|
For starters, isn't she a 21 on the card, making her a 31 since the scenario ups her difficulty by 10? I don't have her in front of me so I'm not sure.
If 21 is post-increase, then yea that seems a little low for something that doesn't require you to even take your turns and make risks. Of course, bad rolls still happen, so it isn't a sure thing. Remember also, that you're more likely to get upgrades you actually want if you actually play the scenario.
It's printed as 11 on the card. Her boosted difficulty is 21.
|
|
Well you always have at least as many as there are players. If at the end you have less cards than players, you roll a d6 to add more until the amount you have is equal to the number of players. But, you can choose the cards your going for and choose those locations to get the types you want instead, and a lot more, instead of rolling randomly and hope your caster gets a spell.
Yikes!
I see what you are saying. There really is no reason to explore in this scenario. You just spend your turns so that everyone has two blessings and something to hit Jemma with when she shows up and then take her out on turn 20.
Maybe if you only have one or two characters it would pay to try and find Scourge and Plugg but once you have three or more players you can just not explore and get a good hand.
The only advantage to exploring is to increase your odds of getting set indicator 1 boons.
While we're talking doesn't the reward seems a little wonky to? Anyone can use the two loot items? Shouldn't it be anyone who has defeated this scenario and gotten this reward? (more of a thematic criticism.)
Also why are there so many henchmen. You never need the Buccaneer or Ruffian for set up. You have a max of 8 locations. With two villains you only need 6 henchmen which is Aretta through Sly.
The only reason I can see the Ruffian and Buccaneer called out for is the Alehouse and Festhall closing condition but we've never seen henchmen required for closing conditions called out on the scenario card?
Are you instead supposed to shuffle the 8 henchmen before placing the required number in the scenario?
Confused?
Since I tend to play a lot of solo runs whenever I have time at home, this scenario could be a bit of a challenge for me, at least with some characters.
I do think that the special rules for Master Scourge and Mister Plugg could be a little more clear:
"When you would defeat Master Scourge or Mister Plugg, display him next to this sheet. If he would escape, shuffle him into the location deck he came from instead."
So the question is, does the first sentence override the normal rules for villain escape? So if you make the checks to defeat, they are defeated and moved to the sheet, even if they could have escaped. The "if he would escape" text only goes into effect if they are undefeated, because that is the only case in which they would escape in this scenario. Is that correct? So they are basically reduced to henchmen who auto-close locations when they are defeated?
Personally, I don't think my group would go the cheap way out with this scenario because most of the players don't have their own base set to run solo scenarios, making getting the right upgrades they want more important. However, to try to eliminate the "wait for the villain" strategy, how about a rule like this:
During This Scenario
"If a character does not explore a location or encounter a card on his turn, bury the top card of his deck."
This may make the scenario much more deadly than it was intended to be, but it would eliminate the possibility of letting characters just sit around and do nothing until the villain shows up.
While we're talking doesn't the reward seems a little wonky to? Anyone can use the two loot items? Shouldn't it be anyone who has defeated this scenario and gotten this reward? (more of a thematic criticism.)
The way the reward is worded now, it kind of just feels like an exception to the "you may not trade cards at the beginning of the scenario" organized play rule to me: Valeros comes back to an earlier scenario to help his friends after beating Jemma Redclaw. He doesn't need the Vindictive Harpoon +1 so he loans it to Merisiel (CD) who can make much better use out of a magic ranged weapon.
As long as at least one character has beaten the scenario, the loot cards are available to the who party. Sounds alright to me, although I can't be sure if that is the intent of the designers.
|
|
The scenario doesn't say "If they escape and are undefeated", just "if they escape". If there any open locations, they will escape, even if defeated. That's why the "instead" is there.
If you defeat one of the villains and all locations are permanently or temporary closed, they go next to the scenario. If at least one is open, they escape, and they go back into their location deck instead.
I don't think modifying the scenario in such a big way after release is a good idea. Some scenarios might be too easy, and lessons are learned for next time.
The scenario doesn't say "If they escape and are undefeated", just "if they escape". If there any open locations, they will escape, even if defeated. That's why the "instead" is there.
If you defeat one of the villains and all locations are permanently or temporary closed, they go next to the scenario. If at least one is open, they escape, and they go back into their location deck instead.
