Skill Imbalances in PFS Scenarios


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade 2/5

deusvult wrote:
Undone wrote:


In PFS to be completely honest they should call those suited to the job. In story it's mindbogglingly stupid that venture captains keep their jobs sending 4 barbarians to a wedding to represent the society or sending 4 paladins to infiltrate a cult. In real life the VC's would have been outed for such behavior in an instant.

You see the problem, but you place the blame in the wrong place.

It's not the Society's fault that 4 agents are all carbon copies of an overspecialized build.

That goes for both OOC and IC. ICly, Agents are supposed to be well rounded generalists. OOCly, the encounters are balanced with the assumption that characters are not optimized.

You want to optimize anyway, and roflstomp the encounters? That's your kind of fun? Ok, but don't say it makes no sense when ROFLSTOMPERS get put on missions they can't handle.

And since writers are assuming a non-optimized stance for characters, making wider and better use of skills is the point of the thread.

Most game systems punish generalists pretty heavily. I don't think Pathfinder is an exception. A strong archery build can do the combat works of 3-4 generalists and/or pregens. I've been asked twice to not use my magus at a table because he's not a burst damage crit fisher and they wanted high DPR at the table.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

I don't subscribe to this "generalist OR specialist" dilemma. Most of my characters manage to do both adequately.

5/5 5/55/55/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:

I don't think the goal should be for scenario writers to make it easy for fighters to solve puzzles. The Lore Warden archetype exists for the Pathfinder Society. Should they also adjust combats so a low-strength rogue with a dagger can defeat every enemy?

Either you build generalist characters and get to participate a lot, or you build specialists and get to participate less (but are better at what you do). Both approaches can work, although to my mind, the generalist approach is a better fit to both the in-game *and* real-world situation of Pathfinder Society. You never know who you're adventuring with or where you are going, so be ready for everything.

Durvin Gest Lives!

It doesn't quite work out like that.

depending on how the dm does the skill checks, being the second best at a skill often amounts to you being no more useful than a plus two aid another bonus. The more useful and more often a skill comes up, the more likely it is that someone else has a higher mod than a gneralist. The generalist also doesn't hit the dc they need to as often.

Grand Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
kinevon wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
kinevon wrote:
deusvult wrote:
Diplomacy: I don't let the dice roll until the roleplay resolves a natural decision point for the NPC, and only people who have been roleplaying even get to touch a die for the test or assist. Sure, some players are naturally introverted and shouldn't be barred from playing faces.. that's a consideration on a case by case basis and is always (not usually, always) obvious right up front.

This is a really bad idea.

I do not have a Charisma of 22, like some of my Charisma-based PCs do. My PC should get to use his Diplomacy skill, just like his Disable Device skill, without my ability, or lack thereof, affecting the PC.

Or do you consider, "<Insert PC name here> schmoozes that NPC trying to get <result> from him." to be RP? Or would, "<Insert PC name here> attempts to assist <primary PC name here> in schmoozing the NPC." to work for giving an assist?

Usually I ask players who want to assist what their character is doing or saying that constitutes diplomacy. If you aren't well spoken or a great creative thinker or whatever. That's ok. I don't expect you to be super eloquent. But I do expect you to say more than, "I just wanna roll the die."

Just giving a description of what you are doing to help is enough in my book. Describe to me what you want to say or what your intent is.

But if you dont' have your character actually do anything, you don't get to assist.

So, allowable or not: "My PC does what he can to assist <Other PC> in his attempt to get <NPC> to do such-and-so."
No. If you are at all paying attention to the interaction with the NPC, you can come up with a germane comment or action to take.

Not necessarily. If I could do that, I could have been a writer, not a computer technical support agent.

And you are disregarding several real world factors that can and have affected my ability, at least, to be able to figure out what is going on.

Noise: If those Pokemon and/or MtG gamers are being rowdy, it is hard to hear even a loud or well-projected GM.
GM Delivery: Not all GMs have the background and training to be able to get their voice heard over even an average game night at the store crowd.
GM Delivery 2: Not all GMs are able to provide their portion of the story in anything besides a monotone.
NPC confusion: When the GM is running multiple NPCs in the same social encounter, it can be difficult to tell who is speaking with whom. Sometimes, even props are not enough. Add in the sometimes confusing (even to the GM) special mechanics in some of the social scenarios....
Hearing: Even with a perfect setup, it is possible to find it hard to hear and understand the GM from the far side of the table.

Or you are trying to help the new player at your table, or someone has asked you, as the rules guru, for help in their next feat choice..

"Hey, <GM>, I am trying to help <PC> convince this NPC to let us pass/take the macguffin/what-have-you." Is, sometimes, the best that my limited imagination can come up with. There is a reason I run scenarios, modules and APs, rather than sandboxing it...

5/5 5/55/55/5

I have a faux rogue druid named doyle with a huge selection of skills.

I also have fabrizio, a sorcerer so dumb his familiar does the thinking with a plus 23 diplomacy. They make about the same number of skill checks

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

1 person marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:
Undone wrote:


In PFS to be completely honest they should call those suited to the job. In story it's mindbogglingly stupid that venture captains keep their jobs sending 4 barbarians to a wedding to represent the society or sending 4 paladins to infiltrate a cult. In real life the VC's would have been outed for such behavior in an instant.

You see the problem, but you place the blame in the wrong place. The society doesn't want (or need) Neurosurgeons; an EMT fills the bill just fine, especially since they expect the EMT to handle other duties as well.

It's not the Society's fault that 4 agents are all carbon copies of an overspecialized build.

That goes for both OOC and IC. ICly, Agents are supposed to be well rounded generalists. OOCly, the encounters are balanced with the assumption that characters are not optimized.

You want to optimize anyway, and roflstomp the encounters? That's your kind of fun? Ok, but don't say it makes no sense when ROFLSTOMPERS get put on missions they can't handle.

And since writers are assuming a non-optimized stance for characters, making wider and better use of skills is the point of the thread.

The barbarian and paladin example seems like a straw men argument, but matter of fact is, that this can happen. That is just a reality of the organized play format. Of course you could always suggest people to play pregens, but that is a really different issue (you know the whole having a character at that level bit) and does not solve the problem.

Pathfinder as a gaming system really does to reward generalization, and recent scenarios really don't cater to it. Most 7-11 scenarios I have played are pretty tough, and even in a 1-2 that DC 18 diplomacy check, to convince that racist cleric is not something I would want to give to the fighter with a rank in Diplomacy and CHA 12.

I approve of the concept of giving creative solutions and unusual skills a chance to shine, if the adventure can accommodate it. However once secondary success conditions depend in the characters having ranks in profession sailor... well once you do that, characters might just stop trying to be proficient in at least a couple of core skills and just go full murderhobo.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

I think there's also a significant difference in the way parties are mustered. In my area we mostly use Warhorn, and when signing up, you can see what classes/roles other people are playing. I think this helps us form more well-rounded tables. Not always, but often. As a result, specialism is rewarded more.

That said, I find it fairly doable to both be really good at a primary role, and still cover a couple of secondary roles. Not as good as a specialist at those secondary roles, but good enough for the average scenario.

1/5

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
The barbarian and paladin example seems like a straw men argument, but matter of fact is, that this can happen.

