Please Change This


Pathfinder Society

251 to 300 of 394 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge 5/5

Ferious Thune wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:
Paul Jackson wrote:

One very strong impression that I'm getting from this thread is that quite a few GMs seemed to have made mistakes running it. More than usual.

I'll reiterate a point I've made before. When a scenario changes mechanics it should be made VERY clear how explict the GM should be on how the new mechanics work. Otherwise we get more table variation than desired.

I haven't read this one but other, similar, scenarios have NOT been ckear on how explicit the GM should be.

This is a fair critique. The scenario does include a 2+ page summary of the Influence rules. However, I searched through it trying to find somewhere that mentioned actually showing them to or reviewing them with the players, and I couldn't find anything (doesn't mean it isn't there. I might have missed it). There's an in character explanation of how the events will go and how the bidding works in-world mentioned, but nothing about reviewing the Influence rules. I did review them with the players before my run of it, as I felt like that was the appropriate thing to do.
I'm not sure why you'd need the scenario to tell you that the players need to know how the social combat system works. I mean with new players you explain how combat works, right?

One of my takeaways from this thread is that some GMs took the approach when running the scenario that the details of how the mechanics work were unimportant to the players, so they did not fully explain them. For example, several people seemed unaware that they could get a Discovery in addition to an Influence point if they made the DC by 5. My only conclusion is that since the scenario didn't say to share the pages describing the rules of the Influence system with the players, that the GMs felt they were not supposed to share those with the players.

In past Influence scenarios, I think it was presented much more like a typical behind the scenes PFS tracking system. The players don't know they're...

Well my GM explained how the mechanics worked, but did not share the side bar. It went great.

He did not tell us how many influence points we needed, how many we got, or what the DCs were. But through Roleplaying and the auctioneer announcements he clued us in to how well we were doing. It went great.

Just like combat, I don't know the AC I'm trying to hit, but I learn the results pretty quick.

The base mechanics still need to be described or you just have players flailing around. And that is not fun.

Sure, I agree that most of the hatred of this scenario was due to GMs doing a poor job for one reason or another. But rather than coddle poor GM choices by using word count to explain something they should already know to do, use it as a learning moment to teach them.

Why? Because if you keep giving folk fish, instead of teaching them to fish, then the expectation becomes, "well the scenario didn't tell me to do X, so I decided to let you all flail about aimlesslessly for 5 hours."

A bad GM is always going to find a way to be bad. An new GM who is unsure of themselves and makes poor choices can be taught to ask questions when new mechanics show up, and be taught better ways to handle things for maximum fun. And GMs, unfortunately, will choose not to prep the scenario, and such instruction wouldn't help them anyways.

So no, explicit instructions telling a GM that they can do what they should already be doing is a bad precedent. Declaring some new mechanic in the blurb sets just as bad as precedent.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Minnesota

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have not played this scenario so I haven't been able to look at the spoilers.

I have GMed other scenarios with influence mechanics. The best route to doing this I've found is to be very upfront about the mechanics. Let the party know its there, let them know how it works, and then use it like a framework for the fun RP that happens in and around it.

How to be transparent with an Influence Mechanic (PbP) -- Ironbound Schism:

When GMing an Influence Mechanic in Ironbound Schism via PbP, I made certain that the party knew the basic mechanics for this section of the scenario would work. They had no idea what skill DCs they would need to hit, but they knew what sorts of skills to try, and how to vary them.

The mechanic did not detract from the roleplay that followed, it just provided the PCs with a framework to figure out what to do next.

How to be transparent with an Influence Mechanic (F2F) -- Sun Orchid Scheme:

When GMing Sun Orchid Scheme, I had Player Handouts to give players that gave them some ideas for the sorts of skills they might need to succeed, and mentioned that if they do the same thing over and over they might attract undue attention and make things harder for themselves.

In lieu of a map, I had two boxes, one for each relevant area. My PCs put their minis in the relevant box to show which area they were in that day. If they earned a success, I put a stone in their box. If they earned two successes, they got two stones. The party would get excited, and loved seeing the successes add up. They roleplayed the heck out of this section.

Player: Oh, I'm going to use profession bartender to get the guards roaring drunk and see if I can get some information!

GM: The guards think you're great. "You're are best little buddy! Thish is great... what is thish anyway?"

Player: "Dwarven Five Mountain Ale. Be careful, friends, it'll make your heads explode if you drink too much!"

GM: "Eshploding heads? Awesome. Pour me another."

Another player: I'm using bluff to pretend that I'm drunk. "Make my head explode too! Speaking of explosions, what do you think those crazy wizards are up to over there?"

And so on...

4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing that cannot help the GMs currently running this scenario : Normally, GMs can look up mechanics from books they don't currently own in the Paizo PRD, but I can't find Ultimate Intrigue anywhere in the PRD yet.

Scarab Sages 4/5

RealAlchemy wrote:
One thing that cannot help the GMs currently running this scenario : Normally, GMs can look up mechanics from books they don't currently own in the Paizo PRD, but I can't find Ultimate Intrigue anywhere in the PRD yet.

The rules for the Influence Mechanic are included in the scenario for exactly this reason.

3/5 **** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ferious Thune wrote:
RealAlchemy wrote:
One thing that cannot help the GMs currently running this scenario : Normally, GMs can look up mechanics from books they don't currently own in the Paizo PRD, but I can't find Ultimate Intrigue anywhere in the PRD yet.
The rules for the Influence Mechanic are included in the scenario for exactly this reason.

