|
Due to Covid I have finally started playing in Society games. I've played under 8 different GMs now and one thing I've noticed (esp in PF2) is that the GMs let us roll skill checks until success. Many of those skill checks unlock treasure bundles and reputation. Only two of those GMs allowed failure. That both games happened to be the better experiences by far and I think part of it is that I lose interest if there are no consequences.
For example one scenario there were two or three side quest to go talk to NPC `X` and convince them to do `Y.` Each time everyone failed the initial checks and took 4 players to make two checks each just for one mediocre success. There were definitely at least one or two critical failures in these checks. Instead of the GM allowing us to fail every single encounter like that was essentially "Roll till success." To me these are some of the worst games I have ever played as I become detached pretty quickly.
I don't want to play in Society if there are no consequences for non-combat failure. I only have about eight data points.
- Is this common throughout society?
- Is it expected that characters make it past each of these skill check and social based encounters?
- Do the Society Scenarios that GMs use to prep not include sections on "How to deal with failure?" If not should they to make it clear that failure is okay?
- IS there something I can do?
- Is it worth giving people feedback on?
I'm also curious on what other people's experiences are. Do other's feel detached when they "succeed" at a skill encounter that they should lose or am I in the minority? I'd prefer to just lose out on the reputation and treasure bundles if I fail on an encounter.
|
Some scenarios are a "roll until success" type deal, but those usually have some kind of timer running as well that comes into play later.
Other checks allow you to keep trying, and are narratively permissible.
Larger than that, this seems like a GM issue. Running as written often gives GMs trouble keeping their style and narrative flow running well. I'd just let your GM know that the games felt a little mechanical. Neither success or failure are interesting on their own.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With the proliferation of Hero Points most skill challenges have become near-automatic success. At most of the tables I play at everyone starts with at least two HP, and more often than not, start with three. Add to that the Hero Points earned during play and I almost never see a failed skill challenge. Plus, since most challenges involved everyone rolling towards a combined result odds are you are going to succeed. Generally successes count once and critical successes twice with critical failures only offsetting a single success. So the math is heavily in favor of success. I think scenarios could generally be written a bit harder, but its a challenge to balance skill checks such that it is reasonable, but possible for those untrained while not being trivial for those trained.
OTOH, there are also some GMs who never fail players for fear of conflict. Players have been known to get very aggressive if they lose a treasure bundle or a point of prestige, and don't even think about killing their character. I've seen a player throw their pencil and dice across the table, get up and storm off never to return after their character was dropped. I've also seen a player tear up a chronicle in a GM's face and tell them they were the worst GM in the history of gaming and they would either just replay the scenario or get their VC to reissue the chronicle with all rewards. Pretty disgusting really.
|
|
Some scenarios are a "roll until success" type deal, but those usually have some kind of timer running as well that comes into play later.
Other checks allow you to keep trying, and are narratively permissible.
Larger than that, this seems like a GM issue. Running as written often gives GMs trouble keeping their style and narrative flow running well. I'd just let your GM know that the games felt a little mechanical. Neither success or failure are interesting on their own.
Thanks I think I'm going to do that. I went through the most recent scenario in between posting this and responding and it was clear that there was a failure mode that we should have had. if they would have went with rules as written the flow would have been better and not felt as awkward. I'm thinking I may even state it ahead of time.
|
|
TwilightKnight, thank you for your thoughtful reply.
With the proliferation of Hero Points most skill challenges have become near-automatic success. At most of the tables I play at everyone starts with at least two HP, and more often than not, start with three. Add to that the Hero Points earned during play and I almost never see a failed skill challenge. Plus, since most challenges involved everyone rolling towards a combined result odds are you are going to succeed. Generally successes count once and critical successes twice with critical failures only offsetting a single success. So the math is heavily in favor of success. I think scenarios could generally be written a bit harder, but its a challenge to balance skill checks such that it is reasonable, but possible for those untrained while not being trivial for those trained.
I went through the latest scenario and though I don' know the exact bonuses of my fellow players, I went ahead and did some calculations. I know that not everyone was trained in the skills required for 2 of the checks, but the probability of failure is much higher than auto-success even with HP. Assuming we used at minimum 1 HP and a party of 4 with 1 person maxed out on bonus. In this scenario only 2 people had skills to even complete the encounter so the math here is much more optimistic than reality. But in an optimal party the chances of success was around 87% with a hero point. On average if you have 4 different challenges with an 87% success rate the probability to succeed on all 4 of them is 60%. So losing out on one treasure bundle isn't an auto success when you actually do the math. Knowing that one of the PF2 Designers has a CS degree with Statistics knowledge I'm betting that they know this probability curve and expect it. In our party the probability curve was much lower AND I'm completely fine with that. Especially given that we failed and then it was really awkward to succeed felt dirty.
