|
What makes a Pathfinder Society Special Event, special?
- How does Year of the Shadow Lodge or Blood Under Absalom compare to standard PFS scenarios?
- What elements do you enjoy the most about the Specials?
- What elements do you enjoy the least?
- What elements are missing?
- If you played both Year of the Shadow Lodge and Blood Under Absalom, how did they compare?
- What's your most vivid memory from one of these events?
Please mention which Specials you've particpated in and where they were (or how many tables went off). I'm curious how a 5 table event differs from a 10 or 45 table event.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 4
|
Played Year of the Shadow Lodge at GenCon with the hoard of tables.
Oversaw Year of the Shadow Lodge at my FLGS with six tables.
Oversaw Blood Under Absalom at my FLGS with five tables.
At GenCon I loved the feeling that the entire room was working towards the same goal. Plus, Hitchcock was very dramatic, which added immensely to the experience.
At our FLGS we allowed the high level cleric to remove curse/disease (I can't remember which) on the low level pathfinder who succumb to the condition at a table with no such healing in the group. Everyone seemed to like that.
For storytelling purposes, I like the encounters where you can logistically say that all 20-600 pathfinders are in the same area, just fighting their own combats. When each group goes their separate way and coincidentally have the same type of encounter as the other groups-that is harder to explain the story.
Kyle you might want to note whether you want spoilers hidden or not.
|
What elements are missing:
I would like to see more interaction allowed between tables in combat. This would enable the encounters to be more lethal since assistance would be close by. Bardic performances could benefit adjacent tables. Allow PCs to spend a round transitioning from their home table to a neighboring table during combat. This has worked before in LG interactives. Got a table full of wizards and rogues at Tier 3-4 who need healing? Shout over to the Tier 7-8 table who have two clerics. This concept would require an open-field combat of some sort. Maybe it wouldn't be practical for the entire Special, but it could be done for a few fights to make them more challenging (CR+4). Potentially this means you have a whole table at Tier 1-2 bugging out to a neighboring table. So be it. If someone else doesn't step up from another table, everyone's encounter at adjacent tables gets bumped up to the next Tier. Let's have some fun!
I'd also like to see some missions changing by tier. Example: After the big open-field battle, the Pathfinders have to assault the BBEG's fortress. Tier 1-2 & 3-4 have to do a sewer crawl to get inside the complex and get the puzzle-trapped front door open from the undefended side. Tier 5-6 & 7-8 have to keep the attention of the fortress's airborne defenders until the low tier teams succeed. Tier 10-11 face off against the name-level BBEG & his elite guards as they try to escape.
I would also like to see a Special that takes place in an established locale, like Gallowspire or in the city of Usaro (we're coming for you Gorilla King!). That would be more memorable than a recently fabricated setting or another jaunt through Absalom. Make it epic. Many the LG Specials were related to classic D&D dungeons. White Plume Mountain. The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth. The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun. Pathfinder should be making a similar impression on its fans.
Another element I would like to see is more classic monsters used. I never played or GMed Blood Under Absalom but as I recall from being a potential GM there were a lot of human/humanoid opponents. Yawn. Year of the Shadow Lodge generated a lot of excitement due to the dragons. Let's have a Special that has aboleth, linnorms, a lich -- something that makes the players recoil and break out in a cold sweat when they get a description.
|
C'mon Kyle, no love for Assent ion of the Drow?
I've had more stories retold from that than the other two combined. It would be cool for something like that again and have it change something in the world 6 months down the line in a chronicles book.. even if it is set in the past, That way the chronicle of it would be for your character finding the journal
|
|
Relevant Experience?
- Played Year of the Shadow Lodge @ Atlanta Comic-Con 2010 (~10 tables)
- GMed Year of the Ruby Phoenix @ GenCon 2011 (70+ tables)
- GMed Year of the Ruby Phoenix @ DragonCon 2011 (~18 tables)
How does Year of the Shadow Lodge or Blood Under Absalom compare to standard PFS scenarios?
