RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been reading over scenarios and watching reviews come in for Season 7, and thought I'd start a thread where we can talk about the things that make scenarios "good." I'm hoping this can be a resource for scenario authors and developers. If such a thread already exists, I apologize, though I did poke around a little and didn't find anything at first glance.
I think there are actually two separate questions:
From a player's perspective, what makes a PFS scenario good?
From a GM's perspective, what makes a PFS scenario good?
Perhaps also: from a developer's perspective (or Paizo's perspective), what makes a PFS scenario good? (Although the answer is likely some variation of "if the players and GMs think it is good, it is good.")
Please feel free to speak generally or cite specific examples. Let's keep it positive. If anyone else feels the need to start a "what makes a scenario bad?" thread, they're certainly welcome to!
Venture-Agent, Minnesota
|
What TOZ said. Story, setting and RP opportunities are what I'm looking for!
Ironbound Schism did a great job of introducing a locale, and had wonderful RP opportunities mixed with meaningful combat and a good story.
Assault on the Kingdom of the Impossible featured a great plot with entertaining surprises and combats that added to the story.
Overflow Archives -- great NPCs, fun map, fun mystery.
I want to feel like my characters did something, learned something, and furthered society goals while making the world a better place. All these scenarios did all that for me.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
There's no set recipe. A scenario can be good because it has really cool and seriously challenging combats, but a scenario with hardly any combat can also be good.
It's not just about avoiding mistakes. I think to be good, a scenario needs to have some really nice things in it, and not be hamstrung by flaws.
|
As a player, I want to know why I'm doing something. Whether that's the scenario being explicit or the GM being creative, I'm pretty okay with whatever, as long as there's a clear reason.
Compare and contrast Siege of Serpents to Sky Key Solution:
In (the excellent) Siege, right off the bat, the battle is full bore, stuff is happening. There's a sense of immediacy from the get go. Even the noncombat mini-encounters have a sense of forwarding the defense operation.
In (the less strong) Sky Key Solution, we get a fraction of the sense of "why." Kreighton Shauna sends you into the past for...reasons? Curiosity? 'Wander around until you find something' isn't a compelling objective.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
While GMs and players can make a big difference in a scenario (for good or for bad), focusing on the actual content of a scenario seems to be the intention here. My first thoughts, in no particular order, overlapping quite a bit with some comments by others:
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I agree with Daniel, with the nuance that the memorable encounter doesn't necessarily have to be a fight. I'd say that there's one particular NPC in Library of the Lion that should make quite an impression for example.
Recently several scenarios have explicit guidance for the GM on how to reward player cleverness, like "you can award a +5 circumstance bonus to this check if the players come up with especially appropriate arguments" and such. I think that sort of thing is very useful because it rewards player effort, while preserving fairness between tables.
I rather dig the occasional subsystem. Minigames can be fun. I think they work best if they're set up so that (most of) the rules can be put on a handout for the players; by sharing the actual mechanics, players can try to make more informed choices and have more agency.
I also like a well-made puzzle. Writing good puzzles seems to be hard, but I've enjoyed the one in The Disappeared as well as the one in Weapon in the Rift. Immortal Conundrum was a bit too simple but still enjoyable. I've got a rough draft somewhere for a paper on writing good puzzles.
When talking about combat encounters, I especially like the ones that are tactically interesting. Complex rooms with lots of "moving parts", potential cover, alternate routes of attack, hazards to worry about. So much nicer than bumping into enemies in a straightforward room.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM:
Actually taking into account what the PCs are likely to be able to do on that level and giving numbers for it. I don't know how many adventures don't give things like room heights or climb DCs for walls.
In general not having to jump around the scenario to find relevant information. The less there is of "check page 10", the better. It's so easy to lose your place in the document when you have to scroll halfway through it to check things.
Having some kind of twist or unusual character or setting. I love the feeling of waiting to see my players' reactions when they get to that part.
Not too much stuff that only the GM can know. It's annoying when enemies have elaborate backstories but also attack on sight and fight to the death. Please make it likely or at least possible for the players to find these things out.