Which in turn was probably in response to another season 7 scenario where they used mechanics from a book that wasn't even close to being in the PRD at the time.

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

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Add me to the chorus saying it would be good to mention special rule systems in the blurb. I'm all for people making informed decisions on which scenarios they'd like to play or avoid, without having to peek in the scenario.

I actually enjoyed Assault on the Wound, because I was psyched to be trying out the mass combat rules. Taldor stood firm that day while the mammoth riders ran screaming like little girls.

I also think way more guidance for GMs on how much of these mechanics to expose to the players would have been appropriate. Given the deluge of information showered upon the players - subsystem, bidding goals, possible skills with preferences, strengths and weaknesses - anything to structure that and help keep track of it is good. A concise player handout of the influence rules the players need could help a lot; it helps reduce table variation in how much of the rules the GM shows and helps the players refresh their memory when needed.

Grand Lodge 1/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
Declaring some new mechanic in the blurb sets just as bad as precedent.

You'll have to explain this to me. How does calling out a new mechanic that fundamentally changes how the core rules work in the blurb of a scenario set "just as bad a precedent" as a bad GM playing a gotcha game and trying to rack up TPK's?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

DarkKnight27 wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Declaring some new mechanic in the blurb sets just as bad as precedent.
You'll have to explain this to me. How does calling out a new mechanic that fundamentally changes how the core rules work in the blurb of a scenario set "just as bad a precedent" as a bad GM playing a gotcha game and trying to rack up TPK's?

Ok, you are creating a false analogy and putting words in my mouth here. GM's playing a gotcha game and trying to rack up TPK's is not setting a bad precedence. That's just simply bad GMing. And shouldn't happen no matter what the blurb says.

Creating language in the blurb just so people can either A) choose to avoid a new mechanic or B) choose to avoid for fear of having a bad GM, is what sets the bad precedence. Play a scenario if you want to play it. The mechanics inside should be relatively immaterial as long as a GM does their due diligence and creates a great atmosphere for people having fun.

If they don't do that, it doesn't matter what the blurb says or what they are told in the scenario.

The Exchange 5/5 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

I have not played this scenario so I haven't been able to look at the spoilers.

I have GMed other scenarios with influence mechanics. The best route to doing this I've found is to be very upfront about the mechanics. Let the party know its there, let them know how it works, and then use it like a framework for the fun RP that happens in and around it.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **...

Profession Bartender! So there were two of us giving succor to the working man and woman. Huzzah!

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Minnesota

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
A concise player handout of the influence rules the players need could help a lot; it helps reduce table variation in how much of the rules the GM shows and helps the players refresh their memory when needed.

As someone who has basically created my own player handout everytime I've run an influence mechanic scenario, I like this idea a LOT. I think that the player handouts could be even a separate download, like module pregen sheets or chronicles.

Hmm

4/5 5/55/55/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis

As a GM, I could see the value in mentioning special mechanics that a scenario uses. It allows you to better judge ahead of time how much work it may take you to properly prepare a scenario.

As a player, I shouldn't care. If there are mechanics at work that differ from the normal experience, I feel the GM should either be able to hide those mechanics or explain them and help a player use them.

I haven't played this scenario yet. Some of the talk here made me wonder if I should avoid it, but after reading everything not in spoilers I think it should be alright. Sounds like it will be quite challenging as well.

Not everything should be about combat.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:


Creating language in the blurb just so people can either A) choose to avoid a new mechanic
...
Play a scenario if you want to play it. The mechanics inside should be relatively immaterial as long as a GM does their due diligence and creates a great atmosphere for people having fun.

Uh, no. You're missing the point that the new mechanics may well be what makes me NOT want to play a scenario.

Lets take Assault on the Wound as a very clear counter example. If I had known up front that most of the scenario was using the mass combat rules and my actual character was irrelevant I'm not at all sure that I'd have played it. If I HAD played it my expectations would at least have been in line with what I got.

That latter bit is important. People don't like what they perceive to be "Bait and Switch". There were lots of negative reviews of Assault when it came out that boiled down "I was expecting a role playing scenario and got a board game". Managing expectations is important.

5/5 5/55/55/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

It could also let you know to look the mechanics up so that you're not trying to absorb a scenario AND a minigame at the same time

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

People keep referring to Assault as 'bait and switch' but I actually had a *lot* of fun (albeit via PbP) role-playing out the turns for my army, and reacting to the unfolding scenario of the battlefield (including one point where my Pathfinder irregulars got isolated from the rest of the armies and had a 'GUYS, WHERE'S MY BACKUP?' sort of moment...)

Our army was more effective than in the final steps of the scenario, which was kind of neat.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like you also didn't play the mass combat rules correctly. :)

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Sounds like you also didn't play the mass combat rules correctly. :)

What paragraph bans fu..oh. 36 C, 74 A and WOW... 86 D. That one's a doozy..

Grand Lodge 1/5

Andrew Christian wrote:


Creating language in the blurb just so people can either A) choose to avoid a new mechanic or B) choose to avoid for fear of having a bad GM, is what sets the bad precedence. Play a scenario if you want to play it. The mechanics inside should be relatively immaterial as long as a GM does their due diligence and creates a great atmosphere for people having fun.

If they don't do that, it doesn't matter what the blurb says or what they are told in the scenario.

So what if someone truly doesn't enjoy a non-core game mechanic? What if someone really hates the mass combat rules or something? Should that person have to not have fun because they didn't know ahead of time that a scenario would feature those rules? If your answer is yes, then I don't know what to say. Not everyone enjoys what you do and trying to force what you enjoy on someone seems wrong.

