|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many players regularly express their desire for ‘hard mode’ options, especially for older scenarios. Rather than creating a separate document offering ‘hard mode’ options for pre-existing scenarios, I propose that we meet the desire for more ‘hard mode’ options with a modular approach that can be added to the Guide. Like hard mode options presented in individual scenarios, the players must unanimously agree to play in hard mode, with the understanding that no additional benefit comes from it.
In scenarios where specific hard mode options are included, those options should be used, rather than these generic options.
Not all of the following options will be applicable to each scenario. The GM is encouraged to select 1-3 options according to the specific scenario.
• If the party would otherwise qualify for the ‘four player’ adjustment, do not make the adjustment.
• If the party qualifies as low tier, play at high tier. The chronicle sheet would still reflect the low tier rewards.
• In encounters with multiple creatures, add the simplified Advanced template to either the primary creature (the ‘boss’) or all of the lesser creatures (the minions).
• Boost the DCs of all required PC Skill Checks by +4. (This increase can be waived on a case-by-case basis if the GM sees fit.)
• Boost the DCs of all required PC saving throws by +2. Also, boost the save modifier of each creature by the same +2.
• Add 1-2 additional ‘minions’ of the least powerful creature by CR in the encounter to multi-creature encounters.
• Give the creature intended for the final encounter (the ‘boss fight’) access to Resist Energy (via spell, consumable, or magic item) with the type of energy resistance selected by the GM. This extra spell of magic item is not added to any spellbooks or chronicle sheet loot.
• Give the final boss access to See Invisibility. See above specifics.
• Give the final boss access to Protection From Chaos/Good/Law (type chosen by the GM). See above specifics.
• Allow ‘boss’ creatures one additional use of an <X> times per day resource.
• Allow traps to automatically reset after 1 round (or 1d4 rds).
• Grant undead without channel resistance channel resistance +2, and undead with channel resistance a +2 bonus to that resistance.
These are just a few suggestions to give the players what they want without tying up limited in-scenario page count, and without wasting the development team’s time trying to add individual ‘hard mode’ options.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a new player with only one character at 8+, personally I can't get behind any of these items.
SOME parties are capable of handling the above. I'd say probably about ten to fifteen percent.
Others? Not so much.
And yet those 'not so much' parties would be the ones that would push for Hard Mode and then try to get 'takeback'.
There are far too many conditionals here that would turn a tough but survivable scenario into a TPK in the first encounter -- If we'd played Hard Mode Confirmation, for example, I wouldn't have a Core character atm.
The following spoiler is my .02 USD on this.
2nd point: The tiers are there for a reason. Playing a scenario at a high tier should gain the high tier rewards. Period.
3rd point: Making the opponents harder to defeat can defeat less optimal parties.
4th point: Most tables I've been at, even optimal ones, rarely get into the range of the 'magic BB' DC, or they own it completely because someone actually put points into that skill.
5th point: See far too many characters not even make the 'basic' saving throw, much less the harder one as suggested.
6th point: We were nearly TPK'd in a Wounded Wisp run because our GM *kept adding minions* in the final encounter.
7th point: Adding a resistance that the party cannot overcome that may be the only 'weak point' of a given monster makes them unstoppable, but even in the event that it is overcome, this proposal would eliminate *any* benefit to the proposed Hard Mode
8th point: Deny a well-prepared party the ability to get a surprise round or efficient scouting? Why? What purpose of fun does this serve?
9th point: See comment above about resistance.
10th point: No. Just no.
11th point: Absolutely not. There are enough GMs that make it nearly impossible for individuals with Disable Device to use the skill as it is, no need to make it a turn-by-turn thing that drags out a scenario for extra *hours* because of one stupid pit trap that keeps resetting.