Unique maps. I happen to like drawing maps, but I know this is a personal preference.
As a player:
Something for everyone to do. Variety, one might say. Not just combat, some skill checks and social encounters too. I like puzzles, but there should be an out for those parties where the players are not puzzle-fans. Like giving them a chance to pass it with skill checks.
No encounters (combat or otherwise) that will be almost impossible without something weirdly specific. The so-called "we need a rogue" -problem does not work in organized play when you can only sometimes know your party composition beforehand.
Locations that tie into the story, and enemies that make sense being there. Even without an explanation that once again, only the GM finds out.
Some unique rewards in the chronicle, boons, items, what have you. I prefer static bonuses, as the one-offs tend to be forgotten and then frantically searched for through the stack of sheets when there's a tough situation.
There more stuff obviously, but these came to my mind as the first ones.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a player, I like to feel like I've made a change in the world. In one specific game, you fight against an influential person. The game sort of expects him to flee, but in case he can't, the game deus ex machinas him out anyway. My players felt really bad when they felt like they've outsmarted the enemy, but it gets wrapped up in the credits anyway.
I also like when I'm involved in the story. Sometimes the story doesn't grip me enough, or sometimes it throws too much information at me. Halfway through the scenario I usually forget what we were told to do. Although I do have a disability where I don't process instructions well enough, so I like to reread in general. I'm better at remembering when I've read something than when I'm told something, so I generally like to read instructions, rather than hear them. Basically, and this is where this ties in with the first point, I want to feel like I'm chosen for a reason. This is difficult to do, but I want to feel like I'm puzzling things out on my own, rather than being told what to do. Older adventures have a tendency to have Venture-Captains dump the plot on us and we need to act it out. I like it when we uncover information halfway through that shakes up the status quo, or things aren't what they seem. I've had adventures where honest mistakes were made, and due to that, things don't unfold as you think they'll go. This could lead to lazy writing where plot holes can be explained away by faulty intelligence or random chance, but I like that the option exist. I've played an adventure where two parties were after the same third party, but it's only apparent when you say a specific thing. Or an adventure where halfway through we got incriminating evidence that suddenly pointed in a different direction. There were some adventures where we directly had an outcome in something, and that's something I like. Most of the time we're ordered to preserve the status quo, but those things are boring. Getting to decide which direction a faction goes to is interesting. Defeating a mook you've never heard of isn't.
In PFS, there certainly are some constraints. There's a lot outside of the scope of the scenarios. I accept those and I tend not to go look for those edges. If you go looking for the boundaries, you'll sort of break your suspension of disbelief. There is some definite string-pulling going on, but I like it when it feels natural and I feel like there aren't any visible strings. There are a lot of city investigations, but you somehow always end up right where you need to be right when something's going on. What a coincidence a brute is picking a fight with the man we need to see right as we enter a random bar. I like dungeon crawls, because they're a naturally closed box. It's a bit weird that monsters sit in their room and wait to be slaughtered, but at least there aren't any coincidences involved.
I like smart writing. I've recently played The Blakros Connection, and I can't shut up about how great it is. It manages to tie several loose story threads together, and as a player (not even necessarily the character) it's incredibly rewarding to see things paying off, or callbacks to previous scenarios suddenly mattering. It sort of started in season 6, I think, but they really amped it up for season 7, I feel. There have always been callbacks to old adventures, but I feel they've been planned out beforehand, or were very obvious about it. But the feeling of discovery, of connecting the dots, feels amazing. School of Spirits heavily referencing Black Waters is a fantastic thing, or Darkest Vengeance/Abduction sharing certain maps, for instance. The Among The Dead/Living/Gods trilogy was a little too spelled out, I feel, and was more a continuation of a storyline, rather than taking an element from it and going in a different direction.
Similarly, and it also ties in with an earlier thing, I like it when we gradually uncover the story, rather than it being thrown at us by the Venture-Captain. A lot of scenarios say "We need thing X, go get it. Here's why we need it." I like investigative scenarios where the entire plot isn't clear to us yet. That doesn't mean we need to go in blind, but a lot of scenarios have the tendency to put their storyline in the conclusion, rather than in the middle and let players piece it together.