They are definitely have a certain sense of urgency that scenarios don't have. I think this has a lot to do with the time limits given to each section of the scenario and how you have to keep things moving along a decent pace if you want to get / give the full story.
What elements do you enjoy the most about the Specials?
The fact that each table is sitting around going through the same situations you are, albeit in different ways. I really enjoyed YotSL where everyone was trying to work together to open the gates so everyone could filter into the Grand Lodge and move forward! There was a lot of coordination among tables involved that helped make the experience more immersive.
What elements do you enjoy the least?
The time limits on certain elements. The theatre elements of Ruby Phoenix were seriously underplayed at GenCon. Adding RP elements that complex took longer to explain and run than was given. If there were handouts to give to people so they had a better idea of what adjustments to make on the fly that would have been good. That particular special needs 6 hours to comfortably run, not 5.
Also, for the love of all Golarion gods please put stat blocks for things at the very end so that they can be printed out and separated easily instead of having to flip back and forth umpteen thousand times to figure out who is going to do what during a certain combat. There was so much time wasted on that for Ruby Phoenix across the board almost all GMs. I can't stress how annoying that it made GMing the Special (although I'm sure you can find out more by pulling up previous threads).
What elements are missing?
I'd say more skills-based challenges over combat. For instance, I think a chase scene with a mob of Pathfinders going after a group of baddies trying to get away would be awesome because it would give another opportunity for PCs to shine in a way other than combat. Besides, the imagine in my head of that is quite awesome. It seems a lot better than the combats where the big bad changes based upon how many tables have killed him a certain number of times. This way you could say "X number of baddies have been caught," eventually getting to the point where there is no longer a group of baddies able to make away with and a combat can begin.
If you played both Year of the Shadow Lodge and Blood Under Absalom, how did they compare?
I really prefer Year of the Shadow Lodge compared to Blood Under Absalom. YotSL felt like a gauntlet, felt like there was purposed for the level of stress and excitement of playing the same scenarios with other tables. The Pathfinder Society was under a huge threat and it was right there in your face. Blood Under Absalom did not have as much excitement, especially with the fact it was over the course of a couple of in-game days, so PCs could rest, heal up, not be under any sort of challenge. Also, I thought there was a great missed opportunity to introduce a mechanic that would allow certain tables greater renown by being able to continue on with the competition in BUA, but all tables were hamstrung along and added to the lack of urgency surrounding this special. Don't get me wrong I did like BUA, but definitely doesn't even stand anywhere near the same level as Year of the Shadow Lodge in terms of being a Special.
I can sum it up by saying there wasn't any cooperation done between different tables like Year of the Shadow Lodge. When I look back on Blood Under Absalom, there's really nothing stopping it from being thought of and played by a single table. After the opening scene, every other part of the scenario felt like it was being done separately at each individual table.
What's your most vivid memory from one of these events?
Breaching the Gate and The Black Dragon.
|
I was one of the GM's for Steve Millers Year of the Shadow lodge event the year before last. The previous week Steve ran a "slot 0" for the GMs so they could play through the scenario.
I enjoyed the tables interacting with each other.
All in all i liked Year of the Shadow lodge more. I thought it was more tightly written.
|
WARNING: MAY CONTAIN MINOR SPOILERS !!!
Relevant Experience?
- Overseer, Year of the Shadow Lodge @ Arcanacon 2011, Melbourne - 4 tables
- Overseer, Blood Under Absalom @ PaizoConOz 2011 Brisbane, Australia - 5 tables
- Overseer, Blood Under Absalom @ Arcanacon 2012 Melbourne, Australia - 4 tables
Note: Year of the Shadow Lodge and Blood Under Absalom have also run in Sydney, Australia, Overseer - VC Sydney, Al Rigg. With PFS groups growing around Australia, hopefully we'll see Specials run in other States soon.
