The Evolution of the Multipart Scenario

Also, if scheduling multi-part scenarios was such an easy thing to pull off, we would have them at GenCon.

It is an easy thing to pull off, however, from feedback I received, I chose not to schedule them this year. Next year may be different. Feedback I received is people didn't like to feel they were obligated to play them back to back and take something else away from their Gen Con experience. They advised this was completely about Gen Con and not their local game days. They only get to go to Gen Con once a year and wanted stand alone scenarios so they could be more flexible with *their* Gen Con schedule.

You will notice that all multi part arcs for season 3 are scheduled multiple times at Paizo Con. It is a smaller con with less options than Gen Con and a player can more easily figure their schedule out.

There are two issues here.

1) Has to do with how you schedule events. If you only schedule a certain way (certain tiers, certain seasons, non-multiparters, et. al.) and aren’t willing to try new things to make something work, then you won’t find a solution. Now if you schedule a Part I the first month it is out, then your players will have to wait till the next month to play Part II and that character will be out of commission for a month. In our area, one of our game day coordinators failed to tell his players this, and now those players haven’t been willing to play those characters for a month (even though 3 or 4 opportunities would have allowed them to had they wanted to play those scenarios non-consecutively). So in scheduling a multi-parter, you need to tell the players what you are doing (sounds like you do this), but don’t schedule them immediately upon the scenario being released. Wait until the 2nd part is out before scheduling any part of the multi-parter. Also, have a back-up plan. If you have more than one table, run some other stand-alone scenario at one table, and the multi-parter at another. Have Part I available for a couple or three game-days in a row. Have Part II immediately available the next game day, and then for three game-days in a row. That way you can help have it available and will have more than just 6 players have to be all be available to play Part II. The negative to this, is that you may need your GM’s to have more than one scenario prepared per game day. Also have more than just a 7-11 or 5-9 available. Have a 1-5 as well, or 3-7. Make sure one of the scenarios available for play at every game day is not a multi-parter.
2) Has to do with player attitudes. Let’s not discuss entitlement issues (that’s already being covered by others—but it is an issue.) Let’s rather discuss a player’s willingness to play another character between times they get to play the multi-parter. If you make sure that Part I and Part II are available for three game days each, and overlap each other a bit, you can ensure that everyone who plays Part I will potentially have a chance to play Part II in consecutive order. If they can’t make 3 game days in a row, well sometimes them’s the breaks. And as players, they need to realize that (that goes to entitlement issues). Your attitude in presenting these options to your players goes a long way to how your players attitudes will come out. If you are negative, they will likely see it as negative. If you are excited about it, they will likely eventually come around to be excited.

Noone is saying to not tell your players that there is a boon for playing them all together ... that was a small leaping conclusion there lol

I agree with you; players should go into a special multi-scenario arc knowing what the OP environment expects. Having said that, we should know what the reward is.

Thea, there's been an unwritten rule that PFS players shouldn't make decisions about what boons are available on a Chronicle until they've played it. (This was explicit in other organized play environments. People would cherry-pick adventures for their PCs based on the loot available.) I know that GMs were trying to keep the boon for playing through all of "Quest for Perfection" quiet, and when I asked Todd what the rewards were for playing through "Eyes of the Ten," he said I should play through it first; he wouldn't spoil the rewards for me.

It's hard to make an informed decision as to whether I should, say, jump into "Rats II" without playing "Rats I" first, if I hear vague rumors about a disadvantage to doing so, but don't know what kind of a disadvantage.

It seems that Mark is eager to push ahead on this policy, and I'm learning that by the time these issues hit the general forums, there's not a lot of sway we have. So, here are my suggestions to minimize the problems.

It's not that I'm eager, necessarily, to push forward with this. Rather, I'm eager to hear how this type of multi-part boon plays out in actual practice. Part 2 isn't even out yet and folks are already talking negatively about its implementation. I don't mind people reacting negatively to decisions we make and experiments we try. Such feedback is necessary to keep moving the campaign closer to that ideal, unattainable perfection for which we're always striving. But until people actually run the adventure/series, it's all theory.

Please give it a try and report back with feedback then. I'm not saying that everyone claiming it won't go well is wrong. It's impossible to get anything but anecdotal evidence for any of these subjective qualities of scenarios or series, so I just ask that folks have actual experience to back up their anecdotes is all.

