deal with the uber or gimp, you focus on how to make the game more fun for the vast majority of players. You seek to change the game to minimize the impact of the extreme. You should seek a change to the game that makes it more fun then it is now.
I don't assume there is an issue. I have witnessed and experienced the issue. And obviously so have a lot of other people, judging from the number of posts of people venting about mod ease/difficulty. Seeking a change to the game that makes it more fun is precisely what I am doing.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Finlanderboy: if that were implemented, it would leave the first couple of months of a scenario's life to be played only by the confident, foolhardy, or ignorant. Not necessarily but...
I'm going back to my original stance. There is no problem. If a scenario isn't especially life threatening, so be it. If another is lethal, so be it. Really (like really, really) players should expect their characters to sometimes face ridiculous peril and sometimes should have a field day, but mostly be somewhat challenged.
If a given player makes extreme, optimized, kill-machines and is disappointed in his/her experience because the fights are too hard, I say "make another character! Make a character who you can roleplay!" If another player is getting frustrated because his off-center role-only characters are getting eaten, I say "make another character! Make a character who can survive an adventurer's life!"
Sorry, Finlanderboy, only the first paragraph was at you.
|
|
Really (like really, really) players should expect their characters to sometimes face ridiculous peril and sometimes should have a field day, but mostly be somewhat challenged.
But that isn't what is happening. Players either make a powerful character that is almost never challenged, or a weak character that is constantly over-challenged, and if Paizo moves the bar in either direction, the problem is exacerbated for the opposite group of people.
If a given player makes extreme, optimized, kill-machines and is
disappointed in his/her experience because the fights are too hard, I say "make another character! Make a character who you can roleplay!" If another player is getting frustrated because his off-center role-only characters are getting eaten, I say "make another character! Make a character who can survive an adventurer's life!"
This is one way to approach things, certainly, but it is a pretty lazy stance to take. This approach says "The CR rules say that an equal CR encounter should use up approximately one quarter of a party's resources and be a moderate challenge given four characters of a level equal to the rating. Therefore, any characters that use up more than the projected resources or have a harder time than the CR anticipates are too weak, and any characters that are not challenged at all by the encounter are too powerful." In other words, it proposes CR as both a gauge and an authority. That is why this logic, it seems to me, is eating its own tail. Which is it? Are the CRs supposed to accurately indicate the challenge that encounters will present, or are they supposed to set a bar/limit for player character power? You really can't have it both ways
Or at least, if you insist on having it both ways then you have to make it clear that that is how things work. It's not unprecedented- Hero System explicitly takes that approach, giving a chart that indicates things like, say, a character that can inflict/withstand X or more damage a turn, or that can take X or more actions (etc) is officially overpowered, despite the fact that creating such characters is possible in the rules. But D&D and Pathfinder have not traditionally followed this kind of philosophy...at least on the surface. But if the designers think that certain characters are underpowered or overpowered, and simply aren't willing to say so in an official capacity, then they really are inviting the kind of endless bickering about it that crops up on these threads.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't assume there is an issue. I have witnessed and experienced the issue. And obviously so have a lot of other people, judging from the number of posts of people venting about mod ease/difficulty. Seeking a change to the game that makes it more fun is precisely what I am doing.
You assuming that there IS AN ISSUE to begin with. And even if there is an issue, your going about it the wrong way. You don't focus on how to deal with the uber or gimp, you focus on how to make the game more fun for the vast majority of players. You seek to change the game to minimize the impact of the extreme. You should seek a change to the game that makes it more fun then it is now.
So...how many people have you met, that was on either spectrum, who when told that they are ruining the fun for everyone and they should either tone it down or up refused to do so and continue to ruin games? For me...that would be one so far. One out of dozens of PFS players I have met. I don't see that as an issue honestly.
As for the change...no your attempt is to minimize the impact of the optimizers and you HOPE that will make the game more fun...if they are present. But what does the change do for groups who don't have an optimizer around? Does making save using casters suck horribly make the game more fun when there are no optimizers abound or does it just frustrate a player for no good reason? Does a damage cap make the game more fun or less fun when there is one guy who can do 10+ damage a round with a bunch of support characters? Your focused on the extremes...not the average players.
|
|
So...how many people have you met, that was on either spectrum, who when told that they are ruining the fun for everyone and they should either tone it down or up refused to do so and continue to ruin games?
A lot. Like I said, I live in a big city. Lots of players here. And you meet plenty of both types in all kinds of other gaming related, non PFS environments too. But more importantly my experience has been that nobody has really been comfortable having that conversation with the players, and I'm not sure they should be comfortable having it in an organized play setting.
But what does the change do for groups who don't have an optimizer around?
The change I have called for (and don't worry, it has been officially ruled out by Mr. Brock anyway) would not impact such a group at all.