How does Year of the Shadow Lodge or Blood Under Absalom compare to standard PFS scenarios?
The major difference is these are intended to be run at big events, such as conventions, as a simultaneous multi-table cooperative scenario. They tend to aim for epic story events relevant to the current Season.
Note: that Blood Under Absalom contains NINE combat encounters! When we slot-zeroed this, it took us eight hours to play and we bypassed one encounter. By the time we realised we'd need more time, we had already scheduled sessions for PaizoConOz Brisbane, players had signed up, and it was too late to move things. Players enjoyed the event, however we did run short of time, had to rush some scenes and cut the final two encounters. At Arcanacon in Melbourne, we ran it from 9am through 7pm with maybe an hour to muster players between tables of appropriate levels, and an hour break for lunch. I figure you'll need eight uninterrupted hours to run this - unless your event runs into the evening hours, allow a full day to run this.
Multi-table events run very similar to regular scheduled tables running alongside each other, except you'll want to try to keep each table synched to run the same encounters, so run with a stopwatch so you can keep everyone on track and stand on a chair to read the required box text to all tables between each encounter.
What elements do you enjoy the most about the Specials?
Although players are gaming at different tables, many of the encounters are occurring simultaneously within the same physical location, eg a tavern brawl. Therefore, players should be cautioned not to drop fireballs unless they know it's safe to do so - the high-level table doesn't want to fry low-level characters at an adjacent table. Similarly, if someone lets off say a positive energy burst, then someone should run between tables and announce "everyone receives 24 points of healing!"
Assistance (usually healing bursts, but occasionally a breath-of-life) from a higher level table can often SAVE players struggling at lower-level tables. Players should generally be encouraged to focus on play at their table, and not play other tables games for them. However, if one table finishes early and waiting for other tables to complete, if it makes sense to do so, they could come to the aid of another table that might be struggling. Eg, a dwarf becomes incapacitated and thrown into the harbour - a character from another table with ranks in Swim could notice this, and leap to his rescue. This helps players realise there is more going on than just what you see at your table, and encourage a sense of cooperative play.
After the Special, everyone has a sense of a shared experience, and there's much discussion between players from different tables regarding how they dealt with each encounter.
What elements do you enjoy the least?
I have to agree with Joseph on both points: Blood Under Absalom could suffer if not scheduled enough time to run, and there was too much flipping between pages for statblocks slowing tables down and potentially causing errors.
Normally, I prefer statblocks appearing throughout a scenario rather than collected together at the end. However, in the case of a 40+ page special with statblocks repeated for Tiers 1 through 11, it becomes too much, especially the theatre scene where GMs were required to combine roles from one page to stats on another page. If you're GMing a Tier 3-4 table, you only need bring the Tier 3-4 stats with you, throw out the rest. This is a case where an appendix of NPC stats, each Tier starting on a new page, would have been VERY useful!
If you played both Year of the Shadow Lodge and Blood Under Absalom, how did they compare?
But here I'll respectfully disagree with Joseph - I much preferred Blood Under Absalom over Year of the Shadow Lodge.
I didn't mind that some scenes all tables occupied the same space, where other scenes they separated - it meant that low tables couldn't always assume they had the support of higher tables for healing bursts and such, which could lead to reckless behaviour if left unchecked - instead they had to fight through to the next section, providing challenge and keep players on their toes.
I ran GMs through a single table of both Specials prior to each event, and I'll agree that Blood Under Absalom runs particularly well as a single-table event. In fact, given the number of encounters, I did wonder whether Blood Under Absalom was originally two standard scenarios (cf. City of Strangers Part I and II) that had been edited together to form a Special? Though definitely try to catch one of these at a convention to enjoy the multiple-table experience.
What's your most vivid memory from one of these events?