Right, but my question is that because of the first line, it seems to change what happens if a villain is defeated. It says if the villain is defeated, not if the villain is defeated and cannot escape, it goes to the sheet. Therefore, it seems like the only way a villain can escape is if it is undefeated. The main reason that is as is because, again, I play a lot of solo scenarios (single characters). If the villains escape to other locations when they are defeated, it will be impossible for me to ever truly defeat them and send them to the scenario card.
I think that Andrew Klein was saying the "instead" in the second sentence means that, while placing them next to the scenario card when defeated is the default, if they can escape (whether they were defeated or not) they get shuffled back into their location. So here is how it could go...
Defeat villain.
Go to place villain by scenario card.
Notice the villain could escape since one other location wasn't closed.
Shuffle villain back into location deck he came from.
I'd assume in that case you would still banish all his location's cards when he is defeated, so you are probably shuffling him back into an empty location. And I'm also going to assume you re-open his location, though perhaps the intention is you don't banish his location's cards and never close it unless all other locations are not open.
|
|
Note the word "would" in the scenario text though. If he WOULD escape, which he would with open locations, he gets shuffled into his location deck INSTEAD of moving or going to the scenario card. If there were multiple characters, you could temp close other locations, beat the villain, he'd have nowhere to escape to and would go by the scenario card and close his location permanently.
As for solo play - yes, it looks like because not being able to temp close all the locations, and you can't close the rest because one of them is also a villain which applies to this rule, you would not be able to do it.
Remember, these can be played with a single character, but they are not optimized for it, and solo play probably barely even crosses their minds when making it. It's intended as a team game, and for the best experience you are going to do that. For solo play, I recommend multiple characters in OP. All must still be OP legal, and only one gets reported, but it allows you to play the scenarios as intended.
I think that Andrew Klein was saying the "instead" in the second sentence means that, while placing them next to the scenario card when defeated is the default, if they can escape (whether they were defeated or not) they get shuffled back into their location. So here is how it could go...
Defeat villain.
Go to place villain by scenario card.
Notice the villain could escape since one other location wasn't closed.
Shuffle villain back into location deck he came from.
I don't think that is the case. If it were, there would be a ; after the first sentence instead of ending it with a period. Since it ends with a period, the instead in the next sentence should not apply to the first sentence. It should only apply to if a villain escapes, and in this scenario that only happens if it is undefeated.
I'd assume in that case you would still banish all his location's cards when he is defeated, so you are probably shuffling him back into an empty location. And I'm also going to assume you re-open his location, though perhaps the intention is you don't banish his location's cards and never close it unless all other locations are not open.
Right, but since there are two locations with villains that stay in their locations no matter what as long as they could escape, that means it is impossible to get them to not be able to escape in a single character game so you can never reduce the difficulty of Jemma in the form of game play where it is most important.
Remember, these can be played with a single character, but they are not optimized for it, and solo play probably barely even crosses their minds when making it. It's intended as a team game, and for the best experience you are going to do that. For solo play, I recommend multiple characters in OP. All must still be OP legal, and only one gets reported, but it allows you to play the scenarios as intended.
I highly doubt that. The game always has single character playtesters and the game is meant to work in the format. Otherwise there is no point in having the three single character identified locations available.
I enjoy single character solo play. The only time I have ever played multiple characters solo was during playtest when I couldn't get the rest of my group together and needed to make deadlines for the playtest. I like being the lone hero and it should work that way as intended.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Why can't a location be permanently closed yet have a villain in it? We know you can still have a location deck with a permanently closed location. Here's how I see it:
Defeat villain
Location permanently closes
Scenario text tells us if he would escape, shuffle him into the location instead -
So now he's alone at a closed location.
So it is possible to corner the villains on later encounters and place them next to the scenario.
Hmm...I guess that would work. And that would mean you'd either have to not get their bonus against Jemma or defeat them again.
|
|
While possible, that sounds too different from regular gameplay for them to just assume we'd know that without some extra text in the scenario or something.
Pluvia, I'm not saying you can't play with one or that they don't want you too. I'm saying it isn't optimized for that, and you're certainly going to struggle doing so. Having solo playtesters doesn't memeathey are optimizing that style, it just means they want it to be possible.