OTOH, there are also some GMs who never fail players for fear of conflict. Players have been known to get very aggressive if they lose a treasure bundle or a point of prestige, and don't even think about killing their character. I've seen a player throw their pencil and dice across the table, get up and storm off never to return after their character was dropped. I've also seen a player tear up a chronicle in a GM's face and tell them they were the worst GM in the history of gaming and they would either just replay the scenario or get their VC to reissue the chronicle with all rewards. Pretty disgusting really.
IF this is the case then I should probably be up front at the beginning of the game and say: "I embrace failure and if we auto-succeed at things, then don't make us roll or roll till we succeed. Or else there is no point for me to play."
I couldn't imagine seeing a player throw stuff or tear up a chronicle sheet. If they exist they shouldn't be playing the game. I'd never want to play with a someone who acted like that. This comment makes me not want to play society play even more, but I'll hold off till I actually see it.
To be honest if my games continue to go this way I won't play society any more and just look for continuation games. The whole appeal of society is that I don't have to wait for Covid to be over and have the opportunity to do pick up games online.
|
|
At most of the tables I play at everyone starts with at least two HP, and more often than not, start with three.That is absolutely not the common experience. Most players in most games start with one, and scenarios need to be written from that point of view.
Even if that's the case. Everyone would need to use all their HP on skill checks, which is unrealistic. If they do then that's fine because they won't have them when they get knocked or in a combat fight.
I'd have to run some random trials, but I did basic math on 4 players and if everyone had 2 HP and used of them on skill checks, and there were 4 encounters of skill checks there is still a ~5% of failing at least one of the skill check DCs assuming the whole party had that skill and were at the highest rank with the highest stat point in the skill. That's maximum.
During my game two people used a HP in one "skill encounter" and still failed. The GM allowed us to roll till succeeding even though there was a failure condition (WHICH wasn't even that bad once I read it).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With the proliferation of Hero Points most skill challenges have become near-automatic success. At most of the tables I play at everyone starts with at least two HP, and more often than not, start with three.
Everyone starting with 2 is quite common in online games as that generally only needs 2 or maybe 3 people who GM a lot to be at the table.
But how are they starting with 3 most of the time? I thought Campaign Coins were required for that and those are still very rare, aren't they?
|
Contributor
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll try to balance my author hat on top of my GM hat for this one!
There could be a few different things happening here, since you mention it happening multiple times.
First, for some skill checks, there may have been a consequence for failing before succeeding that you didn't know about or the GM needed to know how long it took you to complete the task. Or, perhaps more frequently, there's no consequence for failure, but there is a consequence for a critical failure, so you need to keep rolling to see if you get a success or a critical failure first. I know I've written at least one skill check like that.
Second, sometimes there is a skill check with no consequences for failure and no limitations on re-trying, so you really can just keep trying until you succeed. It's honestly ideal if everything with a DC on it has something interesting happen either way, but word count can make that tough! One could also just leave the DC off in this case, but then that could lead to more table variation as GMs start adding one. This might be the DC to find a secret door, the DC to climb over a fence, or the DC to break open a crate. Personally, I tend to just hand wave the actual rolling in this case, but some GMs may want everyone to roll.
There is a definitely a third case where GMs throw the players a bone to avoid a negative result. I don't think that what you describe here is the norm (allowing everyone to re-roll every failed check), but it is common for GMs to occasionally prompt something like, "well, you didn't find anything in the bandits' hideout, but it sure seems like they would have some treasure somewhere. Do you want to keep searching and try again? Okay, great, you find a secret compartment with two treasure bundles." This shouldn't be overused, but it is something that happens.
Scenarios in general do have consequences for failed checks (though there usually needs to be a way for the group to "fail forward" even if no one has a particular skill). If these games were with the same GM, you may want to seek out different Society GMs to play with, and see if someone else has a style that you prefer.
|
Venture-Agent, Online—VTT
|
OTOH, there are also some GMs who never fail players for fear of conflict. Players have been known to get very aggressive if they lose a treasure bundle or a point of prestige, and don't even think about killing their character. I've seen a player throw their pencil and dice across the table, get up and storm off never to return after their character was dropped. I've also seen a player tear up a chronicle in a GM's face and tell them they were the worst GM in the history of gaming and they would either just replay the scenario or get their VC to reissue the chronicle with all rewards. Pretty disgusting really.
Huh. I would expect a player like that to run out of venues they could show up to pretty quickly, since I know I wouldn't let them ever sit down at one of my tables after a display like that.
Regarding the original skill check question, though, it really depends on what the skill check is. You may have something like "trying to climb this cliff" where the failure condition is the included risk of critically failing, falling, and injuring yourself but a normal failure has no reason to prevent you from retrying unless there's a time pressure. Other skill checks, like convincing a person to help you, should not remain the same while you stand there and try repeatedly.
|
|
I'll try to balance my author hat on top of my GM hat for this one!