Does making save using casters suck horribly make the game more fun when there are no optimizers abound or does it just frustrate a player for no good reason? Does a damage cap make the game more fun or less fun when there is one guy who can do 10+ damage a round with a bunch of support characters?
I never proposed any of those solutions. Not sure why you think I did.
|
|
I never said that. I said I've seen around 3 characters die, and that my own characters have never died, though in fairness I think a GM did softball something for me one time when an Eriynes put my inquisitor/monk down...not 100% sure. But let's say I'm forgetting one instance, and that I should have died in that Eriynes fight. That's still 5 deaths witnessed in around 200 games. That number still seems incredibly low to me. And again, where I live there are a lot of rotating players and many skilled DMs.
If you have seen only 3 characters die, or maybe 5, in about 200 games...something is *very* wrong. As a GM, I play by the rules. I don't softball fights, I don't scale them up. I run the NPCs as written, and the NPCs play to win. I have personally been the cause of about 10 character deaths, and multiple near misses. In my last PFS game, we had two deaths (admittedly, that *was* Bonekeep). I have seen plenty of deaths, both as a player and as a GM.
I don't know what the explanation is for your experience, but know that it is not the norm.
|
|
I don't assume there is an issue. I have witnessed and experienced the issue. And obviously so have a lot of other people, judging from the number of posts of people venting about mod ease/difficulty. Seeking a change to the game that makes it more fun is precisely what I am doing.
You assuming that there IS AN ISSUE to begin with. And even if there is an issue, your going about it the wrong way. You don't focus on how to deal with the uber or gimp, you focus on how to make the game more fun for the vast majority of players. You seek to change the game to minimize the impact of the extreme. You should seek a change to the game that makes it more fun then it is now.
So...how many people have you met, that was on either spectrum, who when told that they are ruining the fun for everyone and they should either tone it down or up refused to do so and continue to ruin games? For me...that would be one so far. One out of dozens of PFS players I have met. I don't see that as an issue honestly.
As for the change...no your attempt is to minimize the impact of the optimizers and you HOPE that will make the game more fun...if they are present. But what does the change do for groups who don't have an optimizer around? Does making save using casters suck horribly make the game more fun when there are no optimizers abound or does it just frustrate a player for no good reason? Does a damage cap make the game more fun or less fun when there is one guy who can do 10+ damage a round with a bunch of support characters? Your focused on the extremes...not the average players.
I have ran into at least five. That's just in Ohio. The scenarios are too easy to break with builds easily accessible off the internet. There is no harm in having three tiers of difficulty and a mini-audit to determine PC capabilities each session.
All this being said, I don't trust the CR system at all. I think that some critters underrated and some are overrated. When I design encounters for homebrew I look at robustness of creatures and dpr of creatures, as well as relevant special abilities. And, of course, templates.
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
So...how many people have you met, that was on either spectrum, who when told that they are ruining the fun for everyone and they should either tone it down or up refused to do so and continue to ruin games?
A lot. Like I said, I live in a big city. Lots of players here. And you meet plenty of both types in all kinds of other gaming related, non PFS environments too. But more importantly my experience has been that nobody has really been comfortable having that conversation with the players, and I'm not sure they should be comfortable having it in an organized play setting.
So, where is it the region that you play? I would like to speak with the VCs and/or VLs in tha area to get some more info.
And please don't read tone or intent into the request. I no longer respond on these message boards with any tone other than matter-of-fact statements.
I simply wish to speak to the VOs in your region to see if this is a problem only in the store(s), convention (s), and game day (s) you play at, or if it something more widespread in the region.
|
|
The scenarios are too easy to break with builds easily accessible off the internet.This is a problem with the builds, not the scenarios.
I partially disagree. Hence, my proposal for "hard mode" and also "easy mode" for each subtier. It's a trivial effort on the part of the writers, since all the fluff and maps would be the same.
The authors, and PFS in general, should at least partially acknowledge what is possible in the game. "Hard mode" does this. Pretending power builds don't exist is a mistake, in my opinion. I've had far, far more games ruined by power builds than the threat of TPK. Most of the time, TPK isn't a realistic threat.
|
|
The scenarios are too easy to break with builds easily accessible off the internet.This is a problem with the builds, not the scenarios.
But again, how can this be? If the builds are legal, what is the justification for saying that they are problematic? We covered (and, I had hoped, dismissed) this line of thinking earlier in the thread. It's the "blame the optimizers" mode which is, I think, ultimately unhelpful.
|
|
So, where is it the region that you play? I would like to speak with the VCs and/or VLs in tha area to get some more info.
And please don't read tone or intent into the request. I no longer respond on these message boards with any tone other than matter-of-fact statements.
I simply wish to speak to the VOs in your region to see if this is a problem only in the store(s), convention (s), and game day (s) you play at, or if it something more widespread in the region.
