|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've recently returned from GenCon and had a wonderful time playing PFS every day. However, I've noticed a trend in the scenarios being produced: the tendency to require the PCs to interact with multiple NPCs (at least 5 at a time) to get the information we need. Also, the skill checks needed to influence these NPCs don't make sense to me.
For example, in one session, we needed information from a NPC archaeologist (one of 8! NPCs at party we could talk to). My character approached him hoping to draw him into a conversation using Knowledge (History). Instead, the GM asked for a Perform (dance) check so I can dance with the archaeologist. My character is a sorcerer with a good Charisma score, but I would have had to roll really well to impress him (a need my dice seem to ignore in clutch situations). Besides, when one hears "archaeologist", one does not assume one needs a Perform check to influence them.
And no, I couldn't engage him later with my Knowledge check because he was constantly on the dance floor.
Perhaps the GM should have described where the NPCs were and what they were doing to give us a clue. I didn't ask if their actions during the party was given in the scenario text. I would have been OK with a Sense Motive check to see what the NPCs seemed to enjoy at the party and engaged them that way.
So my semi-serious request is that if the characters need information to complete a scenario then PLEASE limit it to 2-3 NPCs with some Diplomacy, Knowledge, or perhaps Bluff skill checks to influence and gain the information needed. The number of NPCs that have this information seems excessive to me also. If that many know, then it's likely common knowledge or at least accessible at a single sage or library.
We didn't need to talk to all the NPCs but, if you know the players of PF, then they will talk to everybody just in case they miss something.
I realize that there is a bigger push to role-playing in the PFS scenarios (the party's survivability chances shoots WAY up in these adventures which I am all for), but please remember that most of us put points in Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate to interact with NPCs, not Perform (dance) or, God forbid, Profession (shepherd).
|
I was in a scenario this season with such an encounter.
My dumb-as-bricks barbarian managed to win the attention of one of the partiers not by going up to them but by going up to a companion and giving them appropriate attention, and complimenting the 'actual target' on their choice of companion, and that they took great care of said companion.
It was off the rails a bit, but it was fun roleplay and apparently the NPC was written well enough to account for that, and we got a nice chunk of information out of it.
tl;dr: It's a combination of GM, player, roleplay, and writing. If it has synergy it works, if it does not...
|
|
I've recently returned from GenCon and had a wonderful time playing PFS every day. However, I've noticed a trend in the scenarios being produced: the tendency to require the PCs to interact with multiple NPCs (at least 5 at a time) to get the information we need. Also, the skill checks needed to influence these NPCs don't make sense to me.
For example, in one session, we needed information from a NPC archaeologist (one of 8! NPCs at party we could talk to). My character approached him hoping to draw him into a conversation using Knowledge (History). Instead, the GM asked for a Perform (dance) check so I can dance with the archaeologist. My character is a sorcerer with a good Charisma score, but I would have had to roll really well to impress him (a need my dice seem to ignore in clutch situations). Besides, when one hears "archaeologist", one does not assume one needs a Perform check to influence them.
And no, I couldn't engage him later with my Knowledge check because he was constantly on the dance floor.
Perhaps the GM should have described where the NPCs were and what they were doing to give us a clue. I didn't ask if their actions during the party was given in the scenario text. I would have been OK with a Sense Motive check to see what the NPCs seemed to enjoy at the party and engaged them that way.So my semi-serious request is that if the characters need information to complete a scenario then PLEASE limit it to 2-3 NPCs with some Diplomacy, Knowledge, or perhaps Bluff skill checks to influence and gain the information needed. The number of NPCs that have this information seems excessive to me also. If that many know, then it's likely common knowledge or at least accessible at a single sage or library.
We didn't need to talk to all the NPCs but, if you know the players of PF, then they will talk to everybody just in case they miss something.
I realize that there is a bigger push to role-playing in the PFS scenarios (the party's survivability chances...
The intent behind having alternative skills to just the social skills to interact with NPCs, is to give any type of character a chance to interact in these encounters.
|
Can you put the scenario name in a spoiler? I'm reminded of some specifics in
Even if that wasn't the case, I'm fine with having some NPC interactions that reward a player with rare skills as long as:
1. There's enough "common" skill options for a typical party to succeed.
2. Any background/plot info the rare-skill NPCs have can eventually be communicated to the PCS in another fashion.
|
|
I don't think I know the scenario you're referring to. It sounds like one of the newer ones. In general, one of the standard social skills can usually be used, though it might be with a higher DC than if you happen to have the rarer skill. I think there's one such scenario that more or less required having Knowledge History for a couple of the rolls, but that's the not one I can think of. Also, you generally are allowed a Sense Motive roll to get some clue as to what might work for a particular person. Again, I don't know this specific scenario (and since I don't think I've played it, I do t want to know), but all of the ones I do know allowed for Sense Motive in some capacity or other. It's possible the GM just missed that part. Especially with the shift to the influence mechanic in Ultimate Intrigue, the system has gotten a little more complicated.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we're on the subject...do not ask for multiple rolls to avoid the bad thing. Or at the very least please consider basic probability when you do. You could not get away with having a DC 25 skill check in a 1-5 , but when you require 3 dc 14 checks it's functionally the same thing.