Right, but a solo character makes the main function of this scenario, as you describe it, mechanically dysfunctional. If this is the case, there is absolutely no point at all for a solo character to ever explore since he can never truly defeat the sub-villains. All he can do is get the best hand he can and hope for the best when Jemma shows up.
Single character play is different just like 6-character play is different from 3 or 4 character play. Typically, there is more risk of death if you can't reliably self-heal, but there is also less risk of running out of time. I think solo play can be optimized if you know how to do it right. Scenarios shouldn't be made that just don't work properly solo.
I still see no real evidence that the sub-villains don't just act as glorified henchman. I don't see the "instead" applying to the previous sentence, just the sentence the word appears in. I will just wait for the official word before I give the scenario a try.
Hmm...I've got no idea how this is supposed to work then. But I do think that default is that villains act like villains unless the scenario says otherwise. Page 16 of S&S Rulebook seems to make that pretty clear.
Unlike monsters and henchmen, a villain doesn’t just need to be defeated. A villain also needs to be cornered: you need to make sure there are no open locations the villain can escape to... If a scenario has multiple villains, the scenario card will usually list additional conditions for winning.
So, maybe the "if defeated" part is sort of the additional conditions along with the part telling you that you win or lose by defeating Jemma Redclaw, and I could see that arguement. But I do think the default position has to be that villains are always villains.
Compare this scenario to The Secret of Mancatcher Cove. They both have similar "this isn't the actual villain you need to beat" kind of situations. That scenario says when Inkskin is banish (meaning when she is defeated and cannot escape), while this scenario just says when you would defeat.
Compare this scenario to The Secret of Mancatcher Cove. They both have similar "this isn't the actual villain you need to beat" kind of situations. That scenario says when Inkskin is banish (meaning when she is defeated and cannot escape), while this scenario just says when you would defeat.
Yeah. I see what you are saying. I was more replying to this comment:
I still see no real evidence that the sub-villains don't just act as glorified henchman.
Which, I know also see, I misunderstood. I thought you said:
I still see no real evidence thatthesub-villains don't just act as glorified henchman.
as if you were saying that of all multiple villain scenarios. But you did write "the", meaning the particular two villains not named Jemma Redclaw in this particular scenario. So what I said was pointless and not at all necessary. So you can pretty much ignore it.
Haha, no worries. Sorry for the confusion. Yes, I was just talking about how Scourge and Plugg act in this particular scenario. Using a term like "sub-villain" which is not defined by the game probably didn't contribute to clarity.
I did, however, feel that stating a precedent would be helpful in supporting how I am interpreting this scenario, regardless of the intent of your statement. Hopefully we'll get an answer soon as to what is meant by "when you would defeat" these two villains in this scenario.
Anyway, back to addressing the "don't explore and just fight Jemma" issue. Would it be too difficult if Jemma just can't be defeated if both Scourge and Plugg aren't next to the scenario sheet?
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Well, if you don't need to corner Plugg and Scourge to place them next to the scenario, then closing locations isn't required at all for this scenario. Just search out the villains if you want the bonuses for killing them, and don't worry about the other locations at all except to farm upgrades.
I know some people played this at Gen Con. How was it ruled then?
|
|
That wouldn't be too difficult pluvia (requiring their defeat first before you can win). However, if I'm right, then it would require even more modification because by my ruling, they can't be placed next to the scenario card in any group smaller than two players (since the only way to corner a villain here is to permanently close the non villain locations, and have a person available to temp close the second villain's while you fight the first) .
Plus, that's a big change, again, for something that's already been released. If it weren't out yet, I'd agree. However, post release I think we need to minimize changes and do our best to leave it clarifications instead of functional changes -- especially ones that change the win condition (no longer beat Jemma, but beat all 3 villains).
As far as the difficulty of the scenario because of just waiting her out, I really think this is just one of those times we have an easy scenario that can also easily be failed by bad rolls.
So based on the discussion here I’m going to try and consolidate the issues/questions in case someone from Paizo is watching this thread:
- 1)Given the victory conditions for the scenario the only real reward to exploring is potential upgrade cards. Defeating Plugg and Scourge make Jemma easier but she’s already pretty easy for multiplayer games. In Multiplayer not exploring and preparing your best hand with multiple blessings is a surefire way to defeat Jemma even at Difficulty 21?
