Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

A Dedicated Follower of Factions

Monday, April 16, 2012

One of the defining characteristics of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign that separates it from other organized play programs is the faction system. A few weeks ago, Paizo Publisher Erik Mona, Campaign Coordinator Mike Brock, and I spent an obscene amount of time in a few very long meetings really digging into factions to determine what worked with their current implementation, what was lacking, and how we could improve them, and in doing so improve the quality of the Pathfinder Society campaign as a whole. We came up with a lot of great ideas, and Mike and I have hinted at them in recent weeks on the messageboards. Well, today I'm going to pull back the curtain a little bit and reveal a few of the changes we have in store in a bit more detail.

First, starting in Season 4, all 10 factions will have a specific goal they hope to achieve over the course of the year. In general, we'll be moving away from the original metaplot of the factions vying for control of Absalom, as the campaign has expanded to incorporate the entire Inner Sea region to a much larger extent than was anticipated in Season 0. These goals will be clear and will be disseminated to all members of a given faction by the faction heads at the start of the season. Make sure all your Pathfinder Society characters are registered on paizo.com and that your email address and privacy settings are updated before August so you'll be sure to get any missives your faction leader may send. All Pathfinder Society scenario designers will receive an overview of the factions' plans in order to incorporate opportunities to achieve these goals into their respective scenarios.

Note that I said opportunities and not missions? Faction missions aren't going away, and you'll still get faction missives from your faction head at the start of a scenario. But except in specific cases where necessitated by the circumstances, faction missions won't just be a specific skill check you need to make or else fail the faction mission. They'll be more general, and tied to the overall faction goal for the season. While we'll make sure there's an opportunity presented in each scenario for members of each faction to put forward their factions' goals (and any specific tasks suggested in the scenario's faction handouts), we'll also be allowing for more player creativity.

For example, Andoran's goal for a season (and this isn't their goal next season) might be to bring slavers to justice. In a particular scenario, the PCs may encounter a merchant in Osirion whom they can discover has ties to slavers. Andoran faction PCs who discover this can then deal with the guy as they see fit, or if they miss this clue, they can use their time in the markets in a later encounter to put together a list of slavers operating out in the open in the markets of Sothis. In both cases, the PCs are helping their faction toward the overall season goal, and while we will present an opportunity to do so without the need to go off the rails, PCs will be rewarded for taking the initiative and going beyond these suggestions.

Another hot topic of discussion has been the so-called "faction war," in which each faction competes with the rest to be the winner of a given season. We're revising this faction-versus-faction paradigm, instead measuring each faction's success against its own goals to achieve varying degrees of success. Thus, a faction whose members get all their possible prestige in a given season achieve 100% success, and the results of their actions will play out in the ongoing, unfolding plot of the campaign. Similarly, a faction that struggles a bit and only gets 80% of its potential prestige might not achieve its ultimate goal but will certainly see the results of its many successes. Finally, a faction that only reaches the lowest threshold of success might see in-world consequences of its failures, which may determine the faction's goals the following season (perhaps calling into question the faction's very existence).

We've got some pretty deep and (we think) fun plots developing for all 10 factions, and the authors of our four Gen Con scenarios are already working to incorporate those threads into their adventures. Stay tuned this summer for more information from your faction heads about what your PCs are going to be working toward in the next year.

Mark Moreland
Developer

Illustrations by Ryan Portillo

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Society Ryan Portillo
51 to 100 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee **

Dragnmoon wrote:

*Paracountess Zarta Dralneen having party after a very successful year addressing Cheliax members*

Thanks you all very much for helping us reach our goals this year, as a thank you, you will find an envelope under your chair with your reward. Please feel free to read them now.

While imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, impersonations are neither flattering nor sincere. You will receive but one warning from me in this regard.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Zarta Dralneen wrote:
You will receive but one warning from me in this regard.

Pssst! Dragnmoon! She's offering to skip straight to the "punishment"! *wink wink*

Qadira ***

(edit - I typed this before Ziggy replied to Dragnmoon... and now it sounds...)

ok, this sounds good to me now. Thanks for answering my concerns.

Heck - we got a great staff...