We had 5 barbarians for a blackros matrimony run. There were 4 paladins at one of our cultist kiss tables. I brought the examples up because they actually happened.

Quote:
It's not the Society's fault that 4 agents are all carbon copies of an overspecialized build.

This assumes they were carbon copies. They had (Mostly other than perception) different skills. Some were melee, some were archers, one had a reach weapon on both builds. One was armor focused while the other focused on self healing. The barbs had two spell sunderers and various other builds. Nothing about them was carbon copies other than the class and most of them had archetypes.

Quote:

You want to optimize anyway, and roflstomp the encounters? That's your kind of fun? Ok, but don't say it makes no sense when ROFLSTOMPERS get put on missions they can't handle.

The problem is this is simply not true for later seasons. Every single season 4 7-11 is a beating. Nearly every season 5 7-11 is a beating. Season 6 has done a bit better pulling back but it's still really tough compared to season 0-2. If you don't optimize you WILL die to those adventures.

Quote:
depending on how the dm does the skill checks, being the second best at a skill often amounts to you being no more useful than a plus two aid another bonus. The more useful and more often a skill comes up, the more likely it is that someone else has a higher mod than a gneralist. The generalist also doesn't hit the dc they need to as often.

This is why if it's not your primary stat and can be aided it's unlikely that investing more than 1 point does anything significant. For example diplomacy if you can aid on a low number but you've got a 10 cha it's pretty pointless to raise it because someone else will have it or you'll get +6-10 in aids for the roll. Perception, acrobatics, exct things you can't assist for in a pinch but effect your character are the best options.

Sovereign Court 5/5

Undone wrote:


Quote:
It's not the Society's fault that 4 agents are all carbon copies of an overspecialized build.
This assumes they were carbon copies. They had (Mostly other than perception) different skills. Some were melee, some were archers, one had a reach weapon on both builds. One was armor focused while the other focused on self healing. The barbs had two spell sunderers and various other builds. Nothing about them was carbon copies other than the class and most of them had archetypes.

What I meant by carbon copy was all being built to excel in combat and sit on their hands the rest of the time. I don't view a zen archer monk as being niche-wise any different than a power attacking 2 hander barbarian. They both focus on the combat dimension. If they both also ignore the social and skill dimensions, then they may as well be carbon copies.

Quote:
Quote:

You want to optimize anyway, and roflstomp the encounters? That's your kind of fun? Ok, but don't say it makes no sense when ROFLSTOMPERS get put on missions they can't handle.

The problem is this is simply not true for later seasons. Every single season 4 7-11 is a beating. Nearly every season 5 7-11 is a beating. Season 6 has done a bit better pulling back but it's still really tough compared to season 0-2. If you don't optimize you WILL die to those adventures.

I don't think I've had any more or less exposure to seasons 5 & 6 than you have, and I don't share that opinion. At all. I think we'll go ahead and agree to disagree that there's no option but to optimize/munch out in order to succeed in those combats. Heck, the nastiest fight (I've yet seen) in a 7-11 is still the BBEG from a season 2 scenario. The

Spoiler:
Avatar of the Silver Tarn
is a challenge unmatched by anything in seasons 5 or 6, imo. And even THAT didn't require munchkin PCs, since it was a September Monster encounter. (exploitable Achilles heel, for those unfamiliar with the term)
Sovereign Court 5/5

IMHE, Pathfinder has to cater to the (average) lowest common denominator. PFS adventures need to be aimed at someone who has the core book and maybe a supplement or two who doesn't know all that much about optimizing and is looking to have fun. They've done a decent job of that so far, and this is why you have plenty of power-gamers who stomp all over adventures and why there's complaints about players dominating tables.

I saw it in Living Greyhawk, where it was a power creep; the most glaring example to me was the Radiant Servant of Pelor prestige class. It was an absolute undead killer, so if you wanted undead in your adventures you had to give them all sorts of buffs and/or support, and tables without a class able to easily deal with undead often had TPKs.

Personally, if I had to fix this, I'd have "hard modes" of PFS adventures where things could be dialed up if both the GM and the players agreed beforehand.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

The Human Diversion wrote:
IMHE, Pathfinder has to cater to the (average) lowest common denominator.

I disagree. Organized play campaigns have to cater to both the lowest common denominator (newbs, casual players, etc.) and the invested players. Without newbs there is no fresh blood, no new customers and no increased market share. Without invested players there is no one to organize and GM and no one to buy non-common denominator products. Both need to be catered to for the organization to survive. WOTC pretty much proved that when it withdrew much of its invested player support for Living Forgotten Realms and the campaign pretty much collapsed due to lack of leadership.

Silver Crusade 2/5

I think season 4+ largely fixed the difficulty problem. When I GM Season 0-3, almost no one dies. I've killed plenty in season 4+.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

David Bowles wrote:
I think season 4+ largely fixed the difficulty problem. When I GM Season 0-3, almost no one dies. I've killed plenty in season 4+.

While I admit Season 4 has some pretty tough mods, I decided to look at my abridged GM Kill List just to see what my experience was and found it kind of interesting.

Season 0 - 1 Kill
Season 1 - 1 Kill
Season 2 - 2 Kills
Season 3 - 4 Kills
Season 4 - 2 Kills
Season 5 - 3 Kills
Gameday Mods - 2 Kills

Paizo Employee 4/5 Developer

There are many things I'm reading in this thread, but I'd like to briefly touch on one related point.

Undone wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
depending on how the dm does the skill checks, being the second best at a skill often amounts to you being no more useful than a plus two aid another bonus. The more useful and more often a skill comes up, the more likely it is that someone else has a higher mod than a gneralist. The generalist also doesn't hit the dc they need to as often.
This is why if it's not your primary stat and can be aided it's unlikely that investing more than 1 point does anything significant. For example diplomacy if you can aid on a low number but you've got a 10 cha it's pretty pointless to raise it because someone else will have it or you'll get +6-10 in aids for the roll. Perception, acrobatics, exct things you can't assist for in a pinch but effect your character are the best options.

Is this to say that challenges such as those in The Blakros Matrimony and Library of the Lion, which call on all of the PCs to attempt skill checks, are well received? I ask this regarding the structure of the challenges and not quite so much the particular blend of skills involved.

Sovereign Court 5/5 *

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
John Compton wrote:


Is this to say that challenges such as those in The Blakros Matrimony and Library of the Lion, which call on all of the PCs to attempt skill checks, are well received? I ask this regarding the structure of the challenges and not quite so much the particular blend of skills involved.

I enjoyed both of the scenarios a great deal, other than one fight in one of them involving my personal least favorite pathfinder creature. I think both were done quite brilliantly for skills.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I have mixed feelings about LotL.

Spoilers!:

So, you go looking for books, everybody makes checks. If memory serves, it mattered how many successes/failures the party got. This sounds at first like a good way to have everybody involved, but it also puts a cap on how helpful a given PC can be. That is, you could make a character with a goal of consistently rocking Skill X, and then excitedly sign up for a game that's reputed to reward Skill X, then succeed on all your checks, then fail/do poorly because nobody else had Skill X.