In the case of this scenario/series, it's true that there's not a lot that direct feedback will do to change them. Part 1 is already out, and Part 2 is done and just awaiting release. But there's still plenty of time to change course if this method of handling multi-parters proves ineffective. Just because we have a lead-time of several months between when scenarios are written to when they're released doesn't mean that any change we make is cemented in stone; everything's mutable.

Swiftbrook wrote:

Also, if scheduling multi-part scenarios was such an easy thing to pull off, we would have them at GenCon.

It is an easy thing to pull off, however, from feedback I received, I chose not to schedule them this year.

I stand corrected. Thanks Mike.

Why would you have to go back to town just because you level?

Defends on the new class. Your wizard gets new spells. (Heck, if you take your first level in Wizard or Magus, you get a spellbook and spell components. Bladebound Magus characters get a new weapon, as well.) Your alchemist might get new abilities that require new materials. Same with rogue talents or ninja tricks. (It's hard to cast poison smoke without poison.) Your first level as Living Monolith requires a ka stone. New mounts come with saddle and riding tack.

None of that equipment just magically appears. It's assumed to come from down time, same as healing, Day Job, etc.

I agree with you; players should go into a special multi-scenario arc knowing what the OP environment expects. Having said that, we should know what the reward is.

Why would you want to spoil the surprise? Part of it is a reward for doing it in order, if you don't want to do it that way, you will get normal loot and XP. Nothing wrong with that. If you sacrifice your play to get both parts back to back, there SHOULD be a reward for that. Just like convention boons aren't available to stand alone game slots, special scenario boons shouldn't be easily attainable.

You have to decide yourself if the juice is worth the squeeze. And really, we are talking 16 days people.

Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:

Noone is saying to not tell your players that there is a boon for playing them all together ... that was a small leaping conclusion there lol

I agree with you; players should go into a special multi-scenario arc knowing what the OP environment expects. Having said that, we should know what the reward is.

Thea, there's been an unwritten rule that PFS players shouldn't make decisions about what boons are available on a Chronicle until they've played it. (This was explicit in other organized play environments. People would cherry-pick adventures for their PCs based on the loot available.) I know that GMs were trying to keep the boon for playing through all of "Quest for Perfection" quiet, and when I asked Todd what the rewards were for playing through "Eyes of the Ten," he said I should play through it first; he wouldn't spoil the rewards for me.

It's hard to make an informed decision as to whether I should, say, jump into "Rats II" without playing "Rats I" first, if I hear vague rumors about a disadvantage to doing so, but don't know what kind of a disadvantage.

I've never heard of the rule about boons, gear on chronicles yes, but not boons.

I can understnad keeping the specific boon secret, however, it's stated in the description of the scenario that they are meant to be played in order. That, in my opinion, leaves the burden of scheduling the played character on the player. If the scenario is offered back to back and the player makes the choice to not play the 2nd part. That is on the player -- no matter the situation, if they had a choice and chose it was theirs to not play the scenarios back to back as offered.

You have to decide yourself if the juice is worth the squeeze. And really, we are talking 16 days people.

I didn't play a character for 6 months .. so that i could play a multi-part in order....

I can understnad keeping the specific boon secret, however, it's stated in the description of the scenario that they are meant to be played in order. That, in my opinion, leaves the burden of scheduling the played character on the player. If the scenario is offered back to back and the player makes the choice to not play the 2nd part. That is on the player -- no matter the situation, if they had a choice and chose it was theirs to not play the scenarios back to back as offered.

Well, it's 50/50. If a coordinator only schedules part I at say, a convention, the onus is on them a bit too. I, for one, will only offer this at a game day if they are either on the same day or will be offered back to back on subsequent game days.

Andrew Christian wrote:

So if I had anything to say on it (and I know this isn’t possible cause you want to give a mix of levels every month) multiparters would ideally be published in the same month.

+1.

I think you try to release different tiered scenarios each month. Even so, I think it would be better to release a two part arc in the same month.

Also, if scheduling multi-part scenarios was such an easy thing to pull off, we would have them at GenCon.

