|
We were going to play this with a table of 4, but had 2 late entrants at the last moment and ended up playing with a table of 6 instead of 6 tables of 3.
This scenario was incredibly easy for us. We wandered around and collected as much loot as possible until the villain showed up.
By then we had found both the sub-villains so her difficulty 11 check was simple. Even if it had been 16 or 21 I don't think we would have had a lot of trouble.
Players were a little confused by the loot rewards, but I think it'll make more sense next week, when people get to actually use them.
How did everybody else do?
We were going to play this with a table of 4, but had 2 late entrants at the last moment and ended up playing with a table of 6 instead of 6 tables of 3.
This scenario was incredibly easy for us. We wandered around and collected as much loot as possible until the villain showed up.
By then we had found both the sub-villains so her difficulty 11 check was simple. Even if it had been 16 or 21 I don't think we would have had a lot of trouble.
Players were a little confused by the loot rewards, but I think it'll make more sense next week, when people get to actually use them.
How did everybody else do?
We juuuust clarified some text on the loot rewards. The TL;DR is that players at the table who've completed 0-01F get to decide who among them gets to play with the specified loot each game.
|
Thanks for making the thread for me, Pirate Rob! With the new job, I totally spaced on startig it this week.
As you said, this scenario was incredibly easy for the two tables on Monday night, and the third on Tuesday. Which is fine, especially after the bit-too-far difficulty we've seen earlier in the season. But it's just odd to have such an easy-to-win scenario be your Adventure closer.
Still, I love the unique design of the scenario. Awesome job, whoever thought of that!
|
|
Vic: I did indeed mean 2 tables of 3, good catch.
Tanis: Thanks for the clarification on the loot rewards.
ThreeEyedSloth: Glad to hear you guys had a good time too.
Just a few more weeks of cycling back through adventure 1 and we'll be ready to get started on adventure 2.
I'll make a separate post tomorrow with the completion matrix for our group. It'll make for amusing storytime.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I actually found this one to be incredibly difficult, even with knowing when the villain would show up. One problem I had was the two "sub-villains" having checks to keep them from being evaded... I swear Mister Plugg was evaded like 6 times before i was finally able to beat him. I ran out of time the first time I played (and one character died... luckily I was playing solo and that character was one of the "extras" so her death really didn't mean much in the long haul), and then the second time I played it, I BARELY scraped out the victory (I think 2 cards left in the blessings deck).
One clarification for the developers here... so, when Jemma pops up in the blessings deck, the current player encounters her. If that player defeats her, does she close their location? She didn't come from the location deck, so it's not straighforward. I played that she didn't, and so with all other locations temp-closed, she "ran" to the location that player was at, and then had to be fought again. Did I make it unduly difficult on myself?
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Hmm, my understanding of the scenario is that once Jemma pops up, if you beat her you just win. No escaping or other stuff.
Soloed this one with Meliski the bard. Managed to trap and defeat both Plugg and Scourge with about 5 turns left before meeting Jemma, used that time to rework my hand by discarding and absolutely stomped her.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
See, I feel like it's ambiguous... it says when you defeat her, you win. But is "defeating" a villain just beating her at combat, or is it cornering her? If it's as simple as beating her once, then that second time I would have won several turns earlier for sure, but the first run wouldn't have been any different.
|
|
Defeated means you succeeded at the combat check.
If you defeated the villain, count
the number of open locations, subtract 1, and retrieve that number
of random blessings from the box.
Note that the term "defeated" simply means successfully resolving the combat check. The villain has additional steps beyond the typical monster, but the specific scenario dictates that when defeated, you win.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ThreeEyedSloth is correct. Defeating the villain is simply beating their Check to Defeat.
In other scenarios, the defeated villain then attempts to run away to other open locations which is why you need to temp close the ones that are open (or just close the open locations prior to encountering the villain).
This scenario specifically says "To win the scenario, defeat Jemma Redclaw."
Hmm, my understanding of the scenario is that once Jemma pops up, if you beat her you just win. No escaping or other stuff.
