|
Hi, I would like to discuss how cheap life seems to be in PFS and how often simple rules (such as getting a saving throw against box text effects or a perception check against box text ambushes) are being ignored.
Ive written a few reviews to this effect so rather than repeat myself I will provide links below.
http://paizo.com/products/btpy97n3?Pathfinder-Society-Scenario-6-00-Legacy- of-the-Stonelords
http://paizo.com/products/btpy8xkj?Pathfinder-Society-Special-Ruins-of-Bone keep-Level-Two-Maze-to-the-Mind-Slave
http://paizo.com/products/btpy8gtv?Pathfinder-Society-Scenario-213-Murder-o n-the-Throaty-Mermaid
Im seriously considering quitting PFS despite having made several friends through the Society and having encouraged several of my oldest friends to join up and then GMing several games for them.
I dont want to abandon these connections, I know if I quit PFS I simply wont see any of the people Ive gotten to know in the last two years but what else am I meant to do? Staying means enabling behavior in the game that I really dislike.
|
So I Choose to Remain Dead. I decided a long time ago that if any of my PFS characters died I wouldnt Res them, no matter what. I decided I at least wouldnt treat death as an inconvenience or tax I had to pay.
I think this is fair, but it is your choice. As a game with options for returning from death, in a genre involving the story element of people being brought back to life, some people don't treat death as a huge deal like people in our reality. And that is a reasonable response. But so is yours.
My ifrit was slain outright in the final battle of his latest scenario. Having been Con damaged by poison, and then attacked from surprise by a shocking grasp that did exactly enough damage to take him to negative Con. With this chronicle he earned his 16th Prestige Point, and it was in his character not to be stopped by something like death in his quest for power to rival his ancestors. So he is back, undaunted and ready for more.
|
|
That helps a little Steven but so far it seems like a reason to leave PFS rather than a reason to stay. Not that I think its your job to convince me of anything.
I will be the first to admit that PFS is not for everyone. I haven't had time to really digest your complaint, so I don't want to give you a kneejerk response. But I feel the two scenarios you have complained about are more outliers, as Bonekeep is intentionally deadly and Legacy is a special event. Still, I know of other scenarios that have boxed-text kills, and while I feel they all make sense, I understand not everyone will agree.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I cannot really blame you for your issues with Murder on the Throaty Mermaid. It was an enthusiastic attempt at something different than the typical "go here, kill stuff, loot, rise, repeat." It is very challenging to write a murder mystery to begin with, not to mention one that has to be Pathfinder compatible as well as playable in only four hours by the varying skill-sets of PFS players.
However, with respect to Bonekeep, there is no question that the intent was to kill moreso than challenge, even to the point of "cheating" by creating new monsters that could do things not normally seen. You really had to be prepared and think outside the box to be effective and even then, it might not be enough. IMO, anyone who survived should have considered themselves lucky and anyone who died should not have been surprised. All that being said, I can sympathize as I felt some of the monsters felt like they were "cheating" the system to gain an unfair advantage. Personally, I don't mind dying as long as my enemy is playing by the same rules that I am. In a couple of instance in the Bonekeep series, I didn't feel like they were. Nonetheless, I did have a good time.
Finally...
We hear waay too often that if players just ran away, they wouldn't have died/tpk'd. Whether that death be as a result of boxed text, an over-whelming enemy, or something as simple as not having AoE vs. a swarm, doesn't really matter in the end. We, as players, need to learn that sometimes, the "right" choice is to run away. That is even more evident when the scenario/GM is both warning us, and perhaps even encouraging us to run away.
I respect your opinions and applaud your efforts to review scenario. I hope that what you and others have said will help to improve future adventures. I just have to disagree with some of the conclusions.
|
|
I respect what you say there Bob but I do think theres one issue youre forgetting. There are essentially three reasons my character was killed:
1) We were warned but chose to ignore the warning
2) We ran out of time (I dont think I was clear on this one)
3) Death by box text
Its that the writer/producer chose to put the 2nd and 3rd conditions in the same scenario that seems very unfair, and all three together thats really making me angry. If the second condition or the third condition wasnt an issue I think everything wouldve been fine.