Thanks for your unique perspective! It was good to hear it from an author's standpoint.
First, for some skill checks, there may have been a consequence for failing before succeeding that you didn't know about or the GM needed to know how long it took you to complete the task. Or, perhaps more frequently, there's no consequence for failure, but there is a consequence for a critical failure, so you need to keep rolling to see if you get a success or a critical failure first. I know I've written at least one skill check like that.
If there is only failure on critical failure then the check should be fail succeed with a very low DC. Narratively feels sloppy. In all the scenarios we received full treasure and full rewards so they didn't seem to matter. I only checked two scenarios so far and neither of them had a time based or critical fail only scenario.
Second, sometimes there is a skill check with no consequences for failure and no limitations on re-trying, so you really can just keep trying until you succeed. It's honestly ideal if everything with a DC on it has something interesting happen either way, but word count can make that tough! One could also just leave the DC off in this case, but then that could lead to more table variation as GMs start adding one. This might be the DC to find a secret door, the DC to climb over a fence, or the DC to break open a crate. Personally, I tend to just hand wave the actual rolling in this case, but some GMs may want everyone to roll.
Personally I'd prefer it just happens. To me when a dice check comes into play failure may or may not happen and if there is no chance of failure, don't make me roll it feels very disingenuous. I wonder if the authors could use more of the TEML system in this case for these auto-successes so it's still specific to that character that put points into an ability "Oh you are an expert in nature, no skill check required you just get the thing". It's still interesting but without the roll and drives the story forward.
There is a definitely a third case where GMs throw the players a bone to avoid a negative result. I don't think that what you describe here is the norm (allowing everyone to re-roll every failed check), but it is common for GMs to occasionally prompt something like, "well, you didn't find anything in the bandits' hideout, but it sure seems like they would have some treasure somewhere. Do you want to keep searching and try again? Okay, great, you find a secret compartment with two treasure bundles." This shouldn't be overused, but it is something that happens.
This is fine to throw a bone especially prompting player's what skills they can roll (esp for very introverted players). I also see the argument for ensuring new / young players have lots of opportunity for success, but for experienced players (e.g. higher levels of play it doesn't feel good to auto-win).
In the 6 / 8 games I've played all different GMs it was essentially rerolling skill checks like diplomacy until you succeed.
Scenarios in general do have consequences for failed checks (though there usually needs to be a way for the group to "fail forward" even if no one has a particular skill). If these games were with the same GM, you may want to seek out different Society GMs to play with, and see if someone else has a style that you prefer.
1. It does seem maybe the GMs may not have been prepared enough on how to fail forward.
2. So far these society games have been online and I haven't sought out a continuous group of society gamers. If I did find a specific group, I would prefer to do a campaign versus society since society is really geared towards single session play with limited connections between each other than the meta-plot.
since society is really geared towards single session play with limited connections between each other than the meta-plot.
PFS (the official Pathfinder society) games can include years' long campaigns. Paizo puts out many kinds of adventures that you can get official PFS credit for
BountiesScenarios
Adventures
Adventure Paths
While Bounties and Scenarios are intended to be played over a very short time-frame, an Adventure Path is designed to take a character from level 1 to level 20 over the course of the game. The story may take a year or two to play out, depending on the group's schedule
Adventures are shorter, and often only allow the character to advance 3 or 4 levels during the story, they may take as many as 6 or 8 sessions to complete.
|
|
Just tonight I had a group fail two of the goup skill checks required in King in Thorns.
Success is definately not assured. This is likely to become more common at higher levels as DCs scale and groups cannot cover all of the required skills at expert/master/legendary proficiency.
This was the last scenario I played. Pretty much the game I played in all the diplomacy / intimidation type checks were non-fails for the GMing running it. Like we totally bombed the last skill encounter before the final set piece. I'm not sure if it was the GM felt bad about our low rolls or if they didn't know how to fail forward. Sounds like I needed someone more like you as a GM. Our GM did a great job for the most part, but letting us fail, not so much.
|
|
since society is really geared towards single session play with limited connections between each other than the meta-plot.PFS (the official Pathfinder society) games can include years' long campaigns. Paizo puts out many kinds of adventures that you can get official PFS credit for
Bounties
Scenarios
Adventures
Adventure PathsWhile Bounties and Scenarios are intended to be played over a very short time-frame, an Adventure Path is designed to take a character from level 1 to level 20 over the course of the game.
Adventures are shorter, and often only allow the character to advance 3 or 4 levels during the story, they may take as many as 6 or 8 sessions to complete.
Yeah I understand that, I think my point was more that society games are quick drop in games over a single session where adventures / adventure paths you are playing with the same group of people (e.g. need to sync schedules ;) ).