Soloed this one with Meliski the bard. Managed to trap and defeat both Plugg and Scourge with about 5 turns left before meeting Jemma, used that time to rework my hand by discarding and absolutely stomped her.
I still need an official clarification on this. By my reading of the rules and the scenario text, there is no reason to trap Plugg and Scourge. The scenario says, "When you would defeat Master Scourge or Mister Plugg, display him next to this sheet." The rules determine Defeat of a villain before the Escape of a villain, therefore the two extra villains never escape if you defeat them because they go straight to the scenario sheet at that point. If you had to trap and defeat Plugg and Scourge, the scenario text should read, "When you would banish Master Scourge or Mister Plugg, display him next to this sheet." This is how The Secret of Mancatcher Cove reads.
This issue was discussed in length in this thread, but an official clarification was never given.
Right, and as I've said in the other thread, I read that as the "instead" only referring to "if he would escape" because that is what is in that sentence. The only time either of them would escape is if they are undefeated because if they are defeated they go to the sheet. If the "instead" was meant to apply to the previous sentence, then they shouldn't be two different sentences. There should be a ; instead of a . after the first part.
Hence, this is why we need official clarification. The fact that there has been no official word kind of gives me the feeling that they're thinking about rewording the scenario in a major way, otherwise they would have given a simple "yes" or "no" by now.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Right, and as I've said in the other thread, I read that as the "instead" only referring to "if he would escape" because that is what is in that sentence. The only time either of them would escape is if they are undefeated because if they are defeated they go to the sheet. If the "instead" was meant to apply to the previous sentence, then they shouldn't be two different sentences. There should be a ; instead of a . after the first part.
Hence, this is why we need official clarification. The fact that there has been no official word kind of gives me the feeling that they're thinking about rewording the scenario in a major way, otherwise they would have given a simple "yes" or "no" by now.
When you see "would" and "instead" together, "instead" tells you what happens in place of the thing that "would" happen.
In this case, "instead" is telling you where the villain goes instead of escaping.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Would you still take blessings from the box if he was defeated (or from the blessing deck if undefeated) and shuffle them into the open locations even though he goes back into the same location?
"Would" is our magic word for "that thing didn't happen—something else did." So he doesn't *actually* get defeated, and he doesn't *actually* escape.
|
|
Thanks for the clarification Vic. The confusion was that we have two "woulds". Display him when he "would" be defeated, and shuffle him back into his deck if he "would" escape. The problem was, if he was defeated and escaped, we didn't know which "would" to follow because if he became displayed he no longer would escape and the second part wouldn't trigger. I assumed it was the shuffle as you confirmed, because otherwise that escape line is irrelevant, however some were definitely confused by it. I definitely think saying he is displayed when he would be banished is better. Or, better yet, something along the lines of
When you would defeat Master Scourge or Mister Plugg, if he would escape, shuffled him into the location deck he came from intead. Otherwise, display him next to this sheet.
|
|
Thanks for the clarification Vic. The confusion was that we have two "woulds". Display him when he "would" be defeated, and shuffle him back into his deck if he "would" escape. The problem was, if he was defeated and escaped, we didn't know which "would" to follow because if he became displayed he no longer would escape and the second part wouldn't trigger. I assumed it was the shuffle as you confirmed, because otherwise that escape line is irrelevant, however some were definitely confused by it. I definitely think saying he is displayed when he would be banished is better. Or, better yet, something along the lines of
When you would defeat Master Scourge or Mister Plugg, if he would escape, shuffled him into the location deck he came from instead. Otherwise, display him next to this sheet.
|
|
Okay, so now I am more confused. Lets say you defeat him and he would escape. Normally, when you defeat a villain, you close the location, banishing all the cards in the deck (except for other villains, which we don't have in this case). So now, he's back in the deck, along with the rest of the cards? Ouch. That said, it's probably better fitting the end of Adventure 1 that way. We'll see how it goes next Thursday.
Yep—if he would escape, whether or not he would be defeated, he ends up back in the same location. If he would be defeated (and would not escape), he gets displayed.
