I don't recall the text of either the Shadow Clock location or the scenario itself, but based on your description it seems fairly straight-forward:
If you need to fight the villain there, then you clearly shouldn't close it first or you would be in a no-win situation. Yes, you may want to close it first, but remember that closing a location is optional; you can clear it an leave it open. I think the point (read: difficulty) is to leave it open and deal with the effect until you know the villain is there.
What are you saying is the error?
I think the intent here is to complain about the contrast between story objective and game mechanics objective, not point out an error.
The story tells you to 'climb the tower to defeat her' (paraphrased). But, the game punishes you (harshly) if you don't have someone there.
Two counterpoints to this:
1) the story doesn't tell you that you NEED to go to the tower last, or try to force the villain there... it just provides a story tie-in to the adventure. Even in the actual RPG, you may end up somewhere other than the tower if the story takes you there. That's RPGs... if this were 'broken', then any action you take contrary to the scenario cards would be in error, and there are plenty of instances before this one where you don't do exactly what the story narrates.
2) You don't have to explore the tower, you just need someone there. Yes, the game works best if you have someone exploring; but, if you want to play it out as the story works, you do have that option. Maybe send your worst explorer so you're not wasting more turns there than you would anywhere else.
I see where the OP is coming from, but find it overcritical given the context of the rest of the game, and the wording of the card.
And sometimes you find bunyips in the general store. The mechanics don't always match up with the story.
And nearly every time you find the named allies in the scenario they dont belong to and they are never there when they should be...
Mayor Kendra, how do you keep getting lost in these dungeons?
Mayor Kendra, how do you keep getting lost in these dungeons?
She's not. Flavorfully, this card represents a favor from a powerful official; that's why you have to banish it to use it. But this knowledge is hardly necessary to play.
Chief Technical Officer
|
While I'm sorry we didn't deliver "no complaints whatsoever," I am pleased to hear that your "first real complaint" is also something that "didn't really affect [your] enjoyment of the game." I hope that continues to be true for a long, long time.
We have such bad luck with the Bunyip, it's in almost every scenario we have played so far. The boys actually have a "Do the Bunyip!" song/dance that they do when it shows up.
Is it on YouTube yet?
Mayor Kendra, how do you keep getting lost in these dungeons?She's not. Flavorfully, this card represents a favor from a powerful official; that's why you have to banish it to use it. But this knowledge is hardly necessary to play.
Figured as much. I don't think the Mayor would want to stick around with the adventurers when she has a town to run. Still, it can be a lot of fun coming up with silly rationalizations for cards we encounter in weird locations :P
I don't think the Mayor would want to stick around with the adventurers when she has a town to run.
You're assuming that she has a choice in the matter. The character cards don't list their alignments; they could be chaotic/evil characters and your "allies" are really indentured servants.
Back to original topic though... now that I have the cards in-hand, I understand the original complaint (flavor text vs. scenario effect, as Deekow pointed out).
I certainly wouldn't call it an "error", but part of me (mostly the same evil side that would think of allies as servants) is kind of disappointed that you're not forced to leave the Shadow Clock open and deal with it last; that would add a particularly nasty twist to the scenario, especially in solo play.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
...part of me (mostly the same evil side that would think of allies as servants) is kind of disappointed that you're not forced to leave the Shadow Clock open and deal with it last; that would add a particularly nasty twist to the scenario, especially in solo play.
You will appreciate some of the twists in upcoming Adventure Decks, then!
I originally thought I understood what it meant, but now this conversation has confused me (mainly due to not having my copy of the game at my house, so I can't just look at the card)
Is the bit about chasing the villian to the Shadow clock flavor text, or the scenario rule?
Is the bit about chasing the villian to the Shadow clock flavor text, or the scenario rule?
Flavor.
But for people that doesn't know the Pathfinder RPG adventure path and thus have no other indication on who or what all thoses allies are, this knowledge is indeed sorely missing to appreciate the game.
Did you have any idea how frustrating it is to cross path with guys, who obviously have a story and meaning and reason to be there but have no indication at all of why they are here or why they provide this bonus if you banish them ?
In this area the PAGC is definitely not enough an independant game. The Mayor Kendra should have been named "Favor from a powerfull official", this would have made more sense.
I don't play the RPG, yet I somehow manage to appreciate the game.