That seems like the opposite of what should happen when someone makes a character to be good at Skill X and seeks out scenarios that utilize it.

Scarab Sages 4/5

John Compton wrote:

There are many things I'm reading in this thread, but I'd like to briefly touch on one related point.

Undone wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
depending on how the dm does the skill checks, being the second best at a skill often amounts to you being no more useful than a plus two aid another bonus. The more useful and more often a skill comes up, the more likely it is that someone else has a higher mod than a gneralist. The generalist also doesn't hit the dc they need to as often.
This is why if it's not your primary stat and can be aided it's unlikely that investing more than 1 point does anything significant. For example diplomacy if you can aid on a low number but you've got a 10 cha it's pretty pointless to raise it because someone else will have it or you'll get +6-10 in aids for the roll. Perception, acrobatics, exct things you can't assist for in a pinch but effect your character are the best options.
Is this to say that challenges such as those in The Blakros Matrimony and Library of the Lion, which call on all of the PCs to attempt skill checks, are well received? I ask this regarding the structure of the challenges and not quite so much the particular blend of skills involved.

What I think works great about The Blakros Matrimony is...

Spoiler:
that it provides varying options of skills and different success levels, depending on which NPC you choose to talk to or to try to find our information about, and it allows for a wide variety of skills to be useful. General Influence checks allow for Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, or Perform. Discovering useful information about an NPC can be any of a number of other skills (Sense Motive, Diplomacy, several Knowledges, and even Heal). The DCs are also such that, if you choose wisely who you are going to talk to, even someone untrained has some chance of succeeding. When you throw in Circumstance bonuses, the odds get even better. No, not every roll every round will be a success, if you don't have lots of ranks in a skill, but in a lot of cases if you've got a single rank in a class skill, you'll have decent chance of success.

The lower DCs are balanced by being able to obtain multiple influence points per NPC. A single high roll can gain full influence over an NPC, but so can multiple lower rolls. So it gives an opportunity for someone who hasn't concentrated in one of the three social skills, but has a decent plus, to still succeed.

So, to me, it's a great setup. Characters with only a few skills can still find ways to contribute most rounds (either on their own, or by aiding another). Characters with maxed out social skills can excel, and characters with mid-range ranks in a social skill can still be relevant. Plus, it encourages good roleplaying, and sometimes the Barbarian trying to talk up the noblewoman is more interesting that the Bard doing the same thing.

Sovereign Court 5/5

John Compton wrote:


Is this to say that challenges such as those in The Blakros Matrimony and Library of the Lion, which call on all of the PCs to attempt skill checks, are well received? I ask this regarding the structure of the challenges and not quite so much the particular blend of skills involved.

I'd like to say that I love those adventures. Roleplayers like to play PFS too, not just the "roll-players".

Pathfinder isn't a game engine that lends itself well to adventures without a single fight in them, but I certainly like that there are some scenarios out there where fighting is nothing more than a secondary priority. I wish there were more Libraries of the Lion and Blackros Matrimonies.

With regards to how skills are used in those adventures, I have a couple observations/thoughts:

LotL: The CRB search mechanics were ditched for new scenario-specific search rules. I'm not sure that was strictly necessary, but perhaps wise anyway to head off table variation since how long the searches take was so critical to the outcome of the mission. I especially loved LotL because it serves as an example that sometimes you really should split the party. Turn those paradigms upside down more often!

Blackros Matrimony/Hellknight's Feast: I'd like to see more than one scenario per season that focuses on hobnobbing socially. These "influence-the-NPC" challenges are, imo, fair in that personalities of the NPCs are described and characters with limited skill options can (if the player uses any thought) seek out appropriate NPCs that their limited capabilities are compatible with. Players' wits should come into play more often than it does in PFS, I believe. More scenarios where player smarts are more important than the d20 bonus would be a Good Thing.

The Disappeared/By Way of Bloodcove: I think this is another formula that PFS should be using more often, as well. Take players out of their Murder Hobo mentalities more often, I say.

1/5

John Compton wrote:

There are many things I'm reading in this thread, but I'd like to briefly touch on one related point.

Is this to say that challenges such as those in The Blakros Matrimony and Library of the Lion, which call on all of the PCs to attempt skill checks, are well received? I ask this regarding the structure of the challenges and not quite so much the particular blend of skills involved.

I consider blackros matrimony an exquisite and fantastic example of what social type adventures should be. It has many checks not one or two. Each failure doesn't INSTANTLY end everything or leave out a plot critical piece of info. There are many boons based on what and how you do them.

I consider Library to be one of the worst 1-5s I've played. There is (Realistically) one NPC. Very little social parts. The skill checks are largely make it or fail something that is potentially mission critical and potentially the entire adventure if you blow the interaction with the NPC.

Things that make skill checks good.

Spoiler:

1) Optional encounters avoided with social stuff.
2) Non mission critical checks which give you boons, bonuses, or better conditions in combat (An NPC leaves, helps you, or shows you a hidden cache of weapons)
3) Things which give you forewarning of further encounters and then give you time to prepare. Similar to gather information but other checks as well.
4) Varied skill types are beautiful.

Things that make skill checks abysmal.
Spoiler:

1) Single pass or fail mission critical checks. (Have skill X, pass or adventure over) These often get extra chances from the GM because otherwise they'd just fail the adventure.
2) How a puzzle works is written in some arcane language and requires a linguistics check or knowledge check to get the basic rules of the puzzle. While many parties will have comprehend languages not all will.
3) Skill checks that make puzzles easier are fine but if you can't activate a device of the puzzle without a Know X is a bad idea.
4) Mono skill, skill based adventures are atrocious. "I have high diplomacy, I will use it 20 times to solve this adventure". Varied is far more preferred.

EDIT: Something I'd also like to note is that we need more in combat forced skill checks. These would encourage diversification. A know arcana or spellcraft roll to catch the target casting a silent spell to start combat. Acrobatics rolls to walk across the floor. Things like that would be highly appreciated.

Silver Crusade 2/5

John Compton wrote:

There are many things I'm reading in this thread, but I'd like to briefly touch on one related point.

Undone wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
depending on how the dm does the skill checks, being the second best at a skill often amounts to you being no more useful than a plus two aid another bonus. The more useful and more often a skill comes up, the more likely it is that someone else has a higher mod than a gneralist. The generalist also doesn't hit the dc they need to as often.
This is why if it's not your primary stat and can be aided it's unlikely that investing more than 1 point does anything significant. For example diplomacy if you can aid on a low number but you've got a 10 cha it's pretty pointless to raise it because someone else will have it or you'll get +6-10 in aids for the roll. Perception, acrobatics, exct things you can't assist for in a pinch but effect your character are the best options.
Is this to say that challenges such as those in The Blakros Matrimony and Library of the Lion, which call on all of the PCs to attempt skill checks, are well received? I ask this regarding the structure of the challenges and not quite so much the particular blend of skills involved.

Yes, those scenarios are great. Personally, I like the ones that are almost 50% skill/RP and then 50% brutal combat the best, because then everyone gets to shine. I'm talking combats with a non-trivial TPK chance. That tests out if the skill monkeys can hold up their end in a fight. Library of the Lion needed one more solid fight for the fighty types. Push-over fights aren't fun for anyone.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:
I'd like to say that I love those adventures. Roleplayers like to play PFS too, not just the "roll-players".