Finally, I like memorable things. It could be a setting, an enemy, an NPC, or a puzzle, but I want something I can talk about a week later. I went into a dreamscape several times, I was turned into an undead once, I escorted a girl I've rescued seven years ago, and so on. Hell, I got to know more about our beloved Venture-Captains, which is a great bit of worldbuilding. Everyone likes to give Nigel Aldain a hard time, and he's been in so many situations he's almost comically inept right now, but I like him as a storytelling tool. His missions are always memorable.
And again, Blakros Connection ticks off all these criteria. I did something I feel like will have major repercussions later on. It tied several story threads together and produced a cool villain seemingly out of nowhere, but with a definite basis in the Society's past. It delivered on giving us a memorable challenge and led us through the adventure in a logical fashion without handholding. We were amazed at how the story folded out before us, but we didn't feel like it came out of nowhere. There wasn't a lot of need to interact with things outside the scenario, but like Mad Max Fury Road, it didn't need a deep, involved story with lots of sidetracks. The story's simple and elegant (though with a surprising amount of hidden layers), and everything's focused on telling that specific story. No need to name NPCs that you'll never meet or care for again.
So, what makes a scenario good? Simplicity, elegance, memorability.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me (As a GM) it is one very specific thing that makes a scenario great: Well-communicated consequence of failure.
For example: VC x tells you to do y. He also lets you know that if you do not complete the task within a certain frame, or only partially manage to do so, or wrongly so, it will have dire consequences for the world and perhaps even the difficulty of the rest of the mission.
I've found this to be one of the best motivators for emotional investment in players, because it ties most types of players together: the metagamers know they'll be missing out on prestige, the powergamers know that there is some kind of "maximum achievable success" and the roleplayers will have good reason to prevent said disaster from happening to their world. This makes the core tenets of the society much easier to uphold because players have a good reason to work together from the get-go and it will establish a belief that they will find common ground to achieve success.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I did a lot of research on this subject before, between, and after writing my two scenarios (which mostly involved reading reviews, talking to players and GMs, actually playing and running scenarios, and sometimes just reading scenarios for inspiration). The comments above sound very familiar to me; a lot of reviews mention these things as something that the scenarios did a good job at or were lacking in.
A few things off the top of my head I appreciate as a player, GM, and designer:
* Variety in the types of encounters, creatures, and tactics used.
* Lots of skill use, including some of the less popular skills (anyone who's played either of my scenarios probably noticed I like skills)
* Exposing the backstory to the players, usually through skill checks or dialogue
* The players' actions affect later parts of the scenario, and the players are also made aware of it
* Surprises, twists, using classic monsters in a new way; also, occasionally letting monsters be more than just monsters (looking at you, basilisk)
* Jaw-droppingly gorgeous maps with interesting terrain for some cinematic action (why design an encounter area that is just a bunch of 20x20 ft. boxes?)
* Roleplaying opportunities
* Challenging combat encounters
All of the above are something I consciously try to inject into the adventures I design, and they're what I hope to see when playing PFS.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM:
- Maps I can draw easily and don't require excessive diagonal movement. There have been many scenarios where I have unleashed a swarm of expletives about the cartographers due to hallways on 45 degree angles, excessive circular features, etc. If I can draw it easily, that's more time to prep the more important stuff.
- Accessible story for the players. I HATE having the story completely hidden from the players when it comes to monsters, traps, etc. One of the most satisfying moments in Emerald Spire is discovering a note in floor 2 because it explains everything to the players about the floor. Hats off to you, Addington.
- NPCs with rational and compelling personalities. "He's got nothing to lose, so he fights to the death" is very common morale in scenarios, which is unfortunate. Hellknight's Feast has some excellent writing on this front.
- Planning for the inevitable derailing written in. My post in the To Scale The Dragon GM thread covers this in full spoilery detail, but the short version is that not every party stays on the railroad tracks and sometimes that negatively impacts later parts of the scenario (i.e. scene 5 shouldn't happen if scene 3 doesn't occur as planned because reasons). Tell us what should happen, then.