I absolutely agree that our choice to stay when were warned we had to leave deserved consequences, what I dispute is that it should have been instant death with no save.
While I might have been angry at a absurdly high DC on that save and may have written an angry review over it afterward, I doubt I would be considering quitting completely like I am now.
I very much hope the writer of the scenario and the leadership at Paizo at least notice what Im saying.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there are two very good reason death is not final in PFS.
1) In a home game when your character permanently dies your GM has some solution (usually letting you create a new character of appropriate level) that allows you to keep playing with your friends. PFS doesn't have that option. While there are some options for doing this, like playing a pregen, trying to power level while your friends all go at half speed, everyone starts at first level again, all of these have drawbacks. Many people forced with those choice may simply decide to stop playing the campaign and possibly take their friends with them. So easy res is a better solution for this.
2) GM quality varies greatly. Nothing's worse than working a character up then going and playing in a new area or at a Con and having some inexperience GM or Killer GM pointlessly kill your character. Again, players who have this experience are likely to not continue playing if there was no easy way of coming back from it.
While I understand this cheapens death, I think the number of people who would leave the campaign if death were more permanent exceeds the number of people who feel like you and would leave the campaign. It's a simple matter of numbers. And, like other limitations of a living campaign, is simply something you have to except in order to enjoy the benefits of the campaign. And if you can't, then the campaign just isn't for you.
|
|
I'm not quite sure I understand what it is you're after.
It sounds like in your ideal world, death would be permanent, but would always be in the players' hands (i.e. no death-by-box-text, no Coup-de-grace haunts, no surprise round shocking grasp crits).
Further, that "in players' hands" means that no matter the choice they make, they get a roll of the dice to determine their fate.
Is that about right?
|
|
I can understand that, but as I said, if the save would have been DC572 instead, would that really have made it any better? I would guess that just about everyone would say setting the DC soo high to only allow 1 in 20 to make it out alive would be just as bad as making it an auto-death. IMO, the key is that warnings (perhaps multiple ones) were given. Its clear that your experience was poor and I don't want to kick a guy when he's down, but honestly, you really can't blame the outcome on the author. He kinda did the right thing and gave you what you needed to make the correct decision. Unfortunately, you chose poorly. It happens. We've all done it. No harm, no foul.
That being said, I don't want to argue with you about your experience. You are entitled to your opinion and we should respect that. I just hope that you don't let three examples of bad (your experience) scenarios diminish what is largely good, sometimes excellent, scenario design. We have had nearly 200 scenario offerings and three poor experiences (~1.5%) is probably not enough to get too upset about.
|
|
Well, there's your answer right there. You have 11 characters. If one of your characters dies you pull another one from your binder and play that one next week. if someone only has 1 character and can't res them then they either can't play at all next week/next con slot or they have to start over in the kiddie pool.
|
Dalamon, I have to disagree with you on the Stonelords scenario. it makes perfect sense that you just die if you don't escape.
if you didn't get the warning I would sympathize with you, but there where plenty of warnings the scenario, even if your GM's did not give you anything other then the box text written in the scenario.
Reading some other the other reviews you wrote, it appears half your issue is with some of the GM's you have played with, and knowing some of the Gm's in Melbourne I'm not particularly surprised. the other half is poor scenarios and unfortunately that's going to happen.
yes PFS has power creep (seeing the table that ran bonekeep 1 and 2 at the local con last week, and cleared both easily, shows that) and yes that means some time scenarios are going to get harder, but the only way to prevent this is as a PLAYER moderating your character and making sure that you don't go overboard so there is no need to jack up the difficulty of the scenarios.
I'm not saying that you should not optimize your characters etc, but remember when your playing to select what your going to do based on what your fighting, rather then just dropping your most powerful trick 10 times and finishing every encounter before it starts.
|
Bonekeep starts with a paragraph essentially telling you the point is to slaughter you.
one of our VL's has an actual Disclaimer Notice that he has people sign before running Bonekeep. If players don't sign it, they don't play. Since BK1, we've known that these were timed slaughterhouses meant to kill our characters. If you went into it, with warnings, and still have grief over a scenario that you are told will kill you, then I'm not sure anyone can really say anything to you about it to change your mind.