- 2a) If defeated and you check for escape: In this situation would it look like the following? You defeat the villain and close the location. You check for escape and if there is an open location he escapes. You then place the villain in the empty closed location as a deck of 1. If there were no open locations and he does not escape you then place him next to the scenario card?
- 2b) If defeated and you don’t check for escape: In this situation if you defeat the villain he goes next to the scenario card. If you don’t defeat the villain he escapes back to the location deck he came from. If he escapes you never take cards from the Blessing deck because he always returns to the location he came from.
3)Why are the Buccaneer and Ruffian listed under henchmen? There are no enough locations possible in the scenario to require them?
2)How do the villains Plugg and Scourge work in this scenario. If defeated do you check to see if they escape or do you just put them next to the scenario card without checking for escape as per the standard rules with villains?
In reviewing the thread for the previous post I have to say I think this is how Plugg and Scourge work.
You encounter one. Then following the "Encountering a Villain" section from p.16 of the SS Base rules... If you defeat the Villain you close the Villain's location. Then you check to see if the Villain escapes. Per the scenario rules if Plugg or Scourge escape they return to the location they came from. The game already has a precedent for having a location deck at a closed location (although admittedly not with a Villain card.)
So I think you can win in solo with some work. First you defeat Villain 1 close its location, see that it can escape and return it to the closed location it came from. You do the same for Villain 2 (unless you closed the other location before meeting Villain 2 in which case it can't escape and goes next to the scenario card.) Essentially you have to fight one Villain twice and the second Villain once or twice depending on how the third location in solo gets closed.
We're going to be playing the Treasure of Jemma Redclaw tomorrow, and it seems that it's likely to be the easiest scenario we've ever faced--requiring only two rolls.
Hey, we've all been there: you know right where the villain is, there's nowhere for the villain to escape to, and plenty of time left on the timer: so you sit out a few turns, discarding and drawing to get the perfect hands around the table, then someone steps up to paste the villain with a combat check in the 30s or 40s.
This scenario sets you up with that from the very start.
We can sit around the table, and count out who's going to be take the 20th turn (or 19th, with the Tower as a location). Then we don't explore, just ready our hands. The villain-killer gets her best weapon in her hand, a few blessings (preferably those that help with the attack or with the Wisdom/Survival check against the Shackles Pirate Ship), and one extra card to recharge when Jemma pops up.
Everyone else does the same: discard and draw until we have a pair of blessings, perhaps with helpful spells (like Strength or Speed) or other cards.
We position ourselves appropriately (to throw Lem-like or Harsk-like benefits), and if the villain-killer will be using the Swashbuckling trait against Jemma, then she heads to the Festhall for the extra d4.
Then, we wait for the 20th turn...
Jemma pops out on the villain-killer's turn. Recharge a card, make the check against the Shackles Pirate Ship (easy with blessing contributed around the table) then make the combat check of 21 (again, easy with blessings contributed around the table).
Scenario won with two rolls.
In a normal game, this strategy probably wouldn't be very appealing, since everyone would be missing out on some sweet boons in the location decks--but in Guild play, everyone's only going to get one deck upgrade anyway.
I"m thinking on how to improve this, but I've been generally leery of "card hiding in the blessing deck" setups for a while now (ever since trying to design a few like...
Does this seem fun to you?
No. Absolutely not... but it is a valid play strategy within the rules. It also allows you to finish the scenario quickly, get the reward and possibly do another scenario in the same evening. Using this unfun strategy you could do the scenario from set up to chronicle sheet in 30 minutes easily.
Just thought of a different way the scenario could have been structured. This way forces you to defeat Plugg and Scourge before facing Jemma which is pretty epic for the end of the Adventure 1 Scenarios.
Starting with the paragraph “During this scenario, the difficulty...” replace with the following.
When you would discard Jemma Redclaw from the blessings deck, check to see if both Master Scourge and Mister Plugg are displayed next to the this scenario sheet. If so encounter Jemma Redclaw. If not take a card from the blessings deck and place it on this scenario sheet then return Jemma Redclaw facedown on the top of the blessings deck.
During this scenario, the difficulty to defeat Jemma Redclaw is increased by 2 for each blessing card on this scenario sheet.
To win the scenario, defeat Jemma Redclaw.
