|
I am sure this has been pointed out earlier.
I don't think the PFS scenarios need a hard mode, nor a soft mode. Now perhaps I am wrong, but there are already levels of difficulty build into each scenario.
With in a scenario Depending on your level, a 1-2 level could be an easy mode, or a 4-5 could be a hard mode. Further more there is a "four player adjustment" which is another tool to use for shifting the difficulty of a scenario.
Do we need more options? I for one am happy with what we already have.
I think also to expand difficulty levels would make it harder for authors, eat up page space, and I think make scenarios a little more difficult to run for GMs.
Also, I believe the "playing up" option was removed because often pressure was put on players to do so whom may not have wanted to play up.
Thanks
Elyas
|
|
Really, I don't think there should be a hard mode or easy mode.
Hard mode wouldn't really be enough for most people who would want it, as when you REALLY get into the nuts and bolts of the game, you can straight up destroy it. Like that's just how it is, and it feels like it would lead to more stale characters due to the options that are the 'best' beating out others, which would make for a less enjoyable experience in my opinion.
Easy mode would trivialize things too much, as from what I've seen, normal PFS is decently easy (if you can beat something with pregens, it's pretty easy), so lowering the difficulty even more would make it too simple for most people. If you want to play a character who's lacking mechanically, I'd say embrace it rather than asking for the game to cater to that. Personally, I'm not sure how you'd go about making a character who needs an easy mode without purposefully going about it.
The closest I'd like to an easy mode is a Kid's Mode, something with more beginner's box style rules that will help acclimate newer players to the system. Something like that could be a lot of fun, get some kid friendly adventures, help them get used to things until they're ready to step up to PFS proper. I can't imagine it would be huge, but it could be helpful.
|
Pink Dragon, you have to consider that there are only a few "hard mode" scenarios every season (out of 25+). If we did a similar thing with "easy mode", PCs would need to survive the normal mode, and if they can survive the normal mode, what's the point of easy mode?
So I'm assuming the OP would want "easy mode" in every scenario. The problem with that is:
1) We already have problems with word count where I wish some things were explained more. By having easy mode, we're going to get less story.
2) You'd get less gold and you would probably not want that.
3) I'm not convinced authors would do a good job of it. Already we have hard mode scenarios where the "normal mode" is too hard. We have subtiers that are vastly more/less difficult. We have scenarios that are vastly more/less difficult to others. Why would this be any different?
Most tier 1-5 is easy mode. Most roleplaying scenarios are easy mode. If that's what you want, then play those scenarios. High level is supposed to be hard.
I've introduced lots of new players to the game and they've all been interested in getting help to make reasonable characters. And like I said, tier 1-5 has been easy enough that pregens have been good enough.
You could always ask the GM for their easy mode, most would accommodate to a certain extent.
I've been to dozens of conventions and I've seen ridiculous optimization and guys who still do 1d6 damage at level 5. It comes down to this. If optimizers are bored, then they need to tone down the optimization. If "non-mechanical" players want an easier game, they need to have reasonable characters and save their special PCs for campaigns with their friends. The scenarios are "play as written", it's impossible to accommodate every play style when the play styles are vastly different, it just won't work.
|
|
As I said above, I am an optimiser and easy mode won't hold much appeal for me beyond a few characters. Most of the current player base may think the same way. But other people like to play role playing games differently. Maybe Paizo needs to reach out to them too. Easy mode for PFS is one idea, but the overarching idea is to be more inclusive of those dastardly unoptimizers that seem to be so unpleasant for at least some of the people on these boards.
So your entire post is... hypothetical?
a blanket reduction of 2 on every DC, attack roll, damage roll and crit threat range in the scenarios.
I just want to point out that this adjustment has not worked out for the 4 player adjustment in a lot of scenarios.
I think everyone at the table should agree to 'easy mode' for that mode to be played.
Unless you have a group of friends that all want it, I doubt that you'll get agreement. There is rarely 100% agreement to play hard mode.
And since this is still a niche game, of course you'll have a mix of PCs at the table.
So what will happen is the players playing the weak PCs will make the players with the reasonable or optimized PCs unhappy, and vice versa.
If you play the easy scenario, the non-weak PCs will destroy everything, leaving the weak PCs with nothing to do.
If you play a normal scenario, the weak PCs still can't contribute and the strong PCs can't carry the entire scenario on their own, possibly leading to character deaths and definitely leading to non-max gold and prestige.
