The Evolution of the Multipart Scenario

On a side note, people are always asking for us to give GMs more latitude to do their own thing to make adventures more memorable and a better challenge. When something as important as this is clearly spelled out in four places for the GM and/or coordinator to advise...

Interesting side note to the side note:

It is typically the GM's who aren't following the rules anyways (adding HP's to creatures cause they don't think its tough enough and then bragging about doing so after irrevocably killing a character in said encounter--as an example.)

But one note, if the Blurb included that they must not only be played in order, but be played without interruption... I think that would solve some of the issues. Players who do read the blurbs, would then be forewarned.

And we are trusting our GMs to provide this info to the players. Why are GMs not providing this info their players?

Michael Brock wrote:

The product description clearly states:

"The Sundered Path" is the first scenario in the two-part The Rats of Round Mountain campaign arc. The story concludes in Pathfinder Society Scenario #3–22: The Rats of Round Mountain—Part II: Pagoda of the Rat. Both chapters are intended to be played in order and PCs who do will receive a special reward at the arc's conclusion.

What part in bold doesn't scream don't play stuff in between?

And this thread is the only place I've seen a mention that leveling between the parts wouldn't be allowed. That effectively rules out 1/3 of characters from being able to play part 1 if they want the boon. Again, that's a key piece of information that should be made obvious in advance, even to those who don't read this blog post and attached thread.

I agreed with everything you said up and until the quote above.

Why would anyone think they could play two level 5-9's in a row if they leveled to 10 after the first one?

Why does that need to be explicitly stated anywhere?

You level out of a tier, you can't play in it anymore. That's hard coded into the PFS Guide. So why would it be different because its a two-part story arc?

I'm confused.

But one note, if the Blurb included that they must not only be played in order, but be played without interruption... I think that would solve some of the issues. Players who do read the blurbs, would then be forewarned.

Agreed and we will make sure this one is adjusted and that future ones include that info.

Fromper wrote:

Michael Brock wrote:

The product description clearly states:

"The Sundered Path" is the first scenario in the two-part The Rats of Round Mountain campaign arc. The story concludes in Pathfinder Society Scenario #3–22: The Rats of Round Mountain—Part II: Pagoda of the Rat. Both chapters are intended to be played in order and PCs who do will receive a special reward at the arc's conclusion.

What part in bold doesn't scream don't play stuff in between?

The fact that playing in order does not equal not playing other things in between.

It just means you can't play part II before Part I.

The product description for The Sundered Path has been updated and now includes the following text:

Both chapters are intended to be played in order and consecutively; PCs who do will receive a special reward at the arc's conclusion.

We will update Pagoda of the Rat's description as well when it goes live.

And we are trusting our GMs to provide this info to the players. Why are GMs not providing this info their players?

I would if it were me.

Only reasons I can think why a GM wouldn't:

1) They want to run Part I immediately upon release, and are afraid if they let players know this information, the table wouldn't go off because some players would not choose to play until Part II is readily available.

2) They are jerks, and think its funny to blindside players with information like this.

3) They are running the scenario cold and aren't prepared enough to know to tell the players this information until it is essentially too late.

Item #1 and #2 are huge problems.

Item #3 may be because they were given the scenario last second or on the day of the game day.

Michael Brock wrote:

And we are trusting our GMs to provide this info to the players. Why are GMs not providing this info their players?

I would if it were me.

Only reasons I can think why a GM wouldn't:

1) They want to run Part I immediately upon release, and are afraid if they let players know this information, the table wouldn't go off because some players would not choose to play until Part II is readily available.

2) They are jerks, and think its funny to blindside players with information like this.

3) They are running the scenario cold and aren't prepared enough to know to tell the players this information until it is essentially too late.

Item #1 and #2 are huge problems.

Item #3 may be because they were given the scenario last second or on the day of the game day.

I can see 1 as a slight possibility, except being afraid to tell players.. I think it would be moreso wants to run right away and doesn't realize the 2nd part condition

2. I don't see this as a possiblity and the mere mention that GMs are jerks is offensive as it only propogates the notion in some people's heads that GMs are out to get them in any way possible

3. More than likely the culprit, however, the coordinator should make mention of it to the GM when handing them the scenario

3. More than likely the culprit, however, the coordinator should make mention of it to the GM when handing them the scenario

Not every coordinator reads the scenario before it is GMed by one of the GMs, so they may not be aware of it either. I know I don't read scenarios that I am GMing.

That said, Mark's fix to the Description should fix that problem.

Fromper wrote:

And this thread is the only place I've seen a mention that leveling between the parts wouldn't be allowed. That effectively rules out 1/3 of characters from being able to play part 1 if they want the boon. Again, that's a key piece of information that should be made obvious in advance, even to those who don't read this blog post and attached thread.

I agreed with everything you said up and until the quote above.

Why would anyone think they could play two level 5-9's in a row if they leveled to 10 after the first one?

Why does that need to be explicitly stated anywhere?

You level out of a tier, you can't play in it anymore. That's hard coded into the PFS Guide. So why would it be different because its a two-part story arc?