I think I may hold off on playing the Sundered Path pair until U-Con. I'm sure they will be scheduled back-to-back and hopefully Kyle will GM. But then again, Kyle may kill my character in the Special at GenCon anyway.

-Swiftbrook

FWIW, I'll probably run both parts at Scotty's and PaizoCon.

It's hard to make an informed decision as to whether I should, say, jump into "Rats II" without playing "Rats I" first

Why would you want to jump ahead in the story like that for any reason? Why would you read chapter two of a fiction novel before chapter one? That doesn't make much sense to me.

It's impossible to get anything but anecdotal evidence for any of these subjective qualities of scenarios or series, so I just ask that folks have actual experience to back up their anecdotes is all.

Of course they have to actually survive/endure Part 1 first. According to the reviews, it killed some players by just downloading it.

Seth Gipson wrote:

Why would you have to go back to town just because you level?

Defends on the new class. Your wizard gets new spells. (Heck, if you take your first level in Wizard or Magus, you get a spellbook and spell components. Bladebound Magus characters get a new weapon, as well.) Your alchemist might get new abilities that require new materials. Same with rogue talents or ninja tricks. (It's hard to cast poison smoke without poison.) Your first level as Living Monolith requires a ka stone. New mounts come with saddle and riding tack.

None of that equipment just magically appears. It's assumed to come from down time, same as healing, Day Job, etc.

Gotcha. Yes, those make sense. I thought you meant in general. No leveling in the field for anyone, ever, lol.

Let me reemphasize what Mark stated in the blog. This is something new. We plan to try quite a few new things over the course of the rest of this season and Season 4. We won't hit a home run on everyone of them. Trust me, we know that. But, if we don't try new things to look towards improving PFS, then we keep everything the same and the campaign stagnates and dies. The only way we can receive good feedback is to see how things play out in the local game days all of you schedule and participate in. If something we institute is poorly received, we will look to not use it and try something else. But, to continue doing the same old, same old doesn't improve the campaign in anyway.

What we need, and very much want from the playerbase, is for you to try these new things out and let us know how they are received. We do take your feedback seriously and implement change for the better - at least we try our best to. It is why faction missions are being revamped, why we are going to institute first level retraining, why we opened up module play beyond 12th level, and numerous other changes that have been made. We cannot make the campaign better without your help and I hope you will have patience with us and let us know honest feedback on how things worked out with this change, and any future changes that are coming down the pipe. Without your help, we can't make PFS better. Theorizing does have its purpose, but until we see how it is received and works out in the field, we are just speculating. Thanks in advance for any insight and feedback you can provide to help us improve PFS.

Todd, Thea, some boons are better than others. "a one-time +2 bonus to Diplomacy against residents of Irrisen" is probably not worth the trouble, particularly for PCs who don't like Diplomacy or don't intend to step foot in Irrisen. Other books are better, and winning them might well be worth scrambling your schedule, sitting out a session, or playing a pre-gen.

So, let's say a player has the opportunity to play "Quest for Perfection II" before "Quest for Perfection I" They're supposed to be played in order. Is messing that up worth the loss of a potential boon? What about "Rats II"? What about playing "City of Strangers II" before "City of Strangers I"? Or "Serpents" before "Dog Pharaoh"? In all cases, the scenarios assume that players run through them in order. In two cases, there's no penalty for taking them out of order. I think that sets players up for rude surprises, when there is a penalty.

when I asked Todd what the rewards were for playing through "Eyes of the Ten," he said I should play through it first

Know what the biggest reward is for playing Eyes of the Ten? A damn good time. 20+ hours worth of it.

In two cases, there's no penalty for taking them out of order.

Other than experiencing the ending before the beginning? For example, I couldn't imagine going back to play any of the Everwar series if I had already experienced part 4.

Why would you want to jump ahead in the story like that for any reason? Why would you read chapter two of a fiction novel before chapter one? That doesn't make much sense to me.

Because "Rats II" needs someone to make a legal table, and the table for "Rats I" is full. The same reason you might want to play "The Devil We Know, Part II" before Part I, or "Quest for Perfection II" before Part I. It's one of the ways Organized Play bows to reality.

In two cases, there's no penalty for taking them out of order. I think that sets players up for rude surprises, when there is a penalty.

There's no penalty. There's just no extra reward. The lack of a carrot does not equate to a stick.