Makes it a race to find the villians and defeat them so Jemma doesn't get away.
2 could be another number. For example half the players round up, the number of players, 3, 5 etc. Would need to try it to find the right number.
|
|
You guys are talking about changing the function of the scenario, which shouldn't be done just because a tiny amount of players might decide that the reward is more important than actually playing and enjoying the game.
The scenario works fine as is for those of us playing because we enjoy the game and not just to get the reward.
Agreed. I don't really care about that issue all that much. I just want to know how to properly run the scenario, as far as what the scenario's definition of "defeat" is in relation to Scourge and Plugg.
A part of this game is the puzzle. Given the locations and scenario rules plus the basic rules of the game what is the best way to approach/win a particular scenario.
When the best way to beat a scenario is not to play the game as intended there is (IMHO) something wrong with the scenario.
Can you show me one other scenario where is possible to win the scenario by not playing the game (i.e. exploring and encountering cards)? I can't remember one.
Irregardless of word choice... having a hand of blessings and a good weapon or spell is generally the way to defeat a villain. In every other scenario you need to explore to find the villain and doing so forces you to expend resources (aka cards.) In this scenario you don't have to do that to win the game. You don't have to play the game to win.
To me that's a design flaw and that's my issue.
Using this unfun strategy you could do the scenario from set up to chronicle sheet in 30 minutes easily.
Really? If you're dead set on not really playing the game, I think it should only take about 30 seconds to check off "scenario completed" on your character sheets...
I'm not saying I want to play this way. I'm say that the fact that you can and the scenario will reward you for it is a design flaw and probably and error. A scenario shouldn't reward you for not playing the game.
Do you think the scenario was intentionally designed for players to pick this option? I don't. I think this option was unforeseen and should be addressed if for no other reason than to ensure the quality of future scenarios.
If it was designed so that sitting around for 19 turns prepping your best hand was supposed to be an option I'd like to hear that it was.
In addition we still haven't heard clarification on how villains and closing their locations are supposed to work in this scenario (as there seems to be confusion) nor have we heard why Buccaneer and Ruffian are noted as Henchmen when there aren't enough locations to support needing them.
I know playing this way isn't fun. I don't want or plan to play this way... but from a design perspective why is the option even there?
You know.. I'm looking at this, and seeing that this is potentially an easy scenario...
To which I say, good.
At least in my PACG group, we ended up playing 0-1E twice last week, because we failed miserably the first time around, and only won on the second time because of sheer dumb luck on the final turn, pulling the Queen instead of the barrier that was in the location deck. Both times, we came ridiculously close to a TPK.
I think my players are going to be glad to have a more laid-back round to finish off the Adventure this week.
|
Agreed. The overall difficulty of the Adventure #1 scenarios has been a bit high, in my opinion. At least compared to even the beginning scenarios from the Skull & Shackles base set.
Having at least one or two scenarios that are a bit on the easy side, especially after the brutally rough Salvage Operations and Nature's Wrath, is a bit of stress off my shoulders.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone familiar with all sorts of organized play programs, you'd be surprised at how many new people are willing to try your game simply because of organized play.
Locally, we've had lots of people that were never interested in either Rise of the Runelords or Skull & Shackles, but flocked to the organized play campaign. The same happens with Pathfinder Society, as most of our local players don't have a home group to play in. Organized play is their only means of playing.
I've heard Vic say that PFSACG play was not meant for beginners, but I think you can manage the difficulty without being off-putting to newcomers. We actually lost a few interested players during Extra Life last weekend because they sat down to play and lost 3 times in a row.
I think the difficulty of Skull & Shackles is just about perfect. It's tougher than Runelords and feels rewarding for overcoming the scenarios. Increasing the difficulty beyond that starts to creep into slightly frustrating levels.
In a static cooperative board game where the game itself is always the same, like Pandemic and Flash Point, you want the challenge to be high to entice players to come back. Beating the game is the rewarding part of those experiences. In an ongoing campaign-style game like the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, the reward comes from playing through a continual set of adventures and advancing your characters, similarly to the roleplaying game. You don't need to artifically inflate the difficulty because the draw of replayability is already there. It's the same reason games like Diablo are so popular; it's not about the difficulty, it's the draw of loot and experience.
