|
Instead of doing another bonekeep they should add more hard modes to scenarios. This way we get a scenario that is usable by everyone but still provides the extra challenge for people that want them.
Rather than go off on who is belittling who, I'll just remind everybody of this idea and indicate that there are ways to get your "hard mode on" without Bonekeep. In addressing my previous concern, this would be a solution that would allow the development team to better use their precious time by developing scenarios that reach a much broader audience than a one-off that a small subset of the community finds interest.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Belittling those players who do not want to play another Bonekeep or scenarios a la Bonekeep will not convince me nor anyone else who might be able to make the choice to put one on the schedule.Nobody has belittled you. Your only opinion up until now was "No" and, seeing as there are only 3 Bonekeeps out of hundreds of scenarios and a minority of players who enjoy them, I felt belittled by such a curt answer as a player who does enjoy such things.
Bonekeep is optional, and by design, doesn't tie into the metaplot, so people who don't care about it are free to ignore it. I'd say Bonekeep is no more detrimental to new players than the Hard Mode of All For Immortality. Do some players use challenging content (like Bonekeep and Hard Mode) as an excuse to min-max and disregard the feelings of their party? Certainly. But some players also use scenarios like Bid for Alabastrine as an excuse to play min-maxed skill characters, who steal the spotlight from the rest of the party. Blaming content itself for the behavior of a minority of the player base, does a disservice to everyone who likes that brand of content.
The above quote does not describe me. But it does belittle other people in the community.
|
Instead of doing another bonekeep they should add more hard modes to scenarios. This way we get a scenario that is usable by everyone but still provides the extra challenge for people that want them.Rather than go off on who is belittling who, I'll just remind everybody of this idea and indicate that there are ways to get your "hard mode on" without Bonekeep. In addressing my previous concern, this would be a solution that would allow the development team to better use their precious time by developing scenarios that reach a much broader audience than a one-off that a small subset of the community finds interest.
I'm going to disagree because these broader appeal scenarios aren't developed to create this experience.
You know what happens when you are offered the opportunity to fight a powerful enemy but can diplomacy out of the situation and you want to use that opportunity to challenge yourself instead?
You're a jerk.
You are setting the table up to be disappointed. People are coming with different expectations. As I said before the best part about Bonekeep is it doesn't trick you; you got what was on the cover.
The best part about Bonekeep is like-minded people get to enjoy a difficult adventure together.
|
|
Belittling those players who do not want to play another Bonekeep or scenarios a la Bonekeep will not convince me nor anyone else who might be able to make the choice to put one on the schedule.Nobody has belittled you. Your only opinion up until now was "No" and, seeing as there are only 3 Bonekeeps out of hundreds of scenarios and a minority of players who enjoy them, I felt belittled by such a curt answer as a player who does enjoy such things.
Bonekeep is optional, and by design, doesn't tie into the metaplot, so people who don't care about it are free to ignore it. I'd say Bonekeep is no more detrimental to new players than the Hard Mode of All For Immortality. Do some players use challenging content (like Bonekeep and Hard Mode) as an excuse to min-max and disregard the feelings of their party? Certainly. But some players also use scenarios like Bid for Alabastrine as an excuse to play min-maxed skill characters, who steal the spotlight from the rest of the party. Blaming content itself for the behavior of a minority of the player base, does a disservice to everyone who likes that brand of content.The above quote does not describe me. But it does belittle other people in the community.
I'm clearly biased but I see his point a lot easier. It is much easier to avoid playing 3 specific specials than it is to avoid playing the hundreds of other scenarios. I suppose you could argue limited development time means those 3 specials stole more opportunity for another normal scenario but like... I gotta be honest it's just three scenarios..we don't have much to give.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is also a group who enjoy 'no combat scenarios', where if you must kill something to make it through you gain 0 xp, 0 pp. Following your line there should be a scenario once a year or every other year that requires optimized social characters just to make it through. And to make it more interesting, if a characters fail to make it through that scenario without killing somebody, the character is drummed out of the Pathfinder Society.