12th point: Not everyone has a channeler in their party, so this would be meaningless. Some parties may only have a 'light' channeler (not as many uses per day/weaker channel). This unfairly targets one ability and does nothing to provide balance.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Imo 7-11 should have a hard mode option. how to apply it to pre-existing scenarios will cause alot of conflict as many will not like it cause it puts their characters at risk, the entire point of hardmode is the risk tho imo. most scenarios are written for a average non creative player, the moment you add creative players or even new classes to the table there is almost no reason to play.
so in short i would support more hard modes but its up to paizo staff whether or not its feasible for older stuff. biggest thing to remember is hard mode is optional in all situations.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not in favor of a 'hard mode'. As WJTL said, there are too many conditionals. On top of that, there may be table dissension whether to play that 'mode' or not.
To be honest, neither am I. I never want to play Hard Mode, though I'm willing to GM it if that's what the players want. And table dissension isn't an issue, since every scenario currently in play that includes a Hard Mode option makes it very clear that Hard Mode is only an option if the players agree unanimously to play Hard, with the full understanding that no extra benefit is gained by it. So, if even 1 player says "no" to Hard Mode, then the table doesn't do Hard Mode.
To me, PFS caters to the middle-of-the-road character build. If players want to play 'hard mode' they can bring normal powered, or even under powered, characters to the table, rather than OP characters. If players want to 'test their builds', I recommend home games.
But that's exactly the problem. The players who (usually) complain about PFS being too easy are the same players who are constantly in search of the most powerful builds. The same players who refuse to bring normal or even underpowered characters to the table.
The only way to do Hard Mode for all existing scenarios is to set up a document like the secondary successes document. Where it outlines specific changes to each individual scenario.
That would be preferable, yes. But considering that the pro-Hard Mode players (which I am not) are a very vocal minority here on the forums, I'm pretty sure the Paizo staff would consider a Secondary Success Conditions-style document for Hard Mode to not be a productive use of their time. (I don't blame them!)
A set of generic options, even if not exactly the options that I've suggested, seems like a reasonable comprise to throw the Hard Mode folks a bone without taking too much attention from creating content for everyone, rather than a minority. Especially since, again, if even 1 player doesn't want to do Hard Mode, then Hard Mode doesn't get done.
SOME parties are capable of handling the above. I'd say probably about ten to fifteen percent.
Others? Not so much.
I agree. Hard Mode is really only attractive to a small percentage of the PFS playerbase. And putting in the time and effort to add Hard Mode to older scenarios isn't an efficient use of development time. That's why I suggested options like these. So that the 10-15% can get what they've been requesting for years without the rest of us having to deal with it. Since, again, Hard Mode only applies if everyone at the table agrees.
And yet those 'not so much' parties would be the ones that would push for Hard Mode and then try to get 'takeback'.
The pre-Hard Mode 'warning' on existing scenarios is pretty clear on that as well. And, well, maybe if some folks who keep demanding Hard Mode get spanked by it, they'll stop asking for it? Personally, I'd never want to see Hard Mode on a 1-5 scenario, or even a 3-7. But by 5-9 and 7-11, most PCs have enough gp or PP to pay for a Raise Dead if Hard Mode gets the better of them. I'm not big on character death myself, but several of my local players have played scenarios that offered Hard Mode, took it, died horribly, and still talk about what a challenge it was and how they can't wait to do Hard Mode again. That isn't my style as a player, and not really my style as a GM. But PFS is supposed to have something for just about everyone. Having 'generic Hard Mode' doesn't mean that you, or I, or anyone else is expected to use it. It just means that it's available if 4-6 players get together and decide that they all want to.
There are far too many conditionals here that would turn a tough but survivable scenario into a TPK in the first encounter -- If we'd played Hard Mode Confirmation, for example, I wouldn't have a Core character atm.
The options I came up with were examples to get the conversation started. None of them are meant to be applied to every group. The GM would make a selection or two based on what would best challenge the party- not what would be guaranteed to utterly destroy the party. Depending on any individual party makeup, many of my suggestions would be either pointless or undefeatable. Those would make for poor choices on the GM's part.
*No PC channeler? Or no undead? Don't choose the channel resistance option.
*No Rogue? Or no traps? Don't chose the 'traps reset' option.