I think my point was more that society games are quick drop in games over a single session
That's not at all correct.
where adventures / adventure paths you are playing with the same group of people (e.g. need to sync schedules ;) ).
That's still a "Society game". It's sanctioned; GMs and players get Society credit.
The length of the game, and whether it is play asynchronously or simultaneously doesn't have any bearing on whether it's a "Society game".
|
|
where adventures / adventure paths you are playing with the same group of people (e.g. need to sync schedules ;) ).That's still a "Society game". It's sanctioned; GMs and players get Society credit.
The length of the game, and whether it is play asynchronously or simultaneously doesn't have any bearing on whether it's a "Society game".
I still don't know what point you are making.
So far these society games have been online and I haven't sought out a continuous group of society gamers. If I did find a specific group, I would prefer to do a campaign versus society since society is really geared towards single session play with limited connections between each other than the meta-plot.
I was simply saying that since Covid I have started playing Society games due to unavailability to play an ongoing game with my previous group and if I did find a more consistent ongoing game it wouldn't be a society game.... Part of the reason is there is an appeal to play society games where I can drop in and out of a game without needing a consistent storyline thread that "Adventure Paths" have; however, I have seen issues with the inconsistencies where GMs essentially don't let player's fail (6 / 8 games. I know not a huge sample, but most of the games I have play)..
Not to sound rude, but your comment had zero relevance to what I was saying other than it was being pedantic towards my response.
I still don't know what point you are making.
So far these society games have been online and I haven't sought out a continuous group of society gamers. If I did find a specific group, I would prefer to do a campaign versus society since society is really geared towards single session play with limited connections between each other than the meta-plot.
I was simply saying that since Covid I have started playing Society games due to unavailability to play an ongoing game with my previous group and if I did find a more consistent ongoing game it wouldn't be a society game.... Part of the reason is there is an appeal to play society games where I can drop in and out of a game without needing a consistent storyline thread that "Adventure Paths" have; however, I have seen issues with the inconsistencies where GMs essentially don't let player's fail (6 / 8 games. I know not a huge sample, but most of the games I have play)..
Not to sound rude, but your comment had zero relevance to what I was saying other than it was being pedantic towards my response.
Adventure Paths ARE Society games. Your use of Society Game appears to claim that they are not.
Either you don't understand what counts as a Pathfinder Society game, or you are using some definition of the word that is highly unusual, since it appears to exclude a great many Society games and gamers.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Adventure Paths ARE Society games. Your use of Society Game appears to claim that they are not.
Either you don't understand what counts as a Pathfinder Society game, or you are using some definition of the word that is highly unusual, since it appears to exclude a great many Society games and gamers.
So you are just being pedantic. I know the difference. I didn't use enough words in my posts for you to understand what I understand. Your statement added no value to the overall thread and I didn't need your input to understand.
|
Venture-Agent, Online—VTT
|
There are some important differences. When I'm running a scenario, I have some limitations in how to handle people failing forward, because when the scenario addresses what will happen, I need to run it as written.
When I'm running an adventure path in campaign mode, I have absolutely zero limits in how I handle failure to keep things going, and no limits in how far off the rails I let things get. The difference is significant.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am amused by the assertion that hero points equals auto success, because I was in a game a few days ago where a player hero pointed from simple failure into a nat 1. Twice. In a row.
We came within one failure of needing a humiliating rescue...
|
|
I am amused by the assertion that hero points equals auto success, because I was in a game a few days ago where a player hero pointed from simple failure into a nat 1. Twice. In a row.
We came within one failure of needing a humiliating rescue...
Agreed. I've seen it happen quite a few times myself. Same in other systems like savage worlds.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was grumbling a bit about it in a different thread.... the HP, they do scarce little at L1 when the dice are downright arctic.
The massive amount of fail in most Bounties/Quests/Scenarios I've managed to play in PFS2 has greatly soured me on that aspect of Organized Play, and if the character I have active right now goes through too much more of that I can't handle the stress as a player and it's probable I will find other more fun things to do with less stress.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I think another not so uncommon reason for "can't seem to fail" skill challenges is when the GM disagrees with the scenario about them.
I see this in particular when it comes to treasure bundles - when the GM feels it's unfair that to find it, someone needs to critically succeed at a specific skill check that only a trained character has any chance of nailing.
Another frequent case is the Diplomacy check to get some NPCs to like you / agree with you, that is rolled after a bit of RP. Everyone enjoyed the RP, the character makes good arguments... and then the dice just say no. And the GM twists and turns to make it work anyway, because it feels unfair that after good RP where the player basically gave the NPC exactly what they wanted, the dice just block it.
|
|
Another frequent case is the Diplomacy check to get some NPCs to like you / agree with you, that is rolled after a bit of RP. Everyone enjoyed the RP, the character makes good arguments... and then the dice just say no. And the GM twists and turns to make it work anyway, because it feels unfair that after good RP where the player basically gave the NPC exactly what they wanted, the dice just block it.