(Now I just have to figure out how to correct the Factions some of my PCs are assigned to. I have two that show the wrong factions.... out of only 5 I have registered.... guess I need to register the others too. And do a bunch of updating... sigh)

Grand Lodge *****

Somehow I just can't picture Mark in drag.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Don Walker wrote:
Somehow I just can't picture Mark in drag.

Or whatever passes for "casual-wear" in the Dralneen household ;-)

Grand Lodge ****

This is so awesome.

But I'm a bit concerned about the 'percentage success' model spoken about here. We currently know that the current model aims for a 75% success rate with gaining prestige, and with creative solutions allowed, the actual average rate might be much higher (80-100%?). So it may become impossible for a faction to be threatened with getting wiped from the campaign as everyone will have around 70-100% success, meaning all factions succeed and all goals get achieved year after year, unless a lot of dopey heroes all join one faction.

I'm looking forward to more details that separate 'Opportunities' with 'Faction Missions'.

*****

KestlerGunner wrote:

This is so awesome.

But I'm a bit concerned about the 'percentage success' model spoken about here. We currently know that the current model aims for a 75% success rate with gaining prestige, and with creative solutions allowed, the actual average rate might be much higher (80-100%?). So it may become impossible for a faction to be threatened with getting wiped from the campaign as everyone will have around 70-100% success, meaning all factions succeed and all goals get achieved year after year, unless a lot of dopey heroes all join one faction.

I'm looking forward to more details that separate 'Opportunities' with 'Faction Missions'.

I don't think anyone has said anything about getting rid of a faction, but I'm not putting words in anyones' mouth.

Although I share your fear in one aspect. Players already feel that the point from their faction mission is a right they should get ... with the fact that now it is truly going to matter; the peevishness we GMs see from a player not getting their faction point is only going to increase.

Grand Lodge ****

Moreland wrote:
Finally, a faction that only reaches the lowest threshold of success might see in-world consequences of its failures, which may determine the faction's goals the following season (perhaps calling into question the faction's very existence).

Right now it sounds like an empty threat as I'm guessing the prestige success rate would be very high. They may need to implement a competitive ranking for factions for the 'overall mission successful' area.

I find it weird that people have already hopped on this hoping more races will come out as a result. Attend/organise a public gaming event already you guys!

Paizo Employee ** Developer

KestlerGunner wrote:
But I'm a bit concerned about the 'percentage success' model spoken about here. We currently know that the current model aims for a 75% success rate with gaining prestige, and with creative solutions allowed, the actual average rate might be much higher (80-100%?). So it may become impossible for a faction to be threatened with getting wiped from the campaign as everyone will have around 70-100% success, meaning all factions succeed and all goals get achieved year after year, unless a lot of dopey heroes all join one faction.

Why would it be a bad thing for all factions to succeed and for all players to feel like, thanks to their efforts, their faction wasn't the loser? We haven't set the benchmarks of different levels of success however, and it might take several seasons to really get the numbers right. There's nothing saying we can't set the threshold for success at 80% and grade all ten factions on a curve. The question really becomes, "how steep a curve do you want?"

Silver Crusade **

I think we want the curve steep enough for failure to be a real possibility. If the expected PA gain is 75%, and minimum success is at 70%, then why should players be worried about failure? Victory is only sweet if the risk of failure was real. It is hard to enjoy a reward or campaign arc if the victory is foreknown.

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I believe we may also be looking toward upping the difficulty of completing faction missions.

Silver Crusade **

Michael Brock wrote:
I believe we may also be looking toward upping the difficulty of completing faction missions.

Just to clarify, up the difficulty of completing the missions, but also give GM's more leeway in how said missions are accomplished?

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

Alexander_Damocles wrote:


Just to clarify, up the difficulty of completing the missions, but also give GM's more leeway in how said missions are accomplished?

That is the plan.

Silver Crusade **

Consider me one *very* satisfied customer! It sounds like you have addressed all the concerns the community had in a well thought out way. Bravo!

*****

It'll be interesting to see how it all works


Michael Brock wrote:
I believe we may also be looking toward upping the difficulty of completing faction missions.