Outside the meta-plot and as a special. With a warning that this is a dangerous, social mission. I'd love to see that.
One change though, failure means being jailed and therefore unplayable*. The drumming-out is very anti-cooperate and not what the society should be promoting.
* Even provide a special set of recovery conditions that end up costing about what body recovery/raise/restoration costs.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm clearly biased but I see his point a lot easier. It is much easier to avoid playing 3 specific specials than it is to avoid playing the hundreds of other scenarios. I suppose you could argue limited development time means those 3 specials stole more opportunity for another normal scenario but like... I gotta be honest it's just three scenarios..we don't have much to give.Belittling those players who do not want to play another Bonekeep or scenarios a la Bonekeep will not convince me nor anyone else who might be able to make the choice to put one on the schedule.Nobody has belittled you. Your only opinion up until now was "No" and, seeing as there are only 3 Bonekeeps out of hundreds of scenarios and a minority of players who enjoy them, I felt belittled by such a curt answer as a player who does enjoy such things.
Bonekeep is optional, and by design, doesn't tie into the metaplot, so people who don't care about it are free to ignore it. I'd say Bonekeep is no more detrimental to new players than the Hard Mode of All For Immortality. Do some players use challenging content (like Bonekeep and Hard Mode) as an excuse to min-max and disregard the feelings of their party? Certainly. But some players also use scenarios like Bid for Alabastrine as an excuse to play min-maxed skill characters, who steal the spotlight from the rest of the party. Blaming content itself for the behavior of a minority of the player base, does a disservice to everyone who likes that brand of content.The above quote does not describe me. But it does belittle other people in the community.
Get you and three of yer closest PFS buddies. Ask a GM to run a later season scenario for you and not use the four player adjustment.
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I vote for diplomatic envoy mission to Axis and dealing with inevitables. If anyone is going to lock you away for eternity, it's them.
Man, that would be painful. Especially since many bards are chaotic... I will say though that I really enjoy hard core social missions.
For the most part I think that Society Play has found its proper balance in Seasons 7 and 8. You get encounters that diplomats can talk their way out of, combined with encounters that you have to fight. Everyone gets something.
____
I will never run or play Bonekeep, but I like that Bonekeep is obvious for what it is. If you want a merciless killer scenario, you know that Bonekeep is your thing. If you are like me and you want to meet trolls so you can invite them to drinking contests, you know that Bonekeep is not for you. There's no bait and switch.
Because I plan to never touch Bonekeep, I feel like I have no pony in this race. What I do care about is that we're all getting way too upset with each other. Each side is making assumptions about the other. Wanting a melee challenge does not make one a munchkin. Wanting social encounters does not make a person into a fun-draining fop. Let's take the personal attacks out, and concentrate on the more important questions.
1) What does Bonekeep offer the Society if it is independent from the main storyline?
2) Do its benefits outweigh the higher cost in development time that all specials cost? Is it better to create a fourth Bonekeep, or to spend the same development time on a higher level Evergreen? I'll note that Tome can be very challenging. If the party agrees, the GM can set up a really frightening dungeon crawl for them.
3) How can you kindle that intensity that some people crave and strike a balance?
I have no answers, just questions.
Hmm
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is my main beef with the Bonekeep scenarios.
When I ran parts one and two ("But not three?" We'll get to that...) at GenCon the exact same thing happened: Six players, four pregens.
Now all of these pregen playing players had characters in tier, but did not want to roll the dice and maybe die if they played their character. To them, this was no big deal. To the other players it was.
So when characters died the pregen players started bragging about crib death dash eighteen, while the one or two who played their own character started calculating for how much they could use prestige and/or if they needed to sell equipment to get back to life. And since the pregen players did not care, they did not even hint at offering to help pay for spell casting services. This I would argue was detrimental to the community.
I had similar experiences GMing all 3 parts at GenCon. I had different players every time but the composition was the same for each: 2 players with pregens, 2 with "real" characters, and 2 with xxxxx-1 characters that they had either started that weekend (Parts 1 and 2) or were very casual players who had taken 2 or 3 years to get to that level. And the results were the same each time. 3 rooms completed, 2 deaths, everyone else runs away.
