Adding more creatures

[Tamec]

Heya all,

First off, I'm not asking if it is allowed, I know it isn't allowed.

What I'm asking is for a rules change to allow GMs to work with what he has in the module. Being able to add additional minions in a fight so the "odds" are even. This is mainly for older scenarios (seasons 0 - 3) because seasons 4 and 5 are better at being balanced.

Okay, let me give you an example. In Seasons 0 - 3 you have 6-7 pathfinders steam rolling a dungeon. They get to the end fight and it is a little anticlimactic because you have 7 optimized level 5 characters and they face...three level 3 thugs and a level 4 (not-optimized) caster, unless they play up (and they should be) and they are facing four level 3 thugs and a level 6 (not-optimized) caster.

Neither the down or the up are CR appropriate for the team of adventurers (who if they were an encounter would be CR 10). What I would like to do is add another 2-3 (depending on the party size) thugs so the party feels somewhat challenged, and I fully expect the cleric 1(growth domain)/ranger 1(for lead blades wand)/titan mauler barbarian 3 to walk over and one shot the caster no matter what. I'm not saying add 2 or 3 times the party size in thugs to kill the party (I know some GMs who would do this) just a few more meat shields for the caster.

Personally, some of the best adventures are those where there is an element of danger. There are plenty of times I've been taken to the negatives (or taken someone into the negatives) but I (they) survived because the party was victorious. Those are some of the best adventures. Sometimes, I don't survive and that's okay too because that is how the story unfolds. My mage ran up to a barbarian and cast burning hands and the barbarian turned around and critted me with a great axe....I think I was at -20. I still do not like burning hands to this day but I had fun and my brother (the gm) still tells that story of splitting my (very first DnD) character in half.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong

[Grymore]

I totally empathize with what you are saying. And boy it is a fine line between too simple and TPK.

But I agree that the illusion of danger does not exist. In fact, the players I have been playing with (in 1+ level games) are apparently so starved for action, no sooner has the GM finished describing the situation that swords are drawn and dice are rolling. With little thought for caution or strategy.

Someone had a great example of a game that went totally out of whack though, with extra monsters, and then extra magic items (monty-haul style) to combat the extra monsters.

Maybe GMs need to be ranked somehow. And those who earn a specific ranking gain the ability for more leeway in a game. That would reward GMs for being good GMs and running the games.

It's not a matter of quantity, but quality.

[Jiggy]

Your error is your belief that everyone shares your preference for adventures with "an element of danger", or even that everyone defines "an element of danger" as someone going unconscious.

All the worst "horror stories" seem to result from (entirely well-meaning!) GMs who didn't realize that their idea of what makes a fun game was actually just a personal preference rather than a foundational element of what the game's all about.

One of my favorite PFS experiences - that I still think about years later - was in a horribly low-powered scenario where the GM just rolled with it and played up the enemies' ineptitude for comic effect. It was a super fun time!

Now imagine that I took that experience and decided to remove or weaken monsters in a challenging scenario in order to get that same feel that I loved so much in that scenario. Would you be happy with that? Or would you be upset that I changed things into something you didn't enjoy, even though I honestly thought I'd make it more fun? Because that's what you're advocating; the fact you're talking about the opposite direction makes no difference. You scaling up the challenge to make my experience come closer to your idea of fun is no different than me scaling DOWN the challenge to bring your experience closer to my (hypothetical) idea of fun. Both ideas are fundamentally the same, and are equally bad.

The best GMs are those who DON'T try to get anything in the scenario to play out in any particular way, and instead just see what story gets created with the players and the scenario meet.

[nosig]

yeah, what jiggy said...

[Doug Miles]

Tamec, I completely sympathize with you. However, the campaign is in a position where they can't please everyone. Rather then change the current design system, what I suggest is you limit the number of players at your tables. The Season 0 - 3 scenarios were weighted to challenge 4 PCs, not 6-7. That's part of the problem you're having. Fewer PC actions mean the opponents have more chances to retaliate. This may not be a feasible solution--it'll mean either turning away players or running twice as many games. I like to be challenged. It's fun for me when my back is against the wall and every single 5' step is critical. The most fun I have is at 4-player tables. You should give it a try.

[Mattastrophic]

There's also the option of working things from the other end. If your players crave action and danger, kindly inform them that bringing Easy Mode PCs will deny them and their tablemates of the desired experience. PFS won't let you adjust the scenario to the PCs, but you can adjust the PCs to the scenario.

-Matt

[Jiggy]

Mattastrophic wrote:

There's also the option of working things from the other end. If your players crave action and danger, kindly inform them that bringing Easy Mode PCs will deny them and their tablemates of the desired experience. PFS won't let you adjust the scenario to the PCs, but you can adjust the PCs to the scenario.

-Matt

I'd also like to point out that a player who craves action does not necessarily mean he craves danger. Maybe his eagerness for rolling initiative is because he likes feeling like a super badass, and dominating combat is what gives him that feeling.