The biggest problem I see with "Favor from a powerful official" is that a "favor" is not a person and cannot be an ally; how would that make more sense? "Powerful official" would make more sense, but what's the point and how would that differentiate it from any other powerful official that may show up? If the card was named "Powerful Official" but did the exact same thing as "Mayor Kendra", how does that affect game play? Why does it matter why anything does what it does? It doesn't, which goes back to Mike's statement of "this knowledge is hardly necessary to play."
For that matter, why name anything? Why call it "Sandpoint" when it can be called simply "Town"? Why give the characters names when they can be called "Fighter" or "Bard" or "Wizard"? Would you play this game if it was generalized to the point of being bland?
If you're really that bothered by not knowing everyone's full-blown stories, you do have the option of buying the full campaign setting, comics, fiction, etc. and reading up on it.
Did you have any idea how frustrating it is to cross path with guys, who obviously have a story and meaning and reason to be there but have no indication at all of why they are here or why they provide this bonus if you banish them ?
This is the same sentiment you've been expressing at BGG, but...
Are you not a regular board/card game player? Do you have no ability to separate theme from mechanic? As Flat says, there are novels, comics, actual adventure modules that will fill in the details you're so sorely missing. In fact, if this were my first introduction to Pathfinder (it is) and if I were so enchanted by the character names and their art that I just HAD to know more (eeeh... I might glance at a wiki, once...) I would probably be thrilled to know there was all this other content out there for me to explore!
As it is, and like I said on BGG, my wife and I are basically content to fill in the gaps with conjecture. Like our assumption that Sheriff Hemlock is a badass Native American Detective, based on his character art.
Also what is a Bunyip.
No don't tell me I don't want to know.
But wouldn't specific ally cards at specific locations create more setup time?
I suppose the Mike, Vic and the team could have put Ally names on all the locations like the Villains and Henchmen on the scenario cards. But I like that all I have to do is shuffle, deal, shuffle locations and go. Maybe an unofficial supplement could be made to accommodate those RPGish additions. After our first play through of the scenarios, we might even give it a shot.
Maus
One option (for future iterations of the game) would be to have a selection of "story significant" allies for each scenario (ie a new category of card - NPCs or patrons, maybe?) and randomly distribute a set list to each location, exactly as the henchmen and villains are distributed.
I agree with the view that it would have been good to have aldern appear in the relevant scenario (since he is mechanically significant), I don't think it would be necessary to ensure he was in one specific location though.
|
I agree with the view that it would have been good to have aldern appear in the relevant scenario (since he is mechanically significant), I don't think it would be necessary to ensure he was in one specific location though.
On one level, I think this would be really cool. There are loads of ramifications with this idea, not the least of which is that you have scenario-specific allies that aren't / can't / shouldn't be used in other scenarios. Then you start having loads and loads of other cards that have a one-time use, and not enough general cards to pick from...
I think of the extra complexity it would add to the game, and think it really isn't worth the trouble, either for the designers or for the players.
I would imagine this scenario-specific-ally category to be distributed like henchmen but to function like allies (so you can retain them after the scenario - it just dictates exactly when they are introduced, but wouldn't involve filtering them out in subsequent scenarios). As such, I'm not sure it would add that much complexity. (Granted, I'm no game designer...).
I'm certainly not suggesting retro fitting it to this base set - but I think something relatively painless but still flavourful could be added for subsequent APs.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Interestingly enough, the appropriate scenario (storywise) for a "mandatory" inclusion of Aldern Foxglove the ally would be Local Heroes from set 1 (In the tabletop AP that's when the charcaters can befriend him). It would be quite a measure of dedication to carry him along that length of time without banishing him for his game text.
I would imagine this scenario-specific-ally category to be distributed like henchmen but to function like allies (so you can retain them after the scenario - it just dictates exactly when they are introduced, but wouldn't involve filtering them out in subsequent scenarios). As such, I'm not sure it would add that much complexity. (Granted, I'm no game designer...).
The LOTR Living Card Game (Fantasy Flight) has the concept of an "Objective" card, which is tied to a particular scenario. This is usually an ally, item, location, or something else that fits thematically with that scenario. That sounds like it would be a good fit for this game as well, and would satisfy those asking for more theme.
