|
With all the talk on the boards of comments similar to:
This is way to rough for these pregens! I'm not gonna run this as written!
How does that support the whole run as written philosophy? How can you say my experience of having a DM who ran this module to the best of his ability as written is the same as all those whose gm's change tactics and made the module easier?
With many of the GM comments coming from 4 and 5 star GM's on both sides of the fence it makes me wonder how consistent the experience of PFS really is from GM to GM and city to city.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Mulgar,
Hello. Good question. A similar question came up a couple of years ago, when "Dawn of the Scarlet Sun" was the Free RPG Day adventure, and included several dangerous encounters.
I'm not a Paizo employee, and I've never sat with any of them and asked about this topic, so all you're getting is my personal understanding.
Different people play Pathfinder for different reasons. some people like really harrowing combats, with frequent chances for character death. Others don't. It appears that the Paizo development team has -- on the basis of their considerable experience -- understood that the people who pick out a one-shot character and try their luck at an isolated adventure don't mind too much if that character dies. (This was the idea behind the Paizo delve that became "Seven Swords of Sin." Each designer created a room with a dangerous monster or deadly trap, and then James Sutter knit them together into a dungeon, deep beneath Kaer Maga. When they ran the delve at Gen Con, they even kept tallies as to how many PCs died in which rooms. "Dawn of the Scarlet Sun" and "Risen from the Sands" are also deadly, although not so much.
Generally speaking, Pathfinder Society Organized Play errs on the side of less deadly adventures, due to the nature of walking up to a table with five strangers and hoping for a balanced party, and due to the desire to have characters survive and rise in power.
There are exceptions. For people who want to earn their experience more dearly, there are the Bonekeep adventures. There's playing adventures on "hard mode". And there's the opportunity to play modules like this.
|
|
Mulgar,
Hello. Good question. A similar question came up a couple of years ago, when "Dawn of the Scarlet Sun" was the Free RPG Day adventure, and included several dangerous encounters.
I'm not a Paizo employee, and I've never sat with any of them and asked about this topic, so all you're getting is my personal understanding.
Different people play Pathfinder for different reasons. some people like really harrowing combats, with frequent chances for character death. Others don't. It appears that the Paizo development team has -- on the basis of their considerable experience -- understood that the people who pick out a one-shot character and try their luck at an isolated adventure don't mind too much if that character dies. (This was the idea behind the Paizo delve that became "Seven Swords of Sin." Each designer created a room with a dangerous monster or deadly trap, and then James Sutter knit them together into a dungeon, deep beneath Kaer Maga. When they ran the delve at Gen Con, they even kept tallies as to how many PCs died in which rooms. "Dawn of the Scarlet Sun" and "Risen from the Sands" are also deadly, although not so much.
Generally speaking, Pathfinder Society Organized Play errs on the side of less deadly adventures, due to the nature of walking up to a table with five strangers and hoping for a balanced party, and due to the desire to have characters survive and rise in power.
There are exceptions. For people who want to earn their experience more dearly, there are the Bonekeep adventures. There's playing adventures on "hard mode". And there's the opportunity to play modules like this.
I understand hard adventures, that's not really the question I asked here. I'm asking specifically, why didn't Paizo clarify on the GM thread how to handle this encounter?
I don't have a problem with "hard mode" adventures. Although I have been on these boards a while, I just recently started playing PFS. I heard and read a lot from Mike Brock about RUN AS WRITTEN. So if a lot of the GM's had questions on the GM thread about how to run as written, why wouldn't Paizo give clarification?
|
I understand hard adventures, that's not really the question I asked here. I'm asking specifically, why didn't Paizo clarify on the GM thread how to handle this encounter?
Time constraints.
The team is busy getting product finished while prepping for PaizoCon. Guidance on how to run a Free RPG Day module for PFS is low on the list of priorities. Mike and John trust their GMs to exercise their own judgement without needing guidance every time, and make sure to take time to give guidance when they feel they need to. However, the scenario released yesterday for the majority of GMs, so they have not had time to decide if guidance is needed.
|
|
I understand hard adventures, that's not really the question I asked here. I'm asking specifically, why didn't Paizo clarify on the GM thread how to handle this encounter?Time constraints.