You know, you could have communicated your message without taking a swing at other people on your way past. Omitting the second sentence would have made your post no less clear.

Quote:
LotL: The CRB search mechanics were ditched for new scenario-specific search rules. I'm not sure that was strictly necessary, but perhaps wise anyway to head off table variation since how long the searches take was so critical to the outcome of the mission.

Actually, this is what I was talking about earlier with misuse of Perception and how it should be done instead: the books are right there in plain sight, so Perception checks don't apply. You need to figure out which of the plainly-visible books is relevant, and that's not what Perception is for. I give LotL a hearty thumbs-up for this.

Quote:
I especially loved LotL because it serves as an example that sometimes you really should split the party. Turn those paradigms upside down more often!

I agree with this sentiment, but with reservations: there are some scenarios where it might make a lot of sense to split the party, then you do and you get punished. If we could use a time machine to go back and get rid of the underlying mindsets that gave birth to "never split the party", that would be ideal, but failing that, I'd personally prefer if scenarios simply didn't present situations where splitting up in an obviously good strategy, so you don't have to guess whether the author is setting it up as a trap or not.

But maybe that's a tangent. :)

Quote:
Blackros Matrimony/Hellknight's Feast: I'd like to see more than one scenario per season that focuses on hobnobbing socially. These "influence-the-NPC" challenges are, imo, fair in that personalities of the NPCs are described and characters with limited skill options can (if the player uses any thought) seek out appropriate NPCs that their limited capabilities are compatible with.

I haven't played BM, but for HF, I agree that the setup was reasonably flexible: Diplomancers could do their thing, while other characters could find ways to help.

Quote:
Players' wits should come into play more often than it does in PFS, I believe. More scenarios where player smarts are more important than the d20 bonus would be a Good Thing.

Well, to a point. The more you make in-game results contingent on the player rather than the character, the less of a roleplaying game it becomes.

Quote:
The Disappeared/By Way of Bloodcove: I think this is another formula that PFS should be using more often, as well. Take players out of their Murder Hobo mentalities more often, I say.

The Disappeared was actually the culprit I had in mind with "splitting up makes sense, but it doesn't work". The punishment for creative thinking actually causes that scenario to reinforce the "murderhobo" mindset, IMO.

Sovereign Court 5/5

Scars of the Third Crusade

Spoiler:
Scars of the Third Crusade is another one that actually encourages the players to split up, makes heavy use of skill checks (I had a player use Profession: Farmer!) and has the possibility of just a single combat

3/5 RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
The Disappeared was actually the culprit I had in mind with "splitting up makes sense, but it doesn't work". The punishment for creative thinking actually causes that scenario to reinforce the "murderhobo" mindset, IMO.

We didn't fail because of splitting up or "creative thinking." We failed because you locked yourself in a room with the only key (ignoring my protests), then aggro'd a fight by yourself.

I told you I wasn't going to let you live that down.

4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:

I don't think the goal should be for scenario writers to make it easy for fighters to solve puzzles. The Lore Warden archetype exists for the Pathfinder Society. Should they also adjust combats so a low-strength rogue with a dagger can defeat every enemy?

First off, Akerlof = Me, didn't mean to sock puppet myself, just forgot to change my default avatar.

The thing is, good game design allows everyone to participate as long as they don't actively choose to disable themselves, at least most of the time. That means combat challenges should be designed so that rogues can feel useful and non-combat encounters should be designed so that fighters can feel useful.

That doesn't mean that every combat encounter should make a Rogue who dumped Str as successful as a Barbarian, and not every non-combat encounter should make a Fighter with 7 int as successful as a Bard. But most encounters should be designed so that a Rogue with 14 Str can participate and a fighter with 14 Cha and a trait can as well.

The game is designed to limit the number of out of combat skills martial characters have, that's a constraint scenario writers need to work with in order to keep those players involved. After all, if I'm building a fighter with 14 Cha, I'm sacrificing a quarter of my potential combat stats in order to be well rounded enough to take part in the non-combat portion of the game. If the writers don't reward that investment, they're punishing me simply for playing a fighter and next time I won't even bother with trying to be well rounded.

John Compton wrote:


Is this to say that challenges such as those in The Blakros Matrimony and Library of the Lion, which call on all of the PCs to attempt skill checks, are well received? I ask this regarding the structure of the challenges and not quite so much the particular blend of skills involved.

I've run 4-5 tables of The Blakros Matrimony and The Merchant's Wake, and each time the players had fun with the skill mechanics. The overall mechanics and narrative of influencing people at a party multiple times were not necessarily universally enjoyed, but the mechanic of "Use diplomacy at DC A or use this other skill at DC B<A, and you get a bonus for each n you exceed the DC by" was well received.

The good things about those scenarios are:


  • Diplomacy was always useful. So, if you have limited skill resources, and pick diplomacy as the one or two skills you can heavily invest in, you got to contribute in a meaningful way.
  • Other skills provided alternative ways to get the same result as Diplomacy. One of my players went from accepting that The Merchant's Wake wasn't going to be a particularly good scenario for her PC to being a rock star when she found out she could use Profession: Pastry Chef (which her character's RP was entirely based around) to advance the group's goals.
  • Heavy investment in a skill paid off. One of my times through The Blakros Matrimony, the Dervish Dancer Bard carried the group and _almost_ singlehandedly assured the party got the maximum number of boons.
  • A modest investment in a common skill was still valuable. One of my Merchant's Wake groups succeeded in getting all the boons/influences despite not having a single "face" type character. Three or four of them had at least a couple points in Diplomacy, and through carefully applying their skills managed to successfully influence everyone they could.

The philosophy behind how skills were used in these scenarios is exactly how I think it should be done: A small number of core skills are always useful, allowing characters with limited resources to contribute. Bonuses are given to characters with very high scores in some skills, but characters with more modest scores (though not untrained) can still consistently contribute beyond assisting. A broad range of skills are available to be used in a way that is complementary or parallel to those core skills, but not instead of them.

<Implementing the philosophy in unique mechanics, narratives and situations is bound to be tough and not universally successful. But I laud the effort made so far trying to do new things and will continue supporting even the failures to encourage the risk taking necessary to develop new cool things.>

Imagine Blakros Matrimony if you took out the option to use Diplomacy, Bluff or Intimidate because those skills are over represented. How many groups would be successful? Even skill monkey PCs like Bards and Rogues would be of limited use. How would you feel if you played a Fighter or Barbarian and invested a significant portion of your available skills, along with some stats that aren't even useful to you in combat, to be a well rounded character: How would you react to the writers effectively saying "No matter how hard you try to be well rounded, we're going to write scenarios that just don't let you participate unless you pick a certain class."

The goal is not for "scenario writers to make it easy for fighters to solve puzzles." The goal is to write scenarios so that players who spend at least some effort to participate outside of combat have a chance to, regardless of their class.