[Tamec]

Doug Miles wrote:

Tamec, I completely sympathize with you. However, the campaign is in a position where they can't please everyone. Rather then change the current design system, what I suggest is you limit the number of players at your tables. The Season 0 - 3 scenarios were weighted to challenge 4 PCs, not 6-7. That's part of the problem you're having. Few PC actions mean the opponents have more chances to retaliate. This may not be a feasible solution--it'll mean either turning away players or running twice as many games. I like to be challenged. It's fun for me when my back is against the wall and every single 5' step is critical. The most fun I have is at 4-player tables. You should give it a try.

For my home game this is what I would do. However, this is an event run by the VC and is the weekly thursday night pfs at the game store. Here I'm one of a few GMs that regularly help the VC. Every pfs night is a full table, tonight the sign-ups have 9 at my table, and that's just the sign-up not counting the walk-ins. The VC has, in the past, tried to get another gm to split the tables and when that is not successful he will have 2-3 to go home, more then likely though I'll have 7 tonight, since that is a legal table size.

[nosig]

Realizing that I am not there and thus am the perfict person to comment on this (not really knowing anything about the circumstances makes me the expert right?), it looks to me like you don't need to "add creatures", you need to add judges/tables? When I've been asked to sit at a 7 person table, I'll either offer to judge something else for 3 of them (and I've even once rented another room to do this) or just offer to sit this one out (and maybe go home). Two tables of 3 players and an Iconic are MUCH better than a table of 7 boored players.

[BigNorseWolf]

nosig wrote:

Realizing that I am not there and thus am the perfict person to comment on this (not really knowing anything about the circumstances makes me the expert right?), it looks to me like you don't need to "add creatures", you need to add judges/tables? When I've been asked to sit at a 7 person table, I'll either offer to judge something else for 3 of them (and I've even once rented another room to do this) or just offer to sit this one out (and maybe go home). Two tables of 3 players and an Iconic are MUCH better than a table of 7 boored players.

IF you have a venue large enough to pull that off, sure. For many groups its not practical, due to a limited number of flat rolling surfaces and DMs that can prep something in advance.

[nosig]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

nosig wrote:

Realizing that I am not there and thus am the perfict person to comment on this (not really knowing anything about the circumstances makes me the expert right?), it looks to me like you don't need to "add creatures", you need to add judges/tables? When I've been asked to sit at a 7 person table, I'll either offer to judge something else for 3 of them (and I've even once rented another room to do this) or just offer to sit this one out (and maybe go home). Two tables of 3 players and an Iconic are MUCH better than a table of 7 boored players.

IF you have a venue large enough to pull that off, sure. For many groups its not practical, due to a limited number of flat rolling surfaces and DMs that can prep something in advance.

...get a larger venue? (yes, I have done this - when a local CON decided to be run in a store, I went up the street and rented a meeting room in a hotel with room for more than 6 tables - just to catch the overflow. If presented with the same situation, I might just do it again. I have done it more than once...)

or move a table to another location (I expect to have two tables running in my one bedroom apartment this weekend... folding tables and folding chairs).

If you assume that there is no fix for a situation, it will not change.

But then again, I did point out "... I am not there and thus am the perfict person to comment on this (not really knowing anything about the circumstances makes me the expert right?),..." and forgot to note that that statement was intended as sarcasm. I do not know the OP situation. I don't know if splitting tables would work for him. But I would much prefer it to "adding more creatures"... and would suggest people actually think about it as an option (IMHO the best option).

IMHO - If the adventuring groups are to big - we should reduce the size of the groups, not increase the number of creatures. Increasing the number of creatures will just spread the game a little thinner for each of the players. Four hours of game time split between 4 players is almost twice as much time each as four hours split between 7 players... or so it seems to me.

I also think (just my opinion again) that adding more creatures also assumes that the game is all about combat - or mostly about combat. What about the people who don't play this game to kill mooks? How about we add in more puzzles for them? Or increase the number of skill checks required to finish the task? For example: Instead of just a Perception check to find the mcmuffen, we need to have one PC pick the lock (added), another detect the mcmuffen, a third read Azlanti to be sure we have the correct item (added), a fourth to carry the 400lb. Mcmuffen (added), a fifth to... but you get the picture.

sorry - I guess I'm ranting a bit at this point... and should likely just delete this post. Maybe I'll get lucky and the internet will eat it...

[FLite]

Or you could recognize that season 0-1 were when they were still getting their wheels under them, and just decide that if the story isn't worth the challenge, then just stop running season 0/1 stuff.

[GM Lamplighter]

Bottom line: you need to recruit more GMs. If players are not enjoying cakewalks, the only long-term solution is to run more tables so the groups are smaller. Nosig nailed it, adding bad guys is not only illegal, but just dilutes the game. There are some great Season 0-1 stories, so just limit sign-ups to them to four. If that means not everyone gets to play every game, that is a better and more sustainable solution than people not enjoying every game.