The team is busy getting product finished while prepping for PaizoCon. Guidance on how to run a Free RPG Day module for PFS is low on the list of priorities. Mike and John trust their GMs to exercise their own judgement without needing guidance every time, and make sure to take time to give guidance when they feel they need to. However, the scenario released yesterday for the majority of GMs, so they have not had time to decide if guidance is needed.
I understand time constrains, but I can find comments about this encounter reaching back to June 8th on these boards.
|
Personally, in two game slots, I saw four out of nine characters die ... I don't think that's "challenging", I think that something around a 50% death rate, with a very distinct possibility of a TPK is more like a crap shoot.
...
And I too think that should've been addressed. Also, one of the tables had the DM (running non-sanctioned) entirely take out the first encounter. If that's the kind of feeling a GM gets when preparing a scenario, then I think that there's something really amiss with that particular adventure.
I'm not sure if this is relevant to the discussion in this thread, but there does seem to be a consistent complaint in the product reviews that the number of foes with DR all but makes the Swashbuckler useless, or at least the pregens struggle to overcome said foes...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am one of the 4 star GMs and a VO who posted on the GM thread with my feedback on how I was going to amend a particularly difficult encounter. I stand by my comments. Just because Paizo publishes some of the best adventures, doesn't mean they don't make mistakes. I honestly think the Paizo editorial team made a big mistake in one encounter for Risen from the Sands and I say so in my review. I want to give my players the best and fairest experience and make the mod shine. In order to do that, I rely on my experience as a PFS GM and I softball the mistake made in the final document.
If I ran the [REDACTED] encounter as written, I would almost certainly have TPK'ed my party. It would have ended Free RPG Day on Saturday 30 minutes into the game with 5 extremely unhappy players hating the module, hating the event. They would probably wish there was a different organised play system they could commit time to instead rather than sacrifice their beloved PC to a poorly worded trap/monster/railroad of death that makes the [REDACTED] in Accursed Halls look like the turnip farming Kobold from [REDACTED].
I hope that the Paizo staff seriously look at the feedback for Risen From The Sands and commit themselves to more play-testing before product release in the future.
Also, 'consistent play experience' is a myth. Every module experience is going to vary wildly depending on what GM you get. That's an issue that no amount of guidance can remove.
Happy gaming!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you haven't already, I suggest that everyone post a review of this scenario on the product page. Although Paizo staff do read these messageboards, the product reviews are where you can make your voice be heard the best.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's something that needs to be taken into consideration as well. The Scenarios for free RPG day are not written by Paizo staff for PFS. They are written for the Free RPG day giveaway, and to hopefully have walk-ins sit down and play a game. PFS does not have to sanction the content. They owe you nothing. Anyone who believes they do needs to get over that. Just because it was done that way in the past does not mean extenuating circumstances won't lead to a Free RPG day module not being sanctioned.
Paizo also has many things on their plate right now with Paizocon and Gencon. As a relatively small company, I expect mistakes to be made, deadlines to be missed etc. Things happen.
All of that being said, There is another important thing to note in the adventure. NOWHERE does it list any tactics or morale stats whatsoever. None. If a GM chooses to take an encounter and slam into the party thrice over with the creature's single most powerful ability that he knows full well the pregens lack certain capabilities to overcome, then that is a GM I would never waste my time at a table with. As stated above, if you kill off the entire part 30 minutes into the game because the stats make it possible but nothing says you HAVE to, then everyone leaves, new players say "what a waste of time" veterans possibly lose characters to death permanently, etc. Overall, not a very good representation of the game system, the company that publishes their content, or the organized play group trying to promote it. I'm not afraid to TPK a party when the module or scenario calls for specific tactics, but there's also the need to step back and do what makes sense given the relative experience level of those involved.
My morning session defeated the encounter, as written with tactics and limitations I imposed based on what made sense to me. They were badly beaten up and thought twice about proceeding any further, but it was a strong wake up call that they all needed to start acting more like seasoned Pathfinders and less like door kicking murder-hobos.
I do not think that the GM variation that took place on free RPG day can be scrutinized given all the variables that come up and the lack of direct guidance in the module on how encounters should play out tactically. I do still believe that most of the published scenarios are being run as intended across the greater populace, and if there is a massive deviation from what is written (for better or for worse) it's because that GM specifically is disregarding the need for continuity and fairness across the world's organized play element. This was not one of those cases.