Do not require a high check in a specific perform, profession, or craft. There are nominally 35 skills in the game, and keeping the biggies maxed out (acrobatics, diplomacy, perception) doesn't leave too much room to branch out if you effectively have 45, 50, or 55 skills
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know the scenario in question - it's a season 8, which is why it was available at Gen Con this year. Not to give too much away, but you have an NPC "guide" who takes you to a party and gives you a list of people who may be worth talking to while you're there.
But once you said which one you wanted to talk to, the GM probably should have given you a description of where that person was, and what they were doing at the time, before you approached them. So in this case, the archaeologist being on the dance floor should have been obvious to see before you walked up to him, so you could send the dancing bard instead of the historian.
I hate to blame a GM for messing up, but it sounds like your GM probably could have set you up a little better to know what you were getting into, or perhaps he did and you just didn't catch all the details, given how loud the Sagamore usually is.
|
|
I know the scenario in question - it's a season 8, which is why it was available at Gen Con this year. Not to give too much away, but you have an NPC "guide" who takes you to a party and gives you a list of people who may be worth talking to while you're there.
But once you said which one you wanted to talk to, the GM probably should have given you a description of where that person was, and what they were doing at the time, before you approached them. So in this case, the archaeologist being on the dance floor should have been obvious to see before you walked up to him, so you could send the dancing bard instead of the historian.
I hate to blame a GM for messing up, but it sounds like your GM probably could have set you up a little better to know what you were getting into, or perhaps he did and you just didn't catch all the details, given how loud the Sagamore usually is.
I also recall this scenario.
Either way, that encounter is my least favorite of the "social" encounters.
|
If we're on the subject...do not ask for multiple rolls to avoid the bad thing. Or at the very least please consider basic probability when you do. You could not get away with having a DC 25 skill check in a 1-5 , but when you require 3 dc 14 checks it's functionally the same thing.
Do not require a high check in a specific perform, profession, or craft. There are nominally 35 skills in the game, and keeping the biggies maxed out (acrobatics, diplomacy, perception) doesn't leave too much room to branch out if you effectively have 45, 50, or 55 skills
I don't disagree with this, particularly as it relates to skill checks that require training, but sometimes lately I have been wondering whether skill check DCs don't take into account those magic words: "Can I aid?"
Take said perform(dance) check---and I don't remember whether it required only 1 person to make the check, but I don't think it did. So you let the person with the highest charisma make the check---usually someone has a +3 or +4. Then everyone else aids. Someone who has not dumped their charisma has a 55% chance or greater of aiding, so you're looking at good odds of another +6 if you've got 5 people at the table aiding. Put that together, and a DC 14 check becomes trivial.
|
|
Ok, for Season 8, I do know it. Didn't make the connection, as I didn't remember dancing.
The bigger issue with that scenario is expecting the PCs to do something (sneak around and investigate the people in charge) that is contrary to making a good impression like they are told to do in the mission briefing. I've had groups that just never even considered sneaking into the commander's office, and you need to do that to achieve some of the success conditions. We didn't when I played it.
|
|
Fromper, Tallow, and Ferious Thune figured out which scenario it was (didn't want to say as it might spoil it for others). I've seen the same thing in Blakros Matrimony on the barge to the party as well.
I certainly agree that the GM should have given us more information about the NPCs instead of naming them and telling us a little about them (name, physical description and occupation, basically). Apart from that, we were just asked, "who do you want to approach?" I assumed that the NPCs were just mingling with the other guests and not performing any particular activity that provides a clue as to a good approach tactic. If we had heard that the NPC was spending a lot of time dancing, then we certainly would have sussed out a way to do this. Perhaps the high Charisma characters could work together (one to dance with the NPC, another to sing along with the musicians during the dance, another to accompany the musicians on a simple percussion instrument, etc.) As it was, we had a magus in the party with Perform (dance) who saved the situation. We as players could have done better.