The Objective cards do not carry over to other scenarios in that game, and I think you would need to have the same requirement in this game as well. Otherwise your set up cards could wind up in someone's deck, and you'd be left with an incomplete scenario. However, that's not to say that the card couldn't allow you to exchange the objective for the ally if you win, but the actual objective should remain in the box.
|
I suppose it all comes down to game design and what you want these cards to do.
If you want these allies to be special cards introduced in specific scenarios, they should become Loot and be awarded as part of the scenarion reward. If the ally has a role in a later scenario, they would need to be introduced early enough to make sure that they have a chance to come into play.
If they are simply meant to be unique and different I do not see a problem with treating them as they are now. It is refreshing and cool to get a unique ally into your deck.
Aldern Foxglove presents a unique issue as his role in the Rise of the Runelords story is more complex than the rest of the allies. I can see where this can be seen as awkward but is it really that big of a deal?
Interestingly enough, the appropriate scenario (storywise) for a "mandatory" inclusion of Aldern Foxglove the ally would be Local Heroes from set 1 (In the tabletop AP that's when the charcaters can befriend him). It would be quite a measure of dedication to carry him along that length of time without banishing him for his game text.
I meant appropriate from a mechanical perspective.
For me, I can easily just ignore the fact that I encounter falling bells in inappropriate places (or other monsters/allies/barriers where they don't make sense). In this case though, that specific ally seems really integral to the haunts/skinsaw man scenario - yet the chance of that special feature coming into play is negligible.
To me, the existence of the "special clauses" actually detracted from the scenario, since it didn't take much thinking to realise the chance of it coming off was minuscule.
It's a minor thing, yet I hope the design team think about some way of tying such "special cases" into the scenarios a little more significantly in future base sets.
I would also love to have scenario cards be bigger or even have a scenario leaflet with ample description of the story and a glossary of the significant character with a litlle bio. Even a single page by scenario could be
I agree with this statement 100% a leaflet would go a very long way in my enjoyment of the game. It wouldn't take much to pull off either. Let's face it we could play solitaire if we wanted to play cards but most of us playing the game love the story and background of what we imagine is going on.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
About the falling bell, that is one card I really really dislike because it is so much specific and will keep accompanying us in our next adventure, up mountain, down crypt, into far jungle(?), anywhere we go from AP2 on we will have to keep an eye up there for a Falling Bell.
It has the Elite trait, so the first time you encounter it after starting Chapter 5 will be the last time you encounter it.
Two notes:
Scenario setup time is and will continue to be a very important design factor for us.
Also, an ally that can't be chosen at random to go into a location deck *isn't an ally*. It would need to be something else.
Yeah, I think the fast setup time is a real boon. My objection (although that's too strong a word) was the incorporation of significant mechanics built around one ally card with very little chance of it actually happening.
I think restricting those mechancial twists to where they're likely to actually happen (or at least more likely to happen than not) is worth looking into. A boon-equivalent of the henchman category seems like a good option to me.
It's easy... when strolling across the plains of central Varisia, ALWAYS remember to keep an eye out for falling bells!
Banes are must, and boons are may.
That just means I will encounter it at least from Chapter 2 to Chapter 5, and possibly up to Chapter 6... Basically until the game end. Do you really think this answer solve anything ? or did you forgot the smiley ?About the falling bell, that is one card I really really dislike because it is so much specific and will keep accompanying us in our next adventure, up mountain, down crypt, into far jungle(?), anywhere we go from AP2 on we will have to keep an eye up there for a Falling Bell.It has the Elite trait, so the first time you encounter it after starting Chapter 5 will be the last time you encounter it.
You also forgot to complain about encountering trapped doors & passages when you're in an outdoor setting. And encountering the Bunyip (an aquatic creature) in any location that is nowhere near water. And every other nuance that may not make perfect thematic sense. That's what happens when the distribution is random; get used to it.
Here's an idea... if you encounter something that clearly does not belong in a given location, set it aside and draw a card of the same type from the box until you find something that fits. Then, increase the difficulty by 2 for each card set aside in this manner and encounter it instead.
You guys have been encountering Goblin in the Closet in the Treacherous Cave since day one, so I don't know why the bell should be that much worse.
|
|
Yeah, I think the fast setup time is a real boon. My objection (although that's too strong a word) was the incorporation of significant mechanics built around one ally card with very little chance of it actually happening.