Really, the only reasonable solution is for everyone to make reasonable characters, some people need to stop breaking the game, and others need to make interesting characters that are reasonable.
Bottom Line: No easy mode please, just continue to keep tier 1-5 as our easy mode.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't help but think PD is engaging in the sort of satire exemplified by Swift's "A Modest Proposal."
|
Just want to quickly point out hard mode is not a few scenarios each season.. it is a few total out of all seasons. There are 4 hard mode options because we just got one (and it only changes a single encounter) and 3 specials which aren't hard mode but called out as a challenge.
Honestly even though the concept sounds silly to me if people actually wanted this and paizo was willing to make it I have no reason to say no to easy mode. I can always just vote to not have it run in easy mode and it won't be right?
|
|
All ideas are hypothetical. What is you point?
My point is you're trying to fix a problem for people that might not exist. I'd be more interested if you had real experiences with new players that quit the game (and why).
The biggest problem I see with the game at conventions is that we often don't do a good job introducing new (and young) players to the game. There should be more tables with 1 hour demos to quickly introduce as many people to the game as possible, especially at conventions that don't cater to tabletop games. But that's another discussion.
My point is that thousands of people have been introduced to the game successfully without easy mode.
My point is we've implemented systems like hard mode, core, and slow XP progression that are rarely used.
I suppose World of Warcraft did something similar to retain and expand their player base. They converted their normal mode to "hard mode" and made their "normal mode" a dumbed down easy mode to appeal to the masses. Easy mode had slightly less rewards however. And it somewhat worked.
You could also argue that system mastery has made people stay in some games (Eve Online). You could argue that Pathfinder is somewhat about system mastery, because if it wasn't then Paizo couldn't sell additional books, which are essentially catering to players with system mastery.
But yes, of course they also want to introduce new people to the game.
If there was an "easy mode" in every scenario (whatever name you call it) and it gave the same rewards as normal/hard mode, it might cater to the masses. But it could possibly make most of the existing player base leave.
I guess that is my point.
|
I agree with the opinion that PFS does not need an easy mode. When the discussion of Hard Mode came up I supported it, despite the fact that I am not an optimizer, because the extra challenge is completely optional and I didn't see a reason not to offer a little extra challenge to those want it. In the same way I wouldn't mind if Easy Mode existed, BUT it would have to have lesser rewards. In my opinion it would be completely unreasonable to expect the same rewards as someone who played the scenario in "Normal Mode." The people who play Hard Mode know that they aren't getting anything more out of it they do it for the challenge. Likewise "Easy Mode" players would have to play it for the RP enjoyment of it, and accept that they weren't earning the same rewards.
I also think this could potentially lead to MORE player deaths in some instances where people who build Easy Mode characters arrive at a game day, sit at a table, and someone wants normal mode. If you have a character that's optimized for Hard Mode, and no one wants to play it big deal. Your character is either over kill, and makes the scenario that much easier(which would incidentally facilitate having a non-optimized character at the same table) or you just hold back, let the group as a whole shine, and have a good time. However, in the first situation I described where you have several Easy Mode characters that have to play normal because the entire table didn't agree to it you could be looking at a TPK. So now the "Easy Mode" players have to split the player base in a region, and seek out tables where everyone is looking for that option.
While in theory this option seem harmless, I mean who cares if another group out there is playing a scaled down scenario for lesser rewards, the problems I can see stemming from it probably aren't worth the trouble. At the same time I'm reconsidering my stance on Hard Mode since I certainly had not considered some of the difficulties that Paizo would have to deal with in providing this option(increased word count, balancing it so it's challenging but not a bloodbath, more work for GM's.)
An easy mode shouldn't be necessary if the scenario can be won with four non-optimized characters (i.e. Valeros, Merisel, Kryra, and Ezren) at the lowest level. And all scenarios should be written so that can happen. Hopefully this is being play tested for each one before they are published.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a bad idea but I would restrict it to those scenarios which contain hard mode. They are generally pretty difficult and have different wordcounts as it is.
Maybe have it for some tier 1-2's as well. God knows that's the tier with most character deaths.
And cut it with the "git gud scrub" thing. /v/ can keep it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The characters that may require 'easy mode' are ones built around doing many things, but no one thing very well. They may not be useless (unoptimized does not equate to useless), but they cannot generate the numbers (whether it's combat or non-combat numbers) that an optimized character can. These kinds of characters have lower ability to meet scenario requirements, and if you put a number of them in the party, party survivability can become an issue.The players that may want 'easy mode' are ones that cannot or do not want to optimize, or simply ones who want to play the game with a low risk of character extermination because that's what they like.