But my original point still stands and, as a lot of you have also posted, there are quite a few scenarios out there that require either unusual skill checks or an overly abundant number of NPCs with which to interact.
It's OK to make a good old-fashioned dungeon crawl for PFS sometimes. The Society as written in the background is a group for the exploration of Golarion and the discovery of lost knowledge and relics of bygone eras. There's just too many "diplomatic missions" for my taste, is all. One of my favorite scenarios during the con was Wrath of the Fleshwarped Queen, although that one suffered from a lack of space in the dungeon so that only the front half of the party could take part in most of the battles.
|
|
I've found it *really* helpful in any scene with more than a couple of NPCs if the GM has prepped notecards with each NPC's name and either a pic or at least a written description. It makes it a lot easier for players to remember who is who. I remember being a player in
|
|
During
There was also a section that'd get checked if they maxed out the influence for a given bidder, so they'd know to not go after that bidder.
Even with all of this, there was still enough room to put pictures of each of the bidders at the top, taped down, and enough room at the bottom for folks to put their minis to indicate who they were attempting to interact with/learn about for a given phase.
Worked really well, imo.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I use Mini's for social scenes just to keep track of who's where.
I use printouts/cards with pictures for the NPCs (I pick something appropriate if nothing is provided), then have the players place their miniature on the picture of who they would like to talk to.
I also think it's on the GM to be clear when the Influence mechanic is being used and when it isn't. Especially as it has become more formalized, there's not reason to keep that a secret from the players. Similarly, when it is not being used, but the players seem to think it is, I'd let them know it isn't being used.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
I set minis that represented the NPC party goers on top of index cards on the map, each marked with their special skills, but made sure that everyone knew diplomacy was also an option. My players loved flitting from mini to mini talking with the weird personalities.
So long as weird mechanics are clear, and the players have some visual clues and reminders, the party can relax back into the roleplay and have a good time.
Hmm
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I quite like social encounters but in their (valid) desire to not let the bard run roughshod over them (which I've done on several occasions :-)) they sometimes have gone overboard.
I don't really mind when my bard gets an effective penalty of -5 or so because they're built to handle it. It DOES bug me when my DRUID, who has sacrificed a fair bit to get a decent diplomacy score, gets shut down by that effective -5 or -10.
And I'm getting tired of the fact that every time they do this they use different rules. Sometimes you get hints for free, sometimes you don't. Sometimes you know when you've succeeded, sometimes you don't. Sometimes diplomacy can ALWAYS be used (albeit at a negative) sometimes it can't.
Its possible that now that Ultimate Intrigue has come out they'll settle down on one set of rules (or maybe even have, running and playing things out of order sometimes leaves incorrect impressions :-().
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I quite like social encounters but in their (valid) desire to not let the bard run roughshod over them (which I've done on several occasions :-)) they sometimes have gone overboard.
I don't really mind when my bard gets an effective penalty of -5 or so because they're built to handle it. It DOES bug me when my DRUID, who has sacrificed a fair bit to get a decent diplomacy score, gets shut down by that effective -5 or -10.
I got left with a sour taste in my mouth because of this behavior in a certain city-planning scenario as well. Made me feel that apparently you need to either go overboard on the diplomacy or just play a wizard with lots of silly knowledge skills, but a reasonably skilled character isn't welcome.
It feels like there are efforts again and again to make sure a single player doesn't do all the social checks "because you have the highest Diplomacy". Which is fine. But the way it's done is sometimes awkward.
By far the most enjoyable social scenarios in that aspect have been when:
1) There's time pressure; more than one PC needs to step up to the plate to get to talk to everyone on time.
2) There's enough information to make informed decisions about who should talk to who. If we don't find out until after spending multiple conversation rounds, we might as well have had the bard just brute-force Diplo everyone instead.
3) Some flexibility in skills. If someone is interested in K(history), then P(archaeologist) should probably work too.
4) Don't make it feel like you need to have trained-only skills that are normally not useful so only niche builds have them (Nobility, Engineering). It's okay to set a really low DC if you have the perfect obscure skill, but make sure to set an more common skill at a doable DC too.
5) Don't be too cagey about the mechanics. If players understand enough of the mechanics they can make more meaningful choices and that's fun.
Bonus: if you're going to include portraits of the NPCs, please include them for all conversation partners. Helps us build NPC table tents. If there's only a portrait of the NPC that will later betray the party, well, ...
|
|
I quite like social encounters but in their (valid) desire to not let the bard run roughshod over them (which I've done on several occasions :-)) they sometimes have gone overboard.