I'm somewhat prone to doing that. The problem, of course, if that taken to an extreme it means that a player with good social skills can make it unnecessary for the character to have good social skills.
What I TRY to do us to reward good effective presentation with a circumstance bonus and NOT punish ineffective presentation with a penalty. Seems the best compromise to me.
I sometimes fail in that, though, and let really effective/ineffective presentations sway me :-(
|
While I don't disagree with TwilightKnight, he has a slight advantage over the new and everyday player with regards to Hero Points. Some he has earned from his hard work for organized play as a whole.
To the OP's original comments, GM style is a big part of Society Play. I have found players are smart and will plan as best as they can to have the resources need to succeed at skill challenges. Plus the way the skill challenges are being setup for 2e does give multiple skills to use to be successful.
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This was the last scenario I played. Pretty much the game I played in all the diplomacy / intimidation type checks were non-fails for the GMing running it. Like we totally bombed the last skill encounter before the final set piece. I'm not sure if it was the GM felt bad about our low rolls or if they didn't know how to fail forward. Sounds like I needed someone more like you as a GM. Our GM did a great job for the most part, but letting us fail, not so much.Just tonight I had a group fail two of the goup skill checks required in King in Thorns.
Success is definately not assured. This is likely to become more common at higher levels as DCs scale and groups cannot cover all of the required skills at expert/master/legendary proficiency.
Not really surprised here. First of all, King in Thorns is a multitable special - how your individual table succeeds or fails has usually very little effect on how the the whole [convention] is doing.
Secondly, even if rewards were scaling 'better', you would still get rewards based on how the whole group did, not just how your table did.
Running this particular scenario is also a lot more demanding on the GM. Time is running out, you need to move the players soon to the next part, and there's no clear indication on if the players can continue trying until they succeed or not - and if the GM isn't sure, it's probably easier for them to have you roll a couple more times versus stop the game and try to find if the adventure says something on excessive failures.
Not saying that all this is fine or acceptable, though - just pointing out that this scenario is a special case and I'm not surprised about your experience.
Also, it seems to be -very rare- for adventures to include checks where only one player rolls, and if they fail, that's it. Usually it's either a group effort (everybody rolls once, success = 1 point, crit success= 2, fail 0, crit fail -1, need to exceed X) or sometimes Everybody rolls, best roll is the actual effort and others assist (most seen in 1e, not sure if 2e has these?), or at the very least, you can try, and if you fail but don't crit fail, somebody else can try.
Sometimes there's just very little effect for a simple regular failure. I just ran a game today where one player got to roll 4 balance checks, two of them failed, but they still succeeded in what they were trying to do. In another example, failure just set you back into square one and forced you to try again until you succeed - or fail critically.
Diplomacy checks are also a bit weird. It's not always clear if critical failure makes the target dislike just You or The Whole Group, which means that many GM's probably allow everybody to try and convince the NPC until someone rolls a crit fail - and sometimes even after one person rolls a crit fail, since that doesn't necessarily reflect on the other characters. Sometimes adventures have fail conditions like "three failed attempts" or something, but sometimes GM's might just miss those.
Usually groups succeed, and usually they succeed very well. Sometimes failures don't have real consequences because of how the adventure is written, and sometimes the GM just misses them. Sometimes GM's just go softball for new players. There's also a huge difference in GM's and their motivation and preparedness - You might have a GM who has run the adventure multiple times and is comfortable and familiar with it, or you might get a GM who got the scenario 30minutes ago and is trying to read it at the same time as they are running it. Failures do happen though, and some scenarios get some bad rep for being especially hard (either skill wise or combat wise) - You may have had a couple games where it seems like success is a guarantee, but that certainly isn't the default mode - most if not all the GM's I know try to provide a fair yet challenging experience.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am amused by the assertion that hero points equals auto success, because I was in a game a few days ago where a player hero pointed from simple failure into a nat 1. Twice. In a row.
We came within one failure of needing a humiliating rescue...
Wait... I don’t remember playing with you? ;)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was grumbling a bit about it in a different thread.... the HP, they do scarce little at L1 when the dice are downright arctic.The massive amount of fail in most Bounties/Quests/Scenarios I've managed to play in PFS2 has greatly soured me on that aspect of Organized Play, and if the character I have active right now goes through too much more of that I can't handle the stress as a player and it's probable I will find other more fun things to do with less stress.
Please don’t judge it so harshly.
The game I ran for you had the dice going very cold for the players, and they didn’t have a strong hitter, either.