*No skill-based PCs? Don't choose the 'increase skill DCs' option.
*Is there a PC that regularly one-shots monsters? Consider the 'add extra minions' or the 'Advanced template' option.
*Are there characters with amazing skill modifiers? Consider the 'increase skill DCs' option.
I'm not suggesting that this is a perfect system, or even that its the only option. (I think a 'Secondary Success-type' document would be the best choice, personally.) But the players who constantly ask for Hard Mode aren't going to stop asking. And telling them to make weaker characters, while sensible and logical, isn't going to work- they demand Hard Mode because they refuse to make weak characters.
Ok, so a lot of folks don't like my ideas.
Fine. :-)
So, let's hear some other, 100% optional ideas to give this 10-15% of the player base what they want, without making the rest of us miserable with constant TPKs.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the advanced template on everything be decent. It is very generic and at least adds a little bit of everything to each npc making them generically stronger.
Alternatively or maybe in addition dual initiative would help that enemy. Give them a second initiative count at -20. If they already have this ability give them triple count.
I think some of these can be implemented within scope of current rules:
• If the party would otherwise qualify for the ‘four player’ adjustment, do not make the adjustment.
• If the party qualifies as low tier, play at high tier. The chronicle sheet would still reflect the low tier rewards.
In the first, you simply use throw-away PCs to enlarge the party, who then "decide" to wander off to look for a beer at the beginning of scenario and never reunite with the party. There is your 'four player' party playing in bigger party tier.
In the second, choose to play at high tier. The players decide to donate their winnings above and beyond low tier rewards to charity, and not write down (or scratch out etc) treasure not appearing on low tier etc.
Since the premise of Hard Mode is that all players are on board with it, I don't see the difference in the players themselves agreeing to facilitate these solutions.
|
|
I think some of these can be implemented within scope of current rules:
In the second, choose to play at high tier. The players decide to donate their winnings above and beyond low tier rewards to charity, and not write down (or scratch out etc) treasure not appearing on low tier etc.
Since the premise of Hard Mode is that all players are on board with it, I don't see the difference in the players themselves agreeing to facilitate these solutions.
Except that current campaign guidelines are pretty sticky about playing in the correct tier. Under the current system, the only time a group can 'decide' to play up is if the party is absolutely in the middle of the APL calculation. There used to be more wiggle room (or perhaps just more room for misunderstanding) but that's been tightened up.
However, even just sanctioning 'Hard Mode' by removing the 4 player adjustment and/or playing high tier but receiving low tier rewards would be of some benefit to the pro-Hard Mode folks.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For older scenarios the problem is they were written for a party of 4 players. That's why a party of 6 can progress easier through them.
To fix this all you would need to do is release a "six player adjustment" document for those scenarios. It would take a lot of work but I'm sure freelancers wouldn't mind doing it.
Personally I really don't like hard mode at all. Its just adding difficulty for the sake of it. There is no reward for the extra risk you take. All you get are bragging rights which to be honest, when someone brags about a scenario or thing they beat more than once its really annoying.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I think this is an interesting idea worth looking at. Some older scenarios really are stupid easy, including 1-5 scenarios. Like fights with NPCs that have +0 to hit and hit for 1d6 damage or such - those may look like CR 2 on paper, but really, they're not.
So quite often I already hear GMs and players murmuring about ways to at least make it interesting. And that doesn't always work out equally well; I think a canonical list of allowed "upgrades" would be useful.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm of two minds about this.
On one hand, I know there's an audience for super hard games, and I think that said audience should get a bone (or a Bonekeep) thrown at them every now and then.
On the other hand, I can't see this idea working out well. At low levels, doing something "quick" like adding the advanced simple template to everything might help a little bit, but mathematically speaking, that template only boosts rolls. It doesn't do anything to prolong the fight, and that's where challenge comes in: monsters need staying power to be truly difficult. By Tier 7-11, the advanced simple template would just be a mere bump in the road; it works for making encounters harder, but not for introducing a true hard mode. Doing that is exceptionally difficult as well, because what constitutes a hard scenario is equal parts monster abilities and the abilities of the players.