I don't really mind when my bard gets an effective penalty of -5 or so because they're built to handle it. It DOES bug me when my DRUID, who has sacrificed a fair bit to get a decent diplomacy score, gets shut down by that effective -5 or -10.
I got left with a sour taste in my mouth because of this behavior in a certain city-planning scenario as well. Made me feel that apparently you need to either go overboard on the diplomacy or just play a wizard with lots of silly knowledge skills, but a reasonably skilled character isn't welcome.
It feels like there are efforts again and again to make sure a single player doesn't do all the social checks "because you have the highest Diplomacy". Which is fine. But the way it's done is sometimes awkward.
By far the most enjoyable social scenarios in that aspect have been when:
1) There's time pressure; more than one PC needs to step up to the plate to get to talk to everyone on time.
2) There's enough information to make informed decisions about who should talk to who. If we don't find out until after spending multiple conversation rounds, we might as well have had the bard just brute-force Diplo everyone instead.
3) Some flexibility in skills. If someone is interested in K(history), then P(archaeologist) should probably work too.
4) Don't make it feel like you need to have trained-only skills that are normally not useful so only niche builds have them (Nobility, Engineering). It's okay to set a really low DC if you have the perfect obscure skill, but make sure to set an more common skill at a doable DC too.
5) Don't be too cagey about the mechanics. If players understand enough of the mechanics they can make more meaningful choices and that's fun.
Bonus: if you're going to include portraits of the NPCs, please include them...
This. So much this.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4) Don't make it feel like you need to have trained-only skills that are normally not useful so only niche builds have them (Nobility, Engineering). It's okay to set a really low DC if you have the perfect obscure skill, but make sure to set an more common skill at a doable DC too.
I agree with your points in general, but really, Kn:Nobility should no longer be considered a niche skill. It has been *extremely* useful for at least the last three seasons now. Probably at least half of my character put points into it, and have not been disappointed.
|
|
I agree with your points in general, but really, Kn:Nobility should no longer be considered a niche skill. It has been *extremely* useful for at least the last three seasons now. Probably at least half of my character put points into it, and have not been disappointed.
Really haven't seen it be necessary yet.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO this thread is aimed at the wrong people. This is not the task of the writer, it's the task of the editor.
Furthermore people really should learn how to use spoilertags.
|
|
I don't see anyone misusing spoiler tags
Some people are more or less cautious than others, or speak in generalities.
You also have the problem if someone says X and someone brings up (spoiler=Reptiles in the rapids) stuff here (/spoiler) then you've JUST told them exactly what scenario has the topic of conversation rather than narrowing it down to a few scenarios.
If someone doesn't have your exact protocol for using spoilers? That doesn't mean they're wrong
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
4) Do NOT use acronyms like FC on the assumption that everybody will know what they are. Type out the words Fight Club.IMHO this thread is aimed at the wrong people. This is not the task of the writer, it's the task of the editor.
Only read this if you know the first and second rule of FC:
If it's a thread about movies with a unexpected plot twist, you actually don't want to say the name of the movie. I guess you totally missed the point I was trying to make.
|
|
If we're on the subject...do not ask for multiple rolls to avoid the bad thing. Or at the very least please consider basic probability when you do. You could not get away with having a DC 25 skill check in a 1-5 , but when you require 3 dc 14 checks it's functionally the same thing.
Do not require a high check in a specific perform, profession, or craft. There are nominally 35 skills in the game, and keeping the biggies maxed out (acrobatics, diplomacy, perception) doesn't leave too much room to branch out if you effectively have 45, 50, or 55 skills
Nothing forces you to always be maxing out those three skills.
There are 4-7 people at the table. Branch out with your skills.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing forces you to always be maxing out those three skills.There are 4-7 people at the table. Branch out with your skills.
But how do you guarantee that the skills will be at the table when you're not adventuring with the same people all the time (say, with convention mustering, etc?)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing forces you to always be maxing out those three skills.
The frequency and use that they get means it's far and away the optimal choice, rather than try to guess which otherwise useless craft, profession, or perform skill is going to need a check.
How many professions are there? How many can you max out to hit a high DC ?
There are 4-7 people at the table.
Which 4-7? PFS using a rotating bag of mixed nuts. You can't comp shop for your skills. Sometimes your +4 diplomacy wizard is the party face and sometimes your +22 diplomacy does nothing more than provide an aid another to schmoozo the bard.
Branch out with your skills.
