How dangerous should a PFS scenario be? / How many players to allow?

[My PFS Lavode De'Morcaine]

The VC has a very nice website set up with schedules, sign-up, notes, etc...

He has talked to the group as whole on game days and sent out emails, specifically saying that not enough people are stepping up to help out. Virtually no one did. But they all keep showing up expecting us to GM for them so they can have the fun of being a player.

To me that is pretty self-centered and short-sighted, but there you go.

[David_Bross]

Lormyr wrote:

Jiggy pretty well hit the nail on the head.

I believe that PFS should be exactly as dangerous as the players seated at your table would like it to be. Sometimes this mark is easier to hit than others, but judge fairly, play by the same rules as everyone else, and do you best to prepare and run the story well and you should all come out with a fun experience at the end.

On the subject of difficulty itself, some players/PCs are going to be easier to challenge than others. Some you will not be able to scratch with the tools you have at your disposal. That is just the way the cookie crumbles. I believe focusing on that aspect of things is not the best area to fixate on, however.

I try to match the difficulty presented by tactics. In the absence of those, I try to imagine what the creature's default tactics would be in that situation. If things seems to be going poorly for the party, I try to pull back to the extent I can while still following tactics.

I assume the challenge level was set by the authors and campaign leadership when the scenario was developed, and I think that most of the time this works fairly well.

Note that in Season 0-3 the default assumption was for 4 PCs, and if you feel like limiting your table, I don't necessarily see an issue with that. If you're at an event and limiting table size will prevent people from playing (others unwilling to GM, you have numbers which don't allow a table of 4 and other legal tables), then there is an issue. PFS is designed to be inclusive, and to the extent that you can allow others to participate, you should. If you're limiting the table because you think it'll increase the odds of you killing PCs, you shouldn't be GMing PFS (or anything else).

[Derek Weil]

Ok then. My perceptions and attitude as a GM are limiting my fun.

Why should I change them? Why shouldn't I just stop GMing or quit PFS altogether?

These questions are entriely rhetorical, but I wrote them down to put a frame of reference in place.

The salient part:

I want to have a better attitude as a PFS GM. Do any of you have suggestions on how I might do that?

Right now the only parts about GMing that I like better then playing are knowing the whole story up front and being in charge.

[Jack R Brown]

Derek, I am sorry to hear that. Doesn't sound like being a GM is all that fun to you.

I know that I really enjoy playing, and I really enjoy GMing.

Maybe we should morph the discussion, slightly...

What do I like about GMing?

Well, for sure, especially with the way that PFS scenarios are done, I really do like knowing the whole story. A lot of times, partially due to table variation, partly due to bad die rolls, and partly due to scenario design, as a player you only get to know part of the story.

But that's only a small part. I like telling stories, playing a variety of characters, and trying to challenge a group of adventurers. Sometimes the latter is easier than others... which makes the real challenge trying to challenge them to a level that is appropriate to the players and the scenario!

Sometimes I'll push them to the brink of death, but also keep an eye out for an "out", in case I am not really looking for the TPK!

One of the hardest things I have been learning is to handle the issue where the party "curb stomps" the encounter. The difficulty here comes around that as a GM, I try and prepare myself to run each encounter, to make it challenging. When the group pounds the Ghoul Worm into dust in the first round, it is hard NOT to be frustrated (as all that time prepping feels like it has gone to waste)! However, in reality, as a GM you are an entertainer. If the party is entertained, then you have done your duty.

Jiggy, I really loved your comment about all scenarios not being a "climax". You are right... occasionally it is good to know your characters are good at what they do, and can survive adversity. Not all encounters (and adventures) have to be climactic... some will be cake walks... and that's probably a good thing.

I know there is at least one character in our lodge that prefers calk walk adventures (her fighter helps make things cake walks, but that's another story altogether). So when they curb stomped the scenario I ran this last Sunday, she had a blast! I really tried hard not to get frustrated and keep it all upbeat. But, I will say, it is hard when you are a competitive person. :D

Still, I had fun... and I also realize that this is something that will be happening more often with the Season 5 play up/down rules. Also, this was probably fate getting me back for what Munny (my Gunslinger/Inquisitor read "Lawman of Abadar") did to the evil dudes in Elven Entanglement (that is, after being reduced to 2hp from DEAD DEAD in the initial round of combat in the initial encounter).

