|
The biggest issue I've found with pfs scenarios, especially the newer ones, is that the writers don't trust the GMs. If the writer trusted the GM, they'd give each NPC a set of motives and goals. Then each GM would be able to play out the encounters to react to their players' approach. Instead, scenarios are written with rigid instructions, npcs are forced to attack the players in obviously stupid situations. Only in pfs would two bandits think it a great idea to try robbing 6 heavily armed individuals, and fight to the death.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Library of the lion gets a pass because there's forwarning: you're going to a library. Don't bring conan the barbarian, because you can't cut people in half for not knowing the dewy decimal system
|
|
For things that the vast majority of PC's will have the fame to purchase, I don't see the point of having those listed on the chronicle.
The current management agrees with you and has already made this correction on the newer stuff, but there's really better stuff to do with their time besides fixing old chronicle sheets.
|
|
The biggest issue I've found with pfs scenarios, especially the newer ones, is that the writers don't trust the GMs. If the writer trusted the GM, they'd give each NPC a set of motives and goals. Then each GM would be able to play out the encounters to react to their players' approach. Instead, scenarios are written with rigid instructions, npcs are forced to attack the players in obviously stupid situations. Only in pfs would two bandits think it a great idea to try robbing 6 heavily armed individuals, and fight to the death.
It is inaccurate to place that blame solely on the authors and to claim that we don't trust GMs. Authors, Developers, and GMs share the blame for your issue with poorly written tactics.
Some authors, especially those new to PFS, may write tactics like that.
Some developers change tactics that end up like you describe. Developers are trying to make scenarios designed for the average (somewhat casual) PFS player.
Some GMs have abused open tactical situations and Campaign Management have had to react by limiting GM freedom. See the rules for Coup de Grace as an example.
Some NPCs are given "suboptimal" tactics because it fits better with the NPC motives, and we *are* trying to tell a story after all.
Some NPCs are given "suboptimal" tactics as a way to balance the CR of the encounter or provide a more enjoyable experience. Sure the NPC could lead off with spell X, but would it be a more interesting encounter to lead off with spell Y and use spell X if the PCs start getting the upper hand?
The NPCs shouldn't be using their alpha strike tactics immediately - they don't know if they will get a chance to rest and recover resources so they have to husband their resources - same as the players.
I feel that it would be metagaming on the author/developer to know that this will be the only fight that the NPCs will face that day.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If pfs trusted it's GMs, there wouldn't be forced combats or tactics. That would be a waste of space, instead there'd be more explanation of what and why the NPC's goals are. Then the GM can have an NPC reacting organically to the situation instead of a robot running through it's programming.
But that takes a good GM to be able to handle material like that. Pfs assumes it's GMs are bad and need to have explicit instructions for handling everything. This style of writing is great for inexperienced or bad GMs. But it stifles experienced ones. Having open writing lets a good GM turn what would have been a good game into a fantastic one. But it also doesn't hold hands so that what might have been an OK game will be bad.
Basically I think the current style of scenario design sets the GM bar quite low. I'd rather set the bar high and aim for greatness. I'd rather see some tables fly and others crash then settle for mediocrity across the board.
|
If pfs trusted it's GMs, there wouldn't be forced combats or tactics. That would be a waste of space, instead there'd be more explanation of what and why the NPC's goals are. Then the GM can have an NPC reacting organically to the situation instead of a robot running through it's programming.
But that takes a good GM to be able to handle material like that. Pfs assumes it's GMs are bad and need to have explicit instructions for handling everything. This style of writing is great for inexperienced or bad GMs. But it stifles experienced ones. Having open writing lets a good GM turn what would have been a good game into a fantastic one. But it also doesn't hold hands so that what might have been an OK game will be bad.Basically I think the current style of scenario design sets the GM bar quite low. I'd rather set the bar high and aim for greatness. I'd rather see some tables fly and others crash then settle for mediocrity across the board.
That's a silly suggestion.
I think you have unreasonable expectations for people. PFS assumes its GMs are hard working people with families and jobs. If every scenario was as you described then it would take even longer to prep. GM burnouts would happen far faster that they do already.Most PFS GMs I've played with ARE inexperienced or bad GMs. However, the games they run are mediocre at worst. With the changes you suggest the quality would plummet. MOST games would crash.