In a roleplaying game, if I feel an adventure is too difficult, I can adjust things for my players to make the experience better for them without making them walk away feeling punished and brutalized. In a card game, there's no way to do that. You're at the mercy of the rules of the scenario. Being Season Zero, I know that much of this can be chalked up to simply finding that balance. This is a new endeavor for the designers without precedent to fall back on.
I just hope that future scenarios will keep in mind the potential new players that are drawn in by the appeal of organized play, as that is the only way many players will ever experience the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, having now played through the entire first adventure of OP, I'd classify Ghosts as possibly the toughest scenario yet printed, and the rest as comparable to Skull&Shackles in difficulty. Maybe that's because it took me five tries to beat Ghosts so I already had a well-developed deck before getting to the later scenarios. But it just seems to me that a character that can handle the first scenario has already demonstrated viability for the things that OP will throw at him.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know Organized Play can entice new players, but that wouldn't change the fact it isn't built for them here. Can they play, and succeed? Of course, I'd be disappointed if they couldn't. However, they should walk in knowing it isn't going to be on the level the base games are.
I like the S&S difficulty, but I like that some of these scenarios really make you sweat if you don't play right.
If you lost potential players due to dying in OP, the first thing out of my mouth would have been explaining that the base games aren't as hard and OP is on a difficulty level more for players who know the game. Also mentioning that there are intro scenarios meant for new players that still are part of OP (I would have had a ton of On the Horizon games being played if I did Extra Life this year).
Last point, don't ever mention Pandemic again. I will set that game on fire and send it to hell where it belongs, because I'm pretty sure that is the only way to eradicate all the diseases. That being said, I love the game and have never had so much fun consistently losing 95%+ of the time in my life.
|
|
(I would have had a ton of On the Horizon games being played if I did Extra Life this year).
That's great. However, that wasn't the event I was offering for our local group. People wanted to play through the scenarios again with different characters, so we arranged multiple tables of a mini-marathon consisting of scenarios 1-6.
I'm not going to tell everyone, "Oh, we have a brand new player. Sorry, we can't play the next scenario, we have to play On the Horizon again." We had On the Horizon ready to go for new players, but the timing ended up having some walk-ins join for an actual scenario.
As an experienced PACG player, I appreciate the challenge. It feels like a puzzle to solve. However, as a former and current coordinator on both a local and regional scale, my enjoyment derives from bringing in new players and having them enjoy the game. Seeing them turned off from the game because the rules of the scenario favored a very specific party is disheartening to see. It's not a big issue yet, but I'm simply expressing my concerns in case the difficulty continues to balloon towards a frustrating mess.
Does this seem fun to you?
No. But...
Soren's theory on "water finds a crack"
Soren Johnson posits that any optimization that isn't necessarily fun (because it involves doing a lot of stuff that takes a lot of time) but is effective will tempt players to go in that direction, because it is effective.
I think this is especially prominent in games that are harder, which PFSACG I would classify as. PACG is already decently bulky rules wise, optimizing PACG is harder. It's an exercise that _I_ would relish given that I like to hold complex systems in my head, but I got my first taste of teaching others last Saturday at Extra Life and I understand that not everyone is like me.
|
|
(I would have had a ton of On the Horizon games being played if I did Extra Life this year).
That's great. However, that wasn't the event I was offering for our local group. People wanted to play through the scenarios again with different characters, so we arranged multiple tables of a mini-marathon consisting of scenarios 1-6.
I'm not going to tell everyone, "Oh, we have a brand new player. Sorry, we can't play the next scenario, we have to play On the Horizon again." We had On the Horizon ready to go for new players, but the timing ended up having some walk-ins join for an actual scenario.
As an experienced PACG player, I appreciate the challenge. It feels like a puzzle to solve. However, as a former and current coordinator on both a local and regional scale, my enjoyment derives from bringing in new players and having them enjoy the game. Seeing them turned off from the game because the rules of the scenario favored a very specific party is disheartening to see. It's not a big issue yet, but I'm simply expressing my concerns in case the difficulty continues to balloon towards a frustrating mess.
I certainly wasn't saying you should have only had that, just that I would have done it exactly as you now say you did. Your last post sounded to me like you were only running later scenarios, with nothing earlier or intro that new players could actually handle.