As a player:
- Actual moral dilemmas, which we've seen a lot more of recently than in older scenarios. Twisted Circle was AMAZING here. These moral dilemmas are a fantastic source of roleplaying opportunities.
- Combats that make sense for the locale.
- NPCs that are interesting enough to merit learning their ridiculous names. Seriously.
- Puzzles designed for characters instead of players. I get really annoyed if the expectation is that I do a cipher on the side or the color puzzle is obviously ROYGBIV.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
I did a lot of research on this subject before, between, and after writing my two scenarios (which mostly involved reading reviews, talking to players and GMs, actually playing and running scenarios, and sometimes just reading scenarios for inspiration). The comments above sound very familiar to me; a lot of reviews mention these things as something that the scenarios did a good job at or were lacking in.
A few things off the top of my head I appreciate as a player, GM, and designer:
* Variety in the types of encounters, creatures, and tactics used.
* Lots of skill use, including some of the less popular skills (anyone who's played either of my scenarios probably noticed I like skills)
* Exposing the backstory to the players, usually through skill checks or dialogue
* The players' actions affect later parts of the scenario, and the players are also made aware of it
* Surprises, twists, using classic monsters in a new way; also, occasionally letting monsters be more than just monsters (looking at you, basilisk)
* Jaw-droppingly gorgeous maps with interesting terrain for some cinematic action (why design an encounter area that is just a bunch of 20x20 ft. boxes?)
* Roleplaying opportunities
* Challenging combat encountersAll of the above are something I consciously try to inject into the adventures I design, and they're what I hope to see when playing PFS.
Exactly this. Although not so much on the maps, not everyone draws as well and sometimes it doesn't translate to marker-on-flipmat. Otherwise, you hit all the high notes, and it all boils down to one thing: variety. I like scenarios where we go all in guns blazing, but having nothing but monsters thrown at us gets boring surprisingly fast. Switching it up with roleplay, puzzles, and skill checks makes it feel less of a meat grinder. Exposing story throughout the adventure also keeps us motivated.
Putting people in new situations (either through twists of narrative or by using different monsters) makes for a less boring encounter. I just finished a scenario where the main tactic was "rush at the players without any spells as backup." Naturally, we decimated them and by the third encounter of this nature we got bored. In one scenario I GMed, the party cornered a Sorcerer and thought they had her. Until she grabbed a swordbreaker dagger and started to disarm people with surprising efficiency. It wasn't enough to save her, but my players were baffled for a moment. I also remember the adventure that combined Shocker Lizards and a Shambling Mound fondly.Also, I apologise for any possible weirdness in my previous post. It was 3 in the morning and I wasn't entirely lucid anymore. The second paragraph could've been worded way better.
Also also, I loved your Ancients' Anguish, Serpent!
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are a lot of points we all agree on. But even if something is written superbly, something I like as flavor, might not appeal to another.
What I like a lot in a scenario, is room for a GM to improvise. If players do A, B happens. That is defined. But if they dont do A, I have room to pick a logical option, that I also would think is the most fun for the players, or let a single player shine.
Half defined consequences, and paths in a scenario are creative killers. You are stuck with RAW, but when RAW leaves you with just enough vague choices that you cant really make something of them, its just not going to work.
For example:
One of my favorite scenarios is Tide of Twilight.
When they reach the village, its empty, save for a wolfman pack. Its clearly defined in the scenario, they have by now lost their human speech, and cant communicate with the normal players.
However, nothing is defined for the beast players. Every time so far that I have run this, someone got the wolf template. I let the wolf players communicate with the pack, and fight the leader for alpha status. This has resulted in some cool one on one combat, where the player have become the alpha of the pack. It doesnt give them real benefits (the pack doesnt help after they leave the village), but its a great moment to shine, do something different and have a player feel like the star.
The players that were the wolf have all let me know it was one of their best moments.
