|
I play in and run both home games and PFS. I have run somewhere around 30-40 PFS games, and played in well over 100. I always had significant reservations about PFS, but tried to ignore or to find ways around them. Finally, this past Wednesday, the moment I had feared arrived.
I was running scenario 40, The Hall of Drunken Heroes, for a table of 5 veteran players at tier 10-11.
It was then that I snapped. I had spent over 2 hours prepping the mod. I had walked through the snow while fighting off a rapidly worsening cold to spend another 4+ hours in a crappy nyc deli running the thing. I just couldn’t take it anymore. I went off script.
The shadow demon hadn’t even appeared yet in the encounter. By happenstance, the monk (who was also the party scout) was out of line of sight of the other PCs, near the wall the demon was hiding in. I ignored its written tactics and had it come out of hiding and magic jar the monk. Success! I said nothing to the other PCs but wrote the possessed player a note. He played it off like a champ.
They found the secret door in the library and the possessed monk suggested she go first to scout ahead. What she really did was go to the final encounter to warn the boss. Now, in the scenario the boss is a hezrou (CR 11). Having, as I said, snapped, I decided to go through with the plan I’d been contemplating and bumped it up to a glabrezu (CR 13). I’d like to point out that for a boss fight for a group of five PCs (levels 9, 10, 11, 11 and 11) a CR 13 encounter is actually far more appropriate than a CR 11 one, but that’s neither here nor there. I was at this point explicitly breaking the rules.
The glabrezu used its summon (success, got 1 vrock), got heroism cast on it (thank you, summoned vrock!) then used veil to look like a cleric of Cayden Calien and laid down among some other clerics it had killed. The PCs came to the boss room and found the vrock waiting for them along with their possessed friend. They started fighting them, only to have the glabrezu pop up and reverse gravity them, quickly taking the fight to a whole new level.
Well, despite the dramatically increased challenge level of the encounter, the PCs won with no deaths. But it was a brutal fight. It was knock down drag out and by the end of it the Wizard player was frustrated to no end. I barely convinced him to keep a lid on it until the game was over, at which point he literally jumped up screaming and demanding to know if I had run the mod as written. I told him I hadn’t, and what changes I had made. He started yelling at me, red-faced and in very provocative language, at the top of his lungs. I tried to talk to him calmly but he wasn’t having it. He screamed at me some more (yes, this was happening in public) looking nearly ready to come to violence, then stormed out.
Now, I want to point out that this was not some newbie stranger. This was a veteran Wizard player, with whom I had been at around 10 or 12 PFS tables previously. He had never displayed this kind of behavior before. It was, for me, intensely depressing and disturbing. The other players seemed sympathetic to both sides, and said they had enjoyed the game. We discussed the whole thing a bit. One of the players (who was also a GM, as was everyone at the table) had this to say: “You know, I’ve always said that when I run PFS, I look at it as just taking one for the team. Your monsters are going to get run over and destroyed, but you just put in your time so that other people will run for you too. You just have to look at it that way.”
Well, maybe he’s right. But god, how sad. So we GM just to “put in our time,” like it’s a job, so that we’ll then get to play in games where the same thing happens from the other side and we win far too easily in combats that are way, way too short? I’m sorry, but that’s just not for me. Honestly, I don’t think it’s very satisfying to a lot of PFS players (and especially GMs) but they go on “putting in their time” because for many of us it’s the only game in town.
And that reminds me. Whenever somebody does raise significant questions about the way the whole thing is arranged, that’s the usual response from the devs: “Organized play is not for everyone. Maybe you should find another game.” I understand the developers’ frustration, but I must say that’s a disrespectful response to people who are just desperately trying to find a way to make the experience better for themselves, people who in many cases are paying good money for their trouble, and who may very well not have, for one reason or another, other games to go to. Anyway though, you’ve finally convinced me, devs. Organized play is not for me.
I don’t regret my own actions in changing the mod. I also don’t blame the player who screamed at me. I blame the system that engenders these kinds of tensions (which inevitably boil over in various ways) between players, and then takes no serious steps to face the systemic issues causing them. Now, they say never raise a problem without offering a solution. So here it is, my solution for how to fix PFS, and kind of-sort of Pathfinder in general. Broadly speaking, the main sources of tension or imbalance that I have noticed are:
1. Class disparity
2. Player experience/competence disparity
3. The dominance of ranged combat
My solution has five steps, which are intended to work in tandem, and which primarily seek to address those three issues.
|
|
A. A tiered classification system for character classes would be officially recognized by Paizo, as follows-
Tier 1: Arcanist, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Summoner, Witch, Wizard
Tier 2: Alchemist, Bloodrager, Magus, Oracle, Paladin, Shaman, Warpriest
Tier 3: Bard, Barbarian, Brawler, Hunter, Inquisitor, Ranger, Skald, Slayer, Swashbuckler
Tier 4: Cavalier, Fighter, Gunslinger, Investigator, Monk, Ninja, Rogue, Samurai
• These tiers are not based on the usual definitions of them, but rather on the relative likelihood of the classes to cause problems for a GM that has not specifically prepared encounters for them, and/or the relative likelihood of the classes to trivialize encounters or certain types of encounters. This is an important definition, because it is highly relevant to almost all beginning GMs, as well as all GMs who are running Pathfinder Society scenarios, or who wish to run published scenarios in any context with little to no alteration. The tiers are also intended to delineate the relative awkwardness likely to be caused by playing classes in the same group that are more than one tier away from one another, due to necessary differences in approach and tactics.