My experience has been more positive in general, and I truly love PF2.
|
|
I was grumbling a bit about it in a different thread.... the HP, they do scarce little at L1 when the dice are downright arctic.The massive amount of fail in most Bounties/Quests/Scenarios I've managed to play in PFS2 has greatly soured me on that aspect of Organized Play, and if the character I have active right now goes through too much more of that I can't handle the stress as a player and it's probable I will find other more fun things to do with less stress.
Please don’t judge it so harshly.
The game I ran for you had the dice going very cold for the players, and they didn’t have a strong hitter, either.
My experience has been more positive in general, and I truly love PF2.
I'm hoping for a better dice and play experience (5 exp to go to L2!), but I may either be dealing with a cursed character or a cursed system.
|
|
Zexcir, your experience is not inharent to the PF2 system or Society play. That said, what is inharent to Society play is a randomization of other people at the table, from the GM to other players. When you join a Society game, the chance of playing with others that...have a conflicting styles of play is part of the deal.
|
|
FWIW, my approach to PF2e and PFS2e is to play characters classes that I haven't played before. For PF2e/PFS2e, I've created two PCs, a monk and a bard with champion dedication. I never had a monk, bard, or paladin (unless you count my "Paladin of Calistria") PF1e character. By doing this, I don't compare my PF1e and PF2e characters, their abilities, power, etc and thus don't feel disappointed, nerfed, etc.
|
|
I assure you that if you fail a skill check, I won’t hand wave it into a success.
However, there are skills without penalties for failing. Or situations where failure has no mechanical effect (e.g. climbing a 5 foot barricade).
What skills were being failed but repeated until success?
This happened in 6 out of 8 games. So the number of skills were pretty vast. In the last two game examples:
1.) Three separate diplomacy encounters in one of the games. Only two people had diplomacy and the GM allowed us to roll other skills to compensate. At least 10 checks were made before one success happened. (This one I went back and read the adventure and there were clear failure modes).
2.) Another example was a game with several nature checks. This one didn't seem to impact anything.
My problem was more: If there is no impact why have us roll at all?
|
|
Zexcir, your experience is not inharent to the PF2 system or Society play. That said, what is inharent to Society play is a randomization of other people at the table, from the GM to other players. When you join a Society game, the chance of playing with others that...have a conflicting styles of play is part of the deal.
My experience in Society is pretty limited. Probably 10 different sessions all different GMs. From what I've seen here it seems its' more on the GMs than on the Scenarios where there are no failure modes.
I'm fine with different plays; however, I don't think I would continue with society scenarios if most GMs run them when they don't let player's fail (even when the two scenarios I checked had failure conditions that weren't terrible). Personally it feels like a waste of minutes of rolling that interfere with the experience when we clearly failed 9/10 checks and still "succeeded." I understand if a GM wants everything to be copesetic, but TBH it would have been better to just let the failures be failures instead of forced awkward `success.` The stories could have moved forward during those checks of failure and it wouldn't have mattered overall other than maybe a treasure bundle or two.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it wouldn't have mattered overall other than maybe a treasure bundle or two.
And that is precisely where the problem is.
Some players are very upset if they miss treasure bundles, especially in a PFS game.
|
Venture-Agent, Online—VTT
|
Those people shouldn't play games where there is a chance of failure.it wouldn't have mattered overall other than maybe a treasure bundle or two.And that is precisely where the problem is.
Some players are very upset if they miss treasure bundles, especially in a PFS game.
That is about right. There's no reason to expect to walk away from every scenario with 10 Treasure Bundles.
There are a few scenarios that I don't think handled 1 or more of their treasure bundles well, and I do get disappointed about that on a much more meta level, but having less than the maximum cash on a certain chronicle is nothing to get upset about.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those people shouldn't play games where there is a chance of failure.
"Those people shouldn't" has a few problems
First, it describes a situation that isn't true. It's almost as good as "once upon a time" for indicating that any statements that follow aren't based in reality, but only in the mind of the person telling the story.
Second, claiming that other people are having BadWrongFun because they play the game differently than you do is pretty arrogant. There are lots of different people playing Pathfinder. Your way is not the only way.
Third, PFS GMs would be remiss if they let a party skip treasure bundles that some players wanted just because other players felt like they were "wasting minutes rolling".
You may need to adjust your expectations about how other people (both players and GMs) want to experience PFS games.
If no one else at the table complained about those wasted minutes, then it's likely that the GM was meeting everyone's expectations except yours.
|
Venture-Agent, Online—VTT
|
Third, PFS GMs would be remiss if they let a party skip treasure bundles that some players wanted just because other players felt like they were "wasting minutes rolling".