That being said, the few good GMs I've played with have delivered nothing but amazing experiences. So perhaps the "good GMs" you play with aren't all that great.
|
|
Suboptimal tactics are one thing. But super suboptimal builds are hard to swallow.
More gunslingers. More summoners. More full BAB classes with high to hit numbers. Classes than can actually present a challenge to a party.
More complicated classes that can be brutal if run by over zealous GMs or pushovers by GMs new to the game?
A better solution is to ignore "hard" CR math and build well rounded encounters that can play out in various ways based on PC actions without getting lost in an over abundance of niche rules.
|
"More complicated classes that can be brutal if run by over zealous GMs or pushovers by GMs new to the game?"
They're not that complicated, especially since PC classes are something that most players have a lot of experience with. Especially summoners. I have found NPC druids can end up being even more complicated, as I was frantically burning all their spells for more bodies on the table. Because action economy is the one ring that rules them all.
I say gunslingers because most of PCs that have abusively high armor classes can still be hit by them. Other PCs won't care as much, because they were used to getting hit.
Anything to get away from the "humanoid-based encounters are easy (which they pretty much are), because they are built with a random feat generator, but monster-based encounters you better watch out for, because they can have arbitrarily strong or broken abilities that humanoids with classes can never have. (Which they do have)"
Honestly, a "brutal" fight that didn't involve monsters would be pretty novel.
|
|
That's unrealistic to me, but okay.Suboptimal tactics are one thing. But super suboptimal builds are hard to swallow.I've been told that life is random, and that NPCs don't get to optimize themselves.
I didn't want to be a cultist, I started out as a horticulturalist, got the meeting times confused. I thought the bad latin was scientific names but hey! It turns out I have a talent for summoning abominations from dimensions tangent to ours with a slope of infinity.
NPC humanoids are weak because of gear. They are seriously undergeared at higher levels and it shows. In a standard loot scheme campaign you'd have to treasurebath the party any time you threw them against a human, and then spend the next 3 levels fighting nothing but plant monsters and oozes to make up for it.
|
|
That's unrealistic to me, but okay.Suboptimal tactics are one thing. But super suboptimal builds are hard to swallow.I've been told that life is random, and that NPCs don't get to optimize themselves.I didn't want to be a cultist, I started out as a horticulturalist, got the meeting times confused. I thought the bad latin was scientific names but hey! It turns out I have a talent for summoning abominations from dimensions tangent to ours with a slope of infinity.
NPC humanoids are weak because of gear. They are seriously undergeared at higher levels and it shows.
They need PC-level wealth and to not have the wheel of random feats in effect. And they STILL are probably lagging behind most monster-based encounters. Especially monsters that can force fort or will saves over and over.
|
|
@gnoams: Maybe you want the crapshoot that was the end of Living Greyhawk, where, if you weren't a crafting Wizard, with multiple deaths under your metaphorical belt, you were underpowered, no matter how well you were built, to handle the so-called challenges? Gotta love magic item crafting coupled with overcap gold, so the death doesn't count, other than losing a level...
One of the goals of PFS is an attempt to make sure that everyone has approximately the same experience when playing a scenario.
Consider the difference in experience levels for normal GMs, as based on the classes they prefer to play normally. Would the GM whose primary PCs are all complex Wizard builds do a better job running a free-form Krune, or the GM whose primary play experience is with simple melee builds?
Also, if the GM preps the scenario, there is, almost invariably, a section, right up front, with the adventure background, which also usually covers the BBEG's motives and viewpoint, so you get a lot right there to handle things when the scenario, as they invariably do, goes off the rails.
@David Bowles: Some NPCs are, indeed, easy. Some, on the other hand, are not. Several scenarios have "death count" threads, testifying, usually, to an NPC's effectiveness in combat. However, even for those NPCs, some PC builds can be devastatingly effective in shutting them down.
NPCs have the problem of, usually, being armed humanoids standing on their two feet on the ground. That opens them up for an effective martial close range battlefield controller to, essentially, shut them down. We won't even go into what a well-built caster can do to them.
Often enough, even something as simple as going second in initiative can be fatal to an NPC's threat level.