• High tier classes are not intended to be taken as universally “more powerful” or “better” than lower tier ones. Rather, they expand the complexity of the game which in turn requires a greater investment of time and attention, in one way or another, on the part of the GM. This is of particular relevance to Society GMs, who are expressly forbidden from creating “counters” to certain PC tactics, or even from altering the pre-written tactics of the enemies. It is also of nearly equal relevance to home game GMs who simply cannot invest the necessary time to make such adjustments.
• The Gunslinger is tier 4 only if the suggested errata listed below are made. Otherwise, it is tier 2 due to its sheer capacity to trivialize many encounters with its ranged touch attacks, especially when multiclassed with certain other classes, like the Paladin.
• Obviously, I can at best make educated guesses, at this stage, about the appropriate tier placement of the classes from the upcoming Advanced Class Guide.
• I am sure there are very good arguments for moving certain classes up or down a tier. There is, of course, no such thing as a perfect system.
• The role of “archer” can almost be seen as a class of its own, and I’m sorry to say that it wreaks a certain amount of havoc on the tiers above if the suggested errata, below, are not adopted.
B. All Society scenarios (and preferably all published scenarios) would include sidebars for adjusting the game to “casual” or “hardcore” settings. At its most basic, this could be as simple as adjusting the encounters up or down approximately 1 CR for hardcore and casual play, respectively, but it could also feature the inclusion of more advanced tactics in hardcore mode. The non-altered mode of play would be known as “standard.” Difficulty increases for larger parties (as we’ve seen starting in season 4) would continue to be in effect in any case.
C. Pathfinder Society GMs would state the tier and difficulty setting that they were running their table at (for instance, I might post that on Wednesday I will be running scenario 5-11 at the tier 2 hardcore setting). A PC at the table could have a maximum of 5 levels from classes one tier above that of the table, and no levels from classes two or more tiers above. Prestige class levels would always be considered one tier above that of the table (meaning their effective tier would shift depending on the situation).
D. The following would be banned for PFS play
1. Master Summoner (archetype)
2. Zen Archer (archetype)
3. Oath of Vengeance (archetype)
4. Deadeye (Gunslinger deed)
5. Paragon Surge (spell)
6. Clustered Shots (feat)
7. Manyshot (feat)
8. Ricochet Shot (feat)
9. Far Sight, and any other items affected by the Gunslinger’s loss of touch attacks (see below)
E. The following errata would be made official for PFS play
1. Paladin smite, Inquisitor bane and Magus arcane pool abilities apply only to melee weapons. Divine Hunter and Holy Gun archetypes can smite with both ranged and melee weapons but get half normal bonuses.
2. Composite bows give only ½ Strength bonus to damage.
3. All firearms increase their range increment by 10 feet and their damage by one step (though d12 becomes 2d8 in this case). They no longer make touch attacks. All firearm and firearm ammunition prices are halved.
4. Haste would be made a 4th level spell (3rd for Summoners) and the boots of speed would be priced at 16,000 gp rather than 12,000.
And there you have it. This is the simplest system I can come up with for restoring some sense of balance to PFS (or any non- “GM counter” centric play). Even so, I will admit that it is drastic and for this reason I despair of anything like it ever being adopted. But nevertheless I would suggest to the developers that this (or something similarly comprehensive) is the kind of approach that will have to be taken, at some point, if you ever want to get serious about addressing the power creep/build imbalance issues that constantly crop up on these boards, especially in relation to PFS. It has numerous merits.
1. It forces very little on anyone. Those who want to can go on running games exactly like they are now. In the parlance of this system they would be running “tier one standard” tables. The biggest enforced change would be to archers and gunslingers, and do you really think there isn’t ample evidence at this point that such a change is called for?
2. It mitigates oft-expressed Society GM frustration. GMing for Society is frequently characterized on the boards (and not without reason) as highly restrictive and unsatisfying compared to running a home game. Many GMs become particularly disheartened by the experience of watching PCs run roughshod over the written encounters, time and time again. Under this system, GMs that feel that way would at least have some option for challenging experienced players in an organized, sanctioned way.