This sounds like a different thing than was described. In a case where the scenario is set up like "if the PCs succeed at a DC X diplomacy check to convince person Y to help, they gain an item worth 1 treasure bundle and some infotmation, if they fail something else happens" the failure condition should be observed instead of attempting diplomacy until success. That doesn't have anything to do with whether people want the treasure bundke, and the problem isn't just wasted time, it's that the failure portion of the scenario wasn't run when it came up.
|
|
I think I found one of "those people." ;) Ironically you get upset at my BadWrongFun in favor of what you perceive as BadWrongFun. Remember that when you stomp on someone else's BadWrongFun in the future. :)
Second, claiming that other people are having BadWrongFun because they play the game differently than you do is pretty arrogant. There are lots of different people playing Pathfinder. Your way is not the only way.
A.) I didn't say that it was wrongBadFun. I said that people who aren't okay with failure shouldn't play games with chance; because there is inherently failure in those games. They should understand that there are failure conditions. If they can't, they shouldn't play. My best friends doesn't play TTRPG or even most video games for this reason. It's not a judgement on their character.
B.) It's ironic that you bring up "BadWrongFun," My complaint is that the scenarios as written (I've read three of the 8 in my complaint now) have failure conditions and failures happened, but we kept rolling until succeeding. I embrace the failures as they are in the scenario as written. Now I'm not saying my fun is more important than other's fun, but expected to play the mechanics and scenario as written. No matter what it's unfair if there are people at the table with differing expectations. I don't know what the other player's expectations were, but my assumption going into this post was that most people are aware that failure can and will happen and the penalties are probably treasure or "successfully completing the primary objective"
Third, PFS GMs would be remiss if they let a party skip treasure bundles that some players wanted just because other players felt like they were "wasting minutes rolling".You may need to adjust your expectations about how other people (both players and GMs) want to experience PFS games.
If no one else at the table complained about those wasted minutes, then it's likely that the GM was meeting everyone's expectations except yours.
My complaint is that the scenarios had failure conditions and we failed (this has happened in 6/8 games I've played) the rolls and the failure condition was ignored. In the latest scenario, the failure condition that happened didn't impact treasure or secondary goals. The three scenarios I've read most of the failure conditions that I recall prevent a treasure bundle, which is no big deal IMO. I've only talked to one other player about this because it was the one game I had known someone in and they agreed. But I didn't and wasn't going to poll everyone.
I haven't said anything to the GMs either. The first few scenarios I brushed off as edge cases and only came to the forums to see how common this is or if I was missing something. I read through scenarios to see how they were written after my initial post. I am grateful for the GMs who ran the game and didn't know them so didn't provide unsolicited feedback. I will check ahead of time if I can about how they run scenarios though because as someone who enjoys games the games as written I'd prefer that if I failed a roll to move forward in the scenario as written. I'm more than happy to not play with people who feel entitled to every treasure bundle regardless of failing. I don't wish those people ill will or want to stop their fun. Part of the reason I was asking on the forum wasn't to complain, but to see how common it was and gauge the community.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No rules or scenario text can stop "softball" GMs from making the adventure nearly auto-success nor can they stop "death-dealing" GMs from going out of their way to try and TPK the PCs and we shouldn't go out of our way to design against those extremes. Cater to the moderate majority and let the local leadership deal with the extremes if they are a problem.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the reason I was asking on the forum wasn't to complain, but to see how common it was and gauge the community.
Running things as written is the norm. This thread should make that pretty clear from a variety of perspectives that include a well-regarded author, GMs, players, and VOs.
If you’re already going so far as to “check” on scenario adjudication (which means you’re purchasing the PDFs and reading them in detail, right?), you might even be able to give back to vtt communities and gm some games yourself. You're already halfway there.
If you see a valid need for change in a particular community (or in online play as a whole), contribute positively by making that happen.
|
|
Running things as written is the norm. This thread should make that pretty clear from a variety of perspectives that include a well-regarded author, GMs, players, and VOs.
If you’re already going so far as to “check” on scenario adjudication (which means you’re purchasing the PDFs and reading them in detail, right?), you might even be able to give back to vtt communities and gm some games yourself. You're already halfway there.
A) WOW I feel called out here! Luckily; I subscribe to all their hardcover books for both lines and get free PFS scenarios even though I don't run them. I have supported Paizo since Dungeon / Dragon Magazine was in their preview. I have purchased almost every hard cover book that they have come out with at full price, not because I need them, but because I want Paizo to stay in business.
B.) I've thought about signing up to run some, but it's very hard with my current schedule and two little ones that love interrupting :). In the past I've only ever played society games at cons, (Gen Con + some local cons). I've never run a society scenario so that would be completely new to me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m sorry you felt called out. But again... if you’re taking the time to check up on GMs with such a busy personal schedule — and you own the material — and you have decades of gaming experience — then lots of the work is already done. Society is always hurting for gms.
And many of them, like you, are super busy with kids, jobs, real-life problems, etc (which means a little kindness / appreciation / empathy go a long way, even if the game isn’t run perfectly).