When the xxxxx-1 characters died, that was a real turnoff for the two that happened to. Especially when the pregen player was bragging about how he "has a much better character that could have saved you" but didn't want to risk it.
I'm not opposed to another Bonekeep-type scenario, but I think offering it as a convention "Special" is detrimental. When new or very casual players see that "Special" tag they are eager to get into it, even if it doesn't really meet their playstyle. So if we do see another one I'd like it to be a normal release (with a warning) that Organizers can schedule when - and if - it makes sense for their location.
Yes.
Having already GMed it all, I played Parts 1 and 3 with groups of 6 well-built characters and tactically sound players. We still had one death in each and barely got through by the skin of our teeth. Part 2 was three really powerful characters and two pregens. No deaths but we had to tap out with 3 rooms to go because everyone was almost completely out of resources.
|
|
HMM,
I like your points.
Some counter-points.
1) We have several scenario's that have nothing to do with meta-plot of whats going on currently. Therefore a Bonekeep style scenario won't take away from active Meta-plot in future seasons as it can occupy one of the 4 average mods that do nothing for season they place in.
2) The development time for a Bonekeep style module may in fact be shorter than development of a standard special. There is less boxtext, and less things to add into the module to keep continuity flowing. It really comes down to map design. I'd say that short of paying a known author (I dunno if Jason wrote Bonekeep for free) to write is most likely the highest cost.
3) The intensity is just that. Bonekeep 1 was amazing. Absolutely amazing. Every table of Bonekeep at Gen Con has always sold out. There is definitely a want for dungeon crawls. There is a want for meaty slugfests. The intensity and drive to be the very best is there for min-maxers to go all out.
4) The beaten dead pony. Whether we like to admit it or not, Arm's races happen. They happen all over, all the time. Bonekeep was, and to me still is the go to, to really let the Arms Race happen. Bring your toys, we will bring our toys, and may the best design win. As much as we deny this to be the case, some people have this mindset, and I think that the occasional ubermech dungeon is the answer.
Heck, if we could delve at Gen Con with level 7 characters for ten dollars for two hours, in the most horrific hellish CR 13 + encounter environment, with four dollars going to charity, there would be a line outside the Sagamore waiting to play, and to hell if they lose a character.
When you give people an oppertunity to shine, be it as a diplomat, or a combatant, or skill monkey - they will come, and they will shine brightly.
Just a hearty opinion.
Cheers
|
|
I was one of those "what's the sense in Bonekeep" people until last weekend. I have a group of friends who get together to play PFS in a home game. A good group of friends with similar playing styles.
Last Saturday night we had a get together to say goodbye to one of the group who was moving out of town. The guy moving had played Bonekeep 2 and offered to run it for use if we would give him a short while to reread it.
We started playing, fast and furious, as time went on and it got later and later, strong storms moved into the area. Finally the power went out and still we played on by lantern and flashlight.
Did we live? Did we die? Does it matter? 7 friends around the table, one challenging the others to the very limits of their characters......
One of the best times I EVER had in playing pathfinder, PFS or not.....
More please ......
|
|
I had that same experience in Eyes of the Ten. I'd rather they continue writing those scenarios (All For Immortality) rather than Bonekeep expies.
There's no shame in refusing to play with others who want to use pregens in Bonekeep.
I had an opportunity to play BK3 once, but it was with two other players and a pregen to make. We wisely decided to back down.
|
|
*lengthy post eaten by the 'Net and coding bugs*
My personal experience with L7 scenarios that cost extra/have restricted seating has been that either they are pretty awesome or they are horrifically bad.
Would the dynamic change if instead of a L7 dungeon, it was say, a L3 or L4 dungeon?
With no chance of 'Res' if the party fails? Would that be Hard Mode enough for those seeking such a thing?
|
|
1) What does Bonekeep offer the Society if it is independent from the main storyline?