Kyle Baird wrote:

Why would you want to jump ahead in the story like that for any reason? Why would you read chapter two of a fiction novel before chapter one? That doesn't make much sense to me.

Because "Rats II" needs someone to make a legal table, and the table for "Rats I" is full. The same reason you might want to play "The Devil We Know, Part II" before Part I, or "Quest for Perfection II" before Part I. It's one of the ways Organized Play bows to reality.

The only reason is to make a legal table? Sometimes tables don't go off. Sometimes, you can switch the scenario to something else. There are other options. Sometimes you have to tell players "we didn't get enough players." It happens.

One last thing..

I am not arguing that players who choose not to play them in order have the right to be angry about these types of boons' I am not arguing for entitlement.

I am arguing for those who had no choice but to not play them in Order, because of a multiple of different reasons *Given plenty examples already*.

That is most of my experience on why players don't play them in order.

I have not yet met a player that has chosen not to play them in order when they could have, but I am sure it happens.

So in Conclusion...;)

I have a concern of disappointing players and permanently locking them out of boons because of circumstances out of their control, which happens a lot in my experience *the missing games part not losing boons, not enough of those yet to happen a lot*

I also have a concern with GMs who miss out because they GMed one part and Played one part, though I am hoping that problem will be fixed in season 4.

Sadly I will not be running these scenarios any time soon due to the Tier of them, so I am basing my experince on Wonders in the Weave and the dispointment I witness from players that could not play them in order. Is this boon set up the same?

Chris Mortika wrote:

Kyle Baird wrote:

Why would you want to jump ahead in the story like that for any reason? Why would you read chapter two of a fiction novel before chapter one? That doesn't make much sense to me.

Because "Rats II" needs someone to make a legal table, and the table for "Rats I" is full. The same reason you might want to play "The Devil We Know, Part II" before Part I, or "Quest for Perfection II" before Part I. It's one of the ways Organized Play bows to reality.

The only reason is to make a legal table? Sometimes tables don't go off. Sometimes, you can switch the scenario to something else. There are other options. Sometimes you have to tell players "we didn't get enough players." It happens.

Are you seriously suggesting that a person tell other players "I want my boon so too bad, you can just go home" instead of making a table? That would be a player I wouldn't want to see at the table again.

No one can force you to play at a table if you don't want to. If a player backs out for any reason, they have that right, just as a GM has a right not to run a particular adventure. More likely it would go down as "I can't play this scenario, is there another scenario we could all play in together?"

Chris Mortika wrote:

In two cases, there's no penalty for taking them out of order. I think that sets players up for rude surprises, when there is a penalty.

There's no penalty. There's just no extra reward. The lack of a carrot does not equate to a stick.

Wait, I thought the carrot was supposed to be on the stick? ;)

Are you seriously suggesting that a person tell other players "I want my boon so too bad, you can just go home" instead of making a table? That would be a player I wouldn't want to see at the table again.

As Todd already responded, of course not. I'm not suggesting anything actually, I'm stating that there are many options available besides being "forced" to play a scenario.

I'll be honest, if there's at table with only two players and the scenario is a multi-part scenario where I haven't played the previous parts, I'm an not going to play that scenario regardless of the boon. I want the full story from start to finish. What I will do, however, is try to find out of there's another scenario we can play, whether the current judge runs it or I run it for the two players and the judge.

What do you do at a convention when only two players show up? Do you count on another GM being released to help fill your table?

I'm with Dragonmoon on this one. People play multi-parters out of order all the time, and it's usually not by choice. At my first convention a couple of months ago, I played part 2 of a series where I'd missed part 1, just because it was the only PFS scenario available in that slot, and playing PFS was the main reason I was there at the con. Finding out (most likely after the fact) that they missed out on a good reward because they had to do things out of order is likely to just piss people off.

My local group, which is a home PFS game with only 7 regulars and a couple of others who rarely come, has been trying to play all four parts of The Devil We Know recently. We ran part 1 twice to get everyone into it, because of scheduling issues, so two of us ended up with both GM and PC credit for it. One guy only played part 1 and we haven't seen him since, because other things in life have kept him busy. One person missed part 2. Other than the guy who hasn't been around at all the last month, we had everyone there for part 3, and hopefully we'll have the same for part 4 this coming weekend.