That is what I like in a scenario. Freedom to make something great, and tailor it a bit to what I know I have at my table.
|
|
The encounters match the scenario
The encounters further the plot: they're interlinked
The encounters make sense for the location (No vikings in a pyramid)
The encounters bring out the backstory (I don't know how many scenarios have 4 pages of background that the players are NEVER going to interact with)
The players have some narrative choice
Interesting things to interact with, somehow. Either a fun NPC or a weird situation are both fine.
|
|
I think it is impossible to say what makes one good and anothe rnot good. Like below BigNorseWolf posted some rules. But knowing the rules can allow you to break them.
The encounters match the scenario
The encounters further the plot: they're interlinked
The encounters make sense for the location (No vikings in a pyramid)
The encounters bring out the backstory (I don't know how many scenarios have 4 pages of background that the players are NEVER going to interact with)
The players have some narrative choice
Interesting things to interact with, somehow. Either a fun NPC or a weird situation are both fine.
For example I remember a very fun scenario where in a pyramid like place I did encounter viking like people. And it was fun!
So I would strongly argue rules or specifics do not make greta scenarios.
I would argue that some DMs have great skills with specific things. A scenario(and party at the table) that allows the DMs strengths to shine are what make great scenarios. Or a scenario that gives the DMs the tools to develop/learn those skills.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly this. Although not so much on the maps, not everyone draws as well and sometimes it doesn't translate to marker-on-flipmat. Otherwise, you hit all the high notes, and it all boils down to one thing: variety. I like scenarios where we go all in guns blazing, but having nothing but monsters thrown at us gets boring surprisingly fast. Switching it up with roleplay, puzzles, and skill checks makes it feel less of a meat grinder. Exposing story throughout the adventure also keeps us motivated.
Putting people in new situations (either through twists of narrative or by using different monsters) makes for a less...
I admit I probably like maps more than most people. I should add, though, that ease of use is more important than anything else. Ideally, a map is both easy to draw and contains interesting terrain and shapes. In my opinion, the trick is to include just enough diagonal or circular walls and objects to break to monotony of boxiness and perfect symmetry, but not one bit more. More importantly, the map should contain some special terrain (cover, concealment, difficult terrain, objects you can break/topple over, etc.) but here, too, "just enough" is important.
Also, I'm glad to hear you liked Ancients' Anguish. :)
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, let me try this again. There are many things that can "make" a scenario for me.
Exotic Locations
As Pathfinders we love to travel to the weird corners of Golarion to see what's there. To really carry this off, what happens there should really exploit that location; it wouldn't make as much sense elsewhere. This is what I really love about The Segang Expedition; you're going to a Vudran outpost for a safari with gun-toting aristocrats from Alkenstar. There, you visit a temple to a deity to obscure that I as a player hadn't previously heard of it. Along the way you run into several monsters I hadn't expected to ever see in an adventure.
Twisted Circle also tries for this (with a bit less success I think), presenting the odd backwater town where you expect all the people to be weird.
Talking Points
Occasionally you get to talk with highly placed people about big politics. If your PC has been around for a while and has toppled a few regimes here or already lead some armies this can be great. I enjoyed GMing the talk between the high priestess of Abadar and the PC pirate captain in Returned To Sky, or my own efforts during the Hellknights' Feast to sway Absalom's high and mighty to back the war effort in the Worldwound.
What distinguished these scenarios from some other "influence" scenarios I've played, was that there were a lot of topics of discussion available. We had previous adventures we could refer to and people we've met earlier we could reference. And the NPCs had enough background to actually sustain such a conversation, instead of cutting to a Diplomacy check after a few sentences and then moving on.
Regime Change
As an adventurer, it can be pretty awesome to show up to a place, figure out the person in charge is evil, and actually take him/her down and liberate the place. My paladin has taken down a raskshasa "undying empress" and an efreeti tyrantess in the name of truth, justice and the Sarenite way.
Creepy Locations
Some scenarios have locations that really manage to set a tone and keep it up. I like how weird and creep the Hall of the Flesh Eaters is (and how true to the flesh-eating theme). Black Waters and School of Spirits have very strong ambience. When you start figuring out what's going on in the Golemworks Incident you have this mounting sense of just how wrong it all is, and you're still walking in deeper...
Funny
Prince of Augustana is pretty campy and of course rather dated. But it's also a classic sewer romp with quite a few comedy moments. Frostfur Captives is also likely to have its share of follies.