In short, "hard mode encounters" are better left to home games, where fights can actually be custom-tailored to a group. It wouldn't be worth the page space that the devs would use.
That said, I'm all for designed hardmode scenarios, like more Bonekeep-type games.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would love to see a universal hard mode, and whilst I have my own reservations on the subject there are plenty of people beating that drum above me so let's consider the options implementing hard mode across the board.
The idea of a list of mods the GM can apply to a scenario scares me a little, especially things like playing in the higher tier. GMs choosing different options can result in hard mode being trivial or overpowering.
Updating the scenarios is a hell of a lot of work, there's 200+ of them, and if I'm generous in saying that creating a hard mode for each of these would take 2 hours, that the person working on the is being paid UK minimum wage of £7.20 /hour, with the current FX to USD that's a cost of $8,400 (ish, I'm making a lot of assumptions here). A fair bit of cost considering that this would generate no revenue.
So it would have to be a sanctioned community effort, and while such a thing would certainly rub me up the right way, I don't see that happening. But how awesome would that be? 4 & 5 star GMs and VOs coming together trawling through the archives of the past 8 years of scenarios to think of new ways to test their players mettle. I'd jump on that.
So, for a bit of fun-
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hard mode would be easy to implement - just let the GM exercise the GM's perogative they can in a home game! ;) But it would do away with the balance central to organized play.
There are some folks who want it, just like there are some who want more scenarios per month. There are good reasons neither of these is really feasible, though - both from a resources point of view and from an OP point of view.
Besides, there are hard-mode games already: play a module in the lower level range; play an AP in the lower level range.
Coming down on "no thanks" myself.
|
|
I think the heavy cost of death on characters would make the decision to go to hard mode something that is more likely to cause friction at the table. While I do enjoy a good challenge, I really don't feel that PFS as-is is the place for it. I do appreciate the availability of the Bonekeep scenarios (which I personally do not care for) as an avenue to get such a challenge, but considering the harsh penalties for failure to your WBL, I dont think I could lend any support behind a 'hard mode.'
Short of including a 'first raise dead for the party is free' type of hook in a hard mode scenario, I think most PFS players would not want to risk possibly their only characters in a particular tier to get a few hours of extra challenge.
|
|
Both as a player and GM I really wish there was a way to make scenarios (especially older ones) more challenging. Rotflstomps get boring.
But I see no good way to do it in the context of organized play. The only good solution is restrictions on the PCs.
Ideally, we need some kind of ranking system that measures a PCs power that is far more accurate than just its level. We all know characters that are at least one or two levels more or less effective than they "should" be.
Somehow, I'm not optimistic any good ranking system will be found :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think half of the people against the idea only read the subject line and none of the OP's suggestions. Bonekeep was massively popular for this very reason.
I'm in favor of a hard mode option, have been for years, and myself suggested several of the options you listed. I would add "maximize the Hit Points of every foe encountered" to the list as well. It doesn't have to be complicated to implement, nor take very much time to do so by campaign HQ.
The ONLY reward for doing so I feel is appropriate is a "bragging rights" gold star (flaming skull?) collection for your message board avatar.
|
This content is stated to be for those with very powerful/broken builds they wish to push to the limits as a challenge. A group that, by all admission, is a small percentage of the overall PFS player base. So I'm curious: Why are we discussing creating special content adjustments, campaign wide, for a small part of the player base? One that, by discussion, will require more work than just a few adjustments outlined in the Guide to be viable.
Unlike Core, it doesn't open up more play opportunities (as replay doesn't seem to be part of this proposal). Worse, this content relies on GM decision/fiat from table to table of the same scenario creating a high degree of variation.