Hm. I've never like the dichotomy of "faction missions are completely mandatory to buy cool stuff, but you're not supposed to get hung up on succeeding", and this doesn't sound like a step forward to me.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Fromper wrote:


My second concern comes from Mike's followup post:

Quote:
Mark and I are very cognizant about the length of scenarios and 4-5 hour time slots.
Am I the only one who noticed the contradiction in this sentence? I'm not the most experienced convention attendee around here, but from what I've seen, convention slots aren't 4-5 hours. They're 4 hours. If a scenario last 4 hours and 1 minute, then it's already running late. In the home PFS game I usually play in, it's not a...

Nope, ever since I've been playing (and I believe it started Season 1), scenarios have been designed to be 4-5 hours. Gen Con slots are 5 hours. Con of the North slots here in Minnesota were 6 hours.

My opinion is, at a convention, the only reason we can't get a convention to allow longer slots, is because we aren't asking (demanding).

Silver Crusade ****

Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
Although I share your fear in one aspect. Players already feel that the point from their faction mission is a right they should get ... with the fact that now it is truly going to matter; the peevishness we GMs see from a player not getting their faction point is only going to increase.

Time to clearly and firmly state they are not a right, and are earned just like any other part of the game. That there is no way for someone to "succeed" 100% of the time. No realistic way at least.

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

hogarth wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
I believe we may also be looking toward upping the difficulty of completing faction missions.
Hm. I've never like the dichotomy of "faction missions are completely mandatory to buy cool stuff, but you're not supposed to get hung up on succeeding", and this doesn't sound like a step forward to me.

We explored the idea of disconnecting fame with purchase power. Unfortunately, it is too tightly wound into the foundation of PFS currently that we couldn't remove it at this time and make it work smoothly. We are still looking for ways to do that very thing but no ideas that would work have come across my desk yet.

*****

Daniel Luckett wrote:
Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
Although I share your fear in one aspect. Players already feel that the point from their faction mission is a right they should get ... with the fact that now it is truly going to matter; the peevishness we GMs see from a player not getting their faction point is only going to increase.
Time to clearly and firmly state they are not a right, and are earned just like any other part of the game. That there is no way for someone to "succeed" 100% of the time. No realistic way at least.

What's the point ... we can state this until we're blue in the face (some already have) and it's not sinking in...

I think some players are in for a hard reality check when the faction mission get harder.. and I think we're going to see a lot more of those players on the boards complaining about how hard they are... but that's just my pessimistic viewpoint lol.


Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:

I don't think anyone has said anything about getting rid of a faction, but I'm not putting words in anyones' mouth.

Last sentence of the next to last paragraph of the blog:

Quote:
Finally, a faction that only reaches the lowest threshold of success might see in-world consequences of its failures, which may determine the faction's goals the following season (perhaps calling into question the faction's very existence).

Sounds like with extreme results, and corresponding lack of popularity, that a faction could be killed off.

Silver Crusade **

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:

I don't think anyone has said anything about getting rid of a faction, but I'm not putting words in anyones' mouth.

Last sentence of the next to last paragraph of the blog:

Quote:
Finally, a faction that only reaches the lowest threshold of success might see in-world consequences of its failures, which may determine the faction's goals the following season (perhaps calling into question the faction's very existence).
Sounds like with extreme results, and corresponding lack of popularity, that a faction could be killed off.

And the sad thing is, I know every player and GM immediately thinks "Oh please, let the __________ faction die!"

Paizo Employee ** Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If enough people all pick the same faction in the above statement, then we'd be doing right by the campaign to meet their demands. But we're going to let actual play results determine that rather than message board postings, which reflect only a small percentage of the entire campaign's population. I'd rather we provide fun stories and motivations for all ten factions to succeed however, even if one or more of them might be lagging in popularity. For those players who do like the less popular factions, it's still a rewarding experience to really be able to sink your teeth into those character concepts.

Andoran *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
I believe we may also be looking toward upping the difficulty of completing faction missions.
Just to clarify, up the difficulty of completing the missions, but also give GM's more leeway in how said missions are accomplished?

I am trying to wrap my head around this..

You are going to make the missions more difficult to complete but easier for the GMs to give it to them...

Looking forward to see how you do that..

Cheliax **

I really like the ideas presented. The faction missions I was given recently were... Eh. Prophetic, out of place and quite frankly, weird. I'd love to see them become more integral to the plot, both in a session and as part of the overall metaplot.