So... I hope some of this helped, Derek. I know I babbled a little there, but...

[JohnF]

Derek Weil wrote:

I want to have a better attitude as a PFS GM. Do any of you have suggestions on how I might do that?

Right now the only parts about GMing that I like better then playing are knowing the whole story up front and being in charge.

IMO, neither of those are particularly good reasons to GM.

I don't really know which of playing or GMing I enjoy more; I don't see them as an 'either/or' choice. I do try and play a scenario before I GM it, though, both because I prefer playing without knowing anything about the plot, and because having played through a scenario helps me be aware of places in the story where they may be areas needing more attention. Fortunately I live in an area where we have three sizable conventions a year, and with multiple local stores offering PFS, so I can usually find somewhere to get a seat as a player before running any particular scenario at one of the stores.

I don't want to be "in charge" at the table; that (to me) suggests there's some form of conflict between the GM and the players. I see myself more as a facilitator, trying to make it possible for everybody at the table to have an enjoyable shared experience. My role may be different from that of the others at the table, but we're all working towards the same goal.

As for the numbers at the table: with the later (season 4 & 5) scenarios, I much prefer to have six players at the table, not four or five. These scenarios are designed with six players in mind; with five players you're going to face exactly the same challenge, but are more vulnerable to an unlucky run of the dice; if two of six players fail an important save you will usually prevail; losing the wrong two of five players is a lot more likely to result in a TPK. And while there is a scaling adjustment for parties of four players, it's been my experience that this doesn't always work well enough (especially in encounters where most of the threat is from a single opponent). That's in addition to an even higher vulnerability to chance than that seen in five player parties, and the increased probability that the party makeup will leave an important role unfilled.

[JohnF]

Jack R Brown wrote:

Maybe we should morph the discussion, slightly...

What do I like about GMing?

I enjoy playing RPGs; I enjoy making it possible for others to share that enjoyment.

I'm fairly new to PFS, but I was hosting (and GMing) games 30 years ago. There have been other shared group experiences over the years, but I seem to gravitate towards RPGs.

[FurtiveZoog]

Derek's a good GM, so hopefully he doesn't burn out, especially since he is doing so many online games (some of which I am in!).

As for guilt, it is helping keep me going ATM, since I don't want to leave the players I've accumulated gameless.

I do like getting the whole story as a GM. Ideally, I first get a chance to play a scenario and then, with my own experiences as a player to help, I can run it more effectively as a GM and I then get the inside story.

(Not to get it going again, but as a side note I had suggested in another thread (which got no love :P) that giving GMs more opportunities to repeat scenarios for GM credit would be helpful in keeping GMs going. Especially now that I've run some, I could probably re-run them easier for no credit, but then my own characters will end up falling behind in my groups. In live action, it is choosing to GM a game or play a game; online, I could GM one game or play 5 for about the same time commitment. Eh.)

[talbanus]

Jiggy wrote:

talbanus wrote:

I'm going to date myself with this statement, but I think what you're encountering with self-aggrandizing(sp?) players may be part of a recent, millenials-generation culture shift. The 'woo-hoo, look at how great I am!' crowd has really increased. Trash talking is no longer considered rude by many.

That's not new. I had a college professor back in the day who commented that (at least where he came from), trash talk was a normal part of baseball. To quote said professor, "You haven't had a baseball game unless you've insulted half the other team's mothers."

Trash-talking as part of recreation is nothing new. If you're only (relatively) recently starting to see it, I imagine there's something else responsible for the change in your experience.

Oh, I've seen it before. Just not seen it as prevalent or as socially acceptable as it appears to be in this day and age. If you don't think it's been on the uptick over the last decade or two, I imagine you're either under thirty or something else is responsible for your differing experience.

[Sitri]

talbanus wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

talbanus wrote:

I'm going to date myself with this statement, but I think what you're encountering with self-aggrandizing(sp?) players may be part of a recent, millenials-generation culture shift. The 'woo-hoo, look at how great I am!' crowd has really increased. Trash talking is no longer considered rude by many.