If folks want a challenge, I think we've got a good thing going with designated challenge scenarios like Bonekeep or Hard Mode adjustment Waking Rune where the concept is already written in. They can also put together a table for a module or adventure path and run it in "campaign mode" with any special rules they'd like for PFS credit. We don't need to dedicate time and resources to blanket adjustments to the existing library of scenarios.
|
|
If folks want a challenge, I think we've got a good thing going with designated challenge scenarios like Bonekeep or Hard Mode adjustment Waking Rune where the concept is already written in. They can also put together a table for a module or adventure path and run it in "campaign mode" with any special rules they'd like for PFS credit. We don't need to dedicate time and resources to blanket adjustments to the existing library of scenarios.
Emphasis placed on "campaign mode" mine.
We *ALREADY* have a 'Hard Mode' in Society play. Why do we need to re-invent the wheel so it has treads, spikes, can float on water, and slice a tomato?
|
Contributor
|
If folks want a challenge, I think we've got a good thing going with designated challenge scenarios like Bonekeep or Hard Mode adjustment Waking Rune where the concept is already written in. They can also put together a table for a module or adventure path and run it in "campaign mode" with any special rules they'd like for PFS credit. We don't need to dedicate time and resources to blanket adjustments to the existing library of scenarios.
Emphasis placed on "campaign mode" mine.
We *ALREADY* have a 'Hard Mode' in Society play. Why do we need to re-invent the wheel so it has treads, spikes, can float on water, and slice a tomato?
While I agree with you that I don't think hard modes should be applied to every scenario in Season 8 like the OP seems to suggest, I do think that offering challenges that are actually related to the Society as a whole (as opposed to saying, "Just do X, Y, or Z instead) isn't a bad idea.
For example: a yearly Bonekeep style scenario, much in the same vein as the yearly, "Library of the Lion-style" scenario* is something I could get behind.
* I've heard complains that people think most of Season 7 is "library of the lion" style. My investigator hears those people and doesn't care. ;-)
|
Contributor
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. We don't need this.
Hmm
Technically speaking, we don't "need" Pathfinder Society as an entire social construct. Just like we really don't need faction cards. Or an overarching metaplot. But just because something isn't needed doesn't mean it shouldn't be added if it could make the game more enjoyable for people. Especially if said addition is completely optional. (I.e. no one makes you use faction cards or play stories in metaplot order, but those choices are there for people who want them.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are 4 games with a hard mode one of which is on the lighter side and only changes one encounter. There are also the 3 Bonekeep specials. This means 3% of published scenarios are designed to have any extra or intentional difficulty.
Even if something isn't published to apply to all scenarios it would be nice to see more hard modes in general at least once or twice a season. A general change would also help me commit more to playing older scenarios where I keep removing myself from the signups when they have more than 4 people they were designed for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maximized enemy HPs is a good one.
Not sure if it's reading comprehension issue or what, why so many people seem to be reacting negatively
when their issue mostly seems "I don't want to play in such a game" which just isn't the question.
(the OP personally agrees with that sentiment, but isn't proposing the issue for personal satisfaction)
Nor the responses saying "We just shouldn't spend Paizo attention on stuff that most aren't interested in",
when the entire conceit of the OP is that some formulaic modifications might allow difficulty increase without
requiring hands-on time tweaking each adventure for a higher difficulty (even if that would be higher quality than some formula).
I still think the best options are those already feasible within current rule-set, with full player buy-in:
Play with 4 player groups but increase party size with throw-away PCs which then immediately wander off.
Those throw-away PCs levels can be tweaked so as to "engineer" APL to qualify for higher tier (whose higher rewards can be abandoned).
Both of those are using the work Paizo already does for hand-tweaking each scenario for difficulty (for party size/APL),
and since it's acknowledged that hand-tweaking is superior to formulaic boosts, using those tweaks should be preferred if possible.
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Technically speaking, we don't "need" Pathfinder Society as an entire social construct. Just like we really don't need faction cards. Or an overarching metaplot. But just because something isn't needed doesn't mean it shouldn't be added if it could make the game more enjoyable for people. Especially if said addition is completely optional. (I.e. no one makes you use faction cards or play stories in metaplot order, but those choices are there for people who want them.)No. We don't need this.