If it was only the Core rules that authors could use people would have a generally good idea of what they're getting into in any given situation but people like a variety of things and limiting rules doesn't seem like the right way to go about this either. So why can't we just have a spot in the blurb saying, this scenario uses the Ultimate Intrigue Influence rules, or Ultimate Combat Mass Combat rules, or Ultimate Campaign Downtime Rules, etc?

You don't have to say how they're being used, how they relate to the story being told or anything like that, just like the blurb doesn't tell you what monsters or opponents or classes or races you will encounter. It seems like a simple solution that will help the game, I still can't see how this would hurt the game in any way.

But if you're dead set on saying that this is purely a "bad GM" problem then maybe we should limit these scenarios to big Cons or 5 Star GM's only like the old EX scenarios were.

Scarab Sages 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:
Paul Jackson wrote:

One very strong impression that I'm getting from this thread is that quite a few GMs seemed to have made mistakes running it. More than usual.

I'll reiterate a point I've made before. When a scenario changes mechanics it should be made VERY clear how explict the GM should be on how the new mechanics work. Otherwise we get more table variation than desired.

I haven't read this one but other, similar, scenarios have NOT been ckear on how explicit the GM should be.

This is a fair critique. The scenario does include a 2+ page summary of the Influence rules. However, I searched through it trying to find somewhere that mentioned actually showing them to or reviewing them with the players, and I couldn't find anything (doesn't mean it isn't there. I might have missed it). There's an in character explanation of how the events will go and how the bidding works in-world mentioned, but nothing about reviewing the Influence rules. I did review them with the players before my run of it, as I felt like that was the appropriate thing to do.
I'm not sure why you'd need the scenario to tell you that the players need to know how the social combat system works. I mean with new players you explain how combat works, right?

One of my takeaways from this thread is that some GMs took the approach when running the scenario that the details of how the mechanics work were unimportant to the players, so they did not fully explain them. For example, several people seemed unaware that they could get a Discovery in addition to an Influence point if they made the DC by 5. My only conclusion is that since the scenario didn't say to share the pages describing the rules of the Influence system with the players, that the GMs felt they were not supposed to share those with the players.

In past Influence scenarios, I think it was presented much more like a typical behind the scenes PFS tracking system.

...

Yes, because telling people "this part is secret, this part is not secret so tell the players" in an adventure never happens. And if it did it would bring down the whole gaming community! </sarcasm>

Seriously, Andrew. You're being completely ridiculous here. Your explanation is basically "the GMs should already know, so telling them to do it is bad" and then adding the word precedent means you think it will lead somewhere worse. Slippery slope like. I mean... do you also think GM guides lead down a terrible path? Because they tell a GM what to do as much as how to do it.

But what about the GMs who don't know? Just because you don't need to be told that foil shouldn't be put in a microwave doesn't mean it shouldn't be written on the packaging. Since there will be people who don't know.

If a couple sentences can turn a "I had a horrible experience" into "and then we did X, it was awesome!"... why wouldn't you add them?

Scarab Sages 2/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
DarkKnight27 wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Declaring some new mechanic in the blurb sets just as bad as precedent.
You'll have to explain this to me. How does calling out a new mechanic that fundamentally changes how the core rules work in the blurb of a scenario set "just as bad a precedent" as a bad GM playing a gotcha game and trying to rack up TPK's?

Ok, you are creating a false analogy and putting words in my mouth here. GM's playing a gotcha game and trying to rack up TPK's is not setting a bad precedence. That's just simply bad GMing. And shouldn't happen no matter what the blurb says.

Creating language in the blurb just so people can either A) choose to avoid a new mechanic or B) choose to avoid for fear of having a bad GM, is what sets the bad precedence. Play a scenario if you want to play it. The mechanics inside should be relatively immaterial as long as a GM does their due diligence and creates a great atmosphere for people having fun.

If they don't do that, it doesn't matter what the blurb says or what they are told in the scenario.

This is fundamentally wrong. People sit down at a home game or not depending on the mechanics the GM chooses to implement. I mean, one of the core things you should know as a GM is to inform the players what rules you will be using outside of "the norm". I'm sure you are aware of this. Why should it be any different for PFS?

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

8 people marked this as a favorite.

If players know ahead of time they'll be using the influence rules, they can read up on them ahead of time. This saves time spent at the table on explaining them. Leaving more time for scenario content. It also helps build a safety net for the GM if the players also understand the rules, because if he does mess up something in a bad way, players can help correct him and get things back on track.

Nobody's arguing players shouldn't know the regular combat rules, and it's generally agreed that players don't need to know the stats of the monsters they're currently facing. Influence combat should be the same: you know the rules, have some idea if your attacks are hitting, but don't know how tough your opposition is until you test it.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:


Ok, you are creating a false analogy and putting words in my mouth here. GM's playing a gotcha game and trying to rack up TPK's is not setting a bad precedence. That's just simply bad GMing. And shouldn't happen no matter what the blurb says.

Creating language in the blurb just so people can either A) choose to avoid a new mechanic or B) choose to avoid for fear of having a bad GM, is what sets the bad precedence. Play a scenario if you want to play it. The mechanics inside should be relatively immaterial as long as a GM does their due diligence and creates a great atmosphere for people having fun.

If they don't do that, it doesn't matter what the blurb says or what they are told in the scenario.

That is utter nonsense.

The blurb says, in short, "this a social and rp heavy scenario" so it was reasonable to bring face type characters. Who were sidelined by the actual scenario.