If it's that hard to schedule with so few people, I can only imagine what it'll be like trying to run a multi-parter at a public venue.

No one can force you to play at a table if you don't want to. If a player backs out for any reason, they have that right, just as a GM has a right not to run a particular adventure. More likely it would go down as "I can't play this scenario, is there another scenario we could all play in together?"

As Todd already responded, of course not. I'm not suggesting anything actually, I'm stating that there are many options available besides being "forced" to play a scenario.

I'll be honest, if there's at table with only two players and the scenario is a multi-part scenario where I haven't played the previous parts, I'm an not going to play that scenario regardless of the boon. I want the full story from start to finish. What I will do, however, is try to find out of there's another scenario we can play, whether the current judge runs it or I run it for the two players and the judge.

What do you do at a convention when only two players show up? Do you count on another GM being released to help fill your table?

I think I came off a bit too strongly, but I do stand by the general sentiment. I wouldn't refuse to play with a player as described above, but I would be left with a sour taste in my mouth. And certainly someone can walk away for any reason (but I don't have to be happy about it either depending on the circumstances).

To me though, if someone walks and leaves others in the lurch solely because it would disqualify them from getting a boon I would think them rather selfish. This of course wouldn't apply if there's already a legal table.

My perspective: Sometimes I don't want to GM but I do because otherwise people wouldn't get to play at all. Sometimes I play in a situation I'm not 100% comfortable with to make a legal table. To me these are compromises to maximize everyone's fun. And often enough others do the same and I get to play when I otherwise wouldn't, and we all win in the end. For my own priorities, I'd rather play part 2 first and have 4 hours of fun today than go home hoping I get to play the scenarios in order someday.

I have never once encountered nor can I even imagine a situation where a player is forced to play a scenario out of order, if there is a situation where a player is forced to play a scenario, please call 911, since no one should be pointing a firearm at you to play a certain scenario.

I can imagine a situation where a player would feel that playing out of order is a higher priority to them, than not playing out of order. This is of course your choice, not being forced.

To me though, if someone walks and leaves others in the lurch solely because it would disqualify them from getting a boon I would think them rather selfish. This of course wouldn't apply if there's already a legal table.

Why do you consider it fair to ask a player to sit down at a 2nd/3rd part of a scenario chain when he hasn't played the first part (and give up his boon), but selfish for that player to not want to sit down?

I would consider the table selfish for asking the player to sit down so that they could get their boon.

I'm with Dragonmoon on this one. People play multi-parters out of order all the time, and it's usually not by choice. At my first convention a couple of months ago, I played part 2 of a series where I'd missed part 1, just because it was the only PFS scenario available in that slot, and playing PFS was the main reason I was there at the con.

Good News Fromper! There will be a chance to play part two in the Sunshine State at a convention to be named shortly. I am shooting for an end of June plans.

As an organizer, often I have to offer part one and part two, part one or just part two at the same or sequential conventions. I get stuck with the way the event s release, and by the time convention day comes part one sometimes doesn't make and I have a glut on part two.

I like multi-part scenarios and multi-part boons.
With a bit of intelligent planning before you get the game going it's quite easy to make sure the entire party earns the boon.

Nope. You need to plan ahead and not start a multiparter if playing the first part will level you up. We currently have no mechanics to allow a PC to hold off leveling, and no plans to implement such a rule.

Honestly, that kinda sucks. There's only so much "planning" you can do. Why can't you just make a rule that explains this exact situation?

Mark Moreland wrote:

Nope. You need to plan ahead and not start a multiparter if playing the first part will level you up. We currently have no mechanics to allow a PC to hold off leveling, and no plans to implement such a rule.

Honestly, that kinda sucks. There's only so much "planning" you can do. Why can't you just make a rule that explains this exact situation?

Because when you level, you level. Why not plan out what scenarios to play, or run more than one character? The campaign management give us the responsibility to take care of our own affairs.

If the same people are constantly having life interrupt their gaming time, then that means they cannot be depended on to make a table happen or multi-parter happen.

If they can show up, and sit at the table and play, great.

But you can't cater to everyone. And unfortunately, the people who are in the unfortunately circumstance that life over-interrupts their gaming time, then you can't cater to them.