Hmm
Alex, I get what you're saying, I really do. So let me clarify my thought process. I am wary of "optional hard mode" because very few people are willing to be the guy who tells everyone else at the table that they don't want to do hard mode. I know a couple of people who felt pressured by their party to take hard mode and so did so -- it resulted in some very bad feelings afterwards when there were deaths to resolve.
I can say "No" to hard mode. I can tell others cheerfully, "Nope, wimp. Don't want it." But I'm pretty sure that there many other players locally who would have trouble stating that. Hard mode makes you sound badass and tough. Saying no makes you sound like a fun-spoiling coward.
I saw someone I personally liked leave my lodge after a hard mode game that he felt pushed to agree to do. In the other thread about consumables, people talked about how optional things often become society convention. I don't want to see that happen here.
Keep in mind that I don't mind the occasional high-challenge game. My very first game in society play was "Trial by Machine". Talk about hard mode! We survived only through superb teamwork, and it was a memorable game that both terrified me and hooked me on all that is great about society play. But I don't want *EVERY* scenario to be as hard as that one was. And I don't want to hear chants of "Hard mode! Hard mode!" when I sit down with others.
I like that society play can accomodate players who are less tactical and optimized. I don't want to be forced to only create characters that can survive hard mode tables. I don't want every character to be a weapon system.
I don't think it's needed, and I think it will do more harm than good, because it will drive away newbies and casual players.
I say "No."
Hmm
OK, but there already is other Hard modes.
Core restricts powergaming options significantly.
(the proposed Hard Mode is about amping up a game to meet the full spectrum of powergaming options)
Groups can always play up, and organize games to ensure that happens as often as possible.
Or only allow 5 player games (i.e. weakest for games designed for 6).
Hell, you can have a player-agreed convention to only play Gnomes or to pick races that don't synergize with class.
You can have a player-agreed convention to spend wealth on superfluous expendables that don't help PC power.
You can have a player-agreed convention for spell-casters to pre-cast specific spells each day
that don't tend to very useful in power-gaming/survival mode, thus reduce power level/ increase difficulty.
Etc.
Several means suggested by OP (party size manipulation, APL/tier manipulation) don't need new PFS rules to implement.
So I don't see how you can avoid the problem you present.
And I don't see how high-optimization veterans steam-rolling games with mechanics that newbies have no chance of understanding is any more conducive to casual players joining the game.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not all of the following options will be applicable to each scenario. The GM is encouraged to select 1-3 options according to the specific scenario. ...
This, I think is the rub. During the adventure, the GM can just make things harder? If the GM waits until the situation is already a little dicey, or bundles 3 increases up in one encounter, this is deadly. Other GMs might just throw one of these at a party, maybe one that has no difference, just to give players "hard mode" bragging rights. (Resist Acid doesn't have much effect against a party that doesn't have any acid casters.)
Additionally:
• Boost the DCs of all required PC Skill Checks by +4. (This increase can be waived on a case-by-case basis if the GM sees fit.)
The difficulty of Skill Checks is calculated from the rules of the game. If the GM decides to spend two of her hard-mode-options to surprise PCs by boosting a jump check by +8, is there an in-world reason that they are all falling to their death?
• Boost the DCs of all required PC saving throws by +2. Also, boost the save modifier of each creature by the same +2.
One of the best parts of the 3rd-Edition / Pathfinder ruleset is that DCs of saving throws are well-defined in the rules, and there are particular Feats that allow opponents to raise them. This "boost" is an echo of the rollickin' 2nd-Edition days, when things get harder, just 'cause.
Sorry, Amanda. I know you're trying to think of ways the players can have more fun, but I concur with others that this level of GM freedom would be a bad idea in this campaign.
But there's nothing to keep a GM from taking a scenario, changing it up start to finish, customize it for his players, and run it. Just don't assign a Chronicle sheet.
|
OK, but there already is other Hard modes.