If people had known this was about demonstrating the UI social combat rules, which hopefully will never ever see the light of day again, people who didn't want to deal with their rp being turned into a diced abstraction could avoid it.

I played this with a good table and one of my favorite GM's. The mechanic took over the night. I hated this scenario. This was just as bad as the library research scenario earlier this season. Single mechanics like that should not take over entire scenarios. And in the library one my character was the one the carried the party but it was still a terrible scenario.

Silver Crusade

Jessex wrote:

That is utter nonsense.

The blurb says, in short, "this a social and rp heavy scenario" so it was reasonable to bring face type characters. Who were sidelined by the actual scenario.

Actually,

#7–22: Bid for Alabastrine wrote:

A Pathfinder Society Scenario designed for levels 1–5.

Decades ago, the merchant nation of Druma anticipated a wave of migrants and built the city Alabastrine to accommodate them. The mass migration never happened. Always seeking a return on investment, Druma recently began auctioning off control of the city to the highest bidders and wealthiest entrepreneurs for five years at a time. The next auction begins soon, and the powerful Aspis Consortium gold agent Myrosype—an enemy of the Society responsible for countless Pathfinders’ deaths—is poised to take control of the whole city for her own nefarious ends. The Society has secured a few invitations for the PCs to attend the auction. Can they disrupt the event’s delicate politics in order to stop their rival, or will the Aspis Consortium gain an unassailable stronghold?

Content in “Bid for Alabastrine” also contributes directly to the ongoing storyline of the Exchange Faction. Content in this scenario also ties into a special metaplot element from Pathfinder Society Special #6–98: "Serpents Rise". Players who have completed that special event are encouraged to bring its Chronicle sheet when playing this adventure.

Written by Thurston Hillman.

It doesn't say it's a social and RP heavy scenario. With the mention of a deadly antagonist (oh, and that Myrosype lady) I figured it would be a heavy combat scenario with a social backdrop due to the auction. Or at least an intrigue/stealth based one.

Jessex wrote:

If people had known this was about demonstrating the UI social combat rules, which hopefully will never ever see the light of day again, people who didn't want to deal with their rp being turned into a diced abstraction could avoid it.

I played this with a good table and one of my favorite GM's. The mechanic took over the night. I hated this scenario. This was just as bad as the library research scenario earlier this season. Single mechanics like that should not take over entire scenarios. And in the library one my character was the one the carried the party but it was still a terrible scenario.

Is people having to use skills outside of perception and diplomacy really what's got everyone going for torches and pitchforks over this?

1/5

Rysky wrote:
Is people having to use skills outside of perception and diplomacy really what's got everyone going for torches and pitchforks over this?

No. I have an empiricist that I quite enjoy. I actually lean toward skill monkey characters. I just truly hated this scenario with a white hot passion.

Role playing should be down with a minimum of dice rolling IMO. Secondly there already exists rules for how to influence people. The skill rules from the CRB. We've been using them for more than a decade and everyone knows how they work.

This scenario would have worked just fine if they had left out the UI stuff and stuck to the well understood uses of social skills in social situations. That is what is frustrating people. You bring a social oriented character to a scenario that is socially oriented and told your PC is nearly useless but the wizard is vital and will carry the day because he has all the knowledge skills.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jessex wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Is people having to use skills outside of perception and diplomacy really what's got everyone going for torches and pitchforks over this?

No. I have an empiricist that I quite enjoy. I actually lean toward skill monkey characters. I just truly hated this scenario with a white hot passion.

Role playing should be down with a minimum of dice rolling IMO. Secondly there already exists rules for how to influence people. The skill rules from the CRB. We've been using them for more than a decade and everyone knows how they work.

This scenario would have worked just fine if they had left out the UI stuff and stuck to the well understood uses of social skills in social situations. That is what is frustrating people. You bring a social oriented character to a scenario that is socially oriented and told your PC is nearly useless but the wizard is vital and will carry the day because he has all the knowledge skills.

As has been stated previously, just because you're a good talker doesn't mean you have anything good to talk about.

I'm actually quite happy with interactions being moved outside just diplomacy, it encourages other characters to interact in social settings rather than just a face.

Would this scenario worked with just a bunch of Diplomacy rolls? Probably, but that would be incredibly boring.

It's just like real life when people around you are talking, even if your not that much of a conversationalist there's still moments where "Hey! I know what they're talking about! I can join in on a conversation finally!" occurs.

1/5

Rysky wrote:
Jessex wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Is people having to use skills outside of perception and diplomacy really what's got everyone going for torches and pitchforks over this?

No. I have an empiricist that I quite enjoy. I actually lean toward skill monkey characters. I just truly hated this scenario with a white hot passion.

Role playing should be down with a minimum of dice rolling IMO. Secondly there already exists rules for how to influence people. The skill rules from the CRB. We've been using them for more than a decade and everyone knows how they work.

This scenario would have worked just fine if they had left out the UI stuff and stuck to the well understood uses of social skills in social situations. That is what is frustrating people. You bring a social oriented character to a scenario that is socially oriented and told your PC is nearly useless but the wizard is vital and will carry the day because he has all the knowledge skills.

As has been stated previously, just because you're a good talker doesn't mean you have anything good to talk about.

I'm actually quite happy with interactions being moved outside just diplomacy, it encourages other characters to interact in social settings rather than just a face.

Would this scenario worked with just a bunch of Diplomacy rolls? Probably, but that would be incredibly boring.

