|
it is a bit frustrating to hear folks constantly talk about Season 6 as a tech season. So far, we've had 9 scenarios where only 3 are tech.But the first three scenarios were tech. The Guide is tech. Tech PCs were introduced. The Season started with tech.
Those first three scenarios set a negative tone for me...The Silver Mount Collection in particular. However I did have a good experience with Slave Ships of Absalom...mostly because the game was run by its author. But for the most part I do intend to steer clear of Season 6.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. Not a huge fan of the tech guide's rules about technologist, but it is a minor concern.
For me, the technologist feat WAS a significant concern.
I wanted to play a sort of technology oriented character. A character who understood normal tech (ie, a high knowledge engineering). But I was dissuaded when I found I'd have to waste a feat that did NOT match the character and buy a splat book I had zero interest in and, even then, she would only be useful in an unknown number of scenarios.
I think the whole technology thing was seriously mishandled.
I'm active enough on the boards to realize it was a minor glitch in a season that I am currently liking but I'm not at all surprised that others got turned off and didn't realize the issue was mostly irrelevant
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those first three scenarios set a negative tone for me...The Silver Mount Collection in particular...for the most part I do intend to steer clear of Season 6.it is a bit frustrating to hear folks constantly talk about Season 6 as a tech season. So far, we've had 9 scenarios where only 3 are tech.But the first three scenarios were tech. The Guide is tech. Tech PCs were introduced. The Season started with tech.
I think this sums up the thinking of a lot of people.
Whatever research went into planning for Season 6, and which scenarios were released when, and how they were released, just fell short.
I'm interested in how Paizo can overcome this "anti-tech/anti-Season 6" sentiment.
Is it best to just continue with the Season as planned, and let time heal this wound?
Or does it need to be addressed directly, and the path of the Season changed?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me the problem with PFS is that the players create characters that over-power the adventures.
The number of overpowered combinations I see in characters is such that I no longer have a desire to GM or to play the organized play system.
Whether I'm GM or player, I'm always an afterthought in some over-powered character's epic saga of him against the rules.
I am angry and resentful at Paizo for enabling it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a vocal minority screamed 'we want harder mods' while the silent majority thought everything was ok. The vocal minority won and some of the silent majority may have voted with their feet after the first few mods this year. If you take your role-playing PCs vs your roll-playing PCs there's a good chance you'll get wiped.
I think a vocal minority screamed 'we want harder mods' while the silent majority thought everything was ok. The vocal minority won and some of the silent majority may have voted with their feet after the first few mods this year.Participation in PFS has increased. People did in fact vote with their feet but not the way you want it to be.
They why does this thread EXIST?
|
|
I think a vocal minority screamed 'we want harder mods' while the silent majority thought everything was ok. The vocal minority won and some of the silent majority may have voted with their feet after the first few mods this year. If you take your role-playing PCs vs your roll-playing PCs there's a good chance you'll get wiped.
The mods are harder, but not THAT much harder, except for a few. There are plenty of season 4+ cakewalks.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here in Brazil we think our character are really bellow other countries average (near iconic power level) as few players can afford many books (or even has time to read them), but we finished both Trial by Machine or The Silvermount Collection without greater difficulty. People are more flustered by the change in factions (key players were Sczarni) than the sci-fi stuff.
My players really liked The Paths we Choose.
|
|
Personally, where I'm at (DC/Nova) we're not doing too bad. We are still getting new players. Also our regular game nights are still going on and still filling up. Frequently, there have been a lot of requests for additional GM support.
That being said, I personally think Season 6 is a stinker. I'm not one of those "Get your damn tech out of my fantasy" types. The overall theme of it has turned off a lot of players. In addition I think the backlash may have affected some of the releases. We're not really getting any idea of what the metaplot is supposed to look like. Worst of all the tech scenarios have been a disaster, especially for low level parties. The abilities involved, like hardness make this too hard on low level parties. IMO The Silver Mount Collection and especially Trial By Machine should be removed from play. I don't have an issue with robots in the 5-9 bracket. But in the 1-5 tier it's just too damn much, the 5-9 tier should be ready for it by then. Overall, I think Season 6 is going to end up limping past the finish line for Season 7.