Scarab Sages 4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

As an aside to the aside, I've often wondered why more skill checks within a scenario don't work like the skill checks during the briefing. What I mean is, you'll often run into "Make a DC 25 Know(history) check" to know some obscure fact about a tomb or whatever. I'd like to see more scenarios where, within the actual scenario, it's make a Know (history) check. On a DC 15, you know x, on a DC 20, you know y, DC 25 z, DC 30 everything else. I believe Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment has some of that going on, which is a reason among many that it's one of my favorite scenarios. I think at least one season 6 scenario does so, too.

Those graduated successes allow me, as a GM, to make characters with the second or third best skill check at the table feel more involved. Say someone has a +5, someone is +10, and someone is +20. Totals of 15, 20, and 30 on their take 10s or their average rolls. I can turn to the player with the 15 and say, "You know this," them turn to the player with the 20 and say, "You know know this additional fact," and finally turn to the player with the 30 and say, "You know these other things." Sure, if only the player with the 30 rolled, they'd know just as much, but this way I can keep everyone involved. And, if you end up with a group with only a +5 in the skill, they can still get a little information.

I'm sure page count has a lot to do with why it's not more common.

Paizo Employee 4/5 Developer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ferious Thune wrote:

As an aside to the aside, I've often wondered why more skill checks within a scenario don't work like the skill checks during the briefing. What I mean is, you'll often run into "Make a DC 25 Know(history) check" to know some obscure fact about a tomb or whatever. I'd like to see more scenarios where, within the actual scenario, it's make a Know (history) check. On a DC 15, you know x, on a DC 20, you know y, DC 25 z, DC 30 everything else. I believe Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment has some of that going on, which is a reason among many that it's one of my favorite scenarios. I think at least one season 6 scenario does so, too.

Those graduated successes allow me, as a GM, to make characters with the second or third best skill check at the table feel more involved. Say someone has a +5, someone is +10, and someone is +20. Totals of 15, 20, and 30 on their take 10s or their average rolls. I can turn to the player with the 15 and say, "You know this," them turn to the player with the 15 and say, "You know know this additional fact," and finally turn to the player with the 30 and say, "You know these other things." Sure, if only the player with the 30 rolled, they'd know just as much, but this way I can keep everyone involved. And, if you end up with a group with only a +5 in the skill, they can still get a little information.

I'm sure page count has a lot to do with why it's not more common.

It's something that I imagine authors could use more often. As you note, doing this for every skill check begins to eat up a lot of word count, but doing it for a handful of checks is a possibility.

The Exchange 3/5

Joseph Kellogg wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
The Disappeared was actually the culprit I had in mind with "splitting up makes sense, but it doesn't work". The punishment for creative thinking actually causes that scenario to reinforce the "murderhobo" mindset, IMO.

We didn't fail because of splitting up or "creative thinking." We failed because you locked yourself in a room with the only key (ignoring my protests), then aggro'd a fight by yourself.

I told you I wasn't going to let you live that down.

As I remember it he was a little to eager to show off the new crane style buildand it worked for the first 6 or 7 rounds, then not so much.

The Exchange 3/5

John Compton wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:

As an aside to the aside, I've often wondered why more skill checks within a scenario don't work like the skill checks during the briefing. What I mean is, you'll often run into "Make a DC 25 Know(history) check" to know some obscure fact about a tomb or whatever. I'd like to see more scenarios where, within the actual scenario, it's make a Know (history) check. On a DC 15, you know x, on a DC 20, you know y, DC 25 z, DC 30 everything else. I believe Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment has some of that going on, which is a reason among many that it's one of my favorite scenarios. I think at least one season 6 scenario does so, too.

Those graduated successes allow me, as a GM, to make characters with the second or third best skill check at the table feel more involved. Say someone has a +5, someone is +10, and someone is +20. Totals of 15, 20, and 30 on their take 10s or their average rolls. I can turn to the player with the 15 and say, "You know this," them turn to the player with the 15 and say, "You know know this additional fact," and finally turn to the player with the 30 and say, "You know these other things." Sure, if only the player with the 30 rolled, they'd know just as much, but this way I can keep everyone involved. And, if you end up with a group with only a +5 in the skill, they can still get a little information.

I'm sure page count has a lot to do with why it's not more common.

It's something that I imagine authors could use more often. As you note, doing this for every skill check begins to eat up a lot of word count, but doing it for a handful of checks is a possibility.

I would like to knowledge check results in stat blocks for the more complex bad guys. Sometimes after base creature, template, class levels, etc it can be difficult to even figure out what check to make, let alone the results for unique creatures. Love the recent improvements.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

John Compton wrote:
Is this to say that challenges such as those in The Blakros Matrimony and Library of the Lion, which call on all of the PCs to attempt skill checks, are well received? I ask this regarding the structure of the challenges and not quite so much the particular blend of skills involved.

I haven't played Blakros Matrimony yet, but I did like LotL a lot. LotL did a couple of things in conjunction that made it work;

- Characters without the ideal skills could still contribute because of the generous Aid Another mechanic, where the highest die roll got the bonuses from everyone else who succeeded at the check. I think that one is a good mechanic for team efforts that don't require an a priori "primary". (Unlike Diplomacy in most cases, I think.)

- There were riddles and a cipher in play as well, so the scenario wasn't just a matter of a character having the right numbers. Players were also challenged to puzzle, mirroring perhaps the experience that their characters were going through at the same time.

- The things you should/shouldn't do in order to maintain cover kept you alert. You had to actively think about what not to do, and when to put in extra effort, to get good results.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

John Compton wrote:


Is this to say that challenges such as those in The Blakros Matrimony and Library of the Lion, which call on all of the PCs to attempt skill checks, are well received? I ask this regarding the structure of the challenges and not quite so much the particular blend of skills involved.

Those are two of my favorite modules, especially Matrimony. I think mechanics where the party pretty much needs to split up and then pass skill checks are very healthy. I remember back when I played Matrimony, we didn't have a "face" character, so skill checks were challenging, but a couple of generalists in the party really helped pull the party through.

On the other hand, I hate chase scenes as a mechanic, even though I do support the effort at incorporating those skill checks and making many skills important for each character in the party.

1/5

John Compton wrote:
It's something that I imagine authors could use more often. As you note, doing this for every skill check begins to eat up a lot of word count, but doing it for a handful of checks is a possibility.

Let me also say this while not a high social adventure I consider 4-20 Words of the ancient to contain the coolest RP encounter in the game. It eats a HUGE word count but it's done so well with that part of the adventure. It represents what I'd love to see in more high level adventures. A consequence for failure but not an auto fail.

Silver Crusade 4/5 5/55/55/5 RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8

Jiggy wrote:
The more you make in-game results contingent on the player rather than the character, the less of a roleplaying game it becomes.

It seems to me that the reverse is true.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Compton wrote:
Is this to say that challenges such as those in The Blakros Matrimony and Library of the Lion, which call on all of the PCs to attempt skill checks, are well received? I ask this regarding the structure of the challenges and not quite so much the particular blend of skills involved.

I played the Matrimony but not LotL. I would echo what others have said. Amen for explicitly allowing non-diplomacy skills to function in a social situation. Though I recall posts were GMs failed to understand this was the case.