A memory I'm still trying to wipe from my mind:
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
I think the esteemed Mr. Miles has said best what elements are missing. The Special should feel that way... SPECIAL! Using an iconic location other than Absalom would be a nice change of place, especially with all the scenarios that take place there as well.
I would love to see some table interaction/consequences between tier levels and, if not, would rather the tiers tasks be different. This would eliminate the (as JP Chapleau put it) "you're in the same room, but you're not but you are, but you're not, but you are". Not only would it separating the tasks/encounters, based on tiers make the challenges more level appropriate, that same separation would make it a different scenario dependent on what level you played it at instead of "the same with different monsters... GRR!"
|
I would love to see some table interaction/consequences between tier levels and, if not, would rather the tiers tasks be different. This would eliminate the (as JP Chapleau put it) "you're in the same room, but you're not but you are, but you're not, but you are". Not only would it separating the tasks/encounters, based on tiers make the challenges more level appropriate, that same separation would make it a different scenario dependent on what level you played it at instead of "the same with different monsters... GRR!"
You have to be careful with this, as it was as a GM it was a pain in the ass to prep for the specials.
my experience at PaizoCon and GenCon was so bad last year and such a pain to bring that many Minis to prep for so many tiers that I decided I will not do them anymore even though it hurts my chance to become a 5 Star.
If I had to prep for fully different encounters for all the tiers as a GM there is no chance in hell I would run one again.
If there are any changes to specials make it easier on the GMs.
I play both Pathfinder Society and LFR. While I generally prefer Pathfinder Society, LFR is doing some things right with their Battle Interactives.
At this year's DDXP, I liked that the battle spanned an entire city. Each table at a set amount of time to accomplish as many location based missions within that city as possible. Some of the missions were restricted as Heroic (level 1-10) only or Paragon (11-20) only. The number of missions successfully completed by all tables then had some impact on the rest of the BI.
Also at this year's DDXP, there were several huge monsters that threatened the entire city, moving from table to table. As the DM playing said monster moved by a given table, the players at that table were given an opportunity to attack the monster (and, of course, the monster would also attack back). Sure the monster was just a lump of hit points with attacks and defenses broken down by level band, but it was still fun.
At last year's Origins, one table, each encounter, had the option of forgoing the standard encounter (the one being tackled by all the other tables) to take on a special mission. Once the table playing the special mission was successful, some related benefit was then relayed to the other tables.
Beyond these things, I'd echo the calls for exotic locales and big, scary monsters.
Chad
|
Prior Experience
I've played Year of the Shadow Lodge and Blood Under Absalom at MilleniumCon & OwlCon respectively, both with about 5-7 tables in the room total. YotSL was played at Tier 3-4 and Blood Under Absalom at Tier 10-11.
How does Year of the Shadow Lodge or Blood Under Absalom compare to standard PFS scenarios?
For the most part, I feel both specials brought their A-Game to encounters. The fights were generally nastier, a bit more creative/objective based than your standard scenario, and involved things I don't usually see running around in standard encounters for some of the fights. I played the same character in both (a Summoner) and they are the only modules he has died in (though the second was through the bad luck of a greataxe crit).
What elements do you enjoy the most about the Specials?
1) I like the idea of all the PC tables being in the same locale and/or working on the same mission; it creates an interesting element for interaction between many different PCs without necessarily having to run a combat for 40+ people on the same GM.
2) YotSL created a sense of urgency through it's story/writing: the Grand Lodge was in danger and we needed to get back ASAP to address that danger. This was fun for me.
3) The idea of the Pathfinder Society working not in small units on many different units, but as a larger whole towards a large goal.
What elements do you enjoy the least?
1) The idea that all tables were at the same encounter every encounter and in the same place but not in the same place. This is confusing at times and can complicate/slow down encounters in a setup where there is already a time limit. It also is difficult to fully pull off. I feel the YotSL was able to keep it mostly believable/do-able, but Blood Under Absalom less so.