3. It is non-judgmental. Tier setting at a table is intended to reflect GM (and player) preference in terms of play style, tactics, preparation, challenge and spontaneity. In no way are players intended to look on one setting (tier 1 standard vs. tier 4 hardcore, or whatever) as inherently superior to another. The system is simply about providing options for people with different sensibilities, or different practical considerations (primarily, available prep time).
4. It even provides an option for those who feel that the game has become too challenging for them in seasons 4 and 5, due to pressure on the developers by veteran players to increase difficulty. These tables could play at the tier 1 casual setting.
I make these suggestions in the spirit of gratitude and humility. I make no claims that my observations are infallible. I understand the monolithic task the developers face, and I respect their effort and dedication. Still, I respectfully suggest that the pace and scope of changes needs to be increased dramatically from what they have apparently been comfortable with thus far.
Often the statement we are given is “the developers simply don’t have the time to address these issues due to the number of products in development.” Well, my suggestion then is that you put out fewer books and work on fixing what is out already. Frankly, the splat books tend to create more complications via power creep than what they contribute in useful content.
I am a HUGE and appreciative fan of Pathfinder, but please remember how you began in the first place. Pathfinder is rapidly becoming just a retread of 3.5. Soon enough, if serious action is not taken, it will suffer the same fate as its predecessor. Until something is done, you’ve officially lost a devoted customer.
|
If you've run 30-40 scenarios, why aren't you a 2 star GM? Have roughly 11 or more been not reported?
It was also a season 1 scenario, designed for 4 players.
Pick up a season 5 tier 7-11 and see if they have it as easy.
I didn't read your suggestions.
PFS is not going to change how the game works for organized play. The point is to play the game as written. They aren't going to make a slew of house rules like that.
|
It sounds like your issue is with organized play in general not PFS or the Pathfinder game. I absolutely agree that some players will game the system and walk through mods. But some won't and the game needs to cater to all types. It is a social experience.
A question if someone had died would have reveled to them that you took liberties with the mod as written and negated the death?
I suggest you find a group of friends who are like minded regarding the rules and play the style you want to play with the house rules you want implemented
It is a game after all and if your not having fun what is the point
Best Travels
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scenarios are meant to be run as written, with no addition
or subtraction to number of monsters (unless indicated
in the scenario), or changes to armor, feats, items, skills,
spells, stats, traits, or weapons. However, if the actions
of the PCs before or during an encounter invalidate the
provided tactics or starting locations, the GM should
consider whether changing these would provide a more
enjoyable play experience.
Additionally, the GM may consider utilizing terrain and
environmental conditions when those effects have been
written into the flavor of a scenario but the mechanics that
are normally associated with them by the Core Rulebook have
not been added to the encounters. GMs are always encouraged
to reward role-playing and flavor when adjudicating the
reactions of NPCs or the outcome of in-game encounters.
GMs may use other Pathfinder RPG sources to add flavor
to the scenario, but may not change the mechanics of
encounters. Specifically, the mechanics of an encounter are
the creatures presented, the number of opponents in the
encounter, and the information written into the stat blocks
for those opponents. If an encounter is a trap, haunt, or skill
check that needs to be achieved to bypass a situation then the
listed DCs and results are not to be altered, as they are the
mechanics of that encounter. Additionally, if an encounter
already includes mechanical effects of terrain, weather, or
hazards, please be aware that these things are also considered
mechanics that may not be altered.
This is from the guide to PFS, pages 32-33. Just thought I'd put this here.
|
|
If you've run 30-40 scenarios, why aren't you a 2 star GM? Have roughly 11 or more been not reported?
It was also a season 1 scenario, designed for 4 players.
Pick up a season 5 tier 7-11 and see if they have it as easy.
Yes. And yes I have run season 4 and 5 scenarios. It's better, but still easy for optimized characters being run by experienced players.
PFS is not going to change how the game works for organized play. The point is to play the game as written.
My point is that the game, as written, has many very serious problems at a foundational level.
They aren't going to make a slew of house rules like that.
Well, they're not "house rules." They're called errata, and they just made one to Crane Wing, so why stop there? Keep em' coming. It's going to take a lot more than that if their goal for this game is anything resembling balance.
|
|
Ever played demons'/dark souls? The only reason you KNOW you're going to win even in challenging situations, is because perseverance will carry you, but in PF/DnD, death is a bigger hurdle.
I think you did great and the wizard is upset you didn't let it be a cakewalk. I've had DMs that simply freely added HP to a boss because they wanted to artificially drag the fight and just casually added points to the attack and AC numbers.
Again, I don't play PFS so maybe altering the mod is the worst sort of taboo...
I would definitely play at your table.
Thanks for the support. I want to be clear that the Wizard player in question is a very smart, capable guy whose gaming I respect. We just have very different ideas about the kind of experience we're looking for.