I will throw Scars of the Third Crusade as scenario that didn't go far enough in this direction. But Scars was somewhat problematic for me as a GM because I believe players should always know the mechanics of how their world works for the PCs. Scars and and Matrimony use a subsystem (if I may call it that) but there is no IC way to communicate this to the characters and at least for Scars, simply telling the players how it works seems like it undermines the organic feel of characters doing there thing.

So yeah, I love it when other skills are given value, but I am not fan of subsystems that players can't know about or aren't privy to.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

N N 959 wrote:


So yeah, I love it when other skills are given value, but I am not fan of subsystems that players can't know about or aren't privy to.

I think that a GM can creatively describe the results of a an interaction so that it's clear to the PC's whether something positive came out of it without having to know the underlying system. I didn't find the mechanics of the social system to interfere with things (unlike chase scenes where the mechanics trump the situations and descriptions.) Although it's a slightly different take on the influence system, I'll throw Wardstone Patrol and Horn of Aroden in as adventures I liked for the social skills. I'd have liked to see more variety of skills get used for influence on those as well to make them even better, but I definitely would like to see more adventures with long term interactions like that in the future.

1/5

deusvult wrote:
If a player builds a fighter (or other 2 skill points/level class) with Int as a dump stat, that player should expect to struggle to come up with ways to be relevant in the non-combat encounters. Specialization breeds weakness, and being specialized isn't necessarily a good thing in PFS. It's better to be jacks-of-more-than-one-trade, and that's more or less the assumption from a fluff standpoint. Pathfinder Agents are expected to be well rounded as opposed to one dimensional experts.

I've never seen anything that says what the Society expects from its characters, but the idea that specialization "breeds weakness" is thinly veiled anti-munckin sentiment. Specialization doesn't breed weakness. A party of specialized characters is far more efficient and effective than a group of generalist. This is true in all facets of life, so long as you can fill the functional rolls.

What I assume you are trying to convey is that a group of specialized characters are less robust. And this is true if you are overspecialized. However, In my experience of Season 4 and Season 5 scenarios is that if you don't have some hardcore damage dealers and some high modifier skill monkeys, you can get TPK'd in a heartbeat. The only reason why death tolls aren't a helluva lot higher is that so many GMs softball. I can think of four or five times the scenario I played should have had deaths and the GM contorted/bent the rules/broke the rules to avoid killing players. And I've seen general softballing with maybe a dozen GMs.

Quote:
It's also true from a meta standpoint; you know full well that you've got the possibility of playing at a table without a specialist in whatever niche, and that niche might end up being critical in the upcoming scenario. So plan your character's build accordingly.

This is a double-edged sword. Generalize and when you are teamed with those specialized builds, then you may end up feeling useless or inconsequential.

The other problem with generalizing is that, ime, many scenarios assume a high degree of efficiency in many of those areas. So even if you can do X to some degree, it's not enough barring lucky dice rolls. How do I know? My ranger took Improvisation instead of Deadly Aim and there isn't a skill check I don't attempt.

Quote:
If one wants to build a character that can crush one dimension of the game, great. Don't expect sympathy when one has little to do in the rest of the game, that's my stance

I have a combat-focused Barbarian (I know, I'm a maverick) and I'm happy to do nothing until combat. In fact, because I know I am going to dominate combat, I intentionally leave all the social checks to others.

Quote:
Make some non-optimized choices like multiclassing that fighter for more skills.

I seriously hope you're wrong that PFS expects fighters to multi-class to be successful. In fact, I'd hope the opposite were true. Everyone being a generalist is actually worse for the game based on how I see the scenarios written. The scenarios want players to shine at different times and that's easier if they specialize/focus on one or two functional roles rather than a bunch of them.

The real problem is the contrived nature of how PFS groups are put together. Others have spoken on this. In real life, there is no way you send a bunch of Barbarians to the Blakros matrimony, or any matrimony in a city. One of the first rules I learned when fixing my car is you use the right tool for the job. Use the wrong tool and you can cause more damage. PFS missions should be no different, but OOC, that doesn't seem to be an option.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Robert Thomson wrote:


I think that a GM can creatively describe the results of a an interaction so that it's clear to the PC's whether something positive came out of it without having to know the underlying system.

I haven't seen a GM do it.

The problem isn't getting feedback, the problem is that you've changed the rules of the game without telling the player. Players know that Diplomacy works like X. Suddenly, without any warning, Diplomacy now works like Y'2. That's not fair to the players.

Quote:
I'll throw Wardstone Patrol and Horn of Aroden in as adventures I liked for the social skills. I'd have liked to see more variety of skills get used for influence on those as well to make them even better, but I definitely would like to see more adventures with long term interactions like that in the future.

When I played Aroden, the players had no idea how to resolve it through anything other than Diplomacy and Intimidate and I we never figured out how it as suppose to work to any degree other than rolling Diplo when the GM told us to.

I've GM'd Wardstone twice. While players often figure out what they want to do, they are thrown off by the mechanics. While I actually like what is done in Wardstone, it would help the players immensely if they know a priori that such interaction is a functional option.

1/5

Jiggy wrote:
I think part of the issue with Perception being so strong is that authors often misuse it.

It's funny. When I read the OP, this was actually the first thing I thought of. But then reading your post, I saw the problem differently. First, it's art not science that determines whether you want someone to make a Perception check.

Secondly, I don't think the call for Perception checks are as contrived as you suggest. Why? Because in many of the situations where it takes a DC 15 to find the papers in the drawer, any character can find them by Taking 20. So in many cases the character simply has to indicate a desire to search for anything of significance.

Quote:
This is partly by having it cover things that really shouldn't need a check to perceive, but should need some other check to recognize the significance of

Whether this is true in any individual case, a character has to first see the small red gem on the red carpet before she can determine if its colored glass or a precious stone. But I agree that if I'm looking at a bunch of random books, it shouldn't be a Perception check to determine if any one of them is worth something.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not about the quantity of skill checks in a scenario, it's about the quality of skill checks in a scenario.

To me, RPGs are all about the stories you share years later about your characters' exploits.

I honestly can't think of anyone who recalls their numerous Perception or Knowledge check rolls in Library of Lion with any fondness. Maybe a year later, someone remembers that their character "made a lot of those checks", but those checks don't really rate in their Top 10 (or probably even Top 100) RPG memories.

In that sense, I don't know if adventures calling for more skill checks from varied skills is an improvement.

Now what generates amazing "beer stories" years later? Creative out-of-the-box usage of skills to achieve scenario goals.

There's a local gamer who's playing a skill-starved melee type but who has maximized her ranks in Profession (waffle chef). I can recall her playing Shadow's Last Stand II, but instead of making Diplomacy checks to gather information all around town, she set up a waffle stand on the docks and distributed flyers throughout the town advertising free waffles. I had her make "waffle chef" rolls instead of Diplomacy rolls to gather all the information that the scenario would normally have required Diplomacy checks for, and the rest of her party participated by finding skills to assist in this plan (creatively designing the flyers, handing them out, questioning people in the line since it was quite long, etc).

I also recall running Siege of the Diamond City, and instead of using Sense Motive to find a "traitor in the midst" in one of the scenes, she brewed up a batch of waffles using holy water, and once again I allowed the check the scenario called for (Sense Motive again?) to be a Profession (waffle chef) check to determine just how effective the holy waffles would be in helping expose the evil outsider who consumed them.