I would like to see some follow up input from the writer so that if changes need to be made based on what they intended, they can be done and included in the pdf download for future PFS sanctioned events specifically. This did not feel like it got the playtest it needed from a diverse group of varying experience levels as would be seen on free rpg day.
|
Here's something that needs to be taken into consideration as well. The Scenarios for free RPG day are not written by Paizo staff for PFS. They are written for the Free RPG day giveaway, and to hopefully have walk-ins sit down and play a game. PFS does not have to sanction the content. They owe you nothing. Anyone who believes they do needs to get over that.
I might be reading something into your words that isn't there. If so, ignore the rest of this.
I don't completely agree. Paizo isn't giving these things away from charity, they are doing it as a marketing exercise.
It was sanctioned for PFS at least largely to greatly increase the supply of people who would help Paizo with their marketing on Free RPG day
And the PFS GMs, VOs and store coordinators aren't just taking free product and complaining that it wasn't good enough. We're investing significant time and effort in organizing, prepping and running the module.
I think our concerns are valid. This was a poor Free RPG day product. Its far worse at that than it is as a PFS scenario.
"Owed" isn't quite right. But, quite frankly, I expected a much better product than this.
|
|
I actually like that Paizo did not put in any tactics for this adventure - it allows GMs to temper their game according to their audience and a bit more freely than a regular PFS adventure.It would be even better if a certain non-specific subset of GMs realized they COULD do so, and if a certain other non-specific subset realized that they SHOULD do so...
Unfortunately, there are times you don't realize you SHOULD softball an encounter until you've killed half the party.
I am extremely glad I Slot Zeroed this Wednesday night and reported how deadly this adventure is (especially when run with the Pregens) on the forums prior to its regular run on Free RPG Day. I hope this improved the play experience for at least some of the participants by informing the GMs ahead of time.
|
|
I actually like that Paizo did not put in any tactics for this adventure - it allows GMs to temper their game according to their audience and a bit more freely than a regular PFS adventure.It would be even better if a certain non-specific subset of GMs realized they COULD do so, and if a certain other non-specific subset realized that they SHOULD do so...Unfortunately, there are times you don't realize you SHOULD softball an encounter until you've killed half the party.
I am extremely glad I Slot Zeroed this Wednesday night and reported how deadly this adventure is (especially when run with the Pregens) on the forums prior to its regular run on Free RPG Day. I hope this improved the play experience for at least some of the participants by informing the GMs ahead of time.
It did. Thank you.
Getting access to the scenario ahead of time also helped a lot.
I would NOT want to run this cold.
|
|
stuff ....There is another important thing to note in the adventure. NOWHERE does it list any tactics or morale stats whatsoever. None. stuff...
When the GM's who got their hands on it early started asking for some tactics here, why didn't Paizo clarify this?
It's frustrating for a new player not knowing your GM's preferences ahead of time. Then finding out that even within the same store the module's encounters were ran with varying tactics because none were given?
Although I understand the importance of Paizocon, seems to me that Free RPG day is important as well. I know where I was there were brand new players at tables. I can only wonder if they will come back...
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
With all the talk on the boards of comments similar to:
This is way too rough for these pregens! I'm not gonna run this as written!
How does that support the whole run as written philosophy?
Well, obviously, "Run as Written" is only a restriction for PFS, not for Pathfinder as a whole. "Risen from the Sands" is a Pathfinder Module written for Free RPG Day, not a PFS scenario written for society play. Most of the comments I've seen about changes GMs intended to make to the module (including the postings I made) were made in the context of not running the adventure as a reportable PFS event - a choice made so that they would be free to make those changes.
I'd much rather see Paizo spend their limited PFS developer time getting the PFS scenario I'm running at PaizoCon into my hands in time for me to prepare than writing guidelines for how to run "Risen from the Sands" for society play; PFS GMs are more likely than most to come to the Paizo forums for advice and guidance.
I regard the module as presenting some tough, but manageable, problems for a well-rounded team of adventurers being run by players who understand the abilities of their characters. For such a group, I'd be prepared to run this as a PFS game (and will almost certainly be doing so after July 1st at one or more of our local game stores). For a party of players not really familiar with the Pathfinder rule-set (let alone the new ACG rules), limited to just the pregens provided with the module, it's a rather different story.