It offers unique gameplay opportunities that are rarely found outside of it. By designating a scenario as that year's "Go Hard or Go Home" you can give players the challenge they crave, without needing to hide it in an otherwise unassuming scenario. Which, I believe, is ultimately better for the community, because you don't have newer players walking into a death trap.
A certain scenario involving a wayward Venture Captain, and another involving a labyrinth come to mind as two prime examples of "trap" scenarios.
2) Do its benefits outweigh the higher cost in development time that all specials cost?
This is one I don't have an answer for, simply because there's really nothing which outweighs the benefits of a new Evergreen.
3) How can you kindle that intensity that some people crave and strike a balance
There's a time and a place for balance, but Bonekeep isn't it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It offers unique gameplay opportunities that are rarely found outside of it. By designating a scenario as that year's "Go Hard or Go Home" you can give players the challenge they crave, without needing to hide it in an otherwise unassuming scenario. Which, I believe, is ultimately better for the community, because you don't have newer players walking into a death trap.A certain scenario involving a wayward Venture Captain, and another involving a labyrinth come to mind as two prime examples of "trap" scenarios.
Alternatively, when this 'Go Hard or Go Home' scenario is dropped at a local convention because it's one of the few things the GM running things hasn't run yet, and players don't show up for it because of reputation, it kills the community because there's less play. Also, players that show up and *everyone* at the table is playing a pregen because they 'want to play' and 'don't have a character in-tier', and 'don't know the reputation of the modunario'.
3) How can you kindle that intensity that some people crave and strike a balance
There's a time and a place for balance, but Bonekeep isn't it.
And it also serves as a wedge to the general community as a whole, as it attempts to enforce a separation of 'those what optimize for BK-scale modunarios' vs. 'those who do not'.
As others pointed out up-thread, there are *ways* to make a scenario 'Hard Mode' if the party is on board with such methods. Why should Hard Mode be 'All the things, all the time', when it could be 'None of the things, at all'?
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
HMM,
I like your points.
Some counter-points.
1) We have several scenario's that have nothing to do with meta-plot of whats going on currently. Therefore a Bonekeep style scenario won't take away from active Meta-plot in future seasons as it can occupy one of the 4 average mods that do nothing for season they place in.
2) The development time for a Bonekeep style module may in fact be shorter than development of a standard special. There is less boxtext, and less things to add into the module to keep continuity flowing. It really comes down to map design. I'd say that short of paying a known author (I dunno if Jason wrote Bonekeep for free) to write is most likely the highest cost.
3) The intensity is just that. Bonekeep 1 was amazing. Absolutely amazing. Every table of Bonekeep at Gen Con has always sold out. There is definitely a want for dungeon crawls. There is a want for meaty slugfests. The intensity and drive to be the very best is there for min-maxers to go all out.
4) The beaten dead pony. Whether we like to admit it or not, Arm's races happen. They happen all over, all the time. Bonekeep was, and to me still is the go to, to really let the Arms Race happen. Bring your toys, we will bring our toys, and may the best design win. As much as we deny this to be the case, some people have this mindset, and I think that the occasional ubermech dungeon is the answer.
Heck, if we could delve at Gen Con with level 7 characters for ten dollars for two hours, in the most horrific hellish CR 13 + encounter environment, with four dollars going to charity, there would be a line outside the Sagamore waiting to play, and to hell if they lose a character.
When you give people an oppertunity to shine, be it as a diplomat, or a combatant, or skill monkey - they will come, and they will shine brightly.
Just a hearty opinion.
Cheers
Glad that we're moving in a productive direction here. I did want to make a few points here, even though you directed this at HMM. First, it is entirely untrue that every single table of Bonekeep has sold out at GenCon. We previously heard from a GM who had their tables cancelled of it.
Second, as it pertains to the arms race, I am unclear as to how Bonekeep is the solution. With the fact that PFS material is limited to 2 scenarios per month, many organizers, including myself, rely on every scrap of newly released material to keep veteran players at our tables. Thus, if a new Bonekeep is released, we will likely end up scheduling it. Players with overbuilt PCs will still have overbuilt PCs once the scenario is over, which they will then bring into adventures designed for the average player. At those tables, many of these overbuilt PCs will completely overshadow the non-Bonekeep players, given that they have entirely different levels of expectation. There is no contrary indication that letting players blow off steam will change their tendencies.