Now, I'd like to think these memories rate up highly among the folks who were at these tables because they were crazy out-of-the-box hijinx. Adventures that enable these (mostly due to sandbox-type natures) are the ones that are better enabled to be fond memories for players years or decades later.

In this sense, the GM possesses the real power to enable a table to do more with non-traditional skill checks (beyond Perception + Diplomacy). The more GMs who are permissive in creative skill substition, the more the broader player base will feel empowered to put ranks elsewhere for highly-rewarded creative gaming versus traditional robotic/automatic Perc+Diplo play, where their successful rolls are essentially forgotten a month or two later.

To further cap this, I recall playing Scars of the Third Crusade on a druid and wanting to use Speak with Animals and Handle Animal checks to gather clues and contribute to the detective work in that way. To me (and my character), it made more sense to question honest animals (ravens, rats, etc) than to talk to townsfolk who may or may not be truthful or who may get skittish based on being questioned. In my play-through, the GM unfortunately told me that those weren't skills that the scenario would allow and instead asked me to simply roll untrained Diplomacy checks to talk to people in town. I'm not saying this was right or wrong, but I do believe the more that scenarios enable creative GMing, the better the "skill experience" will be for players.

In some sense, I think the sum of this post could really be captured with a paragraph or two in the Guide to Organized Play entitled "Creatively Substiting Skill Checks" that guides all GMs. Then every single printed scenario wouldn't need to waste word count (although it's really not that many words, but still...) on detailing how a Nobility or History check could be used to gain certain knowledge. They could instead call out something like "a Diplomacy check or equivalent creative skill check..." which would tip off GMs to refer to the single printed creative skill usage section in the guide.

This single GM style difference leads to wide table variation. It's why I'd like to think my Destiny of Sands I table had a blast doing the tasks, while I hear other tables had woeful experiences because they were shoehorned into a very specific method of skill use.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

N N 959 wrote:


The problem isn't getting feedback, the problem is that you've changed the rules of the game without telling the player. Players know that Diplomacy works like X. Suddenly, without any warning, Diplomacy now works like Y'2. That's not fair to the players.

I do get that. I do try to give plenty of advanced warning if there are any custom mechanics in a module in advance (not during the mod.) This includes things like preparing defenses of villages, army combat, troops rules, influence points, chase scenes, etc. Not all GM's in our area do that, but a number of the more experienced GM's are good about giving a heads up on that kind of thing, and giving guidance on appropriate character types that are more likely to be successful. (Our VC still ends up with characters with no social skills every time he plays a social event!)

Liberty's Edge 4/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

N N 959 wrote:


I've GM'd Wardstone twice. While players often figure out what they want to do, they are thrown off by the mechanics. While I actually like what is done in Wardstone, it would help the players immensely if they know a priori that such interaction is a functional option.

I gave heads up on influence mechanics being used in both when I GMed them, without fully explaining the mechanics. They knew that their actions would affect the outcomes. Even knowing that, my first Horn of Aroden group knocked out the NPC from the start, and dragged him around unconscious.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

wakedown wrote:

It's not about the quantity of skill checks in a scenario, it's about the quality of skill checks in a scenario.

I completely agree that creative skill use should be encouraged...to an extent. Too much freedom and it becomes "let me make some odd superskill and figure out how often I can shoehorn it into an adventure." That takes away too much from skill based characters. Striking a good balance of skill allowances is something I haven't seen too often in PFS scenarios though.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hated library of the lion. While scars of the third crusade remains my absolute least favorite pfs scenario, lotl is prety far down there too.

lotl boredom:
The scenario consists of sitting on your butts reading books. Everyone roll a bunch of skill checks, OK now roll some more. Wait, let me do some bookkeeping and write this down, OK roll some more. Keep rolling. OK let me add this up. Roll some more. OK congratulations, you rolled enough high numbers to get the good ending, game‘s done.
Can it get more boring that that?? There's a couple of fights that only happen if the PCs goof up, are trivial, and don't add anything to the story.
Still not the worst scenario. At least it let the players drive the action instead of railroading them through a supposed investigative mod where they could only advance the story by screwing up and in the end the big bad just did it cause he felt like it and there was no relevance to anything; the entire plot was just a big waste of time.

Blackrose matrimony was OK, but certainly not one of my favorites. I prefer my RP to be a natural extension of the game, not to be forced down my throat with arbitrary rounds and point system. That scenario was further detracted from by brutally tough encounters. I was going to play a social combat light character until the GM pulled me aside and straight up told me to play my best combat beast so he didn't tpk everyone. As it was we barely survived.

Anyway, all that aside, it's the quality of the story that makes or breaks a scenario. It doesn't matter how good your skill challenge system is, if the story is I sat around reading books for an hour, it's going to be boring no matter what mechanics you give it.

1/5

Robert Thomson wrote:


I gave heads up on influence mechanics being used in both when I GMed them, without fully explaining the mechanics.

Well, I'd certainly be interested to read what you said. IMO, the problem with Wardstone is that the scenario wants the players to figure this out on their own, so if you tell them that there is a different mechanic at work, you're pretty much telling them what they need to do. It's analogous to trying to gage your friends based on whether they buy you a gift for your birthday, but telling them that you're inviting them to a birthday party in your honor.

I also think that telling people about the mechanic undercuts a person's ability to figure out how to solve the problem, "Oh, the Y skill is now used to do X? Gee, I wonder if I should attempt to do X during this scenario."

Certainly not a deal breaker, but something that I think PFS should try to handle with more skill and awareness in the scenario's write-up.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
gnoams wrote:
That scenario was further detracted from by brutally tough encounters. I was going to play a social combat light character until the GM pulled me aside and straight up told me to play my best combat beast so he didn't tpk everyone. As it was we barely survived.

Well, that suggests to me that the author does not expect players to switch out their characters based on scenario. But I agree, it's a real curveball and I didn't like that either. It also ingrained in me the mindset that no matter what the setting is, expect life-threatening combat. So when some scenario actually delivers on the Combat-Lite promise, players are further disappointed.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha

N N 959 wrote:
Robert Thomson wrote:


I gave heads up on influence mechanics being used in both when I GMed them, without fully explaining the mechanics.

Well, I'd certainly be interested to read what you said. IMO, the problem with Wardstone is that the scenario wants the players to figure this out on their own, so if you tell them that there is a different mechanic at work, you're pretty much telling them what they need to do. It's analogous to trying to gage your friends based on whether they buy you a gift for your birthday, but telling them that you're inviting them to a birthday party in your honor.

I also think that telling people about the mechanic undercuts a person's ability to figure out how to solve the problem, "Oh, the Y skill is now used to do X? Gee, I wonder if I should attempt to do X during this scenario."

Certainly not a deal breaker, but something that I think PFS should try to handle with more skill and awareness in the scenario's write-up.

With Wardstone Patrol, I never found it necessary to explain the additional mechanic. Especially because the subsystem doesn't determine success or failure. I don't think it is necessary to provide mechanical details, but as a player I appreciate an outline of my options when a subsystem is in play.

1/5

KingOfAnything wrote:
With Wardstone Patrol, I never found it necessary to explain the additional mechanic. Especially because the subsystem doesn't determine success or failure.