Ledford's true bane isn't a gazillion hit point Barbarian build, but a PC with a good attack mod using a reach weapon with Combat Reflexes. "Never charge someone or something with a larger threatened area than you have." Sure, if the Barbarian gets there, it can hurt. But it hurts more, for the Barbarian, if he gets tripped on the way there. Especially if that happens after they have charged more than one move action's distance.
|
|
Well that got blown way out of proportion, wow. OK so first off I never made any mention of combat challenge. The challenge of fights is irrelevant to what I was trying to say. Clearly I didn't state what I mean well so I'll try again:
Current pfs encounters are usually written something like this. Players start at A on the map, npcs start at B and C. NPCs assault the PCs on sight using their at will detect PC spell like ability. Said npcs follow a list of commands as close as circumstances allow until they get murdered by the PCs. Or npcs only exist to talk and don't even have a stat block.
I'd rather see encounters written something like this. Here's a map of the area. Here's why the NPCs are there. Here's a brief goal for the NPCs. Here's their temperament. With an encounter set up this way, fighting or talking isn't a foregone conclusion and either way is legitimized by the author. Each table can play out differently depending on what the PCs do.
|
|
I'd rather see encounters written something like this. Here's a map of the area. Here's why the NPCs are there. Here's a brief goal for the NPCs. Here's their temperament. With an encounter set up this way, fighting or talking isn't a foregone conclusion and either way is legitimized by the author. Each table can play out differently depending on what the PCs do.
If there was a little more "These NPCs are more willing to talk if" tossed into an encounter you'd be there already. Not only does the guide allow for talking as a creative option you explicitly get the treasure for talking your way past stuff.
|
|
"NPCs have the problem of, usually, being armed humanoids standing on their two feet on the ground. That opens them up for an effective martial close range battlefield controller to, essentially, shut them down. We won't even go into what a well-built caster can do to them."
On top this, they frequently have bad builds. There's no reason for this, imo.
|
|
I'd rather see encounters written something like this. Here's a map of the area. Here's why the NPCs are there. Here's a brief goal for the NPCs. Here's their temperament. With an encounter set up this way, fighting or talking isn't a foregone conclusion and either way is legitimized by the author. Each table can play out differently depending on what the PCs do.
Agree this is the way to go most of the time. And you know what, I think especially in Season 5, this has become pretty common. We played through several season 5 scenarios where there were no or only 1 fight. PCs were able to talk there way through things. This lead to a few frustrated barbarians who wanted to put an axe through something, but overall felt like better stories in the end. People always say variety is the spice of life, and so it should be in PFS. If it makes sense that 2 paths could end up at the same place in the end, that should be encouraged in scenario design.
I think there is a push and need for variety in the scenarios, so they feel fresh and not "oh another one of this type of adventure".
I was actually quite tickled by one of the new season 6 scenarios, that has gotten battered by a lot of people as not great. At GENCON, my gaming group played 2 tables of this at the same time. Here's were the results:
Encounter 1: Set up as a straight fight: Both groups fight and win. Great opening encounter, sets the stage, let's the blood thirsty get engaged.
Encounter 2: Meant to be a tough combat: Group 1, uses some clever tactics to make the combat easier, fights and wins.
Group 2, goes for diplomacy and doesn't fight, but still wins.
Encounter 3: A challenging fight: Both groups fight, but use greatly different tactics, both groups win but have a very different experience.
Encounter 4: The BBEG, not sure what the author intended. Group 1 who had chosen to fight all the way through, goes diplomatic and wins the scenario and has a great RP experience. Group 2 goes in guns blazing and has to use some creative thinking on tactics to take down the BBEG to win the day.
Throw in that Group 2 also had a great table discussion on how to handle another issue from a RP and morale dilemma standpoint, that added a lot of fun to it.
When the two group compared notes at the end we were all pleasantly surprised at what were vastly different play experiences from the same scenario. Ultimately we both got to the same place, but it was written in a way that let us that separate paths. Every one had fun. Great stuff.
Point being, sometimes there needs to be a fight, sometimes a talk, sometimes it should depend. Writing with an open mind about how things can be approached and allowing some options to be open ended will continue to let folks have a fresh experience.