2) Some of the encounters in Blood Under Absalom felt needlessly complicated for a special with such severe time restrictions (read: the play). I like the use of different circumstances to keep you on your toes, but the high level table had to waste immense amounts of time recalculating their stats to compensate for losing their stat bump items for the rest of the day. Honestly, I think this is a special that should not ever be run in a single timeslot/round; it is better done as a 7-8 hour two round scenario as discussed previously.
3) Lack of serious consequences for failure by other tables. This makes it feel as if the efforts of your table don't necessarily matter if another will make up for it. In the case of Blood Under Absalom, I truly feel that failing to "move forward" in the qualifier should mean the table was done with the special unless another table was able to get them what they needed to advance. One of my favorite Living Greyhawk Battle Specials was one where your rewards (and achieving the special-wide goal) depended on how far your team was able to get through the dungeon.
What elements are missing?
1) Clear opportunities for structured interaction between tables, vs. on the fly yelled requests for healing/intervention. The suggestion already made of allowing individuals to 'switch tables' as a standard action is one possibility. The potential for each tier to have separate objectives which impact the objectives of other tables in later encounters.
2) More monsters we wouldn't run into in a normal scenario. Running into "generic rival adventuring party" or goblins isn't very exciting or unique to me.
3) Exotic locales/situations whose scope is hard to address in a standard scenario. A raid on an Aspis Consortium stronghold, a large operation at the Worldwound, a massive sea battle between two fleets; Specials should be epic in scale because they have enough PCs present to achieve this feel.
If you played both Year of the Shadow Lodge and Blood Under Absalom, how did they compare?
As a whole, I enjoyed Year of the Shadow Lodge a great deal more than Blood Under Absalom. The threat and urgency to YotSL felt appropriately woven into the story, there were clear points where inter-table interaction was needed (getting past the gate & the final encounter), and despite a one or two encounters I find the fights to be on the whole excellent.
Blood Under Absalom DID have a sense of urgency to it, but after the first encounter in the tavern, it felt completely manufactured by the OOC time constraints. I didn't like this at all because all opportunities to role play (such as in The Play Encounter) were thrown under a bus for the sake of expediency. The only fight in Blood Under Absalom I found remotely exciting was the very first, if only because of the inherent chaos to the arrangement. The rest felt like time-trial chores.
What's your most vivid memory from one of these events?
At the gate to the Grand Lodge in YotSL, as we found ourselves facing a rather difficult to breach barrier, a conjurer at the tier 8-9 table did a quick head count and then yelled for everyone to lock hands as he used Dimensional Steps to shift the entire group of PCs at the special five feet through the gate. The image of almost three dozen battle ready Pathfinders teleporting in was pretty epic to me.
|
|
First of all, I apologize for this being really long.
- 2009 Gencon special
- 2010 Gencon special (Year of the Shadow Lodge), I play next week at a local convention
- 2011 Gencon special (Blood Under Absalom), I played at Gencon
I've also spoken to a number of people about the Gencon 2008 event (Ascension of the Drow), and some of the Paizocon specials.
What makes a special "special"?
Just because a bunch of tables are running the same scenario at the same time, I don't find that innovative at all. Really, the only thing that's different is that there's an MC and a loudspeaker.
The following are examples of innovative events:
1.1) Tables being forced to coordinate, share clues, share information, come together to solve a problem.
1.2) 2+ tables engaging in combat and helping each other.
1.3) The RESULTS of these separate combats at each table (success/fail), actually mattering, and perhaps actually being displayed on a big screen projector (and perhaps announced).
1.4) PVP between tables. I know some people hate PVP, but I also know of several people who think it would be cool as a one event, especially if there is no penalty for death. PVP would be hilarious imo.
1.5) Major group decisions actually mattering. For example, wouldn't it be cool if some tables actually betrayed the Grand Lodge and either helped the Shadow Lodge, picked the wrong location to attack, or were defeated?