Qadira ***

Dragnmoon wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
I believe we may also be looking toward upping the difficulty of completing faction missions.
Just to clarify, up the difficulty of completing the missions, but also give GM's more leeway in how said missions are accomplished?

I am trying to wrap my head around this..

You are going to make the missions more difficult to complete but easier for the GMs to give it to them...

Looking forward to see how you do that..

I have already encountered this. A player was unable to do the faction mission. (actually missed what chance he had due to ... a lot of things) And so came up with a "creative solution". Just lie. Run a bluff on the VC. And proceeded to roll badly, with a poor skill bonus and get something like a 15 bluff check. AND 6 players at the table expected me to give him the point. Were in fact disapointed that I had not. (thou no one said "the Judge robbed you guy" the feeling was there).

I hate to see what it will be like with "upping the difficulty" and "give the GM's more leeway"... though I know this is coming. And that it is needed.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

well considering that most DC's for faction missions are at about 20, to expect the point at 15 is ridiculous. The fact that they got another chance should be enough, right?

Paizo Employee ** Developer

nosig wrote:
I have already encountered this. A player was unable to do the faction mission. (actually missed what chance he had due to ... a lot of things) And so came up with a "creative solution". Just lie. Run a bluff on the VC. And proceeded to roll badly, with a poor skill bonus and get something like a 15 bluff check. AND 6 players at the table expected me to give him the point. Were in fact disapointed that I had not. (thou no one said "the Judge robbed you guy" the feeling was there).

One of the stipulations of GMs having more leeway will be that lying to your faction head won't cut it. If you tell Colson Maldris (or any faction head) that you did such-and-such and you actually didn't, they're going to find out eventually, and when they do, they won't be pleased. Which is the opposite of prestige.

Andoran ***

Out of curiosity, how does playing in scenarios from season 0-3 affect the general goal of the faction, if at all?

Edit: Apparently answered upthread, apologies, I must have missed it

Silver Crusade **

BTLOTM wrote:
Out of curiosity, how does playing in scenarios from season 0-3 affect the general goal of the faction, if at all?

It was stated somewhere upthread that only current season scenarios would have a bearing on the faction's success.

Sczarni ***

Mark Moreland wrote:
nosig wrote:
I have already encountered this. A player was unable to do the faction mission. (actually missed what chance he had due to ... a lot of things) And so came up with a "creative solution". Just lie. Run a bluff on the VC. And proceeded to roll badly, with a poor skill bonus and get something like a 15 bluff check. AND 6 players at the table expected me to give him the point. Were in fact disapointed that I had not. (thou no one said "the Judge robbed you guy" the feeling was there).
One of the stipulations of GMs having more leeway will be that lying to your faction head won't cut it. If you tell Colson Maldris (or any faction head) that you did such-and-such and you actually didn't, they're going to find out eventually, and when they do, they won't be pleased. Which is the opposite of prestige.

This past weekend I ran Scenario #30 (Cassomir's Locker). I had a player with a Qadiran character.

This is what happened:

Qadiran character missed a number of the red-X crates. After the scenario was over, I told the Qadiran character's player that he did not get the additional PA because he didn't find enough of them. At this point, his character didn't know that he hadn't found all the crates and there wasn't anything he could have done to resolve it. He suggested that his character tell the Qadiran contact that he found all the crates... However, since his Qadiran contact had a bill of goods for the shipment, if he reported an incorrect number it could simply have been the wrong shipment. The point was to report the correct number, which was provided in the scenario and not in the faction missive. He did, however, earn 1 PA for his other faction mission.

I've try to make sure I tell all of my players outright that they should not expect to get their faction mission PA every time. The faction missions are difficult, and often dice-dependent, and they're meant to be. That said, some players don't really make a fuss over it. I honestly feel bad, though, when I have to tell any of my players that the dice didn't roll in their favor... almost as bad as I cringe when I roll and confirm a critical hit against one of them. Y'know, like I've kicked a puppy.

Qadira *** Venture-Lieutenant, Australia—Sydney

I will admit that 10 factions seems or quite cumbersome in my limited experience running games, but I don't want to see factions disappear off the map. Among my friends there is some really enjoyable banter about factions depending on which PC is being played. I think that less focus on the rivalry will diminish some of the role play that occurs between PCs during scenarios.