Okay, so wouldn't it be easier and more clear if it was worded with "banish" instead of "defeat"? Also, as First World Bard asked, do we still get to have the location closed and have the villain hang out there alone? Otherwise, this scenario will be impossible for a solo-character.
|
|
It's not impossible, all you have to do is defeat Jemma Redclaw from the blessings deck. Defeating Plugg and Scourge is 100% not necessary for winning, her difficulty is just reduced by 5 for each you've displayed. It will be hard solo, as I'd expect every scenario to be, but not impossible.
There is no villain you need to corner so noone needs to "hang out there alone".
Right, sorry, I meant that it is impossible to beat Plugg and Scourge as a solo character and if that is the case, there is no reason at all for a solo character to not use the totally unfun strategy described in the other thread. What's the point for looking for the other villains to defeat if you can't really defeat them? You're just going to get yourself hurt and make it even harder to beat an extremely difficult combat for a solo character when Jemma shows up.
So yeah, you can still win, but Jemma is hardest of all when you have no help as a solo character does. No extra Blessings or other support from other characters. And no, every scenario isn't that hard solo. They're actually pretty balanced as long as you play smart. I've played every Adventure 1 scenario solo with Tarlin with little trouble (including this one when I used my own logic for it since there was no clarification available yet). And although he needed to fail 10 times before he got his Deathbane Light Crossbow +1, my Olenjack has beat every Adventure 1 scenario and the first three Adventure 2 scenarios on his first try after that (again, playing this scenario wrong).
If this is how the scenario is supposed to work, then it truely is bad design. Making it so Plugg and Scourge are unbeatable makes this scenario vastly more difficult solo than any other scenario.
|
|
I'd hardly call it truly bad design. I mentioned it in the other thread I think, but some things aren't going to be as efficient for soloing. They'll still be doable, but it's going to play differently. The fact that solo play is allowed doesn't mean it will be (or should be) just as effective as with more players. This is a cooperative game that encourages teamwork and variety in your party. To expect solo play to work just like a party doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
There's no more of a reason for a solo player to use the unfun strategy than there is for a party of 4 or 6 to do it. If you want to actually play the game, you will, if not then you'll use that strategy. Group size isn't going to make any more of a difference in that aspect. To say there is no reason not to do it though is absurd. You have the same reason for exploring as you do any other time we've had odd win conditions. You find more gear, improve your character.
I'd hardly call it truly bad design. I mentioned it in the other thread I think, but some things aren't going to be as efficient for soloing. They'll still be doable, but it's going to play differently. The fact that solo play is allowed doesn't mean it will be (or should be) just as effective as with more players. This is a cooperative game that encourages teamwork and variety in your party. To expect solo play to work just like a party doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Yes, I remember your comment about solo play and I'll say again that this game is meant to be perfectly playable with a solo character as there are always solo-character playtesters and there is no sense to make it an option if that isn't what they meant to have. In all other scenarios so far, the game works perfectly fine solo, so why can't this one?
No, you're not going to be as efficient soloing, but that doesn't mean it has to be harder. If you know how to play it, know when to be conservative, it's not hard. Playing this game as "a cooperative game that encourages teamwork and variety in your party" is just one of the ways the game can be experienced. I don't expect solo to work the same way and it doesn't, but in all other cases, it does work. Having two villains that you absolutely cannot defeat while playing in a legitimate format that the game is supposed to support and then being punished for that by having to deal with a combat that is more difficult than a character with no support should be expected to handle is bad design.
There's no more of a reason for a solo player to use the unfun strategy than there is for a party of 4 or 6 to do it. If you want to actually play the game, you will, if not then you'll use that strategy. Group size isn't going to make any more of a difference in that aspect. To say there is no reason not to do it though is absurd. You have the same reason for exploring as you do any other time we've had odd win conditions. You find more gear, improve your character.