It's just like real life when people around you are talking, even if your not that much of a conversationalist there's still moments where "Hey! I know what they're talking about! I can join in on a conversation finally!" occurs.

Which would have been fine. But the scenario completely sidelined the social characters, presumably played by the players interested in that aspect of role playing, which is quite likely the source of the frustration. Maybe something where the character with the knowledge skill could aid the character with the diplomacy or some such would have been better. But a set up where it was just a giant "who has the knowledge skills mechanic" sucked.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Jessex wrote:
Which would have been fine. But the scenario completely sidelined the social characters, presumably played by the players interested in that aspect of role playing, which is quite likely the source of the frustration. Maybe something where the character with the knowledge skill could aid the character with the diplomacy or some such would have been better. But a set up where it was just a giant "who has the knowledge skills mechanic" sucked.

Sorry, had to axe the earlier posts due to length.

Whereas every other character that isn't the Face would be sidelined when using the other rules. These new rules make socials more inclusive, rather than exclusive, which is why I like them.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Warning chase scene

*crickets crickets*

Silver Crusade

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Warning chase scene

*crickets crickets*

Nononono, it should be like one of those old-school arcade games with the warning sound effects followed by the correct button pushes needed scrolling across the screen.

3/5 **** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

DarkKnight27 wrote:

You don't have to say how they're being used, how they relate to the story being told or anything like that, just like the blurb doesn't tell you what monsters or opponents or classes or races you will encounter. It seems like a simple solution that will help the game, I still can't see how this would hurt the game in any way.

So you want to ruin the GM experience by giving the player's the exact tactics they need to run rough shot over the scenario? And yeah before you actively complain that Im exaggerating there are simple hard counters to a lot of newer classes that you wouldn't be able to tell normally and would be easy as all hell to do if you had your goofy warning.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jessex wrote:
Which would have been fine. But the scenario completely sidelined the social characters, presumably played by the players interested in that aspect of role playing, which is quite likely the source of the frustration. Maybe something where the character with the knowledge skill could aid the character with the diplomacy or some such would have been better. But a set up where it was just a giant "who has the knowledge skills mechanic" sucked.

That's just not true. The DCs were set so that a generic Diplo-heavy PC could handle them at his own tier. However, each NPC also has specific-interest skills that are even easier, but you need different skills for each one of them.

So in this scenario a classic Face can handle every NPC reasonably well, while other skilled PCs can handle just a few of the NPCs, but very well. An efficient party would allocate the Face to whichever NPC it lacks the special-interest skills for.

The Exchange 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MadScientistWorking wrote:
DarkKnight27 wrote:

You don't have to say how they're being used, how they relate to the story being told or anything like that, just like the blurb doesn't tell you what monsters or opponents or classes or races you will encounter. It seems like a simple solution that will help the game, I still can't see how this would hurt the game in any way.

So you want to ruin the GM experience by giving the player's the exact tactics they need to run rough shot over the scenario? And yeah before you actively complain that Im exaggerating there are simple hard counters to a lot of newer classes that you wouldn't be able to tell normally and would be easy as all hell to do if you had your goofy warning.

I don't even understand this post...

are you saying the judge needs to NOT tell the players what rules are being used? That to do so would "...ruin the GM experience by giving the player's the exact tactics they need ..."?

Or that the players need to pick the scenario to sign up for without knowing what rules will be included in the game being run?

Please expand on this statement "...there are simple hard counters to a lot of newer classes that you wouldn't be able to tell normally... ". What are you trying to say here?

I also did not understand the statement "...would be easy as all hell to do if you had your goofy warning." I mean other than the part where you felt that "his" warning was "goofy"... I get that you do not like the idea of putting a warning label on scenarios.

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DarkKnight27 wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


Creating language in the blurb just so people can either A) choose to avoid a new mechanic or B) choose to avoid for fear of having a bad GM, is what sets the bad precedence. Play a scenario if you want to play it. The mechanics inside should be relatively immaterial as long as a GM does their due diligence and creates a great atmosphere for people having fun.

If they don't do that, it doesn't matter what the blurb says or what they are told in the scenario.

So what if someone truly doesn't enjoy a non-core game mechanic? What if someone really hates the mass combat rules or something? Should that person have to not have fun because they didn't know ahead of time that a scenario would feature those rules? If your answer is yes, then I don't know what to say. Not everyone enjoys what you do and trying to force what you enjoy on someone seems wrong.

If it was only the Core rules that authors could use people would have a generally good idea of what they're getting into in any given situation but people like a variety of things and limiting rules doesn't seem like the right way to go about this either. So why can't we just have a spot in the blurb saying, this scenario uses the Ultimate Intrigue Influence rules, or Ultimate Combat Mass Combat rules, or Ultimate Campaign Downtime Rules, etc?

You don't have to say how they're being used, how they relate to the story being told or anything like that, just like the blurb doesn't tell you what monsters or opponents or classes or races you will encounter. It seems like a simple solution that will help the game, I still can't see how this would hurt the game in any way.

But if you're dead set on saying that this is purely a "bad GM" problem then maybe we should limit these scenarios to big Cons or 5 Star GM's only like the old EX scenarios were.

It's not purely a bad gm problem. I also see it as a player issue. People are saying "This scenario wasn't what I expected so you should have warned me" Which is kind of ridiculous if you think about it. Should I expect to be told a scenario uses incorpreal foes so I can avoid it? What if climb or swim is required? Better tell me, I won't have fun if I bring that full plate guy. Heaven forbid I run into hardness or dr\-, better tell me so I can bring that beats tick with an adamantine gteatsword.