On the note of 6-SP, If Doctor Who jumped out of the Tardis while it was spinning it's way through time, do you think he would survive? He would age in seconds and turn to dust, or age in reverse and blink out of existence as if never born. This is pretty much what happens to you if you fail to make it out in time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure I see the problem with "death by box text." You were told there was a time limit, and then you hit the time limit because you ignored the warning. How else are you supposed to be killed?
If the objection is "I didn't get a chance to determine my character's ultimate fate," then I'll humbly disagree with you. You had that chance at the warning about the time limit.
|
If you don't like the concept of bringing characters back from the dead, that's fine.
If you stick with your principles and choose not to revive a dead character, that's fine.
If you wish to make a thread about permanent character death, and espouse your beliefs to the world, that's fine.
But doing so in the review section of a scenario (and in this case, a special) is bad forum etiquette. Only half of that post belongs there, and we shouldn't have to be forced to entertain your personal biases when reading reviews of any particular scenario. That's not what the review section is for.
If I could Flag your review for removal due to being inappropriate, I would, but since I can't, I'll just voice my opinion here.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a less serious note, if life in PFS wasn't cheap think of what it would do the Society. The Decimvirate and their Venture-Captains would actually have to form well-rounded teams of agents instead of the normal random group of murder-hobos that they usually find.
I sometimes think that the VC's think of us as disposable mooks to be sent off to our deaths. Oops, team 1 got slaughtered, time to send in another. When's the last time any of the VCs actually did anything to help out our groups? Maybe a "hey guys, this is going to be a tough one, take a bunch of this awesome magical gear with you".
Given the Societies vast resources, they do happen to own thier own demi-plane, not to mention all those artifacts and treasures that we have retrieved for them, we should be getting more support from our leaders.
I hate to say it, but ever since Grandmaster Torch and the Shadow Lodge left I felt more and more like and expendable resource. Especially when Shiela Hiedmarch sends me off to my death again and again.
Sincerly,
Corvis Rhennik
PFS Mook
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will go against the rgain and say it alright to complain about things here and present issues you have
Mainly because it lets people see where problems arise and other possible issues.
Also you are a Pazio customer and providing reasons why you may no longer be one is very valuable.
Now people also have every right to disagree with your arguement.
When I read peoples gripes with something I try to make an issue to avoid causing that issue in any games I DM. I want people to have fun and often it among people with very different things they enjoy.
Also Mr. Brock reads everythignon here. If you did not post your complaint abotu death by text box being an issue for you, it mgiht never be know that it is an issue to some people.
Keep in mind many people may feel just liek you do, but silently leave the game and purchasing dollars without expressing why they are doing so.
Your infotmation is valuable, even if it is a minority, and even if people disagree with you.
|
|
I agree. He has a right and perhaps even a duty to lodge his complaint. However for reasons I mentioned earlier, I doubt his complaint will change anything.
I do take some issue with his choice to vent his complaints in an adventure review rather than simply these forums. I especially find the notion that even though he enjoyed 90% of the adventure he gave only a 1 star rating because of the 10% he didn't enjoy, to be incredibly unfair to the author.
|
|
I agree. He has a right and perhaps even a duty to lodge his complaint. However for reasons I mentioned earlier, I doubt his complaint will change anything.
I do take some issue with his choice to vent his complaints in an adventure review rather than simply these forums. I especially find the notion that even though he enjoyed 90% of the adventure he gave only a 1 star rating because of the 10% he didn't enjoy, to be incredibly unfair to the author.
Well tiis his opinion.
As I made an analagy to Mr. COmpton a small piece can wreck soemthing enteriely.
If you order a burger and it the best made buger with the best toppings, meat, and bun you ever had, but someone decide to spit in it. Granted it is only a few percent of the actual burger how would you rate it?
|
|
But is the burger bad or is it the spit?
it is all the same part of experience.
if you went to a buger joint and you experienced what I descrbied how you rate it on yelp?