You can help them have fun when they can make it. But you cannot put everyone else who consistently shows up, week-in, and week-out, progression on hold to cater to the folks who have different priorities.

That's just a fact of coordinating game days, unfortunately.

It isn't fair to the people who are always there, if you keep making them wait to play that next new high level scenario, or finish the multi-parter, because one or two people are "part-time" players.

Aketh wrote:

Mark Moreland wrote:

Nope. You need to plan ahead and not start a multiparter if playing the first part will level you up. We currently have no mechanics to allow a PC to hold off leveling, and no plans to implement such a rule.

Honestly, that kinda sucks. There's only so much "planning" you can do. Why can't you just make a rule that explains this exact situation?

Because when you level, you level. Why not plan out what scenarios to play, or run more than one character? The campaign management give us the responsibility to take care of our own affairs.

It is also called choosing the Slow Track for XP. For a generic example, say your character just hit 9th level and there is a four-part arc going to be run in the near future which is Tier 5-9. You want to play it with your 9th level character but normally you would level out of range after part three, so you spend 9th level on the Slow Track where you earn 1/2 XP per scenario instead of the normal 1 XP. That way you get to play the entire arc and maybe even get to enjoy a couple of extra Tier 5-9 scenarios before hitting 10th level.

If the same people are constantly having life interrupt their gaming time, then that means they cannot be depended on to make a table happen or multi-parter happen.

If they can show up, and sit at the table and play, great.

But you can't cater to everyone. And unfortunately, the people who are in the unfortunately circumstance that life over-interrupts their gaming time, then you can't cater to them.

You can help them have fun when they can make it. But you cannot put everyone else who consistently shows up, week-in, and week-out, progression on hold to cater to the folks who have different priorities.

That's just a fact of coordinating game days, unfortunately.

It isn't fair to the people who are always there, if you keep making them wait to play that next new high level scenario, or finish the multi-parter, because one or two people are "part-time" players.

And as a counterpoint to that, most gamers these days are adults with busy lives. If you have a dedicated group of people who can commit to playing every week, then why not play an Adventure Path or other campaign, rather than organized play?

The whole point of organized play is flexibility. All this talk about planning multi-part adventures and when you can play them just seems to cut into that flexibility.

If the writers of PFS scenarios want to make larger stories than a single scenario, why not write modules instead of scenarios? If you make PFS-specific modules, I doubt if anyone would mind a reduction in the number of scenarios per year, as long as the total sessions worth of adventures published annually remained the same.

I disagree Fromper. I am an adult, with a long-term, live-in, mother of my child GF, a father, employed working 50+ hours a week, and on top of it all VC of West Michigan, personally coordinating 5 game days a month, and running a bi-weekly 6-hour Carrion Crown Session. As an adult, I make sacrifices to be able to have the gaming schedule I want. If you don't believe me, ask my GF, Mandi.

The reason I do not simply play an AP, or multiple APs, is because it does not give me the ability to network with other gamers. PFS is not there to be "flexible". The fact that it typically is flexible is a by-product of being designed to fit in a convention slot. PFS is about being able to bring gamers together, and them have a great time, if they don't have the ability to show up to an AP setting. There is no need to show up to both parts of a 2 parter, or even show up to them in the right order. You sit down, you have fun, and you go home.

This 2-parter says if you are willing to make sacrifices to play them in order, you can get an extra benefit, that in no way do you have to have by any stretch of the mind. If you feel you have to have it, or that by not having it, it ruins your game. The problem doesn't rest with PFS, it rests in your lap.

Further, you get all the normal benefits that you would expect from any other scenario. Should we all be crying foul that every other scenario doesn't have a special boon? I think not.

As per the reduced schedule, I think you'd have more people crying foul over a reduced schedule than you would over a non-consequential boon.

Edit: Another Example: I decided that running another table at a local convention was more important than playing part 2 of Snakes in the Fold. I also decided that, playing Song of the Sea Witch later that convention was more important than making sure I got my boon. I honestly still don't know what the boon was. None of this example has ever caused me not to enjoy every moment that I've spent playing PFS.

The whole point of organized play is flexibility.

To you maybe.