I really can't figure out why people are so bothered by the existence of rare game mechanics that only occur under very specific, very infrequent circumstances. It's like people haven't played a video game at all in the last 30 years...there are often rare events that require very specific situations, and possibly a lot of work, to make happen in that form of gaming. Call them "Easter Eggs" a la Warren Robinett's "Adventure," or "rare Pokémon," but it seems like most people playing video games think these add to the experience, not subtract from it. It leaves a little something left in the game for people to find if they really want to dig in and do / see everything the game has to offer. It adds to the replay value; it makes the game a new and different experience every time you play.
Granted, this is a board game and not a video game, but I still don't see how the difference in presentation / medium automatically inspires this desire / assumption that one will see and experience 100% of the game in one play-through.
Funny thing is, the first time we played that scenario Aldern Foxglove was actually in it! And he was right behind the Grizzled Mercenary that I acquired and played immediately.
Womp womp.
Since I was playing Merisiel we might'ved fudged it and said I could avoid the encounter, which we later felt like "no, that doesn't feel right." Eventually I think we decided that was the wrong call, but I'm not sure now because I can't remember if the Grizzled Mercenary says "if it is a boon, banish it" or "if you ENCOUNTER a boon, banish it." The latter, I would assume, is Merisiel-safe.
Then again... now that I think about it...
I don't see any problem with named character cards. If it were an RPG, sure, I might wonder why I ran into a specific person at a specific location ... but I'm really not going to worry about that in a card game.
After all, that's why I play the full-bore RPG 3+ times/month - to actually enjoy those story, elements, etc.
On the other hand, I'm not going to obsess about who owned Park Place in Monopoly before it went on the market, why it's empty, and if it has rats in the basement. I'm going to go "cool! Park Place!" and buy it if I get the chance :)
On the other hand, I'm not going to obsess about who owned Park Place in Monopoly before it went on the market, why it's empty, and if it has rats in the basement. I'm going to go "cool! Park Place!" and buy it if I get the chance :)
I'm going to wonder about that when I play Monopoly from now on. :)
Yeah, I think the fast setup time is a real boon. My objection (although that's too strong a word) was the incorporation of significant mechanics built around one ally card with very little chance of it actually happening.I really can't figure out why people are so bothered by the existence of rare game mechanics that only occur under very specific, very infrequent circumstances. It's like people haven't played a video game at all in the last 30 years...there are often rare events that require very specific situations, and possibly a lot of work, to make happen in that form of gaming. Call them "Easter Eggs" a la Warren Robinett's "Adventure," or "rare Pokémon," but it seems like most people playing video games think these add to the experience, not subtract from it. It leaves a little something left in the game for people to find if they really want to dig in and do / see everything the game has to offer. It adds to the replay value; it makes the game a new and different experience every time you play.
Granted, this is a board game and not a video game, but I still don't see how the difference in presentation / medium automatically inspires this desire / assumption that one will see and experience 100% of the game in one play-through.
The reason it bugged me was that I read through the Aldern stuff to understand the rules as I commenced the scenario, but it was pretty clear that the situations being described just weren't going to happen. That had two consequences: first I felt like I was "missing out" and second (tied in with Vic's quick setup goal), I felt like I was going through an extra step of setup - learning a new rule and keeping the exception in mind throughout the scenario, with very little chance for any payoff. I think going to the effort of learning and understanding a rule exception for a scenario should bring some reward (or at least be likely to bring some reward) in the gameplay experience. I just don't see the point in it otherwise.
As it happens, I haven't played computer games in probably twenty five years, so maybe you're right about that being relevant. Missing out on the called out situation didn't make me want to go back and play the scenario dozens of times until Aldern showed up though. It just made me ask "What was the point in that?"
Like the OP, I really like the game so this is nothing more than offering an opinion on how the next iteration could be better. It's not something I would even call a complaint, really. Just an observation.
I really can't figure out why people are so bothered by the existence of rare game mechanics that only occur under very specific, very infrequent circumstances.
Also, just to clarify, it's not the simple fact that there is some rule that only comes into play rarely. It was the fact there was an exception to the rules that needed to be learnt and borne in mind throughout a scenario for no real purpose ninety five percent (?) of the time.
"You're underwater and can't use any non-light weapons at this location" as an exception that wouldn't bug me, since its quite likely to come into play. Being specific and infrequent isn't the issue.