What I see a large portion of the complaints being is "I didn't get my 2 prestige so you should have told me so I could avoid it." I get so tired of the whining from people that complain unless they "win", whatever it is that winning means to them. Some of my most memorable scenarios are the ones I wasn't always successful in them.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Jessex wrote:
Which would have been fine. But the scenario completely sidelined the social characters, presumably played by the players interested in that aspect of role playing, which is quite likely the source of the frustration. Maybe something where the character with the knowledge skill could aid the character with the diplomacy or some such would have been better. But a set up where it was just a giant "who has the knowledge skills mechanic" sucked.

That's just not true. The DCs were set so that a generic Diplo-heavy PC could handle them at his own tier. However, each NPC also has specific-interest skills that are even easier, but you need different skills for each one of them.

So in this scenario a classic Face can handle every NPC reasonably well, while other skilled PCs can handle just a few of the NPCs, but very well. An efficient party would allocate the Face to whichever NPC it lacks the special-interest skills for.

I am getting the impression from the OP and several later posters that this is not always the case. Likely due to Judge error - possibly due to the use of new, poorly understood rules, being interpreted in the worst possible way.

Reminds me of a game I played in where the judge ruled that the damage listed on a creatures attack (listed as Melee bite +4 (1d3–4 plus attach)) was clearly a typo, so he corrected it to be Melee bite +4 (1d3+4 plus attach), which turned the Weasel Familiar into a real terror!

To him it made no sense to list the attack damage as 1d3 minus 4, that would mean the creature could never actually do damage right? so it must have been a typo! So he fixed it...

Felt like we were fighting a certain rabbit ... we really needed a Holy Hand Grenade...

I wonder if this is what happened in the OPs game. Clearly these rules should modify the existing Diplomacy rules... and are used to get other PCs into the social interaction - so how best to do that? Make it harder for the Diplomat PC so he needs the other skills! Not saying that is what happened, just that it sounds from the OP that that is what is happening at least some of the time.

3/5 **** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

nosig wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
DarkKnight27 wrote:

You don't have to say how they're being used, how they relate to the story being told or anything like that, just like the blurb doesn't tell you what monsters or opponents or classes or races you will encounter. It seems like a simple solution that will help the game, I still can't see how this would hurt the game in any way.

So you want to ruin the GM experience by giving the player's the exact tactics they need to run rough shot over the scenario? And yeah before you actively complain that Im exaggerating there are simple hard counters to a lot of newer classes that you wouldn't be able to tell normally and would be easy as all hell to do if you had your goofy warning.

I don't even understand this post...

are you saying the judge needs to NOT tell the players what rules are being used? That to do so would "...ruin the GM experience by giving the player's the exact tactics they need ..."?

Or that the players need to pick the scenario to sign up for without knowing what rules will be included in the game being run?

Please expand on this statement "...there are simple hard counters to a lot of newer classes that you wouldn't be able to tell normally... ". What are you trying to say here?

I also did not understand the statement "...would be easy as all hell to do if you had your goofy warning." I mean other than the part where you felt that "his" warning was "goofy"... I get that you do not like the idea of putting a warning label on scenarios.

Basically, to dictate what monsters are in a scenario is a horrible and kind of obnoxious suggestion to make.

The Exchange 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MadScientistWorking wrote:
nosig wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
DarkKnight27 wrote:

You don't have to say how they're being used, how they relate to the story being told or anything like that, just like the blurb doesn't tell you what monsters or opponents or classes or races you will encounter. It seems like a simple solution that will help the game, I still can't see how this would hurt the game in any way.

So you want to ruin the GM experience by giving the player's the exact tactics they need to run rough shot over the scenario? And yeah before you actively complain that Im exaggerating there are simple hard counters to a lot of newer classes that you wouldn't be able to tell normally and would be easy as all hell to do if you had your goofy warning.

I don't even understand this post...

are you saying the judge needs to NOT tell the players what rules are being used? That to do so would "...ruin the GM experience by giving the player's the exact tactics they need ..."?

Or that the players need to pick the scenario to sign up for without knowing what rules will be included in the game being run?

Please expand on this statement "...there are simple hard counters to a lot of newer classes that you wouldn't be able to tell normally... ". What are you trying to say here?

I also did not understand the statement "...would be easy as all hell to do if you had your goofy warning." I mean other than the part where you felt that "his" warning was "goofy"... I get that you do not like the idea of putting a warning label on scenarios.

Basically, to dictate what monsters are in a scenario is a horrible and kind of obnoxious suggestion to make.

Sorry. I must have missed that post. Where did someone "dictate what monsters are in a scenario"?

All I have seen is some posters saying "I want a warning label when these new rules are being used instead of the (CRB) existing rules" and replies saying "quite whining".

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mad Scientist working wrote:
Basically, to dictate what monsters are in a scenario is a horrible and kind of obnoxious suggestion to make.

erm.. what?

No one said, hinted, implied, suggested that they dictate what monsters are in the scenario. Just that if you're going to have a new subsystem that the players have to use that you let the players see that subsystem.

Dark Archive 5/5 5/5

TOZ wrote:
Sounds like you also didn't play the mass combat rules correctly. :)

I'm still so sorry about that....

Scarab Sages 2/5

Mulgar wrote:

It's not purely a bad gm problem. I also see it as a player issue. People are saying "This scenario wasn't what I expected so you should...