If the writers of PFS scenarios want to make larger stories than a single scenario, why not write modules instead of scenarios? If you make PFS-specific modules, I doubt if anyone would mind a reduction in the number of scenarios per year, as long as the total sessions worth of adventures published annually remained the same.

The writers have almost nothing to do with this.

Instead of personal opinions based off past personal experience, why don't we wait a few weeks/months and then report back on actual experiences?

Yes this is coming from me..

Lets not argue peoples experiences and opinions, lets just pass our opinion and experience with these Boon rules to Mike and Mark, that is all they need, they don't need us arguing with each other about each of our experiences we have seen with these type of boons, that just leads to me posting more.. ;)

We each have had our experience with these Boons, just because Mine is different then your does not make you or me or him or bunnies are wrong, just different.

I disagree...Page 89 of the VC manual states all members named Dragnmoon are always wrong, unless they agree with a VC. :P

unless they agree with a VC. :P

What if the VCs name is Bob?...

That's a sub-clause of the rule, in that instance Bob gets to arbitrate if you're right or wrong, and his decision can be changed at any moment.

Daniel Luckett wrote:

unless they agree with a VC. :P

What if the VCs name is Bob?...

If Bob was the last VC left on earth, and you needed to be right or the world would end...

So if you choose to explicitly stay in the location of the scenario and not return to civilization, you get to keep all the items that you looted from the enemy without having to pay for them, right? Since they only show up on the Chronicle after you bring them back to the Pathfinders.

So if you choose to explicitly stay in the location of the scenario and not return to civilization, you get to keep all the items that you looted from the enemy without having to pay for them, right? Since they only show up on the Chronicle after you bring them back to the Pathfinders.

Good point. From a continuity standpoint, the characters should reasonably still have access to items looted in the previous scenario.

That said, from a logistical standpoint, I don't see this happening. Particularly since a player might have a different GM for Part II than for Part I, and that table has no idea whether or not the player drank that Potion of Cure Serious Wounds the previous session or not.

So if you choose to explicitly stay in the location of the scenario and not return to civilization, you get to keep all the items that you looted from the enemy without having to pay for them, right? Since they only show up on the Chronicle after you bring them back to the Pathfinders.

No, items looted do not carry over to the next game.

It seems you are trying to fix a problem that does not exist in my experience at least. I have never heard a player say, "Nah I hate playing multi part scenarios in a row, I think I will skip this so I make sure it does not happen."

I don't worry about getting boons or not (mostly because most of them are so minor that there's nothing to get worked up about), but I think this sums up my attitude in a nutshell. People aren't deliberately skipping pieces of stories because it's awesome fun.

Only time will tell if this actually increases the number of people who play these scenarios back-to-back, of course.

Mike Lindner wrote:

To me though, if someone walks and leaves others in the lurch solely because it would disqualify them from getting a boon I would think them rather selfish. This of course wouldn't apply if there's already a legal table.

Why do you consider it fair to ask a player to sit down at a 2nd/3rd part of a scenario chain when he hasn't played the first part (and give up his boon), but selfish for that player to not want to sit down?

I would consider the table selfish for asking the player to sit down so that they could get their boon.

First off, I am talking about walking away just because they wouldn't get a boon: that being their sole reason for refusing to play. Would it still be selfish if the two players at the table already played out of order to help make other tables happen?

Yes, it is selfish both ways; however, I do put a priority on games being played (people having fun vs. not). When people refuse to compromise to promote fun for everyone then we all lose.

A concrete example: last game day we had 7 people sitting around wanting to play PFS with no one having volunteered to GM the low level table. I was at this table as well due to being scheduled to run a high level table that didn't get enough players. I could have said "tough noogies" and refused to GM a scenario cold, but where does that leave the gaming group? Others have run scenarios for me cold, and so I return that favor.

Saint Caleth wrote:

So if you choose to explicitly stay in the location of the scenario and not return to civilization, you get to keep all the items that you looted from the enemy without having to pay for them, right? Since they only show up on the Chronicle after you bring them back to the Pathfinders.

No, items looted do not carry over to the next game.

That makes sense as the blanket rule about scenarios, even though it makes no sense from a logical perspective, although I could see the Pathfinder Society spending resources to remove anything that you find from the tapestry immediately. I bet Drendle Dreng even wakes the guy who has to do it up in the middle of the night.