Heck my mom will go to the bathroom and walk out of the place if it is not perfect, and then bash the place online.
Some parts are very important to a rating. That is why the reasons why you give the ratings are so important.
|
|
if you went to a buger joint and you experienced what I descrbied how you rate it on yelp?
If they spit on it in front of me, I wouldn't know how good the burger was and wouldn't be rating it.
Now if you want to say I had the burger, and on the way out the door they told me it was spit in, that might be a closer analogy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how this is a PFS issue, or really even a Pathfinder specific issue.
A distinct majority of RPGs have means of coming back from the dead. Mostly because the majority of RPGs are magic/fantasy based. The degree of difficulty in obtaining the ressurrection may vary but it's usually at least possible. The "cheapness" of life due to this is almost a trope of the genre.
There are exceptions of course. Most of those tend to be non-fantasy settings. Off the top of my head the Shadowrun game and it's associated official living/organized play campaign features permadeath. It definately affects the way players approach the game.
"Box text death" is likewise pretty much omnipresent. If you look in the gamemastering advice chapters of nearly any RPG, they invariably at least comment that sometimes character death is inevitable and does not need to be played out with die rolls and numbers. Some games are more blunt about it than others.
The key to good game design involving character death is "player agency".
This means that the player should always feel that their ultimate fate is a result of their own choices.
This does NOT mean it always has to involve rolling dice! It just means it should always be clearly an informed player choice that lead to the result, not some seemingly random cause.
If something is clearly marked "If you do X you will die", and the player is given good reason to believe this does in fact apply to their character, well, if they still decide to do X they die. No save roll necessary. There's no point. They were duly warned and made their choice. The onus of responsibility lies with the player at that point, not the scenario author, not with the game system, not with the GM.
At the risk of sounding blunt, far too often I have seen players act as if their characters should be free of the consequences of their actions. There seems to be some level of expectation or entitlement that the PCs are somehow special and should always have an "out" from a given situation.
I don't know the actual thought processes of the people involved in the described game in this thread, but the comment that "there should have at least been a saving throw" just puts me in that mind. That the player might have been thinking "it doesn't REALLY mean what it says, does it? Shouldn't I get another chance?"
No, there shouldn't have been a saving throw. There was a clear consequence for an action, the action was performed anyway. A saving throw would have been redundant.
-j
|
|
if you went to a buger joint and you experienced what I descrbied how you rate it on yelp?If they spit on it in front of me, I wouldn't know how good the burger was and wouldn't be rating it.
Now if you want to say I had the burger, and on the way out the door they told me it was spit in, that might be a closer analogy.
Extremely pedantic, but the point is small things can change something make you hate something.
With you agreeing with addendums would seem you agree.
|
|
Extremely pedantic, but the point is small things can change something make you hate something.In this case, it's not the something that is being hated, but the small thing.
That is your opinion they are separate things.
Not everyone agrees, and place then as part of the whole.
Now it is ignorant to argue others do not feel that way and adjust their spending on such things.
For a realife example look at mass effect 3 ending. Easily less than 10% of the game. But people hated it so much they bashed the game and it actually effected sales.
So not matter how small something it, it can have an effect on the whole in th eyes of the perciever.
|
|
But you ignore how many star he gives?When it doesn't match what he is saying? Sure.
Well then one of two things I see from this situation. One the poster does nto know how to to select the amoutn of stars he wants to rate it.
Or two, you do not understand his words enough to gleam why he rated it one star.
I highly doubt he does nto know how to rate it.
|
|
I highly doubt he does nto know how to rate it.Or the rating system is insufficient to give more than a general idea.
Either way, he seems to have resolved his troubles with the campaign.
I would disagree with both statements. Thats why they allow you to type an answer so you can explain your rating. Qualitive and quantative.
One person beign upset and leaving the campaign does not mena you have one less person. These events are cumulative. If have friends that play just because I do. I decide to go all 5e and give up PFs they would to. So losing one person sometimes means more.
Not everyone that feels a certain way always posts. As you can see th epeople who like your statements often never say post. One person on here usually represents more than one person. Now if this is worth adjusting things is up for the paizo management. But the information is still valuable.