And yes, I LOVE Demon's/Dark Souls! A lot of my suggestions are on the behalf of all players who want the game to be Dark Souls while everybody else wants to it to be Skyrim.
|
|
Yeah, it's not trying to cater to all types.
I like running PFS scenarios. If you don't ... well ... don't.
Hall of Drunken Heroes is one of the more amusing scenarios in the entire product run. I can't imagine feeling the need to make a harder BBEG just to feel like you didn't waste your time.
Also, your play style also does not cater to all types, as evidenced by the player of that wizard. Except he's the one who got shafted by not getting the experience he was supposed to be getting.
|
|
Yeah, it's not trying to cater to all types.
Right. Let's make it do that. Catering to all types is better than not.
Hall of Drunken Heroes is one of the more amusing scenarios in the entire product run. I can't imagine feeling the need to make a harder BBEG just to feel like you didn't waste your time.
I never said it wasn't amusing. But there's the RP end of the game and then there's the tactical end, and why do we do gaming if not to get both?
Also, your play style also does not cater to all types, as evidenced by the player of that wizard. Except he's the one who got shafted by not getting the experience he was supposed to be getting.
Quite so. Which could have been avoided had I been able to post beforehand "I'm running this one at tier 3 hardcore." Then I would be satisfied and he'd know what he was going to get, and could decide to play or not, as suited him.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. It forces very little on anyone. Those who want to can go on running games exactly like they are now. In the parlance of this system they would be running “tier one standard” tables. The biggest enforced change would be to archers and gunslingers, and do you really think there isn’t ample evidence at this point that such a change is called for?
No, you just called for a ban on a ton of things that I don't necessarily agree are needed. You just nerfed the difficultly level of a couple of PFS scenarios that use those parts of the rules that you nerfed. As a PFS GM, I can't decide that the rules ideas that you proposed are stupid and ignore them. I'm stuck with your vision of how Pathfinder should be balanced.
2. It mitigates oft-expressed Society GM frustration. GMing for Society is frequently characterized on the boards (and not without reason) as highly restrictive and unsatisfying compared to running a home game. Many GMs become particularly disheartened by the experience of watching PCs run roughshod over the written encounters, time and time again. Under this system, GMs that feel that way would at least have some option for challenging experienced players in an organized, sanctioned way.
No it doesn't. It unbalances parties in order to create a "balance." You're not reducing power levels, you're banning roles - and Pathfinder is currently balanced on the idea that all these roles exist.
3. It is non-judgmental. Tier setting at a table is intended to reflect GM (and player) preference in terms of play style, tactics, preparation, challenge and spontaneity. In no way are players intended to look on one setting (tier 1 standard vs. tier 4 hardcore, or whatever) as inherently superior to another. The system is simply about providing options for people with different sensibilities, or different practical considerations (primarily, available prep time).
We don't need a tier system to do this. If you don't like running for certain players - let the person coordinating your game days know this. You don't have to run for people you don't like. No one's making you GM anything. I have encountered a couple different private groups for those people who want to run low-powered games and all intentionally build lower-powered characters. And that's okay. I'm not going to regulate what they do in private. All you're doing is regulating stuff that's already happening in private and doesn't need to be regulated.
4. It even provides an option for those who feel that the game has become too challenging for them in seasons 4 and 5, due to pressure on the developers by veteran players to increase difficulty. These tables could play at the tier 1 casual setting.
This is the only positive reason of your list of four.
Here's the thing, even with your tier system and banning the most egregious power items, you're not going to change the basic nature of Pathfinder. Pathfinder is built around the idea that there are lots of different types of threats and lots of different answers to those types of threats. Sometimes super easy scenarios are going to be challenging because no one has an answer to a certain type of threat. (Imagine a high level party dealing with a Hellwasp Swarm with no non-fire-based answers.) Sometimes super hard scenarios are going to be cakewalks because parties happen to have the perfect answer to the scenario. When I played Hall of Drunken Heroes, I cast 1 spell. We had a ranger with favored enemy +6 evil outsider which just crushed that scenario. And they're tier 3!
In a home game, nobody outside the game really cares what happens in your session. In PFS, we are having shared experiences based off the same encounters. Mention Dalsine Affair or King of Storval Stairs and most people groan. There was a big shock through the community at the end of Rivalry's End. PFS is bigger than your table, it's about the shared experiences of the community. In order for those shared experiences to be true, GMs need to run as written. That way, we experience the same thing (within the bounds of table variation) and can compare our experiences outside of the game.
Part of the basis of Pathfinder is different threats/different answers, and we can't change what's written. So how can you have fun? STOP BASING YOUR FUN OFF CHALLENGING THE PLAYERS. Some of the most fun scenarios I've run have been ones where the players have been on the edge of their pants, trying to figure out whether or not everyone will get out alive. However, I've run equally as fun tables where the monsters were no threat but the players were having so much fun riffing off of each other that nobody actually cared. The point of this game is not to challenge the players - the point of the game is to have fun. So stop basing your fun off whether or not the players are challenged, start basing your fun off whether or not the players are having fun. When you do that, you'll find organized play a lot more enjoyable.
|
|
Erik I have GM'd this multiple times and played it.