Admittedly there's still some amount of change that can be made even under PFS constraints - it's possible to vary the tactics, which can have a significant effect on the outcome of some encounters. But that's always been true of PFS play; unless tactics are explicitly spelled out, the GM has a free hand to vary them.
The pyramid animates and charges, speeding forward on stone rollers to trample anyone in the passage.
But what does it do them? Does it, as one GM suggested, carry on all the way down to the entrance in case there is anyone else in the passage to be trampled? If that's the case, then the party has ten rounds or more to regroup, heal, run further along the passageway, or whatever else they choose. That's what I did for my game on Saturday; the tension from the noise of the pyramid fading into the distance, stopping with a thump, and then a round later starting up again, getting louder (and closer) each round had the players seriously worried.
The GM also needs to be aware of the rules for how trample works (which, I admit, I was not). Trampled characters get the choice of either taking an attack of opportunity (albeit at a -4 penalty) or trying to make a reflex save to halve the damage they take. So even if the pyramid repeatedly turns around and tramples the party any heavy hitters can choose to ready an attack for when the pyramid gets into range, then take their attack of opportunity when trampled. This gives them two chances to hit on each attack by the pyramid. It's still a tough fight, but not quite as one-sided as it first appears.
|
|
With all the talk on the boards of comments similar to:
This is way too rough for these pregens! I'm not gonna run this as written!
How does that support the whole run as written philosophy?
Well, obviously, "Run as Written" is only a restriction for PFS, not for Pathfinder as a whole. "Risen from the Sands" is a Pathfinder Module written for Free RPG Day, not a PFS scenario written for society play. Most of the comments I've seen about changes GMs intended to make to the module (including the postings I made) were made in the context of not running the adventure as a reportable PFS event - a choice made so that they would be free to make those changes.
I'd much rather see Paizo spend their limited PFS developer time getting the PFS scenario I'm running at PaizoCon into my hands in time for me to prepare than writing guidelines for how to run "Risen from the Sands" for society play; PFS GMs are more likely than most to come to the Paizo forums for advice and guidance.
I regard the module as presenting some tough, but manageable, problems for a well-rounded team of adventurers being run by players who understand the abilities of their characters. For such a group, I'd be prepared to run this as a PFS game (and will almost certainly be doing so after July 1st at one or more of our local game stores). For a party of players not really familiar with the Pathfinder rule-set (let alone the new ACG rules), limited to just the pregens provided with the module, it's a rather different story.
Admittedly there's still some amount of change that can be made even under PFS constraints - it's possible to vary the tactics, which can have a significant effect on the outcome of some encounters. But that's always been true of PFS play; unless tactics are explicitly spelled out, the GM has a free hand to vary them.
** spoiler omitted **...
Well, I have heard major variation at tables where the GM was running for PFS credit.
The well-rounded team of adventurers being run by players who understand the abilities of their characters are precisely the type of tables you would hope to NOT see at Free RPG Day.
I would think that when the change of tactics in one encounter impact the outcome to this degree, it is exactly the high CR encounters that should have more tactics listed from the Paizo staff.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Mulgar, I have to step back and ask: what exactly would you recommend that John should have done? He explained what sorts of characters were allowed for PFS play (your own PC, level 2-4, or one of the four pre-gens from the adventure). There are baseline rules in force for running adventures under PFS guidelines: don't change any monster stats, and run encounters as written. John didn't have to explain that the regular rules for PFS were in effect for this module, the same as they have been for Free RPG Day modules in the past.
So far as I can tell, you are upset because some GMs modified some of the encounters, which they should not have done if they were running for PFS credit, despite their good intentions.
Should John have told us to change a pre-gen character's gear? Or change an NPC's stats?? That kind of revision is simply not going to happen.
Do you think that when Rob McCreary, Paizo's Chief Developer, wrote "Risen from the Sands", he made the adventure too difficult for the given party? That's not a PFS concern. If you think it's too tough for PFS, don't run it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The well-rounded team of adventurers being run by players who understand the abilities of their characters are precisely the type of tables you would hope to NOT see at Free RPG Day.