Also, please get John Compton some help. It seems to me the guy must have a mountain of sanctioning work left to be done. No, I'm not putting him down. I really do think he's stuck under a pile of work that just got a whole lot bigger based on the changes that were announced. Speaking of which....
There was word of some changes that came down a couple of weeks ago. There was some clarification of what some of the changes were but there is still a lot left out there that needs to be addressed.
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
There was word of some changes that came down a couple of weeks ago. There was some clarification of what some of the changes were but there is still a lot left out there that needs to be addressed.
Such as? Looking to compare what you think needs to be addressed to the list I've already built.
|
I know a few people I used to play with on a weekly basis are near-completely dissuaded by the requirement for the Technologist feat (or Improvisation feat from the ARG, apparently), and they're all aware that a lot of season 6 won't be tech-related, but it doesn't matter - they've already decided it's not worth the effort to even risk it.
They're not all players that will check and jump on every "good" scenario - they simply get lazier about the idea of investing in the game altogether. Little things bank up - even the faction mission changes, which have been in place for 2 odd years now.
When I played Trial By Machine, the first scenario many of us had played with tech, we all knew and didn't really like the idea of not being able to identify technology, but we had good attitudes and ran with it. We roleplayed around it - and ended up really enjoying it anyway. We had a GM that made the TPK encounter less destructive thanks to our tactics (which I'm sure a lot of GMs would miss considering the way he did it).
|
|
I haven't played a scenario involving tech yet. I am planning on making a Savage Technologist solely because of the dexterity bonus in rage and the concept of a barbarian switch-hitter. Tech does not pose a massive problem for whether I play or not. If someone could give me advice about the barbarian (on a thread called Savage Technologist PFS or PFS Savage Technologist) that would be much appreciated.
|
the two scenarios that I have played in season six have been a blast
6-03 had a certain hardness to it but hey with so many people complaining about how easy pfs is that's not a bad thing
6-04 was great as well especially since our party was 2 barbs a swash (me) and a druid and none of us had any relevant know skills also fun final boss (and good gm)
I am staunchly in the keep the tech out of my fantasy group but as far as I have seen it really hasn't been forced upon us. yeah a forced feat is kinda annoying but is this really the first time you had no ideal what you were hitting.
the one thing that I have noticed that has the most people miffed about season six is the new factions.
in short season six is still too young for me to render my final judgment and I am more than willing to give it time.
as for lower participation it may just be the time of the year and release of the new fad I'm sure when spring/summer break comes there will be an boost of people as usual.
Edit: also Pfs locally seems to be about the same here
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way is deal with that is be friendly and not adversarial as the GM. I frequently laugh along with my players at the some of the absurdly easy fights from early seasons and I don't care if my NPCs get crushed. Interestingly, players have been less interested in crushing NPCs since I have displayed no concern for it.
I also try to rule in the player's favor whenever it's possible. If the players know that I'm not going to try to "get them", then they are less likely to bring their 150 DPR PCs.
Lastly, I encourage solid builds, but try to steer players away from overpowering builds. If everyone is solid, then almost every scenario runs just fine.
|
|
The technologist feat, for what it's worth, only lets you use items you find during an adventure and roll knowledge on robots. The only knowledge you really need for robots is swinging adamantine.
I hope that people are aware of the fact that this implementation and the few technologic item you find on chronicles are also due to the very vocal part of people on the board who were crying about no Tech in fantasy and similar things...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From very early on, even just the apg, there was too many class variations to know all of them by heart. But so what? That's why players are required to bring the rules for their character to the game. As a GM you are supposed to look over each players' character before the game. I know most GMs don't, but to skip the part where you look at the PCs and find out how they each work, then to complain you don't know how they work... kinda your own fault there.
I personally like the glut of options. As a home game you get to pick and choose what you want, so extra options are always nice, but don't have to be used. For pfs it's fun to get to try out all the different options. The occult classes coming so close on the heels of the acg was a surprise, I still haven't made an acg character.
As for amount of players, its the holidays, I have no idea about overall participation, but things usually drop off now and pick back up in the spring.
|
Again, do you have data? Or are you just going by gut feel?