1.6) Players grouped up by faction, NOT level!
1.7) Table leaders (for each PC group) talking with each other, coordinating. For example, if the objective was to protect a castle, the table leaders would have to decide if the low level PCs protect gate A, B, sit on the walls, or leave to do a special mission. Now it gets interesting and strategic.
I've already touched on this in #1, however I think what makes special events "special" is that we're together, working together. In "Blood Under Absalom", I didn't feel like we were working together at all.
These are some examples of what I call interaction between tables:
2.1) The success (or failure) of each table actually mattering to the overall effort of the special event. Even better if it can be shown visually! (Even something basic like Excel spreadsheet (with red or green cells) would be welcome).
2.2) When all of the tables are fighting in the same area, area buffs (like a Bard song), should matter.
2.3) Tables forced to solve puzzles together.
2.4) Tables being forced to share, or trade items to each other for the success of the mission.
2.5) Competition between tables. Interaction doesn't always have to be positive.
2.6) Having a banner for each table in the 2009 special was brilliant, as it helped identify each table.
2.7) If tables fail the event (TPK etc), there should be something for them to do. One thing they could do is play NPCs and roll dice for other GMs, in large scale battles. Or they could run around the room doing something. It all helps create a great atmosphere for the special.
2.8) Players switching tables, maybe temporarily, maybe permanently, for different possible reasons.
With all the tables interacting, I want the outcome to matter. I want us to be able to fail if we don't work well with each other. Did anyone fail in Blood Under Absalom this year? I don't think so. Autowin = boring to me. You might as well have just given me a narration of what happenned in the event.
I don't want a regular scenario to be designated as a special, just because it's run over 5+ tables. In "Blood Under Absalom", it very much seemed like it could be played as a regular scenario. This is NOT what I'm looking for when I play a special event!
Also, specials are where you bring out the epic creatures, and unusual/new creatures. We see humanoids and goblins all the time, give us something new.
I'd give you an example of "unusual events" that could happen in a scenario, but there'd be no point since I'm sure your writers will be able to come up with their own great ideas. Having said that, I want the encounters in the event to be surprising and unusual. And the action should be almost non-stop.
I want special events to be challenging, to push us to our limits and sometimes beyond. I want a chance of failing, either because of a bad decision, random chance, or we don't have the combat prowess. Either that or I want competition between the tables, because that's also challenging.
I don't want to feel like we're just being pushed like sheeple from encounter to encounter. I want a challenge of some kind.
For example, from what I understand, in the Paizocon special event last year, almost all tables TPKed or were pushed to their limits. It was a huge challenge and not all tables succeeded! I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure their PCs didn't have to be raised if they died (although I haven't confirmed).
I think a very important part about increasing the challenge level of a special event (and therefore the risk of failure and death), is that the risks of failure and death be either reduced or eliminated altogether. Either that or the reward has to be very high, which is something I don't think Paizo wants to do. If the mission is very important, let's face it, those money grubbing Decemvirates have the resources to Raise Dead every single pathfinder if they wanted to. :)
I want there to be roleplaying moments at special events, roleplaying moments between player and GM, between player and player, between tables.
Special events are about people interacting, roleplaying, we're playing a roleplaying game after all.
I think the most important thing to realize is that things don't have to be perfect if the event is experimental.
I think it would have been cool to collect "Phoenix Points" (artifacts, knowledge, or boons from playing different scenarios during the Phoenix year), and characters with these items would be able to help (better) during the next Gencon. Or possibly even be grouped together by "Phoenix points" or whatever. See, that's weird, innovative, and unusual.
Although it's better if we play our PCs, pre-made characters would also be ok as a one-shot. Especially if helped tell a story about the upcoming season.
Basically, I want the special to be different. We Be Goblins is different (as a module), I want the special event to be different on that kind of level.
In the next section, I'll talk briefly about each event.