That's not new. I had a college professor back in the day who commented that (at least where he came from), trash talk was a normal part of baseball. To quote said professor, "You haven't had a baseball game unless you've insulted half the other team's mothers."

Trash-talking as part of recreation is nothing new. If you're only (relatively) recently starting to see it, I imagine there's something else responsible for the change in your experience.

Oh, I've seen it before. Just not seen it as prevalent or as socially acceptable as it appears to be in this day and age. If you don't think it's been on the uptick over the last decade or two, I imagine you're either under thirty or something else is responsible for your differing experience.

I blame "reality" tv.

[Derek Weil]

I'll chime in once more, on a more positive note.

I really like GMing on the boards. My experience with live GMing has not been as positive. I am the same person. The characters builds are no more or less wonky on the whole. The only differences, then, are the players and the environment.

One difference could be that it takes a more serious commitment to be an active PBPer than to just show up once a week and roll some dice. In any event, I'm not really planning to quit soon. I'm trying not to let the actions of certain players bother me. I've had other GM's comment on certain players at my table, and so I don't think these problems are all my own.

As for the number of players - I have seen online GM's restrict tables to 4 players to improve play speed. I really think that for the most part having 6 characters in a game mitigates the risk of death well enough without reducing the challenge badly.

I really do want the PC's to "win" in the games that I GM. I don't intentionally set them up to win or to fail, but I try to make sure they have every opportunity the scenario presents to succeed without dying.

[My PFS Lavode De'Morcaine]

Derek Weil wrote:

I'll chime in once more, on a more positive note.

I really like GMing on the boards. My experience with live GMing has not been as positive. I am the same person. The characters builds are no more or less wonky on the whole. The only differences, then, are the players and the environment.

One difference could be that it takes a more serious commitment to be an active PBPer than to just show up once a week and roll some dice. In any event, I'm not really planning to quit soon. I'm trying not to let the actions of certain players bother me. I've had other GM's comment on certain players at my table, and so I don't think these problems are all my own...

I can buy that. I am not a huge fan of how slow the PbP games tend to go. However, I have to admit, they do help me out on putting a bit more effort into my role play.

In RL: I can not do accents (and probably wouldn't even if I could), I don't have 30 minutes to think about the way my PC would phrase his response, I don't always have the time to give his thoughts and motivations, etc ...

In PbP: my Nagaji has a lisp, my savage worlder drops all the articles in his speech, may madness priest speaks of himself in the third person, I have plenty of time to put myself into the PC's frame of mind and figure out how he would respond, I can put his internal monologues right there with the italics and anyone can read if they want without slowing the game down, I have more time to be descriptive when explaining what I am doing without using metagame terms, use google translate to Slovak for spell casting, etc ... I am a bit of an introvert. Even if I had time to do all this in a RL game, I probably wouldn't. Plus in a PbP, if I smirk about how Lavode curb stomped the BBEG all on his lonesome – no one else notices! =-0

[Slacker2010]

Shame on everyone for hi-jacking this Thread.

FurtiveZoog wrote:

tl;dr: Dying sucks, and even small risks add up over time, so how many players (4, 5, or 6) should I allow on a PFS scenario? How dangerous should PFS scenarios be?

...

Doing a little math (feel free to correct me on it), having even a 5% chance that a character dies permanently per encounter means about 16% of characters will make it to level 4. (I think the math -...

First let me start off saying that while I have been playing Pathfinder for a long time, I'm new to PFS and have limited experience with it.

That being said, I don't feel this is an accurate statement or view to have. So far all the 1-2 tier and 3-4 tier things I have seen have not been lethal. Its kind of sad when you can walk through entire scenarios without any feeling of danger.

I hear about death and things getting bad at higher levels. I was at a Con about a month ago and I know they had 2 deaths at one of the tables but they where playing a 7-11 scenario. I'm really excited for things to get more challenging, but so far (and I have I have played season five (5-01)) none of the 1-2 scenarios have been threatening. So I dont see this death issue at lower levels, nor do I see a problem with Characters making it to level 4.

Disclaimer:First Steps:

I can see where a bad roll on a save vs suck spell in the last fight can wreck a group. This can be mitigated by Character Portfolio. Granted, new people shouldn't be expected to have one. I think for an evergreen scenario giving a save vs suck AOE to the bad guys in a crowded area probably isn't the best planing.