With all due respect, I think you're completely misunderstanding why some people want Hard Mode.
Some people (me included) enjoy the challenge of building powerful PCs. Taking the thousands and thousands of pages of printed material, then condensing them down to create the best end result is a challenging, but creatively fulfilling process. In normal scenarios, we can either play the character to its maximum potential (thus destroying any sense of tension) or we can hold back, and have a normal game.
The occasional Hard Mode session (Sealed Gate, Bonekeep, etc.) provides a decent break to the monotony, it's a chance to go whole hog, while still having edge of our seat excitement.
That being said, as much as I'd enjoy more challenging content, I think this is the wrong way to go about it. Balancing these rules would require money and manpower best used somewhere else.
|
|
campeign mode is not hard mode i am sorry. i sit down to play pfs its to play pfs, playing a scenario for no credit with changed encounters is not the same as hard mode.
i understand that people are worried bout a player being pressured into doing a hard mode. that is an issue to take into account but to say no without trying to find a way to make it work for all does not encourage everyone to have fun.
OK, but there already is other Hard modes.With all due respect, I think you're completely misunderstanding why some people want Hard Mode.
Some people (me included) enjoy the challenge of building powerful PCs...
No, I got you, I understand that some like the char-op mini-game and want the played RPG game to be up to snuff for those PCs, and that that specifically is what the OP is proposing. If you didn't cut off my quote, I said exactly that.
OK, but there already is other Hard modes. Core restricts powergaming options significantly.
(the proposed Hard Mode is about amping up a game to meet the full spectrum of powergaming options)
On the flip side, there is some people who don't like Hard Mode/ don't want it to exist (in fact the OP doesn't want to play this Hard Mode themself as PC). Their complaint: It is hard. In which case, exactly what appeal the Hard Mode has to people who like it doesn't matter to them, what matters is that they don't like it. Which was my point, that there already is Hard Modes which there may be social pressure to play in... Even if the fans of Core Only Hard Mode may be distinct from fans of CharOp Hard mode.
As I see it, as already mentioned in-thread, there is already several options for groups to implement (charOp-focused) Hard Mode arguably within scope of current rules, simply by group consensus allowing "sub-optimal" conditions (e.g. group size/APL tweaking). So complaining aside, those options can currently be implemented, and if they find broad enough usage, will inevitably gain common recognition. Nothing has to change about the rules for that to happen, none of the complainers need to be won over for that to happen, it simply can happen wherever table consensus exists for it to happen.
|
|
No, I got you, I understand that some like the char-op mini-game and want the played RPG game to be up to snuff for those PCs, and that that specifically is what the OP is proposing. If you didn't cut off my quote, I said exactly that.
And then you suggested "alternatives" to Hard Mode, all of which revolved around purposely building a sub-optimal PC, or making minor tweaks to the group (going in at the lowest possible still doesn't do much in most early season content, and with the mandatory play up/down rules, it can be really, really hard to do). My post was meant to highlight why your suggested options were inadequate, and why a method to increase scenario difficulty wouldn't be entirely unwelcome.
If you read the rest of my post, you'd also see that I agree that the proposed change is the wrong way to go about it.
|
|
The difficulty of Skill Checks is calculated from the rules of the game. If the GM decides to spend two of her hard-mode-options to surprise PCs by boosting a jump check by +8, is there an in-world reason that they are all falling to their death?• Boost the DCs of all required PC saving throws by +2. Also, boost the save modifier of each creature by the same +2.One of the best parts of the 3rd-Edition / Pathfinder ruleset is that DCs of saving throws are well-defined in the rules, and there are particular Feats
... This "boost" is an echo of the rollickin' 2nd-Edition days, when things get harder, just 'cause.
This really isn't a good reason to dislike the proposal. A huge number of scenarios (certainly the majority, possibly nearly all of them) at least partly ignore the rules of Pathfinder and set difficulty DCs "Just because". Oh, the bad guys are mostly constructed legally but skill DCs, automatic surprise rounds, inability to surprise the bad guys, whole rule systems ignored to make Yet Another Chase Scene mechanic, etc abound.