Yes, a solo character does have more of a reason to use the unfun strategy. A party of 4 to 6 can actually beat the other villains. They can actually have fun with it. If a solo character cannot beat those villains, it is unfun for that player anyway, because what's the point of even trying? Yes, I could explore a little and hope that if I meant the villains I fail at check that makes me evade them. But solo, as I said, has a different dynamic. You have to know when to be conservative with your resources because all of the turns of the game are your turns. One bad explore and you can be out of commission or even dead (see Man Overboard!). It's too much risk for not enough reward at this point. A party of 4 has to survive about 5 turns per character before Jemma shows up. A party of six, only 3 for most of them. In any of these cases, if they are able to find and take out the other two villains, they are rewarded with a lower combat check for Jemma, so the resources they used to get there are not a waste. As a solo character, you have to survive 19 turns on your own before Jemma shows up. Most of my solo games don't even last that many turns before I beat them. Without any reward for the resources that are burnt, there's no way I'd actually take all of those turns, or even half of them for that matter.
|
|
I'm with pluvia that it's unnecessarily difficult to play solo in this way.
My Thursday night game is two people; I wonder if 19 turns will be enough time to figure out which locations have the henchmen, close them, then try to close out the two Villain'ed locations. There will be an element of luck as to what locations the villains end up in, as I'll need to temporary close one of the locations, and he'll need to handle the other one. On the bright side, we can probably arrange to both be holding Blessings of Erastil when Jemma pops up and needs to take a Returning Throwing Axe +1 in the face.
I don't really see the scenario as being much trouble for any number of players other than solo. I'm actually wondering what exactly is the design reason for the, "If he would escape, shuffle him into the location deck he came from instead." mechanic anyway, if it wasn't to turn the villains into tougher henchmen. If you still have to corner then, why would it be such a bad thing if they still escaped as normal? Is it just so they don't escape and then potentially banish henchmen? Or end up in the same location and make it easier to get the second villain? I'm not sure if the benefits of the mechanic are worth the confusion and wonky situations it causes, especially for solo-character play.
|
|
pluvia: I mean, I don't either, but for the reasons you mention earlier: mainly that each additional player is another blessing that can be played on the combat check. I also realized that in the two player case, only one of the locations needs to be temporarily closed, as once that first villain is beaten (and the henchmen are done with) the second villain will be in the only open location and can just be defeated as normal. Thankfully, my Meliski has got his Ruby of Charisma and therefore a reasonable chance to close most locations.
I'm actually wondering what exactly is the design reason for the, "If he would escape, shuffle him into the location deck he came from instead." mechanic anyway, if it wasn't to turn the villains into tougher henchmen.
Agreed. As I mentioned earlier, it seemed like the intent was to simply turn them into stronger henchmen. My S&S base set currently lives in my car parked around the corner, otherwise I'd be curious enough to read what those villains do. (My girlfriend and I just finished Deck 5 of Rise of the Runelords, so we're still playing that at home)
|
|
Sadly, I thought I understood the mechanics of this scenario before I read this thread. Now I'm more confused.
1) I thought that Scourge and Plugg were beefier henchmen.
2) I thought that the mechanics for encountering them was different. You didn't have to "corner" these villains. Meaning that you didn't have to worry about temp-closing other locations.
3) If they are defeated, instead of escaping, they get displayed next to the sheet. The location they come from is closed. Continue the scenario.
4) If they are undefeated, they get shuffled back into the location they came from ... as if they were henchmen. No blessings pulled from the Blessings Deck since the villain goes back to the location deck. Continue the scenario.
That's what I thought was the proper way to play those two.
If they still got to escape, then if you failed to defeat them you'd lose cards from the blessings deck. This would cause you to hit Jemma faster, and possibly even immediately after a fight where you just burned cards on the villains, and took damage afterwards.
Ah, that may be it. That would make it much riskier to fight them and may make the party less likely to want to go fight them if they have a larger party. However, they aren't that hard to beat with just 12 and 14 combat checks. If you are not ready, you can also hope you fail their pre-combat powers so they're evaded instead. If you face Mister Plugg and don't have Survival, you can use survival, rolling a d4, and auto fail so he's evaded. If you face Master Scourge and don't have Fortitude, you can do the same. Now if you have the skill and a good Constitution or Wisdom, you may have an unlucky roll and have to fight them when you're not ready. Even with the worst case scenario of losing a fight with them in a 6-character game and having to burn 8 blessings if no locations temp closed, I still think that's better than how the scenario works now with a solo character.