Well, I do apologize if I read something into your posts that wasn't there. But I don't want to mention where I play or start naming names. I'm not trying to start a witch hunt or something. If anything, I think you'll find from a review of my statements that my intent is the opposite. I want to take the focus and the blame off the players (whether weak players or optimizers) and point out that the way to solve this can and must only be a top down, system based solution.
Furthermore, although I have met several players that many people might consider problematic for the kinds of reasons we're talking about, as I said no one is really comfortable having a conversation with any of them to the effect that their characters are problems. What's more there is little consensus about who is a problem or what the specific problem as, or how severe it is, as the activity on these boards indicates.
It is for precisely these reasons that I advocate solutions that provide more choice and flexibility, rather than draconian solutions that punish or exclude players of one type or another. If you at Paizo want to tell us that there is a right way and a wrong way to play this game, then that should be reflected in the game design, and based on the current potential power range of legal builds, it is not reflected. If on the other hand you embrace the fluid and highly variable nature of play that the system as it currently exists engenders, the system should reflect that as well, which, primarily because of tying CR to character level, it currently does not do.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The hundereds of dollars and thousands of hours I spent on the game would be near worthless if the types of changes to allow {GM}s more control. Because I would leave the game.
The games we play (at least in my area) often have GMs investing the most into the games (book cost, printing scenarios, mapping, etc.). This isn't the case across the board, and I'm happy that it's not that way everywhere, but if I'm running a game I'm expected to make some control decisions. I often advocate player experience when the "veteran" players start talking about playing at higher levels--the less experienced player could get lost in a sea of options while still trying out the game.
I feel that having some control over what I can field isn't a bad thing, as long as I'm looking towards the long-term development of the player's experience.
I'm not saying I get to drop my jabberwocky monster on the game mat just because I feel like it on my PFS day. I'm saying that as a gamemaster, I should be able to know the rules well enough to get the best play out of a scenario and how to make a great experience for the players that show up.
2. PFS GMs need the power to run the CR/tier they want for whatever level of party they want, depending on their preference and on the relative experience of their players and the relative degree of optimization of those players' characters.
I agree with this. I feel that some of the scenario should be flexible based on the constraints of player v. character experience.
How we reconcile it, I have come to believe, is we give {GM}s the power to run the mods for any level of character, and to allow or disallow individual PCs to play in the mod they are running.
I disagree with this. I think that if "Play. Play. Play." is what we're going for here (as in, the PFS as a whole), then pushing players away because of a character being played is bad form. As that player invested their time into that character, it needs to be seen as adding-value to their play experience.
I would almost recommend speaking with the player about his or her character options and how it impacts the rest of the player experience, PFS is a social game after all. ("So, Jason, about that barbarian that kills everything, look: the players would like to have a chance to do more than be the PR team that cleans up the mess.")
A bimodal choice of "easy/normal" or "hard" is not "willy nilly". This is the only level of empowerment I'm proposing. What kind of specific rules would you propose? I mean the PCs can tell if they have optimizers in their midsts.
Not every player can recognize optimizers on first blush. After a few games, yes; but if it is the only player type they encounter, than that gamer's scale is off when they travel to another area or a major convention.
Rather than a "easy", "normal", "hard", "epic", "mythic" or "Gygaxian" scale structure, why not an "Encounter/CR" count a la the White Wolf's Storytelling Adventure System listed on the scenarios webpage? Think of it as a 5-Star restaurant guide. If your signing up at a convention, it's hard to tell, maybe if the organizers but a little info blurb on the same line (like Tier 3-7, CR ***1/2)...
Hard to account for what we'd put into it, but after the GM looks over it and the scenarios, that system would be recognizable fairly easy.
-Richard..
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
I wasn't asking to start a witch hunt or the like. I was simply asking for the VOs and what region you play in as they most likely have a better grasp of the entire region. I discuss often and in detail with the VOs, to make the top down decisions you advised of in your last reply
However, Since I don't know where you play, and whether this is an isolated location or a more widespread problem, I have little to work with not being able to discuss with the VOs in that particular region and will move on to the other topics on these message boards.
Anyhow, I will leave this thread to all of you to get back to theory crafting the best ways to make things better.
|
|
"Rather than a "easy", "normal", "hard", "epic", "mythic" or "Gygaxian" scale structure, why not an "Encounter/CR" count a la the White Wolf's Storytelling Adventure System listed on the scenarios webpage? Think of it as a 5-Star restaurant guide. If your signing up at a convention, it's hard to tell, maybe if the organizers but a little info blurb on the same line (like Tier 3-7, CR ***1/2)..."
Because this does not allow each scenario to be played on "hard mode". Some people want the challenge every scenario, and I don't see how adding a few sidebars to the scenarios is too much of a burden.
I'm not talking about rating the scenarios. I'm talking about modular changes available for each sub-tier.