These characters do not need easy mode. Unless they're particularly mechanically weak, characters like this should do just fine. Even a party full of characters like this will do just fine, at least if they make tactically sound decisions. If they don't work well together and don't try to make smart decisions in combat, then, yeah, a party of characters like this could be in trouble in some scenarios. But in the vast majority of scenarios, characters like this will be fine. As long as you've built the characters to be competent and their many things, as opposed to making mechanically *bad* choices, you don't need easy mode.
It's not true that you need hyper-optimized characters for PFS scenarios. Yeah, there are a few that are very deadly. Most are approachable as long as the group tries to work well together, and as long as they are at least moderately competent at a number of different things.
|
|
The biggest problem I see with the game at conventions is that we often don't do a good job introducing new (and young) players to the game. There should be more tables with 1 hour demos to quickly introduce as many people to the game as possible, especially at conventions that don't cater to tabletop games. But that's another discussion.
Really, we just need to clone Andrew Hoskins many times and make him GM all the convention tables with new people at it.
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of the time, PFS hits my challenge ratio right. I like that I have to work at all the things I discover. I admit that I am unlikely to try my hand at Storval Stairs or Bonekeep, though I've had players that I respect hint to me that I could be good in them. Hard Mode doesn't appeal.
But I've been in home games with de-fanged enemies and I get BORED. I was in such a game, where the players were saying things like, "I roll a not-one. I hit." PFS keeps things challenging with interesting terrain, debuffs and unusual monster abilities. Sometimes we get our butts handed to us.
I don't want characters to die. I roleplay them to the hilt, and invest in them emotionally. I don't enjoy the super-deadly games. But I want teamwork and challenge. If we create an easy mode, are we going to get the situation where some characters will never get to act because others will one-shot the bad guy?
For me, combat is generally the least interesting part of a scenario, but if it's going to be there, let it be part of the story and keep it a challenge so that the whole team has to work together.
I vote "No" to easy mode.
Hmm
|
|
I fail to see how this is going to fix player disparity at the table, the 14 str greatsword fighter is still going to look "overpowered" next to the 20 int core rogue. Also there is nothing that prevents a person with better rules grasp enter the easy mode, I mean he doesnt even have to be a vet he just needs read. This mode will not do anything except maybe point out the MORE the players strengths differences because encounters are going to be even easier
|
|
I haven't seen a need to optimize. If anything, the problems I've seen in adventures is:
People specialize when it comes too much and no one has ranks in the skills required to complete the mission (see also, everyone dumped Charisma).
People specialize too much when it comes to combat. (Melee PCs that don't buy melee weapons, cold blaster has no spells that can deal with cold immune monsters, etc.)
Characters that diversify while keeping a specialization or three tend to fare best in my experience.
And while you might want it to not matter what you bring to the table, it does and it will. Your PC might change the tier from low to high, which not only makes the combats harder, often increases the DC of skill checks. You might cause the four-player adjustment to go away, which means if you can't contribute to combat effectively, you made things harder for everyone else.
Diversify where possible, and strive to not be completely useless when a fight breaks out and you can't help but be a net positive to the group rather than a net negative.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have seen, first-hand, players effectively forcing other players to optimize, or to guilt them if they do not. I have seen, first-hand, players becoming verbally exasperated when other players don't have as effective characters, etc. That certainly isn't the majority of players in this area, to be sure, but it's true of some.
As VC, I try to make sure we have an atmosphere that make people feel welcome. Some players make that very difficult. There are players (and I am one of them) who don't think as much about optimization and tricking out my character as I do about "what would be fun for me to play?" For some, optimization IS fun, and there is, and should be, a place for them at any table. There also is, and should be, a place for folks like me, who do not find optimization fun. The best thing is that PFS, as it currently stands, can fairly and routinely meet the needs of both groups, which is why I don't support Easy Mode.
Jon Dehning address the important points upthread, so I won't repeat them. I will say this conversation has strayed far from the main point (easy mode) into a litany of personal attacks and insults, and people need to knock it off.
If you don't like the proposal for "Easy Mode" (and I don't), then confine your arguments to that. Arguing over a digital forum doesn't give you license to be rude, belittling, or insulting.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even under Run As Written, GMs have the leeway to softball scenarios for an effective easy mode--far more leeway to make it easier, in fact, than to make it harder. That's why hard mode is useful and easy mode is not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