In summary, Qadira is awesome. Andoran rocks a little less but is still cool. Silver Crusade: Real men look out for their fellow men.

Sczarni *

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

One thing I hope to see stressed to players is to have your "faction plans" all mapped out.
So as not to bog down the session. well too much. I could see some of my Kids getting the whole night Side tracked over thinking it.
Since they will get all wrapped up into there faction.
and not have done any of there home work. I have a few Jr.high school players at my normal table.

***

Matthew Pemrich wrote:

This past weekend I ran Scenario #30 (Cassomir's Locker). I had a player with a Qadiran character.

** spoiler omitted **

We had the same (similar) thing happen.

Sczarni *** RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Michael Brock wrote:
I believe we may also be looking toward upping the difficulty of completing faction missions.

One thing I would like to see taken into account is the capability of characters at different tiers to succeed on faction missions. As things stand now, often a single skill check is given, with a flat DC. A level 1 character would be very hard-pressed to make such a check, unless their character happened to be specialized in exactly that skill. However, a level 5 PC would have a much greater chance of having any ranks in the skill, and could potentially have five times the number of ranks. Making faction missions much harder than they are now would make it very difficult for a low-tier character to succeed.

An easy way to address this would be to tier the DCs of the appropriate checks. Of course, if a "creative solution" is being used, then there might not even *be* any skill checks required, in which case this wouldn't matter at all.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Tamago wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
I believe we may also be looking toward upping the difficulty of completing faction missions.

One thing I would like to see taken into account is the capability of characters at different tiers to succeed on faction missions. As things stand now, often a single skill check is given, with a flat DC. A level 1 character would be very hard-pressed to make such a check, unless their character happened to be specialized in exactly that skill. However, a level 5 PC would have a much greater chance of having any ranks in the skill, and could potentially have five times the number of ranks. Making faction missions much harder than they are now would make it very difficult for a low-tier character to succeed.

An easy way to address this would be to tier the DCs of the appropriate checks. Of course, if a "creative solution" is being used, then there might not even *be* any skill checks required, in which case this wouldn't matter at all.

I also once thought that scaling of checks should be done for not just faction missions, but other skill checks integral to the scenario itself. That’s what we did in Living Dragonstar when Stephen Mumford and I ran that particular campaign.

However, the counter-argument actually makes a ton of sense to me.

Many of the DCs are hard-coded DCs within the RAW, and to scale them could whole-scale change the texture of the scenario, making much more difficult for a GM to prep effectively. So simple scaling is not the answer.

Silver Crusade ****

I've seen skill DCs scaled in modules, I don't see why it's hard to do simple scaling to tier? Just "hard code" the DC to the module.

Paizo Employee ** Developer

Some skills don't have a lot of variability in how they work. Swim is based on how calm or choppy the water is; Sense Motive to pass a secret message is a set DC; Acrobatics to jump a specific distance is set; Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Bluff are all set by the stats of the creature you're using them on. One of the benefits of the new system is that PCs can use creative solutions to obtain the same goals in a given circumstance without needing to make that one single skill check, but if they're using a skill that has a set DC, they still need to meet that DC to succeed in what they're trying to do.

Sczarni *** RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Mark Moreland wrote:
Some skills don't have a lot of variability in how they work. Swim is based on how calm or choppy the water is; Sense Motive to pass a secret message is a set DC; Acrobatics to jump a specific distance is set; Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Bluff are all set by the stats of the creature you're using them on. One of the benefits of the new system is that PCs can use creative solutions to obtain the same goals in a given circumstance without needing to make that one single skill check, but if they're using a skill that has a set DC, they still need to meet that DC to succeed in what they're trying to do.

I concede your point about the DCs of certain things being static. However, nothing is to say that those aspects of the scenario couldn't be easier or harder.

For example, I know of at least one scenario that has something like "during the storm, the PCs must make DC 12 Fortitude saves against the cold weather. At tier 4-5, the storm is much more severe, requiring DC 16 Fortitude saves."

Using that logic, there's nothing to say you couldn't do something like, "Getting the McGuffin requires a DC 10 Swim check. At Tier 4-5, the water is moving more swiftly, requiring a DC 15 Swim check to cross."