Those are exactly the types of tables I hope to see at Free RPG Day, as well as tables of players who have experience gaming but are new to Pathfinder, and tables of players who have no experience whatsoever with RPGs, and tables made of mixes of those kinds of players.
|
This actually goes into GM and Players preperation. I ran this and prepared a very combat intensive adventure. My table was PFS of 5 characters(one brand new player). I told them this was a difficult adventure and because of this they were well prepared, those that played the Pre Gens from the module were told to be familiar with abilities and resource management. Now there is no gold modification for not completing every encounter, just the loss of access, not a huge issue. The group did well and worked together. Most players went unconcious at some time, but all survived. They did not go through each encounter, but they did complete the final encounter before bugging out. It ran in about 4-4.5 hours. Honestly had this been just a group of Free RPG players I doubt it would have gone as well. Free RPG day is used as a recruiting tool, as far as that goes I am unsure if it would have made non PFS players come back. This emphasizes the importance that VO and GM's have for ensuring people have a good time, death or not. We are in the business of recruiting new players to help the society grow.
|
|
Mulgar, I have to step back and ask: what exactly would you recommend that John should have done? He explained what sorts of characters were allowed for PFS play (your own PC, level 2-4, or one of the four pre-gens from the adventure). There are baseline rules in force for running adventures under PFS guidelines: don't change any monster stats, and run encounters as written. John didn't have to explain that the regular rules for PFS were in effect for this module, the same as they have been for Free RPG Day modules in the past.
So far as I can tell, you are upset because some GMs modified some of the encounters, which they should not have done if they were running for PFS credit, despite their good intentions.
Should John have told us to change a pre-gen character's gear? Or change an NPC's stats?? That kind of revision is simply not going to happen.
Do you think that when Rob McCreary, Paizo's Chief Developer, wrote "Risen from the Sands", he made the adventure too difficult for the given party? That's not a PFS concern. If you think it's too tough for PFS, don't run it.
How hard would it have been for someone to take 5 minutes on a mass e-mail to the venture captains clarifying some of the justifiable questions on the first encounter?
Never have I asked for any change of gear or any of the stats of the module.
I have just raised my concerns as to how much confusion could have been clarified buy adding "and then the ..... continues to ......" or "and then the ...... does this instead"
How hard would it have been for someone to take 5 minutes on a mass e-mail to the venture captains clarifying some of the justifiable questions on the first encounter?
Never have I asked for any change of gear or any of the stats of the module.
I have just raised my concerns as to how much confusion could have been clarified buy adding "and then the ..... continues to ......" or "and then the ...... does this instead"
I don't think that it would be a simple 5 minute job to draft out tactics for all of the encounters - there is a lot to take into consideration when setting up tactics - especially when these will be the required tactics for all played PFS versions of the module.
Also, I have noticed the Paizo staff do not respond to all of the threads, especially when they feel that appropriate guidance has been given. There was a fair bit given in the GM thread on this adventure.
|
|
How hard would it have been for someone to take 5 minutes on a mass e-mail to the venture captains clarifying some of the justifiable questions on the first encounter?
Never have I asked for any change of gear or any of the stats of the module.
I have just raised my concerns as to how much confusion could have been clarified buy adding "and then the ..... continues to ......" or "and then the ...... does this instead"
I don't think that it would be a simple 5 minute job to draft out tactics for all of the encounters - there is a lot to take into consideration when setting up tactics - especially when these will be the required tactics for all played PFS versions of the module.
Also, I have noticed the Paizo staff do not respond to all of the threads, especially when they feel that appropriate guidance has been given. There was a fair bit given in the GM thread on this adventure.
If you reread my post, I asked only for the 1st encounter.
If you know of a post by a Paizo staffer that gives guidance on the 1st encounter please point me to it.
How hard would it have been for someone to take 5 minutes on a mass e-mail to the venture captains clarifying some of the justifiable questions on the first encounter?
Never have I asked for any change of gear or any of the stats of the module.
I have just raised my concerns as to how much confusion could have been clarified buy adding "and then the ..... continues to ......" or "and then the ...... does this instead"
I don't think that it would be a simple 5 minute job to draft out tactics for all of the encounters - there is a lot to take into consideration when setting up tactics - especially when these will be the required tactics for all played PFS versions of the module.