[Malag]

@OP
Missions should involve some dose of failure always, whether in a form of a lost gold, prestige or life of a pathfinder. If there is no risk of failure in a game, there is no real mission or a quest. You might as well hand such player a full chronicle and let him go (joke of course).

I noticed also that ideal number of players where a scenario shines is 4-5. I literally started to hate 6-7 player tables because GM can barely handle that many players and players (at least me) cannot get enough attention. Playing at such tables is literally horrible.

@Derek Weil

I believe you didn't miss much in what you said. Fact that PFS embraces everyone can be good and bad because you never know who will you play with. There is a single thing to do as a GM tho. Set your standards. Some people might criticize you for this, but if you don't like something or don't believe something is right, check it, correct it, rule it. People will never learn otherwise unless you show them. Try to be helpful.

In the end, we are all humans only. Some people tend to idealize the standards of PFS which are very often only an ideal. We can only do so much.

Adam

[Lamontius]

Our area has been growing both in numbers and communication between the various areas playing/running PFS.

We've gotten more players and gotten more organized. For quite a while, most of the content we ran was for lower levels. Character death was a very rare thing, especially once players got through their first few games and got a hang of the flow of the game.

Lately, however, we've been running a lot more 5-9 and 7-11 content. Our growing group of players have begun to level up into those ranges. Some have GM'd and have GM-baby-credit characters.

Characters are now dying in greater numbers in those scenarios.

Part of it is the learning curve of higher level play, part of it is the increased lethality of some of the Season 4 and 5 content in my opinion. Some of it is even lack of familiarity with their higher-level "gm-baby" characters.

But while I would have agreed a few months ago that our groups were "walking through" player content, now, well...higher level stuff is harder and more lethal, no doubt. It's been eye-opening.

[Slacker2010]

Lamontius wrote:

For quite a while, most of the content we ran was for lower levels. Character death was a very rare thing, especially once players got through their first few games and got a hang of the flow of the game.

I'm seeing and feel this way now.

Lamontius wrote:

Lately, however, we've been running a lot more 5-9 and 7-11 content. Our growing group of players have begun to level up into those ranges. Some have GM'd and have GM-baby-credit characters.

Characters are now dying in greater numbers in those scenarios.

But while I would have agreed a few months ago that our groups were "walking through" player content, now, well...higher level stuff is harder and more lethal, no doubt. It's been eye-opening.

Im excited to hear this. I cant wait until our locals starting getting to this point.

[Jiggy]

Malag wrote:

Missions should involve some dose of failure always, whether in a form of a lost gold, prestige or life of a pathfinder. If there is no risk of failure in a game, there is no real mission or a quest.

Then apparently my wife is playing the game wrong; all this time she's been happily having fun seeing people easily succeed, but getting mildly anxious if things start to look dicey. More than once she's given me a distressed look and whispered "Is my character gonna die?!" (She's also asked the same question about my character, even when I wasn't the least bit concerned.) Shall I inform her that she's wanting there to be "no real mission", or would you like to do the honors?

[Malag]

Why are you so tough believer Jiggy that everyone thinks the same way. I agree completely with what you say, but I love to stick some dose of realism. This isn't if game is played wrong or bad. This is simple matter of opinions.

If your wife loves to play like that, let her play like that.

[Jiggy]

Malag wrote:

Why are you so tough believer Jiggy that everyone thinks the same way. I agree completely with what you say, but I love to stick some dose of realism. This isn't if game is played wrong or bad. This is simple matter of opinions.

If your wife loves to play like that, let her play like that.

I'm not the one who announced how scenarios "should" involve XYZ. If you'd just said "I like XYZ when I play", then no problem. But you didn't. You declared how the game "should" be played.

[Malag]

Jiggy,

I answered FurtiveZoog's question of "How dangerous should a PFS scenario be?" with "Missions should involve some dose of failure always, ..." It's only natural to assume that this is my opinion not a declaration. Who am I to put declarations? And do you really believe that this minor misunderstanding is worth wasting time in arguing? Because I don't.

[Jiggy]

Hm, fair point.