I'm confused.

It was stated earlier in this thread that leveling up requires the character to leave the area of the adventure. So even though these adventures are both tiers 7-11, you can't get the special boon if you're level 8 for the first part and level 9 for the second, even if you play the two scenarios back to back on the same day with nothing in between. And Mark specifically stated that if you earn enough XP to advance after part 1, you must do so immediately, not postpone leveling until after part 2 of the adventure.

First of all, not all GM’s have coordinators. In many cases the GMs ARE the coordinators. Or in the very least, the Coordinator is also a GM.

I know that when I coordinate multiple tables, I don’t read the scenarios that the other GM’s are running. I also don’t hand it to them on the day of the game. They either purchase it before hand (or I purchase it for them). This happens ideally 2 weeks before the game day.

And just because I listed a couple items that might offend some people, doesn’t mean I believe those are the prevailing reasons. However when those two items are not just hypothesis, but anecdotal, I had to include them.

Andrew Christian wrote:

Fromper wrote:

And this thread is the only place I've seen a mention that leveling between the parts wouldn't be allowed. That effectively rules out 1/3 of characters from being able to play part 1 if they want the boon. Again, that's a key piece of information that should be made obvious in advance, even to those who don't read this blog post and attached thread.

I agreed with everything you said up and until the quote above.

Why would anyone think they could play two level 5-9's in a row if they leveled to 10 after the first one?

Why does that need to be explicitly stated anywhere?

You level out of a tier, you can't play in it anymore. That's hard coded into the PFS Guide. So why would it be different because its a two-part story arc?

I'm confused.

It was stated earlier in this thread that leveling up requires the character to leave the area of the adventure. So even though these adventures are both tiers 7-11, you can't get the special boon if you're level 8 for the first part and level 9 for the second, even if you play the two scenarios back to back on the same day with nothing in between. And Mike specifically stated that if you earn enough XP to advance after part 1, you must do so immediately, not postpone leveling until after part 2 of the adventure.

I don’t recall that being said at all. I recall Mike saying that you can’t level from 9 to 10 and still play in a 5-9. But I don’t recall it ever being said you had to leave the tapestry to level from 8-9 as long as you are still within Tier.

You would to purchase equipment though. But that is hardly without precedent, as starting some 2nd parters like Before the Dawn Part II, you can’t purchase anything.

I don’t recall that being said at all. I recall Mike saying that you can’t level from 9 to 10 and still play in a 5-9. But I don’t recall it ever being said you had to leave the tapestry to level from 8-9 as long as you are still within Tier.

Someone (I think maybe Chris Mortika?) mentioned earlier that some classes give you material goods when you take a level (usually 1st level) in them, such as a wizard's bonded item, a cavalier's mount, etc. He said you wouldn't be able to do that while stuck in the tapestry. I believe that's what Fromper's referring to.

And we are trusting our GMs to provide this info to the players. Why are GMs not providing this info their players?

I don't know if there's an issue with GMs talking about it when players arrive at the table, but I'd think the bigger issue is scheduling weeks in advance.

As a non-hypothetical situation, there's a convention coming up over Memorial Day weekend (two weeks from now), and 16 players are signed up to play part 1 of this, even though part 2 hasn't been released yet. How many of those 16 do you think know about this? How many do you think would have chosen to play a different scenario instead if they had known? When they do find out from the GM at the table, how much chaos will be caused by players trying to find a different table to play a different scenario at the last minute?

That's why I wanted it made clear in the product description, not just in the scenario. Not that everyone reads those in advance, but I'm sure some people will.

Andrew Christian wrote:

I don’t recall that being said at all. I recall Mike saying that you can’t level from 9 to 10 and still play in a 5-9. But I don’t recall it ever being said you had to leave the tapestry to level from 8-9 as long as you are still within Tier.

Someone (I think maybe Chris Mortika?) mentioned earlier that some classes give you material goods when you take a level (usually 1st level) in them, such as a wizard's bonded item, a cavalier's mount, etc. He said you wouldn't be able to do that while stuck in the tapestry. I believe that's what Fromper's referring to.

Well, for the Wizard’s bonded item (and a Blade Bound Magus) doesn’t it say in the description of the class, that the items will just show up (unless like you, you changed your bonded item and had to purchase a new one) ? Couldn’t this be worked out with the GM?

Don't look at me, it was Chris who said it. ;)

Chris seems like a reasonable sort. He comes across as unbending and totalitarian with the rules, sometimes like I do, I’m sure. But I’ve had the pleasure of playing at one of his tables, and my fiancée played at one I did not play at. He has worked with the players to “go off the rails” of a scenario because of player choices and extremely good Knowledge or social rolls.

As such, like me, I’m sure that Chris would be willing to work with a player in how to get an item or two that are class abilities, within the context of the scenarios, without ruining the boon or without ruining the integrity of the scenario.