The Epic fight, I haven't seen a group not win this encounter.
The Shadow Demon and succubus. Is perhaps the strongest challenge here. But I still have yet to kill anyone in this scenario.
The last time I ran it I think there were four people with daylight up after round 2.
Often I read a scenario and think it will be challenging, then round 1 of a combat a pc casts a dismissal and there isn't any more combat.
If I could suggest something, it would be take a break as play some.
|
|
If you read my post closely, you would see that I am fully aware of this passage and that it is, in fact, precisely what I am addressing as problematic (among other things).Scenarios are meant to be run as written...This is from the guide to PFS, pages 32-33. Just thought I'd put this here.
Reading both your posts closely is why I posted my response actually.
|
|
Normally, by the time the party is ready to face the BBEG you've gotten the chance to see them in action and you know whether they'll smoke the encounter or be challenged by it.
I also chafe at the "no mechanical modifications" rule but page 403 (fudging dice rules) is still legal in PFS and if I have to give in to the urge to toughen up the BBEG, that's my go-to. Why look at that. He rolled a nat 20 on his init. Look at that. He rolled whatever he needed to in order to get an attack to land in his one combat round you guys are going to allow him to live. Hooray! Ok, now you can kill him.
Why do I feel entitled to do this as a PFS GM whenever I deem it appropriate? I can't tell you how many times I've sat on the player's side of the GM screen in PFS and watched the BBEG encounter end before my character even got his/her 1st action. It isn't fun. Not even for the munchkin who more often than not isn't thrilled about breaking the adventure, but is disappointed it's already over.
Here's a moment of zen:
As a PFS GM, you can cheat the players by changing the fight.
However, you can also cheat the players by allowing the adventure to be steamrolled anti-climactically.
|
|
Erik,
Instead of taking a break offer these five fine players a chance to play the Waking Rune. On Hard Mode !
Lol, funny you should mention that. I played in Waking Rune on hard mode and loved it, but I always use that mod as an example of the kinds of systemic problems I'm indicating. My tank character took 0 damage in that mod, and dished out plenty. Still, it was very challenging and I had a blast. I was hoping that module was a test run on the part of the developers for a "hard mode" to become standard fare. I was saddened to hear from Tim Hitchcock that such was not the case.
|
I GM because I enjoy entertaining others. As a GM it's my job to provide a fun experience for my players, and that means a different thing to different audiences. PFS scenarios shouldn't have to anticipate every possible variation, that's the GMs job to make the game fit to their players. The GM should have the leeway (and indeed be encouraged to) change the scenario as needed to fit their unique audience. When I have a group of role-players, I give them extra time to talk, and pull my punches in the fights to make them quicker and easier. When I have a group of power-gamers, I breeze past the role-play and throw everything I got at them in the fights.
The problem is that pathfinder society doesn't trust their GMs, so they slap on rules and regulations to prevent any possible abuse, which unfortunately also puts a damper on GM creativity.
I don't think banning more things or adding tier's is a solution. I think allowing for more table variation, however, is. Adding a hard mode, or having specific hard mode scenarios would be a great addition for PFS. I find most players fall into one of two categories: role-players and table top tactical players. The game was originally written for the first type, and the second type found the fights too easy. Newer scenarios have been written for something in between, which kills the first type and is still too easy for the second type. I think having easy/hard versions and allowing players to vote which way to go would be terrific. For some players extreme challenge fights are what they are looking for and half the party dying means it was an awesome game. Other players hate that and would be happy if there wasn't a single sword drawn the entire time. There are different types of players, pathfinder society shouldn't be ashamed to acknowledge and accommodate for that.
I also think playing strictly by the rules is only necessary when you play at conventions or other open to strangers type settings. When playing with friends, break all the rules you want to. It's a game to have a good time, there's no foul if everyone agrees to it.
Sorry the game was frustrating for you, Erick. I was having a good time up until the shouting at the end.
|
|
Erick:
We locally run on a Warhorn setup where we put up games and people sign up. Ive run a few 7-11's lately and the issue we get is 6 player flush with actions effects. Id personally like to cap the tables at 4, but as these games locally are few and far between I often have to have 6 on the table.
Whilst I can understand your frustration at how a party can burn through an encounter, It does not really excuse swapping out monster for a higher CR one. If you arnt part of a gm pool like I am, then simply say 'Sorry, guys for this season I only want a 4 player table' Then you take the first 4. Case solved.
|
|
I can't tell you how many times I've sat on the player's side of the GM screen in PFS and watched the BBEG encounter end before my character even got his/her 1st action. It isn't fun. Not even for the munchkin who more often than not isn't thrilled about breaking the adventure, but is disappointed it's already over.