Last year, Year of the Ruby Phoenix, Paizocon had a gladiator challenge, with each encounter being stronger and stronger (until you were facing several adult dragons). This is what I was expecting from Blood Under Absalom.
Also, a boon was given out to any teams that survived (or won? not sure) the Paizocon event last year. Nice!
I don't have much more to say about Paizocon, since everything is 3rd hand information, and I apologize for any mistakes.
Basically in this event, everyone got to play a Drow character, and their noble house was the people at their table. They had to increase their influence by backstabbing and eliminating other houses, or better yet adding members from other houses to their ranks. A night of scheming, backstabbing, and underhanded deals!
From what I understand, this event was extremely disorganized, confusing, and chaotic.
The funny thing is, this event always comes up in conversation, it was MEMORABLE, and people talk fondly about it, and about different moments in it. Ex. When player X betrayed player Y and joined the red team.
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz09wv?Ascension-of-the-Drow-What-did-you-think
That's what I'm looking for in a special event! I'm looking for events that we'll talk about years later, whether they're perfect or not! Please make this happen!
This event was decent and at least had some of the elements in it that I was looking for.
a) We had banners and we ran across the convention from room to room, in a race against the other teams. Great advertisement for PFS btw.
b) Each team got a piece of the puzzle, which we then used to figure something out.
c) We had some fake swordplay between players near the end, which was silly but fun.
d) We came within 1 hp of TPKing, although I think this TPK would have been for real. :( We definitely felt threatened by several of the encounters.
e) One of the teams actually won the competition and gained a boon from winning (although it was hard to say "why" as an observer).
Overall, I thought this was more of what I was looking for in an event.
Explosive runes!
I don't know yet, I'll tell you next week.
Although I had some fun at times at this event, it was mostly because of 1-2 other players and the GM, not because of the scenario itself. I left disappointed that it wasn't "more". My buddy (which Blood was his first special) felt the same way. If it wasn't Paizocon's 10th anniverary, I would seriously consider not attending this years Gencon special, and I'm not sure my buddy will, but we'll see.
The reason is was "blah" was because it failed almost every check I've mentioned so far.
1) Innovative: There was very little that was innovative, it felt like a regular scenario. The only innovative part was in the theatre and I wish that part was a lot longer (it was cut short imo)! In addition, the theatre part would have been a lot easier if there were handouts on the role, armor, and weapons they get, so we could have started faster.
2) Interaction: There was absolutely no interaction between tables, Blood was effectively a standalone scenario. In the bar scene, we couldn't even steal rubies from other tables. We couldn't help other teams in the arena (not that anyone needed it). The only thing that marked this as a special event was the MC.
3) Unusual: When I entered the Ruby Tournament, I certainly didn't expect to have 1 arena fight and be done. Certainly nothing unusual or surprising happenned. Standard fare.
4) Challenging: I never felt challenged in this event, not once. There was no way to fail and I didn't see a single table fail (unlike the special event in 2009, where we almost failed and I saw other tables fail). We were just pushed from one encounter to the next.
For example, my cleric had a -10+ skill check penalty in his full plate and Tower shield (and the worst CMB you could imagine), and even with terrible rolling, I still couldn't fail in getting out of the bar in time (before the town guard came). I probably should have gotten caught, even if it lasted only a moment (and perhaps I should have been assessed a minor penalty for my team).
There were also a lot of lulls in this event, especially after the bar scene. Enough to take a 10 minute pee break.
5) Roleplaying: Except for the theatre event (which was amazing), roleplaying was limited.
6) Experimental: Again, everything was standard fare, there were no elements of risk at all in this special event.
I'm so sorry and I apologize to Tim Hitchcock for tearing his work apart (it's not his fault, it's what Paizo told him to do), but that's the way I feel about last year's special event.