I should note that, for those who are interested in a Bonekeep-esque experience, there are a number of excellent dungeon crawl board games which provide that type of gameplay without the need for a GM. Alternatively, it is fairly trivial for a GM to open a few bestiaries and pick some higher-CR'd monsters for players to fight. I don't see why this needs to be something we do on a regular basis.
|
|
Yeah the arms race thing doesn't ring true for me. I make my characters and then if I'm confident they will perform well play them in difficult scenarios. Its not like I go out of my way to build for bonekeep.
As for fighting random bestiary things I won't say I haven't done it before but this isn't the same as a developed game at all. It feels as shallow as someone just asking you to only make a d20 roll on a diplomacy check when there could have been role-playing opportunities.
Nor would I consider making the 4th scenario in this series a regular basis of development.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not believe a bonekeep-esque scenario is a good idea unless you disallow pregens.
That being said, I personally enjoyed playing and GMing them. And those who say there was no metaplot tie-in, are wrong. It all started with a Tancred tie-in from Day of the Demon. But that thread never carried forward at all into part 2 and 3.
Overall, I do not feel they are worth the development time. The need for killer dungeon crawls is really minimal.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a follow-up point/question, are there not 3rd party scenarios/modules to fill this gap for the players who are interested? I haven't seen a particularly persuasive argument thus far for PFS-specific scenarios. There's nothing stopping you from taking your PFS character and playing a scenario outside of PFS, as long as you don't make any modifications to the character due to the 3rd party material.
|
|
I'm sorry, but I'd like to ask a personal favor. This is for PFS play, that comes with a real risk of character death, use of gold, expenditure of expendables, as well as favors and more. As with any Bonekeep there would be a fantastic AR waiting at the end.
Therefore, can we keep the argument on the road of PFS only, and not go make your own adventure. I would sincerely appreciate it. Obviously this isn't me saying that opinion has no merit, but it doesn't approach what I am looking for. Which is a sanctioned PFS slobber knocker.
If by chance Paizo decided to make a module that would represent the spirit of Tomb of Horrors, or Bonekeep. I would buy and run it instantly for my group's gaming pleasure the moment it became PFS legal.
On another note.
-Andrew,
I thought that Bonekeep 1, or 2 were both almost completely sold out. If one or two GM's didn't go off, that is still a huge success rate.
If it were a Gen Con premiere, however it wouldn't fall under the 2 Scenario limit, as Gen Con can often have up to 6 new mods available.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
I'm sorry, but I'd like to ask a personal favor. This is for PFS play, that comes with a real risk of character death, use of gold, expenditure of expendables, as well as favors and more. As with any Bonekeep there would be a fantastic AR waiting at the end.
Therefore, can we keep the argument on the road of PFS only, and not go make your own adventure. I would sincerely appreciate it. Obviously this isn't me saying that opinion has no merit, but it doesn't approach what I am looking for. Which is a sanctioned PFS slobber knocker.
If by chance Paizo decided to make a module that would represent the spirit of Tomb of Horrors, or Bonekeep. I would buy and run it instantly for my group's gaming pleasure the moment it became PFS legal.
On another note.
-Andrew,
I thought that Bonekeep 1, or 2 were both almost completely sold out. If one or two GM's didn't go off, that is still a huge success rate.
If it were a Gen Con premiere, however it wouldn't fall under the 2 Scenario limit, as Gen Con can often have up to 6 new mods available.
Bonekeep 1 was sold out, but Bonekeep 2 was many tables short. Bonekeep 3 was quite short, as I recall. These are just my recollections from those years and not an empirical study.