It's not purely a bad gm problem. I also see it as a player issue. People are saying "This scenario wasn't what I expected so you should have warned me" Which is kind of ridiculous if you think about it. Should I expect to be told a scenario uses incorpreal foes so I can avoid it? What if climb or swim is required? Better tell me, I won't have fun if I bring that full plate guy. Heaven forbid I run into hardness or dr\-, better tell me so I can bring that beats tick with an adamantine gteatsword.

I'd like to shine just a little light on this...

If the "incorporeal" ability came out in a recent book and this was the first time it was put into an adventure... would you still think it silly to have some form of warning for the players?

Shadow Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to start this post by saying I enjoyed Bid for Alabastrine. I will also say that our party was nearly perfectly designed to win this scenario(though I strongly feel that Jon's "I use profession(bartender) for all of my rolls" was outside the original design intent of this scenario). We did beat it, with flying colors and no less than four successes on every district. I suspect my enjoyment was tied to 1) the fact that story is good, 2) the GM, 3) the players, and 4) the fact that I didn't feel like a worthless lump.

Now that I said, I really do feel and understand where the people that dislike this scenario come from. At a random group of players, with an unexpected set of skills available things could be different. With a GM that's unprepared for the difficulty of keeping the mechanics of this scenario on-track and recorded properly, I could suspect things could have been easily different. If I had played a more combative character (that's still not worthless in an investigative or social scenario), I may have felt differently. For those of us that did enjoy ourselves, we should keep this in mind when we're criticizing those that didn't enjoy themselves.

Also note that everything I just discussed for ways this scenario could go pear shaped didn't involve the scenario's authoring. Don't blame Thursty (his job is to put a great story around these mechanics, which he did) for your lack of fun. The story in fact was quite good, and thematically the idea was spot on, it was a mechanical difficulty that's at hand here. In fact, I suspect a lot of the variability in enjoyment has to do with this scenario being the first time this was put into practice. We're just witnessing the struggle associated with it. I recall vividly the time the chase mechanic was introduced and how our group had three characters that never got off the first square and swore off chases forever because of it. This really isn't much different. And as much as some of us still dislike chases, they did get better, or at least more balanced.

I spent a chunk of this morning trying to analyze the likelihood of success using the Iconic pregen group that's used in the comics. Although it's complex enough I haven't gotten much further than the first discovery and about half of the influence check (I'm rethinking my approach now to take the "best path possible", I'm not convinced mechanically success is possible on average with what is considered "the most average group of adventurers ever". So I don't think that those that disliked this scenario are without merit, and it's kinda bugging me how they're being piled on for disliking a scenario.

I know somebody that just recently disliked the mechanics in a scenario because they were "not within the scope of the normal rules". Please remember your own dislike of certain scenarios when people explain their dislike of this one.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mulgar wrote:
Should I expect to be told a scenario uses incorpreal foes so I can avoid it? What if climb or swim is required? Better tell me, I won't have fun if I bring that full plate guy. Heaven forbid I run into hardness or dr\-, better tell me so I can bring that beats tick with an adamantine gteatsword.

1) The society sending people that are actually qualified to do the mission makes the game LESS metagamey, not more. Grogthack the Headsquisher going to the semi anual High Falutin Ball and reception because bob is sitting at the table and only has one character for the game this week is an entirely metagamey decision, but a neccesary one. If he has two characters Grogthack and Sir Tristan de Montaigne the VIth, bard extraordinaire, by any in game consideration the society really should be sending Sir Tristan.

So IF the society knows that there is something incorporeal to deal with they should be sending the force mage. That's a big IF. The venture captains aren't omnicient (except when it comes to expecting tea cups)

I know at least one scenario where there's a switherroo because you're sent on a diplomatic mission and wind up trudging around in a swamp.

2) A mechanical system is not the same as one special ability. it's far more complicated, interactive, and most importantly something the character should know A character that's very good at schmoozing should have some idea how to effectively schmooze.

Quote:
What I see a large portion of the complaints being is "I didn't get my 2 prestige so you should have told me so I could avoid it." I get so tired of the whining from people that complain unless they "win", whatever it is that winning means to them. Some of my most memorable scenarios are the ones I wasn't always successful in them.

And so are some of the most annoying.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
As has been stated previously, just because you're a good talker doesn't mean you have anything good to talk about.

A good talker has a way of engaging people that makes them interested in a conversation. So while I can see being able to talk shop with the wizard might give you a circumstance bonus to your diplomacy check, it shouldn't replace it. You could be a brilliant mind, but be a boring person to talk to.

Rysky wrote:
It's just like real life when people around you are talking, even if your not that much of a conversationalist there's still moments where "Hey! I know what they're talking about! I can join in on a conversation finally!" occurs.

But if that person sounds like a loud, obnoxious jerk, do you join in just because you are familiar with the topic?

The diplomacy skill in the Core Rulebook has a set of DCs associated with certain tasks. When checks within those parameters start failing, the player of the face character feels cheated. When the friendly NPC is asked for simple aid, but suddenly, a 20 Diplomacy check fails, that's a problem.

Grand Lodge 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MadScientistWorking wrote:
DarkKnight27 wrote:

You don't have to say how they're being used, how they relate to the story being told or anything like that, just like the blurb doesn't tell you what monsters or opponents or classes or races you will encounter. It seems like a simple solution that will help the game, I still can't see how this would hurt the game in any way.

So you want to ruin the GM experience by giving the player's the exact tactics they need to run rough shot over the scenario? And yeah before you actively complain that Im exaggerating there are simple hard counters to a lot of newer classes that you wouldn't be able to tell normally and would be easy as all hell to do if you had your goofy warning.