Oh, I've been there many times too, my friend. I keep saying it, and a lot of other people keep saying it, and the devs keep not hearing us.
Here's a moment of zen:
As a PFS GM, you can cheat the players by changing the fight.
However, you can also cheat the players by allowing the adventure to be steamrolled anti-climactically.
Sadly, most players are all too happy to let things go down this way. I will never understand it, but I try not to judge. All I ask is for an option to do something about it without having to fudge dice rolls or just completely alter the mods.
|
|
Erick:
We locally run on a Warhorn setup where we put up games and people sign up. Ive run a few 7-11's lately and the issue we get is 6 player flush with actions effects. Id personally like to cap the tables at 4, but as these games locally are few and far between I often have to have 6 on the table.
Whilst I can understand your frustration at how a party can burn through an encounter, It does not really excuse swapping out monster for a higher CR one. If you arnt part of a gm pool like I am, then simply say 'Sorry, guys for this season I only want a 4 player table' Then you take the first 4. Case solved.
I don't really have this option (I came into a mustering system that already had its own established rules and habits), and in fact I don't think this suggestion is actually any more legal than swapping out a monster for another one. As I understand it, officially I have to accommodate up to six players. Somebody tell me if I'm wrong here...
|
|
Erick: If you are volunteering to run a game, you just say to the organiser. I will only run 4 player table max in Seasons 0-3. You might tick of the organiser who might assign you less games because you arnt being 'flexible' for them, but you will get what you are after: 4 player tables where the CR is appropriate for the table.
I would like to do this locally but we only do it with Season 0 scenarios. Hopefully down the road it is picked up but I think it just shows the demand for 7-11 tier stuff where I am. ( I appear to be in the same style of muster scenario as you)
Also, comparing swapping out a monster (which is violating run as written) with refusing more than 4 players? Not even on the same level of discussion.
|
|
We don't need a tier system to do this. If you don't...
You wrote a whole bunch of stuff but basically I just want to address one part of it. You seem to essentially be saying "If you don't like it, you don't have to run for certain players." Well, there are a couple of problems with that.
1. It's honestly less the players than some of their characters. Take the player in question from my anecdote. I'm far happier to run for his Cavalier than for his Wizard. I like the player, which is part of why I found that experience so off-putting.
2. I would love to be able to say "I'll run for your Cavalier but not your Wizard" (that's essentially the freedom that I am asking for by proposing this system) but under the current rules I don't have any more license to do that than I do to swap out monsters.
3. Even if I did want to exclude certain players, it would be impossible. My group (like many) uses a public muster system and it's first come first served.
People are always opposing ideas like mine with objections like your's ("just do it the way you want via back room deals," essentially) but they just aren't realistic. The fact is players like me really do need some official support or backing from the devs in order to get the experience we're looking for.
|
|
Also, comparing swapping out a monster (which is violating run as written) with refusing more than 4 players? Not even on the same level of discussion.
I'm saying that I think refusing to accommodate more than 4 players is also violating a rule of PFS. I don't know why I can violate "you have to accommodate up to 6 players" but can't violate "you have to run the mods as written." I am happy to be proven wrong though. Also, I don't love this suggestion as it just gives fewer people the chance to play. I do appreciate that you're trying to help though.
EDIT: Honestly, I may consider trying this one, especially for Season 0-3. I don't know if it will fly though.
|
|
Legal Table Size
The minimum table size for a Pathfinder Society
Organized Play session to be considered legal is four
PCs. Table size is capped at six PCs. In cases in which
you simply cannot seat four players, you may run a table
of three players, and play an official level-appropriate
pregenerated character in order to meet the minimum
table size of four PCs.
Conversely, if seven players show up to an event,
rather than turning someone away from the campaign
altogether, consider adding a seventh person to the table.
These situations should be extremely rare and should only
be used as a last resort to sending someone home without
the chance to play. Seven-person tables often overpower
otherwise challenging adventures and limit the amount
of time each player gets to shine in the given scenario, and
many players prefer not to play at all rather than play at
such a large table. Check with the players to determine
their preferences before running a seven-person table.
One alternative to a seven-person table is to split the
group into two tables of three players, and ask one of the
players to serve as GM for the second table, with each GM
running a pregenerated character to fill her table out.
Tables should never have eight or more players.
What is mandatory is to have 3-7 players. Everything else in that paragraph is suggested. They don't want you to turn away players, but they aren't forcing you to take everyone who wants to play. Such decisions are up to the event organizer. If you run under the Wednesday games, you have to go by that organizer's system. Several of us use the same group to organize other games, you can too. If you wish to be more restrictive of the games you run, I suggest organizing your own.
|
|
But I also want to have fun. I want the game to be challenging, and everyone to have fun providing/facing the challenges. Is that too much to ask?