Also, I have noticed the Paizo staff do not respond to all of the threads, especially when they feel that appropriate guidance has been given. There was a fair bit given in the GM thread on this adventure.
If you reread my post, I asked only for the 1st encounter.
If you know of a post by a Paizo staffer that gives guidance on the 1st encounter please point me to it.
In the GM thread, advice was asked for more than one encounter. So to be fair, tactics would have to be done for all of the encounters.
Also, they should be done by the author, not retrofitted by John or Mike.
Even if they did draft in tactics, there would be a fair number of cases where the GM wouldn't see the forum post for the tactics, leading to adventures that weren't run the same way, so not really PFS - leading to complaints about only some GMs following the tactics, etc.. Right now, as there are no tactics, that complaint won't be heard.
In my opinion, as soon as the adventure was sent to the printer, it was no longer possible to add tactics. I can understand you wanting to get "official" tactics, but it isn't going to happen - you have been given a lot of good advice on how to run the encounters for a variety of skill levels of the players.
Developer
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think others have the right sense of it, Mulgar.
During the busiest time(s) of the year, I don't have as much of an opportunity to weigh in on clarifications, such as unwritten tactics. Typically, when there are no tactics provided for a creature (which is more prevalent in printed adventures that need to adhere to a particular page count) I trust GMs to use common sense, have the creature(s) behave in a believable way, and make decisions that balance the [occasionally contradictory] notions of fairness and fun. I step in when I start hearing GMs promote particularly vindictive tactics—especially if those go against any of the tactics the author might have included.
Were I to have had the time to participate in Free RPG Day this year, I probably would have had the construct open with trample to give the PCs something to sweat about. I'd then start doing slam attacks, and as a GM, I'd remind any table that was particularly struggling about how the run action functions. Running deeper into the pyramid means the construct can't charge or trample the PCs for a few rounds, which might let them outrun it or outsmart it. As the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play advises, "[reward] creative solutions."
That's my personal take on it, but I'm not going to claim that these are the official Paizo tactics for the adventure; they're my interpretation of how I'd run the encounter. The Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play provides solid advice that is no less relevant when running a sanctioned module rather than a PFS scenario. If you have not had a chance to read the GM chapter as part of your preparation for running Pathfinder Society sanctioned events, I recommend setting aside half an hour (perhaps less) to give it a read, for it provides some valuable context for the answers others provided upthread.
|
|
It's ok big norse wolf, pile on. Anyone else wanna tell me how okay it is for GM's to openly state how they will not run it at written, make it easier, and still feel that it's acceptable to send it in for PFS credit go ahead.
TOZ, Mr. Compton, and several others thank you for you opinions and help.
Although to be honest, after my experience on the boards asking for input on this board, makes me wonder how "consistent" the experience is from location to location. Seems to me, my experience and impressions should be taken with more seriousness, as I am one of those new players that PFS wants to attract.....
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
Mulgar, I have to step back and ask: what exactly would you recommend that John should have done? He explained what sorts of characters were allowed for PFS play (your own PC, level 2-4, or one of the four pre-gens from the adventure). There are baseline rules in force for running adventures under PFS guidelines: don't change any monster stats, and run encounters as written. John didn't have to explain that the regular rules for PFS were in effect for this module, the same as they have been for Free RPG Day modules in the past.
So far as I can tell, you are upset because some GMs modified some of the encounters, which they should not have done if they were running for PFS credit, despite their good intentions.
Should John have told us to change a pre-gen character's gear? Or change an NPC's stats?? That kind of revision is simply not going to happen.
Do you think that when Rob McCreary, Paizo's Chief Developer, wrote "Risen from the Sands", he made the adventure too difficult for the given party? That's not a PFS concern. If you think it's too tough for PFS, don't run it.
Perhaps the Mod should be a level 4 or level 5 mod instead?
Just throwing that out there.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although to be honest, after my experience on the boards asking for input on this board, makes me wonder how "consistent" the experience is from location to location.
It's not. Consistency is the goal, but you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good or so I have been told.
Each region has different conventions that players and GMs follow, and games will vary from GM to GM, as no one runs the same as any other. We are all products of the GMs we have played under, taking pieces from each of them, good and bad.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's ok big norse wolf, pile on. Anyone else wanna tell me how okay it is for GM's to openly state how they will not run it at written, make it easier, and still feel that it's acceptable to send it in for PFS credit go ahead.