Blood Under Absalom is very much like a Mortal Combat video game, but that cheesy campy stuff is fun too.
Revenge
After all the trouble Tancred Desimire's caused, it's certainly nice to go after him and make him pay for it. Few things motivate players like taking revenge against NPCs that they've been slighted by in the past.
As a special example: the boss in Serpents Rise :P
Really Nasty Villains
Taking down an idiot who's sitting in a basement waiting for you to come and kill him? Meh.
But some villains really manage to showcase how much they need killing. I'm looking at you, Haunting of Hinojai, and you, Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment. We've seen what you did to those people, and you're going to pay.
Interesting NPCs
Not necessarily people you fight, but with which you get to have some extended interaction or alliance. My favourite would be someone from the Traitor's Lodge :)
Epic Fights
Conquering the Storval Stairs in the name of Abadar and free trade against any and all comers. Fighting my way out of the belly of a purple worm. Defeating a serious dragon. Fighting off an OP third party super-hellhound. Our mammoths vs. their mammoths/T-rex/demons. Gorillazilla vs. Mecha Azlanti.
Unusual, Tactically Neat Fights
If the PCs underestimate the terrain in the final room of Storming the Diamond Gate, well, hope they've got some Prestige stacked up. Battling our way up the steps in Legacy of the Stonelords was the elegantly set up mass combat I've seen so far in a special.
Planned Fights
Most of the time, you're going into a building with little idea of what to expect. But sometimes you know enemies are coming and you get to fortify, or you have good intelligence on where you're going and can actually come up with a plan. I do love me a good gearing-up montage. When we launched our assault on the dam in Ironbound Schism, it was perfect. Our ambush in Storval Stairs was fun to prep, even though we were counter-ambushed as well.
Perfect difficulty scaling
Maybe I've just been scarred by some really bad scaling (I'm looking at you, My Enemy's Enemy), but I was extremely impressed by the precision with which Returned To Sky does it's 4-player scaling. Perfectly preserves the main cool features of the encounter, while balancing the action economy of the fight to the group size.
---
There's quite a few more things that can really make a scenario great of course, but it's long past time for lunch :P
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I admit I probably like maps more than most people. I should add, though, that ease of use is more important than anything else. Ideally, a map is both easy to draw and contains interesting terrain and shapes. In my opinion, the trick is to include just enough diagonal or circular walls and objects to break to monotony of boxiness and perfect symmetry, but not one bit more. More importantly, the map should contain some special terrain (cover, concealment, difficult terrain, objects you can break/topple over, etc.) but here, too, "just enough" is important.
Also, I'm glad to hear you liked Ancients' Anguish. :)
I think the trick with diagonals/round edges is to make it that any square is at least 70% free or covered, and to pay attention to corners, so that it's not ambiguous whether you can stand on it or 5ft step around its corner. Moving a diagonal wall just a quarter-inch to the side can turn an awkward map into a really nice map.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the trick with diagonals/round edges is to make it that any square is at least 70% free or covered, and to pay attention to corners, so that it's not ambiguous whether you can stand on it or 5ft step around its corner. Moving a diagonal wall just a quarter-inch to the side can turn an awkward map into a really nice map.I admit I probably like maps more than most people. I should add, though, that ease of use is more important than anything else. Ideally, a map is both easy to draw and contains interesting terrain and shapes. In my opinion, the trick is to include just enough diagonal or circular walls and objects to break to monotony of boxiness and perfect symmetry, but not one bit more. More importantly, the map should contain some special terrain (cover, concealment, difficult terrain, objects you can break/topple over, etc.) but here, too, "just enough" is important.
Also, I'm glad to hear you liked Ancients' Anguish. :)
Very much agreed! A lot of maps suffer from this problem. Diagonals at 45 degrees, going from grid intersection to another are the fastest and easiest to draw, but annoying as heck esp. in PFS where you're not supposed to have too much table variation. I never use them in my maps. You're right about moving a diagonal wall (though I think half-inch works better), but that makes them much slower to draw. I actually prefer diagonal walls like this. ( | is grid line between two squares)
oooo|oo_–
oooo|_–oo
oo_–|oooo
_–oo|oooo
The angle is different, but it combines the benefits of the two options above: drawing from corner to corner through the midpoint of the grid line is fast, but it's also clear whether you can stand on a square or not.