It's certainly possible. It seems judging by comments here that some areas have gone up and others are down, but I haven't seen enough to quantify it.
I've no way to prove it but we've got a dozen players in the last two months and have gone from 1 to 2 tables in our weekly games to 2-3.
Some areas will go up and some will go down I suspect in rural/lower pop areas it goes down and in city areas it goes up.
While we had the monthly Vegas Game Day, PFS play was consistent in Las Vegas, which I would consider a 'city area'. For Vegas Game Day, we consistently had 3-4 tables of PFS play. After Vegas Game Day closed its doors in December 2013 (one year ago), PFS play pretty much dried up. I agree that various posters have reported ups and downs in PFS participation, and I don't dispute the campaign coordinator's assertion that PFS play is up overall. However, I can't help but notice a dramatic increase in PFS play on the international level based on the posts of various Venture Captains outside of the United States.
So there is overall growth, but the next question is this: is there dropping participation in the United States? If there is dropping participation in the United States, and there is increasing participation outside of the United States, then what is the difference?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From very early on, even just the apg, there was too many class variations to know all of them by heart. But so what? That's why players are required to bring the rules for their character to the game. As a GM you are supposed to look over each players' character before the game. I know most GMs don't, but to skip the part where you look at the PCs and find out how they each work, then to complain you don't know how they work... kinda your own fault there.
Hmm. Not realistic.
Looking over all the various characters, and looking up how they work, is going to take longer the more different things they are. If a GM really is going to do this, then there goes the first hour of your four-hour slot. A second hour goes if the GM really does the chronicle sheet audit that's recommended (at least at higher tiers).
The fact is that the expectations can't really be expectations, because they are inconsistent with practice.
In practice, the only way a GM is going to be familiar with how all of the characters work is if she already has a good idea about most of it, and only has to learn one or two new things. That's the reality of the situation. In principle, yeah, sure, the way it's written, right at the beginning of the game you can insta-learn whatever is being used by your players. In practice, the stuff you don't know already, you won't really know.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not an organizer for our area, but I have noticed a few things.
The time of year is just busy for a lot of people. But I think this year is a bit lower game count than the 2 preceding years.
Some bad miscommunications about the season 6 tech. But I haven't seen as much as I would have expected based on what I read on the boards.
A few people have complained about having nothing left to play. But most seem willing to sit at a table for no credit just to take part in a game and have fun. (I know I am.)
But the biggest problem I see in our area is few people willing to GM. I know I get quite irritated at some of the guys complaining about the lack of tables or the quality of the GM's, when they have never taken a turn on the other side of the screen.
No, I don't enjoy GM'ing quite as much as being a player. But it isn't that bad. I try to take my turn when my schedule allows me to have something prep'd and know I will have time to get on the schedule. Yes, that also means I've run most of the ones I have prep'd multiple times without getting GM credit. So what?
I know of at least a couple people that have quit because they felt like they could never be a player since they were the only ones willing to GM.
We do have a couple of GM's in our area that are frankly not very good. But if you don't like it, try doing something about it and run some yourself rather than just b%&#+ing behind their backs.
I am well aware I'm not the perfect GM. I don't know every rule and spell in all bajillion books. The comments I overhear from some of these guys has nearly got me to quit PFS a couple of times. So far the compliments and appreciation from others have managed to counteract the insults. But at least I'm trying (and I like to think slowly improving).
I would really like to see more people willing to take a turn in our area.
|
|
That's now rather limited, alas (like I said, I wind up having to go home).A few people have complained about having nothing left to play. But most seem willing to sit at a table for no credit just to take part in a game and have fun. (I know I am.)
Do you have enough experience with the game to try and run a table yourself? Some of the scenarios are really not that difficult for the GM.
|
|
<i>To me, the rules in Pathfinder (may be true for all of 3rd edition--I never played any of it) are too complex. That combined with the enormous number of classes, races, etc. make it intimidating to GM.</i>
It's all of 3e, really. It's a pretty rules-heavy game and pretty fiddily in lots of places.
|
|
<i>To me, the rules in Pathfinder (may be true for all of 3rd edition--I never played any of it) are too complex. That combined with the enormous number of classes, races, etc. make it intimidating to GM.</i>
It's all of 3e, really. It's a pretty rules-heavy game and pretty fiddily in lots of places.