No one stated they weren't running as written. They DID say they were softballing it. You see those as an absolute contradiction: they are not. The tactics are general enough that a DM can legitimately and legally vary the difficulty by picking more or less optimal tactics, for example, if the pyramid tramples every round, people are gonna die. You don't HAVE to have the pyramid do that.
|
|
It's ok big norse wolf, pile on. Anyone else wanna tell me how okay it is for GM's to openly state how they will not run it at written, make it easier, and still feel that it's acceptable to send it in for PFS credit go ahead.No one stated they weren't running as written. They DID say they were softballing it. You see those as an absolute contradiction: they are not. The tactics are general enough that a DM can legitimately and legally vary the difficulty by picking more or less optimal tactics, for example, if the pyramid tramples every round, people are gonna die. You don't HAVE to have the pyramid do that.
I think you have gotten to the basis of my question, why were the tactics left so vague even after questions were raised?
Now I have found Rob's reply on the GM thread, and understand better how and what went on that resulted in these problems.
|
I think you have gotten to the basis of my question, why were the tactics left so vague even after questions were raised?
Resources. Paizo only has so many available and in the lead up to PaizoCon and GenCon they are stretched very, very thin.
Even for regular season scenarios, you'll note that a LOT of the best guidance on errors, pitfalls and deadly encounters come from the community as the adventure gets run over and over again by lots of different GMs with lots of different PCs.
There was time for GMs who were prepping to ask the questions, but not enough time for the answers to develop from either official or unofficial sources.
Rob's reply, as you note, does provide some context and I hope that the community can also find some perspective. It was an imperfect free RPG day release, with some good bits and some tricky bits. GMs who run it from now on will be better prepared. Folks who played it or ran it on Free RPG Day and really hated the experience need to chalk it up in the 'would not recommend' category and move on with their lives.
|
|
If I ran the [REDACTED] encounter as written, I would almost certainly have TPK'ed my party. It would have ended Free RPG Day on Saturday 30 minutes into the game with 5 extremely unhappy players hating the module, hating the event. They would probably wish there was a different organised play system they could commit time to instead rather than sacrifice their beloved PC to a poorly worded trap/monster/railroad of death that makes the [REDACTED] in Accursed Halls look like the turnip farming Kobold from [REDACTED].Happy gaming!
In playing the game (we had 3 PFS characters (one 2nd level) and 3 pregens) and we had a tough time - the [redacted] encounter described was scary and hard but we mitigated by judicious use of
Also -
I would have thought vague tactics would be a good thing. Greater flexibility in adjusting combats to the skill level of the players instead of being rigidly constrained on how the encounters must be run.
-j
|
|
I actually like that Paizo did not put in any tactics for this adventure - it allows GMs to temper their game according to their audience and a bit more freely than a regular PFS adventure.It would be even better if a certain non-specific subset of GMs realized they COULD do so, and if a certain other non-specific subset realized that they SHOULD do so...
The fact they did not realize they could or should is a good reminder why GMs don't have more freedom to modify scenarios.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact they did not realize they could or should is a good reminder why GMs don't have more freedom to modify scenarios.I actually like that Paizo did not put in any tactics for this adventure - it allows GMs to temper their game according to their audience and a bit more freely than a regular PFS adventure.It would be even better if a certain non-specific subset of GMs realized they COULD do so, and if a certain other non-specific subset realized that they SHOULD do so...
The counter argument is that it was only that freedom that allowed me to NOT TPK the newbys when I ran it.
I am firmly convinced that most GMs use the freedom wisely and most would benefit from a little more freedom.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
Venture-Captain, North Carolina—Asheville
|
No one stated they weren't running as written. They DID say they were softballing it. You see those as an absolute contradiction: they are not. The tactics are general enough that a DM can legitimately and legally vary the difficulty by picking more or less optimal tactics, for example, if the pyramid tramples every round, people are gonna die. You don't HAVE to have the pyramid do that.
For what it's worth, our table's GM had the thing trample every round (complete with back-pedaling), and we still defeated it without a death. Granted, we had a six-person table and only one of the pregens (the warpriest), but only three of us had any way to hurt the abomination.