Yes, obviously.
You thought you had a handle on the right level of challenge for the players at your table. You were wrong and the player got table flippingly upset.
Now try to get the "right" level of challange for every dm and every ragtag group of misfits that sits down at the table accross the planet. Its not going to happen.
|
|
Erick: I think trying to give people a great game with a chance to shine, over a game where you might get blowouts where 6 characters act before your one monster who is pretty tough but who got literally shredded round 1 (because you rolled a poor init score)is just not fun for anyone. For the gm its because you never actually threatened the group at all and for the players because its likely 1-2 of them felt they were basically being babysat by 1-2 other characters.
Now im not saying 6 player tables are bad. Obviously the way scenarios were designed changed from season 4 onwards. I love the fact the game scenario design had to be changed to make sure it was challenging for 6 players because that was now the standard. That shows the popularity of Society.
View it this way and Ill use Warhorn as an example. A game of say Mantis Prey is put up. Its a season 2 so its designed for 4 players. Do you limit signups to 4 or 6? (You can actually do this via Warhorn. Excess players become waitlisted). Now if Warhorn is letting us do this then obviously its possible to be done. Look around at some warhorn pfs websites for the different regions if you dont believe me.
We are basically saying at this point. This scenario was designed for 4 players. Anymore than 4 players is going to totally unbalance things and you are going to feel either underused or possibly even bored whilst playing so we are capping it at 4. Ive never read something in the society guide that states you have to have a certain number of players over the normal limits (ie you need 3 players and a pregen up to a 6 player max).
In fact lets look at page 31
The minimum table size for a Pathfinder Society
Organized Play session to be considered legal is four
PCs. Table size is capped at six PCs. In cases in which
you simply cannot seat four players, you may run a table
of three players, and play an official level-appropriate
pregenerated character in order to meet the minimum
table size of four PCs.
Nowhere there does it say you have to sit all 6 players. It says you need to meet the min table size of 4 pcs. Thats it.
The next Paragraph talks about possibly sitting 7 players if you really have to (incidentally I did this once ... never again! (until I of course have to do it again :) )
This is more evident I think than any other level because we are in 7-11 (and probably in the 10-11) range. We have no room to move. We have 6 players who are around 9-11 in levels). We cant play to a higher tier difficulty because we are there already (in regards to the new subtier rules in the guide). So we have now 6 players who add between then 20 extra levels (lets say 2 level 10s) to a Monster encounter for 4 level 10-11 characters.
Sorry, to me that isnt fun. Unless we get some really well built encounters or lucky rolls from the Monster the mere possibility that there will be 6 characters possibly acting before my single monster means that Its likely to be over before it even begins.
Sorry for the long ramble, but If fewer people have to play some those 4 people can get what they signed up for then so be it. This is why we run multiple tables of the same scenario at the same time (if we can)
|
|
But I also want to have fun. I want the game to be challenging, and everyone to have fun providing/facing the challenges. Is that too much to ask?Yes, obviously.
You thought you had a handle on the right level of challenge for the players at your table. You were wrong and the player got table flippingly upset.
Now try to get the "right" level of challange for every dm and every ragtag group of misfits that sits down at the table accross the planet. Its not going to happen.
Sure, you can't please all the people all of the time. But I could also say that the boss fight did exactly what a boss fight should do: it challenged the players brutally without being unbeatable (in fact, without a single fatality). In that sense, I did have a handle on exactly the right level of challenge, no?
|
|
In fact lets look at page 31
The minimum table size for a Pathfinder Society
Organized Play session to be considered legal is four
PCs. Table size is capped at six PCs. In cases in which
you simply cannot seat four players, you may run a table
of three players, and play an official level-appropriate
pregenerated character in order to meet the minimum
table size of four PCs.Nowhere there does it say you...
Hmm, interesting... Verrrry interesting. Certainly worth consideration. In fact a large part of the argument I tried to make to the angry player was that the Season 0 mods didn't take tables of over 4 players into account. If I can just cap the table at 4, that certainly helps.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've made a comment over the past few months that I think holds bearing in this thread...
The comment is that it is hard for me to sit down and play because as a GM I've learned to lose... I don't know how to "win" as a player anymore. I sit down at a table as a player and when we get to combat, my mental process is how can I lose this (I'm getting better at that tho I swear).
|
|
Erick: It really comes down to the organizer. If you arnt the one organising the events, you arnt the one capping the table sizes on Warhorn. This is how we end up with 6 player tables for Early season scenarios.
Our organizers want to accommodate as many players as possible on the notion that more is better and less is annoying players who will scream 'Why wont they let me play!'. Perhaps Organizers are worried that these screaming players will complain to these very forums or VLs/VCs etc and cause a 'fuss'.