Um... what? How does saying "This scenario features Ultimate Intrigue Influence Rules" or "This scenario features Ultimate Combat Mass Combat Rules", give anything away to the players other than what variant or new rules are going to be featured and "ruin the GM experience"? Please explain.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 *

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Another thing I've heard people talk about in this thread is tier-appropriate DCs. That doesn't exist in Pathfinder. This isn't D&D 4e, where everyone gets to add half their level to all checks. A level 10 character with 1 rank of Diplomacy isn't going to be that much more likely to succeed at a given task than a level 1 PC with one rank of diplomacy.

Increasing the DCs of checks from low subtier to high just punishes people who diversify their skills rather than specialize.

I've had several encounters in season 7 where I'm running for a table of PCs forced to play up with the 4 player adjustment because they are (just barely) in between subtiers. The PCs ended up failing or nearly failing encounters because the DCs of the skill checks were arbitrarily increased by 3 for the high subtier. If it wasn't a skill the 2 level 5 PCs were specialized in, the other PCs mostly level 2 and 3 had to roll really well. When the encounter is written where at least half-the party has to succeed, you're hoping at least 3 PCs out of 6 get excellent results on their d20.

Grand Lodge 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mulgar wrote:

It's not purely a bad gm problem. I also see it as a player issue. People are saying "This scenario wasn't what I expected so you should have warned me" Which is kind of ridiculous if you think about it. Should I expect to be told a scenario uses incorpreal foes so I can avoid it? What if climb or swim is required? Better tell me, I won't have fun if I bring that full plate guy. Heaven forbid I run into hardness or dr\-, better tell me so I can bring that beats tick with an adamantine gteatsword.

What I see a large portion of the complaints being is "I didn't get my 2 prestige so you should have told me so I could avoid it." I get so tired of the whining from people that complain unless they "win", whatever it is that winning means to them. Some of my most memorable scenarios are the ones I wasn't always successful in them.

Nope, there's no need to tell people there might be incorporeal creatures, creatures with DR, swim checks, climb checks, or any other specific check or monster because pretty much all of that is part of the Core game, the rules for incorporeal and DR are right in the CRB even.

But if you're going to feature a completely new way to do something like the Ultimate Intrigue Influence system then it should be noted in the blurb that those rules will feature in the scenario. It's not unreasonable to know going into something what rules mechanic will be used. And like someone else said, no one is asking for a list of monsters that will be fought or specific skill DC's that are going to be faced to be in the blurb. But the number of people who've told me this was all a GM problem is why I brought up limiting these scenarios to big Cons or 5 Star GM's.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's the thing though, the influence system / verbal dueling isn't really doing anything new in the same way that mass combat is.

It opens up uses for more skills. Skills that characters have always had access to. It's just now that they're getting more chances to be used.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Rysky wrote:

Here's the thing though, the influence system / verbal dueling isn't really doing anything new in the same way that mass combat is.

It opens up uses for more skills. Skills that characters have always had access to. It's just now that they're getting more chances to be used.

That's fine. But if you're used to discovery checks being worthless from hellknights feast etc. it should be pointed out to you that the mechanics have changed, so you can decide to try them or not.

Grand Lodge 1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Here's the thing though, the influence system / verbal dueling isn't really doing anything new in the same way that mass combat is.

It opens up uses for more skills. Skills that characters have always had access to. It's just now that they're getting more chances to be used.

But it does change things because in stead of rolling a knowledge skill or profession skill to get a bonus on a diplomacy roll (the way it should work in my opinion), you are rolling a knowledge skill or profession skill IN PLACE of a diplomacy skill and the DC for doing this was reduced. So that is a fairly fundamental change.

Scarab Sages 2/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Here's the thing though, the influence system / verbal dueling isn't really doing anything new in the same way that mass combat is.

It opens up uses for more skills. Skills that characters have always had access to. It's just now that they're getting more chances to be used.

They turned a diplomacy check into a turn-based combat system using skill checks instead of attacks which includes "hits", "knowledge checks for DR" and "HP".(Influence points, discoveries and how many points you need). And it required 2 pages to be explained.

I think perhaps it is a tad more than "oh, now you can use skills other than diplomacy to convince someone to like you!".

But, I do applaud the idea of rewarding people for putting points into "junk/rp" skills. Though, I think the next logical step is to either increase the skill points given to 2+int classes or to make the Background Skills system the norm.

The Exchange 5/5

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, here's an interesting thought.

If this scenario uses a rules sub-set that I (the judge) am unfamiliar with, it's kind of nice having a player at the table who knows how it works.

A while back I was running a game with very little prep - and one of the NPCs was a class that I had never run, in fact that I had never even SEEN run. Yeah, I read the book on it (10-15 minutes of my hour prep time in fact) - but when it came to running him in combat? heck, I could read his tactics but understand them? So I came to that moment in the melee where I'm not sure how it works and... just asked. Sure enough, there's a player at the table who's eyes light up. "Hay! I run a guy like that! Yeah, that's a feat, it does XXX". Me: "So when it says he does YY?" Player: "Oh, he should move to here to do that because...". And it made the game much more fun then me trying to stumble thru playing something I had no idea how it worked. And next time I run it - I'll better understand those class abilities.

I can see letting everyone at the table know we're using the "new rule sub-set from XXX"... that means more than one set of eyes looking at it and more than one brain trying to figure out how to run it.

After all, I'm playing WITH the players, not AGAINST them.

Grand Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I have to agree with nosig.

251 to 300 of 394 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Please Change This All Messageboards