Thanks for listening and I hope the special events for upcoming years improve and are worthy of the title of "special". Get Steven T. Helt, Lou, and Nick Logue to write something new!
|
|
So I played Year of the Shadow Lodge, and it was definitely a better experience with only 3 tables. The reason for this is that the tables were communicating better and we heard highlights of what everyone was doing.
There were problems though. For example, one group did something and we weren't allowed to use it, and then they thought we were ignoring their table. This happenned twice.
Also, I think if you had a designated table runner (at each table), informing the other tables, it would be helpful.
If you wanted to duplicated this experience at Gencon, you'd have to make families of 3-5 tables and have the runners communicate within these tables only.
The scenario itself was very average, but like I said, interactives are fun because they're interactives. You could take a retired scenario and make it a fun interactive.
|
|
- Relevant Experience
-- GMed Year of the Shadow Lodge @ Brewfest 2010 (8-10 tables - Tier 8-9)
-- Played Blood Under Absalom @ GenCon 2011 (70+ tables - Tier 10-11)
-- GMed Blood Under Absalom @ Brewfest 2011 (8-10 tables - Tier 8-9)
- How does Year of the Shadow Lodge or Blood Under Absalom compare to standard PFS scenarios?
- What elements do you enjoy the most about the Specials?
- What elements do you enjoy the least?
- What elements are missing?
- If you played both Year of the Shadow Lodge and Blood Under Absalom, how did they compare?
- What's your most vivid memory from one of these events?
As a player, I see these modules as pretty similar at their foundation as standard PFS scenarios, except with a big-party/army type of feel, i.e. get a mission, go do some encounters, win the day. The only real differences are that you do feel a bit more like you are participating in a 'world event' with having a narrator acting like a king/general/etc. and you know you are part of a major event that is setting up the next season.
As a GM, the only difference is you have to prep 5 tiers of encounters instead of 2 or 3. A bit rough, but not that bad.
The atmosphere of the room with the narrator and tables 'competing' for things is fun...knowing we're part of a major story arc is nice as well.
Tim Hitchcock's stories/plots and energy are probably the best part of the GenCon ones.
-- 'Autowin' or no consequences:
-- Time restrictions: I couldn't decide honestly to put this as my first annoyance or the autowin...I went with autowin because it takes most if not all of the challenge out of the scenario...but this is a very close second. If a special is meant to fit in a 5-hour period, plan it/write it as such...even have some time restricted things (like the bar)...but don't have everything that way, and don't announce it. Time restrictions only make us either want to go as quickly as possible (which we find out just means we fight more - maybe good, maybe not - or we go as slow as possible to save resources. Most of them don't help the story, and usually hinder it.
-- The false image of interaction: it's been talked about, I mention a bit lower...more interaction throughout the room (aside from just a 'room counter') will always increase the enjoyment of the experience. The closest to this was the YotSL storming...but that was still pretty minor.
-- Vague instructions for a 'win' condition that involves rolling a bunch of crits....
Though I barely played in LG, I've heard a great deal about the interactives - and for a season-ending event at GenCon (for instance), this is what these should be. There is little to no interaction during the specials; tables 'working together' to reach a certain number of successes only feels like a drawn out skill challenge <shudders>...from 4e...<shudders>. With all of those tables playing the same mod in one place, there should be tasks like:
------ Obtain a diplomacy DC of 100 (or else...): this would require tables to talk together to figure out how to do this
----- Take on some epic monster: across all levels of players, where level 11s are having to defend level 1s and the sort
Additionally, have the decisions/consequences from the specials mean something later in the season (if they have in the past, I have missed this), and have 'phat lewtz' - sorry, couldn't resist...but honestly, the boons are great, but some nice, rare, unique loot given out and/or purchaseable would be nice too.
I think I liked them about the same; for BUA, the whole idea of the Ruby Phoenix story was nice, as was the arena/bar fights; for YotSL, the flying things (being vague) were a nice touch...hmm, actually, yeah I think I liked BUA better.