Look at the change in difficulty numbers between subtiers. How often is there ANY rationale for the DC to calm the horse being 4 higher in high tier?
|
|
Unlike Core, it doesn't open up more play opportunities (as replay doesn't seem to be part of this proposal). Worse, this content relies on GM decision/fiat from table to table of the same scenario creating a high degree of variation.
Well maybe it should :D
Season 0 could do with a new coat of paint, so make it hard & replayable. Also, because fun:
|
|
Disagree with both the idea and the intent of the OP.
These are just a few suggestions to give the players what they want without tying up limited in-scenario page count, and without wasting the development team’s time trying to add individual ‘hard mode’ options.
Part of the draw of gaming in general is shared experiences and stories we can later tell, especially about overcoming adversity. (I hear far more stories about green demon statue mouths than I do about the Isle of Dread.) For organized play, there are reasons that "table variation" is generally frowned on - and I would imagine that one large reason is the damage to those shared play experiences and post-game storytelling when others have very different experiences is one of them.
While it may not be your intent, the way you phrased your recommendation and the fact that you are obviously campaigning for something in order to remove options makes your post come across as somewhat condescending. If Paizo wants to keep doing hard mode, those players who enjoy it will continue to want to play that way, people who enjoy hard mode are not out to ruin the game for others and hard mode games are no more a "waste" of dev time than games with more role-playing than combat opportunities or word-count spent on NPC backgrounds.
And please, everyone - the idea isn't "terrible" or any other insulting term. Disagree with it, but don't be a jerk.Also seconding this. Wanting to provide a challenge to those looking for it is not a perspective that should be met with derision.
Except that one can say an idea is "terrible" without insulting the person, at least in normal society. I have terrible ideas all the time - some of which may have been inflicted on players if others hadn't pointed out the flaws. That is a part of what makes for good gaming.
Also, from what I can see the intent is not to "provide a challenge" - if that were the case, she would be championing for MORE hard mode, not insinuating that those who enjoy hard mode are causing "wasted" developer time or "tying up limited in-scenario page count". This seems to be quite the opposite, someone who (seemingly, though I may be wrong) doesn't understand the draw of hard mode trying to justify its removal by offering things that just don't actually accomplish what is being sought by those players who do enjoy hard-mode play.
Side note: while a conversation can and probably should be had about bringing up the challenge level of prior seasons' scenarios to make for similar play experience with current content, and another conversation could be had about whether or not catering to different play styles is detrimental to the org play campaign itself, I don't think this thread is likely a good place for hashing all of that out.
|
|
I disagree. I think everyone should be able to find an experience they are looking for. There is no reason a variety of content can't be created. If you give people the opportunity they might find they enjoy a more difficult play experience.
There is no reason to alienate people and tell them they have to play a home game instead of Organized Play.
I think the campaign can afford to produce difficult scenarios more than 3% of the time. If even 2 scenarios a season could spare the extra effort I think it be a huge positive change.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think everyone should be able to find an experience they are looking for. There is no reason a variety of content can't be created.
Except that this is only possible with unlimited resources at Paizo.
PFS can't make every scenario good for everyone, because many desired play styles are mutually exclusive. EVERYONE has to accept that if they want the benefits of an OP system - the ability to play anywhere, with other players and GMs you've never met, and still have a reasonably consistent experience.
The game can easily be "broken" by making very powerful character builds (many of which, by the by, don't actually fit the campaign's background). When you have a full table of these folks, hard mode makes a lot of sense. When you have a mixed table, it's more problematic.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
As far as I know, the actual amount of space consumed by hard modes in scenarios amounts to a few lines, like "add another X" or the "the X is advanced", as a sort of anti-4-player adjustment, and usually in the same box. It's possible that the stock text admonishing GMs to get unanimous consent to run hard mode is longer than the actual hard mode adjustments in the adventure. So let's not exaggerate how hard this is to develop.