(Yes, I really spend time thinking about things like these. :-D )
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't really figure out your diagram, sorry.
If you want to draw nicely from corner to corner (which is easy and fast) you could also use a 22.5 degree angle instead of 45 degree; that means connecting the corners of two-square rectangles. It can still break the monotony of a strictly "Manhattan" design but all your squares will be covered clearly more OR less than 50%.
When working with published maps, I now default to "if it's not clearly mostly covered, it's open".
When drawing by hand, I manipulate edges a bit to cover things clearly or not, and try to make it look ragged rather than staircase-like.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Lau, I think we're talking about the same thing, I just tried to explain in a needlessly unclear/difficult way. :-)
The diagram is supposed to show a 2-square rectangle with a height of 1 square and width of 2 squares. Or in math speak, it's a right-angled triangle with edge A = 1, edge B = 2, so the diagonal wall (represented by the hyphens) is the hypotenuse (edge C).
(The angle is actually approximately 26.6 degrees.)
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Okay, let me try this again. There are many things that can "make" a scenario for me.
Exotic Locations
As Pathfinders we love to travel to the weird corners of Golarion to see what's there. To really carry this off, what happens there should really exploit that location; it wouldn't make as much sense elsewhere. This is what I really love about The Segang Expedition; you're going to a Vudran outpost for a safari with gun-toting aristocrats from Alkenstar. There, you visit a temple to a deity to obscure that I as a player hadn't previously heard of it. Along the way you run into several monsters I hadn't expected to ever see in an adventure.Twisted Circle also tries for this (with a bit less success I think), presenting the odd backwater town where you expect all the people to be weird. ** spoiler omitted **
Twisted Circle is a bit more interesting because the overarching plot of that one shows up in at least one other scenario. I don't know if it was entirely intentional or not but it was interesting seeing a connection. Admittedly, depending on how you played the scenarios you might never see them but weirdly enough there was one.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to run games much more than play these days, and a lot of that is through Play by Post, so some of the aspects of playing through that medium skew my perspective. So much of this is also going to be for both. For example, a well organized and easy flowing scenario is much more important to me as a GM, but it's also going to show a lot more if I'm playing too, and the GM, (through no fault of their own) is having trouble understanding what's going on or answering basic questions, because the scenario doesn't think to include it.
From a GM's perspective, what makes a PFS scenario good?
* An interesting story that the players have a chance to learn and experience through play. Far too many scenarios are written with much of the explanation and history for DM's only.
* When a scenario is organized well. I shouldn't have to search (on page 19) what happens if the players answer no to something in the first encounter, and then go to page 12 for what happens instead.
* Riddles and puzzles that can both challenge the player an the character.
* Avoiding as much extra snowflake rules (or new books like Occult Adventures rules or the Technology Guide) as possible. If a story can not be told without relying on thee things as mandatory, it's probably not a good enough story, and adding these things does not help, it hurts.
* Scenarios that explore new places.
* Scenarios that make Factions matter. The single biggest selling point I had for PFS was the old Factions. When they where removed as extra side missions and being meaningful, the game lost something. This ties in a lot with the next point. . .
* When scenarios offer options and choices. Not binary ones, or ones that are just the illusion of choice. (Does the party side with person A or person B), but actual meaningful choices where either (or any) option has interesting rewards, penalties, and repercussions.
* Avoiding Sandbox style play. (specifically for online play)
* I'm not a fan of when Scenarios try to even the playing field with Social Skills (mainly), allowing things like a Craft Skill for players that do not have Diplomacy/Intimidate. Would you allow a Wizard to use Int + Caster Level for attack rolls on the chance that a party doesn't have a "tank"? No, then why reward groups/players for not being prepared for a social encounter? There is no difference.