Obviously, not *every* check can be modified that way, but a good number of them can be.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Tamago wrote:
Mark Moreland wrote:
Some skills don't have a lot of variability in how they work. Swim is based on how calm or choppy the water is; Sense Motive to pass a secret message is a set DC; Acrobatics to jump a specific distance is set; Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Bluff are all set by the stats of the creature you're using them on. One of the benefits of the new system is that PCs can use creative solutions to obtain the same goals in a given circumstance without needing to make that one single skill check, but if they're using a skill that has a set DC, they still need to meet that DC to succeed in what they're trying to do.

I concede your point about the DCs of certain things being static. However, nothing is to say that those aspects of the scenario couldn't be easier or harder.

For example, I know of at least one scenario that has something like "during the storm, the PCs must make DC 12 Fortitude saves against the cold weather. At tier 4-5, the storm is much more severe, requiring DC 16 Fortitude saves."

Using that logic, there's nothing to say you couldn't do something like, "Getting the McGuffin requires a DC 10 Swim check. At Tier 4-5, the water is moving more swiftly, requiring a DC 15 Swim check to cross."

Obviously, not *every* check can be modified that way, but a good number of them can be.

The problem with those scenarios is it makes them incredibly hard to prep. It is incredibly easy to use the wrong DC as often you skim the text to find the numbers as you go are running the scenario.

Sczarni *

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

One thing i would like to see is after a GM has Run an Adventure more then once let him Apply the "faction" for GM'ing still. His Charter's are getting nothing more from it. in the way of Gold or EXP.
He could apply it to any of the 10 faction's for playing.
For some of the GM's that Gm the same mod 4 and 5 times it would be away they could have some fun with it. :>

Qadira ***

chris szymanski wrote:

One thing i would like to see is after a GM has Run an Adventure more then once let him Apply the "faction" for GM'ing still. His Charter's are getting nothing more from it. in the way of Gold or EXP.

He could apply it to any of the 10 faction's for playing.
For some of the GM's that Gm the same mod 4 and 5 times it would be away they could have some fun with it. :>

sorry - it must still be Monday for me. I did not understand this...

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Washington—Eastern Washington aka WalterGM

I believe he was talking about allowing GMs to get prestige from GMing, after they'd already gotten GM credit. Or maybe just adding to the total pool for "Andoran" or whoever they'd like.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

WalterGM wrote:
Or maybe just adding to the total pool for "Andoran" or whoever they'd like.

I think this is what he was referring to.

Andoran *****

I'm really liking the sounds of where this is headed, though I am wondering what you guys are going to do with the characters that belong to a faction if/when one dies off. Would those players be allowed to pick a new faction for their character?

I dont really expect an answer, I know something like that is a long way away. ;)

Sczarni *

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
WalterGM wrote:
I believe he was talking about allowing GMs to get prestige from GMing, after they'd already gotten GM credit. Or maybe just adding to the total pool for "Andoran" or whoever they'd like.

Yes that is what was trying to say add it to the "pool"

or waht ever it gonig to get added up.
not get "EXTRA" credit.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

godsDMit wrote:

I'm really liking the sounds of where this is headed, though I am wondering what you guys are going to do with the characters that belong to a faction if/when one dies off. Would those players be allowed to pick a new faction for their character?

I dont really expect an answer, I know something like that is a long way away. ;)

I can't imagine that Mike wouldn't allow it, but I haven't heard any talk of this particular issue.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Love these plans, and, perhaps more importantly, I love the direction you are steering PFS.

Andoran **

Michael Brock wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:


Just to clarify, up the difficulty of completing the missions, but also give GM's more leeway in how said missions are accomplished?

That is the plan.

This is very very good news. I strongly suggest you look through the earlier seasons' scenerios, publish revised society missions for them, and make this retroactive.

Silver Crusade **

marv wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:


Just to clarify, up the difficulty of completing the missions, but also give GM's more leeway in how said missions are accomplished?

That is the plan.
This is very very good news. I strongly suggest you look through the earlier seasons' scenerios, publish revised society missions for them, and make this retroactive.

Mark and Mike have previously said they are not going to be able to go back and do any real edits on previous scenarios. It takes up their fairly limited man hours they can put towards products, and their focus is on getting out new quality scenarios rather than revamping old ones.

51 to 100 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: A Dedicated Follower of Factions All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.