But then you would need to write in what happens if Jemma is drawn while drawing blessings to randomize the location of the undefeated villain. I've always been under the impression that since the blessings you draw are random, you can't look at them after you draw them. You draw them, shuffle them with the villain, then deal them out to the open locations. I do this so that I don't know what blessings are in the randomization pool, or else if I did know I would have a better idea of what locations don't have the villain if I find a blessing tha I remember being in that pool. So playing that way, I wouldn't be able to check if one of those cards is Jemma.
If this is the reasoning behind the "saying in the location, but still needing to prevent escape" think, instead of the current mechanic, you could just have a line that says, "If Master Scourge or Mister Plugg are undefeated, use random blessings from the box instead of the blessing deck to determine his new location."
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Let's try this:
Old:
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.
New:
When you defeat Master Scourge or Mister Plugg, do not check to see whether he escapes. If all locations other than yours are closed, display him next to this sheet; otherwise, shuffle him back into your location deck.
Let's try this:
Old:
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.New:
When you defeat Master Scourge or Mister Plugg, do not check to see whether he escapes. If all locations other than yours are closed, display him next to this sheet; otherwise, shuffle him back into your location deck.
That's more clear, in a general since (the phrasing can be cleaned up a bit, like with what Andrew said), but it doesn't help the fact that a solo-character still has no way of ever putting Scourge or Plugg next to the sheet, making this a rather unfun scenario in that format.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
When Master Scourge or Mister Plugg is undefeated, do not check to see whether he escapes. If all locations other than the one he came from are closed, display him next to this sheet; otherwise, shuffle him back into the deck he came from.
When Master Scourge or Mister Plugg is defeated, do not check to see whether he escapes; display him next to this sheet.
|
|
I really don't like that change at all, but it is easy to read and know what you mean.
By trying to make it easier for a solo player, it also makes it way too easy for 2-6 players in my opinion. If there is a way to adjust it for solo play (which I don't think should be done, it's really not overly hard in my opinion), there has to be a better way than making such a big change for 5 out of 6 group sizes just to make it easier for one group size.
How about:
When you defeat Master Scourge or Mister Plugg, do not check to see whether he escapes. If more than one location besides the one he came from is open, shuffle him back into the location deck he came from, otherwise display him next to this sheet.
I even think letting them escape, but saying that you always take blessings from the box would probably be fine. So like:
When Master Scourge or Mister Plugg would escape, always use blessings from the box. If Master Scourge or Mister Plugg can not escape, display them next to this sheet.
But that might be changing it too much at this point.
|
|
But then you're able to get more boons by failing to defeat them, with no penalty for adding those boons (usually shortening your time taking them from the deck) doesn't seem right.
I honestly think Vic's suggestion was perfect as far as gameplay function earlier (the first one), with just the text change I recommended (or something to the same effect).
Hmmm...Yeah. That wouldn't be good.
When Master Scourge or Mister Plugg is undefeated, do not check to see whether he escapes. If all locations other than the one he came from are closed, display him next to this sheet; otherwise, shuffle him back into the deck he came from.
When Master Scourge or Mister Plugg is defeated, do not check to see whether he escapes; display him next to this sheet.
So, now we're back to the "beefier henchmen" interpretation, with the added effect of getting to display them next to the sheet even if they are undefeated if all of the other locations are closed? I don't really see the point in that. Why not just use the original text with some tweaks to make the interpretation some of us got from it clear:
"When you defeat Master Scourge or Mister Plugg, do not check to see whether he escapes; display him next to this sheet. If he undefeated, shuffle him back into the location deck he came from."
If there is a way to adjust it for solo play (which I don't think should be done, it's really not overly hard in my opinion)....
It's not about whether or not it is overly hard (although having to deal with a 21 combat is pushing it for one character), it's about having mechanics that just don't work, making looking for the henchmen and villains in the locations completely pointless.