* Avoiding highly social or roleplaying based scenarios. It bogs down play, and tends to make other players tune out and loose interest. Not just "I want to kill stuff" players/characters, but people in general. (specifically for online play)
* When the writer actually gives answers to "if the players ask this. . " that are actually pertinent and something an actual player might ask.
* Small and medium sized maps. A single large one is okay, when I have to draw it out or post it up and it's to the point that you have to zoom in 2 or 3 times (or more) just to see your figure, it's bad, and it can become impossible for some online players (using phones or tablets) to even utilize the map. Avoid!
From a player's perspective, what makes a PFS scenario good?
* I love how a lot of the earlier scenarios had a much more epic feel to play, and sometimes utilized unique rules. (A trap/lock that could be beaten by Intimidate or Channel Energy, a unique freezing curse, etc. . .)
* I enjoy puzzles and riddles. I find them rewarding. The exception being when the only possible way to answer or figure it out is based on something else within the scenario. (A coded note, but no matter what languages you speak or how great your Linguistics, it can only be deciphered with a special Code Key found later).
* I enjoy world exploration and introduction. Going to new locations, or uncommon ones like Ustalav. I'd rather this so much more than any overarching plot, mostly because so far, none of the major plots have been that interesting or engaging. I'm also now tending to find that a lot of those earlier overarching plots just do not hold up.
* When choices and actions matter.
* When I have a chance to find out what's actually going on, what led up to the current situation, etc. . . (even if I fail, the writers foresight into actually incorporating these things as a possibly is great when it happens).
* Scenarios that allow players to shine. Sometimes it's awesome to unleash a fireball that kills all enemies on the spot, or for the warrior to be able to use Cleave, etc. . . Scenarios where it goes out of the way to make classes or options fail or not be usable, (usually as a gimmick), just lead to frustration and feeling railroaded.
* Scenarios that utilize multiple decently powerful BBEG-type foes rather than one big one (and possibly a few minor ones).
* Scenarios that offer a variety of different encounters, challenges, and play-style options.
* Scenarios that anticipate and allow Diplomacy to avoid combat as an option, even if it's difficult.
* A cool Chronicle Sheet, with cool things for a lot of people, and some RP elements. If it's just XP/GP/PP, or more so if 90% of the rewards are there for basically one Class or Faction, it's disappointing.
For the most part, the best and most memorable scenarios in my opinion account for a great combination of much of these.
The Night Marches of Kalkamedes - Offered fun and interesting NPCs, both friendly and not, offered a lot of different challenge types, but also heavily tied them into a single, stand alone adventure that built upon itself. Had an amazing Chronicle Sheet. Had an epic feel, both in the sense of we accomplished something, but also that we where actually a part of something that mattered. Also utilized unique rules, but was not an attempt to shoehorn in a new subsystem book. In my opinion, this is the absolute single best scenario out there. Period.
The God's Market Gamble - An amazing BBEG build up with multiple interesting encounters. An investigation scenario done right (and there are so few of them done well, in my opinion). It also had a strong sense of the party's involvement mattering and some interesting was to learn what was really going on the whole time.
There are also a few Scenarios I outright hate and would avoid at all costs.
Rivalry's End - absolute worst scenario I've ever run/seen. The entire point of this scenario was for the writer to piss of fans that disagreed with them on a Faction or NPC, and it was abundantly clear that the writer ignored everything else involved to push this one through as the worst railroad I've ever seen, outright removing options and forcing events that the characters watch but can not change. It's primary takeaway is that players and DM's walk away actually feeling bad for playing it and disappointed that they where literally not even allowed to do obvious things that make perfect sense to alter what happens.
Scars of the Third Crusade - Too many subsystems, too little variation in encounters, and too many "DM Gottcha's" written into it. One of my main problems though is that it's specifically written to make certain characters NOT Shine just so it can present the very heavily railroaded, whole-filled plot as "meaningful". It was, in some ways, a nice attempt at certain things, but all in all just didn't play well, tended to leave players sitting there twiddling their thumbs, and ended with a less than climactic or memorable battle. I also felt that it really had a lot of challenges that where impossible to fail. No matter what, certain things just happen, just at different times.