The bottom line is, the rules system was never intended to be run as strictly RAW. There is no way that the rules can cover every situation, and indeed I think Gygax once said that the GM is meant to interpret things as best fit their game. Thus Rule Zero.
In this case, running a campaign that's strictly RAW causes lots of those fiddly bits to become highlighted and exacerbated.
But its ok, because as long as our social contract with one another includes the GM trying to be fair and use common sense and the players not trying to eke every last ounce of power out of the gray areas of the rules, then we shouldn't have to worry too much about whether some obscure rule is being used 100% correctly or not.
Developer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Upon exploring the dwarven sky citadel Jormurdun, the Pathfinder Society recovered a strange relic and learned that it was but one of five pieces of the Jormurdun dwarves’ greatest treasure: the Sky Key. Agents in the citadel learned that in Jormurdun’s dying days, the last king split the Sky Key among his surviving heirs and sent them into the world to settle somewhere safer, hoping that the key would one day inspire them to return and retake their ancestral home. Instead, it appears that the heirs went their separate ways, and now the Society must track these dwarves while following millennia-old clues to piece together the strange artifact. These events coincide with several smaller subplots, including a conflict with the Technic League, the disappearance of a venture-captain in the Mwangi Expanse, and many agents’ return to ancient sites long neglected in favor of grand campaigns in Varisia and Mendev.
In short: We’re piecing together the Sky Key by collecting its disparate components, taking some time to explore the Mwangi Expanse, and getting back to exploring ancient sites all across the Inner Sea region.
...
There do seem to be a small layer of players whose main enjoyment is beating the rules/power gaming and who have zero interest in role playing or work as a team. The default behavior I've seen at Pathfinder tables for skill challenges is to role a d20 and give the GM a number "23 on Perception" or "18 Diplomacy". I prefer to tell the GM what my character is doing ("I'm listening at the door and examining the lock") and then have the GM tell me if I need to roll a skill check. Especially, in social skill challenges players roll one type of skill check that doesn't match their characters actions (roll Diplomacy after saying something that's intimidating to NPC). It seems to be accepted practice here.I think Pathfinder would work better at a home campaign where players can become familiar with each others characters and power gamers & role players can find their respective groups. Guess that applies to any edition of D&D. I haven't played an AP yet, but I assume the story/plot is much better in those than in public play adventures.
...
Yes and no, kinda sorta, and depends on the GM/group. How's that for precise.
Sometimes on skill checks when I GM, I will ask for more details. Where are you looking? Are you trying to bribe or convince with that diplomacy check? Etc... Some respond well to that and start providing more details than I could want. Some resent it and I stop asking. You get that with organized play.
Yes, PF works better in a home game. Everyone can agree on rulings used in common. Hopefully everyone has a similar or at least gets used to each others style of play.
The storyline in PFS is actually better than I expected. IF you play the mini-arcs in order. Most people don't get that opportunity since they are just signing up for whatever random table is available.
That is why I personally try to run a complete mini-arc in order when I am GM'ing. I'm currently running the 3 scenario "Among the X" set. I will pick a different set after those are done.
... To me, the rules in Pathfinder (may be true for all of 3rd edition--I never played any of it) are too complex. That combined with the enormous number of classes, races, etc. make it intimidating to GM. ...
It is a matter of taste. I tend to get bored with systems that are too simple. Also it really isn't as bad to GM as it seems at first. The scenarios are pretty detailed. You just spend some time looking up the specific creatures, spells, and class abilities mentioned in the scenario.
You don't have to be an expert on alchemists, for example. You just have to know that this one alchemist throws bombs that do 3d6 fire damage, will be running across the ceiling with spider climb, and has a poisoned dagger if he gets the opportunity to use it.
Plus almost every player is trustworthy to help you out when you don't know something. "Yeah he can try to trip the alchemist with his whip to make him fall of the ceiling. He rolls CMB check to try and beat the alchemists CMD." Very rarely will one of them try to put something over on you. And even if they try, usually another player will stop them.