That's completely, totally, and utterly ineffective and that was my point . The various craft perform and profession skills create essentially an infinite space. It is complete blatherskite to expect to expect character to be able to fill it with a skill at reasonable DC's for the tier.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
That's completely, totally, and utterly ineffective and that was my point . The various craft perform and profession skills create essentially an infinite space. It is complete blatherskite to expect to expect character to be able to fill it with a skill at reasonable DC's for the tier.
Outside of profession usually most of my characters end up defaulting to a double digit craft or perform check untrained. Im not sure why you are saying its so hard when by a byproduct of the games goofy mechanics you can usually make the check untrained.
|
|
That's completely, totally, and utterly ineffective and that was my point . The various craft perform and profession skills create essentially an infinite space. It is complete blatherskite to expect to expect character to be able to fill it with a skill at reasonable DC's for the tier.
Of course, rather than taking the two extremes you offer, one could be more reasonable and go up the middle.
Maxing out the same three skills as everyone else is ineffective - everyone but the highest roller has wasted all their skill ranks. In addition, one almost never needs to exceed the DC by 30; exceeding it by only 20 means you have several other skills with a chance of a roll. Disable device, all the Knoweldge skills, linguistics... you know, Pathfinder-y stuff.
The "mixed bag" of PCs is EVEN MORE reason to branch out with your skills - if no one else has Knowledge (arcane) at the table, your (Perception +18, Arcana +2) will be much more useful than (Perception +20, Arcana no ranks, no roll).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But my original point still stands and, as a lot of you have also posted, there are quite a few scenarios out there that require either unusual skill checks or an overly abundant number of NPCs with which to interact.
But when my oracle has a +13 Diplomacy at 1st level, the scenarios needs to be able to engage others in the action rather than let me bypass all the challenges solo.
It's OK to make a good old-fashioned dungeon crawl for PFS sometimes. The Society as written in the background is a group for the exploration of Golarion and the discovery of lost knowledge and relics of bygone eras. There's just too many "diplomatic missions" for my taste, is all. One of my favorite scenarios during the con was Wrath of the Fleshwarped Queen, although that one suffered from a lack of space in the dungeon so that only the front half of the party could take part in most of the battles.
I'm glad you liked that one, it was the example I was going to offer you. Might I suggest going back to Season 0 and 1 to find more? If you think the latest seasons are too weighted to social interaction, I promise you'll find the early offerings on the other end of the scale.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, rather than taking the two extremes you offer, one could be more reasonable and go up the middle.
The minor issue is that this isn't very effective for most characters. You simply don't have that many skill points.
The major point is that that isn't effective, at all, when it comes to craft, perform, and profession skills. The core rules have
5 craft skills, with at least 10 more easily named off the top of your head.
There are nine listed type of perform.
Profession lists a whopping THIRTY different professions, that can only be used trained.
Telling people to branch out THAT much is completely unreasonable. It isn't even POSSIBLE before level 4 or so.
I know you like to push for versatility but this is just not remotely workable.
Maxing out the same three skills as everyone else is ineffective - everyone but the highest roller has wasted all their skill ranks.
I still find it the most effective route.
The "mixed bag" of PCs is EVEN MORE reason to branch out with your skills - if no one else has Knowledge (arcane) at the table, your (Perception +18, Arcana +2) will be much more useful than (Perception +20, Arcana no ranks, no roll).
No, it won't . because the arcana check is either eclipsed by someone elses arcana or fail. The odds of when it will succeed are lower than the ubiquitous perception checks mattering.
I like branching out, to at least get 1 point in every class skill that makes logical sense for the character in question. Usually I max perception and maybe one or two other thematic skills, but the points are spread around after that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like branching out, to at least get 1 point in every class skill that makes logical sense for the character in question. Usually I max perception and maybe one or two other thematic skills, but the points are spread around after that.
Not every character has the skill points to burn for that sort of extravagance.
|
|
Nothing forces you to always be maxing out those three skills.
The frequency and use that they get means it's far and away the optimal choice, rather than try to guess which otherwise useless craft, profession, or perform skill is going to need a check.
Branch out with your skills.That's completely, totally, and utterly ineffective and that was my point . The various craft perform and profession skills create essentially an infinite space. It is complete blatherskite to expect to expect character to be able to fill it with a skill at reasonable DC's for the tier.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, requires you to try to make the most meta gamey optimal choices.
Yes, it is possible to end up with a table where no one has optimized perception, but that is completely ok.
|
|
Nothing, absolutely nothing, requires you to try to make the most meta gamey optimal choices.Yes, it is possible to end up with a table where no one has optimized perception, but that is completely ok.
When prestige conditions can ride on sensing or not sensing a given macguffin a scenario, and characters have been heavily penalized for not sensing, that would become a predominant focus.