And going forward at least expand your sample size of eight games and listen to what people in this thread are saying about what the “norm” is.
|
When I was traveling to conventions (and for work) during 1E, the one thing I hated most was finding myself in an area where the expectation was "full success all the time." I had a lot of fun as a roving GM, but not when I got harangued because I'm playing by the rules.
Players got very angry at me if they didn't get all the possible gold from a scenario.
Player - We always get all the gold.
Me - Well, unfortunately you missed a substantial amount of treasure that X was guarding.
Player - We should have gotten that treasure by "creative solutions."
Me - You literally ran away from the fight. And then teleported home.
Player - Yes, but we could have gotten it creatively.
Me - Sure, you could have waited until night and tried to sneak in there while no one was watching. Or tried to bluff him into giving you the treasure.
Player - Then we did one of those, so we get full gold.
Me - No, you left.
Player - Our GM always gives us full gold.
If they didn't get both Prestige points, players couldn't believe I didn't let them try again and again until they succeeded.
"You killed my character! You ruined my character. I've been playing this character for months and now it's all for nothing!"
The point? I'm tough enough to take that abuse. I don't cave. But it certainly doesn't feel good. It's rough when players are trying to guilt-trip or harangue you into giving them things they didn't earn. Especially if they don't know they are guilt-tripping or haranguing since that's all they've ever experienced and are genuinely trying to explain to the GM why he is "mistaken." Especially, especially if it's a local group that you know you are going to have to see again if you want to keep playing Society games in person.
|
|
only to find out that by the time I came back for the next week's game the local organizer had changed all their chronicles to 2PP
I would have asked under what authority and for what reason they changed my issued chronicle sheets, would have reported it up the Venture-Officer chain, and probably would have not participated in that lodge again. Unless a GM makes an intentional/egregious error, chronicles should not be changed. The GM is the authority at the table.
|
|
I’m sorry you felt called out. But again... if you’re taking the time to check up on GMs with such a busy personal schedule — and you own the material — and you have decades of gaming experience — then lots of the work is already done. Society is always hurting for gms.
And many of them, like you, are super busy with kids, jobs, real-life problems, etc (which means a little kindness / appreciation / empathy go a long way, even if the game isn’t run perfectly).
And going forward at least expand your sample size of eight games and listen to what people in this thread are saying about what the “norm” is.
:) I meant called out on whether or not I `paid` for the material. The problem isn't finding time to read material. The problem is getting 4 - 6 hours of straight alone time (e.g. screaming toddler in the background which happens at work when I run meetings :o ) . Even when I've played I keep myself on mute to prevent any of the noises in the background which have been mostly great
I didn't judge nor question any of the GMs and thanked each and everyone of them for their time and truly appreciate them for taking the time to run the games. Every single society GM has been incredibly kind, and my only complaint about the games is that in 75% of the games at least once there was this awkward skill failure where either GM was unprepared for how to proceed with failure or didn't want the party to fail and has been an unsatisfactory experience for me. I don't include combat because every GM had open rolls and there were tons of failures and people even got knocked out (no kills or TPKs), but it's only been skill points. The two better experiences I had tended to be the ones that allowed failure. Thinking back on it (and the purpose of starting this thread getting other's input) is because the game flowed more organically.
I'm also grateful for everyone here who answered and took the time to give their perspective. Part of the reason I asked is because I know my 8 games since April is a limited sample size. Part of the reason I started looking through the past scenarios I played (mostly the last three since those were more recent in my mind) was based on one of the author's responses and I wanted to see "was there a failure condition? if so what is it?"
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What you are experiencing is likely just a local area trend, more than an overall community feature. You'll find that most lodges have minor differences from each other which has developed out of the nuances that make up the people in the community. If you have a lot of "old timers" you might find a lot of rules confusion as our addled brains have sometimes a dozen of more system versions vying for space and THAC0 is battling D20 for dominance. Others might have one hyper rules-lawyer who has "infected" the player base with a number of misinterpreted rules and everyone just assume s/he is always right. Still other areas, like your might be dominated be GMs who are either inexperienced or perhaps think that "winning" Pathfinder is of utmost importance and they fudge so everyone wins.
Rarely are things like this intentional or meant to be hurtful to the players. The GM either thinks they are doing right by the players or doesn't know any better. If you play with any regularity you are going to find players/GMs that you especially like to play with and seek them out, others that are fun, others that you are indifferent to, others that you don't especially like, and still others you will go out of your way to avoid. Its just the nature of the beast for a public social event like organized play.
If you are not getting the maximum amount of fun out of your games, the best advice is to share your thoughts with the local community. You might find some like-minded folks or at least some who didn't even realize there was an issue. Short of a very few hard-core turds that need to be flushed from time to time, most will agree that generally org play is a satisfying campaign with a collection of excellent people from players/GMs to Venture-Officers to Paizo staffers.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!