'I was denied a seat on Erick's table because he said he only wanted 4 players. Hes a mean man and a horrible person!'(You actually seem quite nice and just driven to extremes... wow that seems like an 80's Seagal movie tagline :) )
If you get this pay it no attention at all. You are there to run a fun game for the 4 players who are waiting to play in a game that will challenge them (they might even die). My first gm told me that if you dont get challenged, you dont get rewarded. And we arnt talking about Wealth here. If you just survive something, you are far more likely to remember it than if you rolled through it without taking a scratch.
Im looking to head to the US mid year for Paizocon and Origins and I hope to get in some games. My Major concern is sitting on a table being background shrubbery on a six player table. (although I would love to run a table for some Americans just to see what the differences in game style is like)
|
Erik If I may ask, were you playing at Au Bon Pan? on what was it 5th and 31st or 32?
For a little while, I guess this was back in the fall of was it 2010? I played PFS there. I enjoyed myself. Before that I lived in NYC from about 96 to '05 and was a frequent customer of the complete Strat.
Eric i can certainly relate to your frustrations. I am sorry that player erupted at you.
I know the script is there often because the Devs. and writers, i think often assume much less "game mastery" in the majority of players.
Well anyways, I do have a fondness for the place.
Myles Crocker.
|
|
'I was denied a seat on Erick's table because he said he only wanted 4 players. Hes a mean man and a horrible person!'(You actually seem quite nice and just driven to extremes... wow that seems like an 80's Seagal movie tagline :) )
Lol. "In a world where the character classes are unbalanced, one man..."
|
|
Erik If I may ask, were you playing at Au Bon Pan? on what was it 5th and 31st or 32...
Well anyways, I do have a fondness for the place.
It's a different place actually (though I played a lot of games at Au Bon Pan) and I really shouldn't call it "crummy." It's actually pretty nice, lol. But it's still a New York deli that was really cold and kind of annoying to be in when I was getting sick.
|
I was a player in a game with a GM like the OP once.
My character died.
It was during an all day module (I think tier 7-9) at a convention. Our party of 7 steamrolled the entire first 1/3 of the module, but we were having fun and took the free time to roleplay. It was a blast.
During the 2nd block we stormed a warehouse and encountered a crowd of baddies. We knew after Knowledge checks that it was going to be a challenge.
And then our tank got dropped in one round by a baddie coming out of Invisibility. We knew the $#!+ had hit the fan.
My character was the only one who could deal with this new threat, so I went toe-to-toe with it while our tankless party tried to handle the rest.
I died defending the party, but it gave them enough time to deal with their threat and my solo weakened him enough for the party to finish him off.
I got a Raise Dead in the module and was able to finish it. We steamrolled the rest of it, actually, just like the first 1/3.
The next day I come to find out our GM had combined two encounters, and that I soloed something whose CR was above our APL. The GM, thinking that encounter would've been a nice challenge, instead needlessly killed a character by taking things into his own hands.
I love a good challenge, but I also love to roleplay. I run encounters as written, to the best of my ability, and if I kill someone I don't have to feel guilty about it.
And I haven't forced *my* idea of fun onto someone else who might not see eye to eye with me.
|
|
I was a player in a game with a GM like the OP once.
Hey now, you don't know what I'm like. I would like to point out that in 30-40 PFS games, I have never inflicted a TPK. I have inflicted 2 PC deaths. One of these I overturned. It was caused by a critical hit from a sea serpent. About 3 rounds after the fact, the player realized she had a jingasa of the fortunate soldier that she could have used to turn the crit into a regular hit, so I allowed it. The other death was when the player was playing Lem, who has got to be the weakest pregen around.
The next day I come to find out...that I soloed something whose CR was above our APL.
And this strikes you as in no way problematic?
The GM, thinking that encounter would've been a nice challenge, instead needlessly killed a character by taking things into his own hands.
But your statement just before this leads me to believe that your GM was correct and that it in fact would not have been a nice challenge at all without his meddling. Doesn't necessarily mean he should have done it, but it must be recognized...
I love a good challenge, but I also love to roleplay. I run encounters as written, to the best of my ability, and if I kill someone I don't have to feel guilty about it.And I haven't forced *my* idea of fun onto someone else who might not see eye to eye with me.
Look, someone is going to get someone else's idea of fun "forced" onto them. It would seem there's no way around it. So whose should it be: the person who wants things to be challenging or the person who doesn't? That's not a rhetorical question.
EDIT: Actually, I would prefer, as is the point of my original post, a set up where people had a little more freedom to calibrate the type of fun they wanted to have, as well as a useful lexicon for expressing it. Then there would hopefully be a little less fun-forcing.
|
|
Erick: I didnt second Nefreet or Fox's reply above because I shouldnt need to. If you arnt running as written, you are not effectively running a PFS scenario. You are running a home game with a bunch of people who think they are playing a PFS scenario but actually are not.
However I shouldnt have to say that, and I think the answer to your problem I have addressed in several posts above.