You can't get full PP or one of the faction boons with failure under the subsystem.

Quote:
I don't think it is necessary to provide mechanical details, but as a player I appreciate an outline of my options when a subsystem is in play.

Sure, you just keep asking for skill rolls and prod the players along. But the basis under which the skill check is functioning isn't part of the rules and it should be. In fact, you can't even do what the scenario wants you to do in the way the scenario wants it done normally. Again, I like what the Wardstone does. I wish that's they way the skill worked. But the Core rules say the skill specifically can't be used in that manner and that's what's unfair to the player.

PFS should deal with this better. If the scenario wants to change the rules on how something works, then tell the players. Would it be fair to change how the 5' step rule works in combat and not tell the players? Why is this any different?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:
A few things I do as a GM to deal with extant scenarios that encourage what I perceive as skill specialization born of meta considerations (in other words, if I have players' characters possessing reasonably rounded skills, these managing techniques aren't necessary):

This sounds like you mean "I arbitrarily change the rules to punish players for investing character resources in skills I don't like players being good at."

Quote:
Knowledge/Local in pre-adventuring legwork: Even though K/Local usually gives the info anyway, I ask for the other specified knowledge skills first. Only after those are resolved do I admit "ok, everyone with local roll.." to see if a better result pops up.

Meh, as long as you actually let them use the skill, even if you do make them jump through hoops first.

Quote:


Perception (searches): I don't let the one guy with +23 to Perception "search the whole room" for the party. I encourage each player to pick an area or aspect of the room to search, and only the player(s) who picked the area for a hidden thing even get to roll a meaningful check. I even reward people who cleverly deduce where to search based on the box text to find without even having to roll. Way to go gamer, listen to the clues and don't rely on a skill bonus to do your thinking for you. You automatically succeed even if you had a +0 to Perception b/c you searched in the right place and there it was.

"Hahaha, you invested skill points in Perception, what a fool! I have arbitrarily decided that it has nothing to do with your character's abilities and everything to do with you the player guessing the correct square! The 7 wis barbarian found it because his player is better at guessing than your rogue! Screw the rules, I'm the GM!"

So much for actually trying to do something my character is good at (assuming I'm playing a high perception character). I find heavy handed crap like this seriously frustrating when I'm a player. Just ruins the whole game for me.

Quote:
Diplomacy: I don't let the dice roll until the roleplay resolves a natural decision point for the NPC, and only people who have been roleplaying even get to touch a die for the test or assist. Sure, some players are naturally introverted and shouldn't be barred from playing faces.. that's a consideration on a case by case basis and is always (not usually, always) obvious right up front.

"You will play the game my way or not at all." Gotcha.

Do you tell players you like to ignore the rules before the game starts, or do you like to keep it as a fun surprise?

Scarab Sages 2/5

wakedown wrote:
I also recall running Siege of the Diamond City, and instead of using Sense Motive to find a "traitor in the midst" in one of the scenes, she brewed up a batch of waffles using holy water, and once again I allowed the check the scenario called for (Sense Motive again?) to be a Profession (waffle chef) check to determine just how effective the holy waffles would be in helping expose the evil outsider who consumed them.

That is a pretty neat idea. Our table

Spoiler:
Used Murderous Command in hoping to have the one who was supposed to be the traitor to not attack the other two. We were able to have one of them smack another, then the crusaders booted us out of the tent for doing something stupid like that =)
Shadow Lodge 4/5

When I run, I try to make it clear before hand that I'm very open to "out of the box" thinking, and often try to explain that if I ask for a ________ check, and circumstances allow for it reasonably, and their character has a bonus or different skill that might work, (again within reason), then by all means, ask. I also try to allow them, but it all comes down to if it's "reasonable" that it could work. If I get the feeling you just want to use your d20+10 rather than your d20+2, then it's probably not going to happen. If you think it's a pretty good chance your dwarf might know a bit more about an obscure Dwarven faith/cult/craftsmanship, then sure, that's possible.

Now, that being said, many of the scenarios mentioned above are amongst my least favorite scenarios. Those I've played or run seemed like very hamfisted attempts to either make classes overly relevant or to railroad the game in "the only one true way of playing". Basically trying to change the system's basic expectations just to make something work. Felt more like getting a participation trophy than actually accomplishing anything. But that's just my opinion.

Making a few other skills or abilities viable is good, but gutting the skill system to either anything goes or introducing a bell curve, in my opinion, robbed the fun, but also a lot of the spotlight for those characters that do focus on certain areas.

It was kind of a similar case with Assault on the Wound when I played it. I had a character that tried to replace a lot of Cha abilities and used other methods to boost my "leadership" abilities like Boons and Vanities, and then literally was forced to use ONLY my Cha. And that's in addition to the complaint that my entire character was just replaced with that one stat for the special rules involved. And I'm not talking about Dervish Dance style things to make a single stat the only one needed, here.

I don't mean that as a complaint as much as to show just how poorly these sorts of arbitrary rules swaps can be if you don't happen to be the right character, metagaming in advance. It isn't at all fun, and even a cool story isn't enough to fix/balance that out, when this sort of, well basically DM/Plot Fiat ruins the experience.

The same way that if a random encounter allowed for anyone to replace their BaB with their Will Save or something, I'd imagine that a lot of the more martial characters would feel robbed, or allowed you to use your Caster Level for Stealth checks. Sure, it allows more classes and builds to be able to win, but it also removes both a great deal of the threat for failure and the value of succeeding, which to me is a very poor trade off.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

N N 959 wrote:
Robert Thomson wrote:


I gave heads up on influence mechanics being used in both when I GMed them, without fully explaining the mechanics.

Well, I'd certainly be interested to read what you said. IMO, the problem with Wardstone is that the scenario wants the players to figure this out on their own, so if you tell them that there is a different mechanic at work, you're pretty much telling them what they need to do. It's analogous to trying to gage your friends based on whether they buy you a gift for your birthday, but telling them that you're inviting them to a birthday party in your honor.

I also think that telling people about the mechanic undercuts a person's ability to figure out how to solve the problem, "Oh, the Y skill is now used to do X? Gee, I wonder if I should attempt to do X during this scenario."

Certainly not a deal breaker, but something that I think PFS should try to handle with more skill and awareness in the scenario's write-up.

Hadn't looked at this thread in a long while, but it was a great discussion, so I'm coming back to it...

My wardstone advice was... how you act and treat people play a big part in how this adventure resolves. Murder-hoboing your way through this one may give suboptimal results. This adventure cares as much about HOW you accomplish things as WHAT you accomplish.

This is the same generic piece of advice I've given on a great number of scenarios. I don't want to spoil the adventure, but I find that amount of advice makes a difference in character selection and some tactics. I still see groups get non-optimal results, but they aren't getting completely blindsided.

I also like to give warnings of chase scenes in modules. I don't give the details, but let them know that this 'may contain chase mechanics'. For a number of players, that's a codeword to just skip that module, although I have to say that chase scenarios have gotten better and better over time. (The season 6 chase was by far the best chase ever, and I had said the same thing about a season 5 chase before that.)

51 to 100 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Skill Imbalances in PFS Scenarios All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.