So, you feel that a fantastic chronicle should be the reward for Bonekeep? Personally, I disagree. I feel that the chronicle should give half gold at most. Why? Because if you want hard mode, that's how you get hard mode. If you're playing it for a massive reward at the end, I feel like this really boils down to people wanting to gamble with their characters with the expectation of huge monetary gains.
|
|
I survived Bonekeep 2 and Bonekeep 3 on the same character, and would have played all 3 except I leveled out of tier, but I brought a specialist. (Not a min-maxed combat character, exactly, but a dwarven deep delver ranger is quite a useful thing in a dungeon crawl.) If I see a difficult looking 7-11 dungeon crawl, I'll go into that as well.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of doing another bonekeep they should add more hard modes to scenarios. This way we get a scenario that is usable by everyone but still provides the extra challenge for people that want them.
I have to second the suggestion, hard modes for everything would be nice (they don't even have to give anything good, maybe just an ingame hard mode pin, so when the character come to the briefing they can brag how many hardmode pins they have...)
Quite often I have 6 player tables, and/or groups with a rather high APL, in a lot of those cases the option of increasing the difficulty would have led to a more memorable experience.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quite often I have 6 player tables, and/or groups with a rather high APL, in a lot of those cases the option of increasing the difficulty would have led to a more memorable experience.
Try asking your GM for a harder experience.
I at least, would love to know what my player's want, and would be happy to run things as deadly as possible if that's what the group wants.
Conversely I would also be happy to run things on the friendly side of things.
There are a lot of options even within the constraints of monsters and tactics as written.
---
That said I loved playing Bonekeep and found all 3 parts very memorable.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really it comes down to a number of things:
1) Developing scenarios is not just slapping box text on an author's work as was recently suggested. If you think that it's the story writing that takes up all the developer's time, I think you'd be surprised the amount of other editing, rewriting, and verifying that needs to go on. These scenarios aren't going to develop themselves, and John and Linda work their asses off already.
2) There are two Pathfinder developers, and until somebody figures out a way to prevent the already in the office at all hours John and Linda from sleeping, your only other option is to clone them or hire another. Since the first isn't likely to happen, the only way the second will happen is if it becomes financially viable for Paizo to do so. That's limiting factor number one - and a big reason why those of us that would rather keep PFS accessible keep talking development hours.
3) Specials have evolved greatly over time, and there's been a lot of work on making them accessible to all. Why? Because when you have to run one every night of Gen Con, and at Paizo Con, you're going to write them with the broadest appeal possible while still hitting on the core of what Pathfinder Society is about. Sure, there will be a few misses, but there's a reason most these days either a) are difficult and designed around pregens, or b) allow in level 1's.
4) Actual play data (which we do not have direct access to, but have some solid evidence regarding from previous conventions) indicates that Bonekeep 3 in the convention environment was not nearly as successful as the first two, and there was a drop-off over time from one to two. For many years (and a few of you have been around long enough to remember this) the reason another Seeker Arc wasn't initiated was because "nobody is playing Eyes of the Ten, play that and we'll consider it". So think about that too when asking for Bonekeep 4.
So combine everything above and you'll see why those of us that don't like Bonekeep want to keep John and Linda sane enough to write the bulk of the other 22 scenarios they have to put out annually that need to keep the game going. As the demand for more and more seeker content (which often includes hard mode), or alternate rules such as chase/pursuit, or intrigue rules increases, they have to pick and choose which projects get their time, and which don't. Chances are, they're going to produce scenarios that appeal broadly or introduce a new Paizo written rule subset until there's data-driven evidence indicating otherwise. Concepts and ideas like "hard mode" surely increase development time, but also increase it to a lesser extent than a whole new scenario designed just for a specific subset of players.
So while I agree 100% on Leg 'o Lamb's interpretation of events and I personally as a VO watched the Bonekeep (and season 4/5) driven war of escalation push people out of the game, this is why my first statement said, "put your development hours elsewhere." To me, Bonekeep 4 isn't worth sacrificing any of the above.
|
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If by chance Paizo decided to make a module that would represent the spirit of Tomb of Horrors, or Bonekeep. I would buy and run it instantly for my group's gaming pleasure the moment it became PFS legal.
4 player party trough emerald spire. That is 16 floors of (killer) dungeon