Chris seems like a reasonable sort. He comes across as unbending and totalitarian with the rules, sometimes like I do, I’m sure. But I’ve had the pleasure of playing at one of his tables, and my fiancée played at one I did not play at. He has worked with the players to “go off the rails” of a scenario because of player choices and extremely good Knowledge or social rolls.

As such, like me, I’m sure that Chris would be willing to work with a player in how to get an item or two that are class abilities, within the context of the scenarios, without ruining the boon or without ruining the integrity of the scenario.

No doubt. I only meant to say that I shouldn't speak for him. :)

Page 4 of the scenario advises:

Players who choose not to return to Golarion at the end of the scenario (making no Day Job check and purchasing no equipment) gain an additional boon at the end of the second scenario if they play it as the immediate follow-up to part one. See the Conclusion section on page 18 for more information on this option.

Page 18 of the scenario advises:

PCs who remain in the tapestry receives the Dogged Adventurer boon on this Chronicle sheet, which will grant them a special reward should they complete both parts of The Rats of Round Mountain story arc consecutively, in order, and without leaving the tapestry until the end of Part II: Pagoda of the Rat. If a PC opts to leave the tapestry at the end of this scenario, the GM should fill out her Chronicle normally, but cross off the Dogged Adventurer boon. If a PC who receives this boon is used to play through a different scenario between Part I: The Sundered Path and Part II: Pagoda of the Rat, she forfeits any benefits the boon may provide at the end of the second scenario, and the GM should cross it off her Chronicle

The Chronicle sheet advises the same thing.

This is bad. You're writing PFSOP rules into scenarios. The more this happens, the more confusing things could become. On principal, I don't like this. In practice, I don't like how you are implementing it for this pair of scenarios. Specifically the new rules on what you can't do between the two scenarios. Although these requirement are reasonable, it is also reasonable that the PCs should be able to utilize the equipment that they acquire from the first half of this pair. Since you are writing new PFSOP rules into scenarios, you at least can add a short list in the second of these scenarios stating something like "PC who completed part 1 immediately prior to this scenario have can share the following items: (short list here, like 2x potion CLW, etc.)"

Furthermore, the next mini-arc might take place in a big city and therefore the PC could have access to equipment, spells, etc. between scenarios. Again, I don't like scenario specific PFSOP rules and rulings.

The easy answer would be to have a special boon if they're played back to back but no restriction in between.

-Swiftbrook
Just My Thoughts

As such, like me, I’m sure that Chris would be willing to work with a player in how to get an item or two that are class abilities, within the context of the scenarios, without ruining the boon or without ruining the integrity of the scenario.

I would trust Chris and many other judges to do the right thing in cases like this.

How this discussion has become a matter of trust and not a matter of working things out as a community is a mystery to me. We were asked for feedback and eventually worked together to get better, clearer language.

The same judges who will screw this up are the same who will ignore and screw up many other things. We shouldn't be catering our policies to those bad types: we should do what is best for the campaign for the largest number of players/groups. Catering to the lowest common denominator at the expense of the highest play grows the former at the expense of the latter. I'm not sure that's what we want.

-Pain

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.

This is the fundamental disconnect. Some people equate them. That's the "problem".

Rubia

How this discussion has become a matter of trust and not a matter of working things out as a community is a mystery to me.

I think it's from me accidentally sounding like I was calling out Chris Mortika. My bad.

Andrew Christian wrote:

As such, like me, I’m sure that Chris would be willing to work with a player in how to get an item or two that are class abilities, within the context of the scenarios, without ruining the boon or without ruining the integrity of the scenario.

I would trust Chris and many other judges to do the right thing in cases like this.

How this discussion has become a matter of trust and not a matter of working things out as a community is a mystery to me. We were asked for feedback and eventually worked together to get better, clearer language.

The same judges who will screw this up are the same who will ignore and screw up many other things. We shouldn't be catering our policies to those bad types: we should do what is best for the campaign for the largest number of players/groups. Catering to the lowest common denominator at the expense of the highest play grows the former at the expense of the latter. I'm not sure that's what we want.

-Pain

Agreed. Rules for how multi-parters should work, should not incorporate rules for how to deal with GM’s who don’t follow the rules.

Mike asked why a GM wouldn’t tell his players. I gave 2 reasons that I’ve actually seen happen, and 1 reason that I suspect would be more largely the case.

Ahh... the joy of semantics.

How about "played sequentially," then, instead of "played in order?"

This change in semantics should clear up any misunderstandings.

I'd prefer the 'Quest for Perfection' method, but either way it won't affect me because I mostly GM/play in home games or conventions.

Up to this point, the boons haven't been that good anyway, there have been better boons in single scenarios.

Not every coordinator reads the scenario before it is GMed by one of the GMs, so they may not be aware of it either. I know I don't read scenarios that I am GMing.

That said, Mark's fix to the Description should fix that problem.

We know you don't read scenarios you're GMing Dragnmoon, that much is obvious.

Right from the product description. Not enough?

No, because as others have pointed out you're leaving out how this is different than say the quest for perfection in that your character is locked in to do both parts one after another, as opposed to being able to do quest part 1, then shades of ice I, then quest part II, then shades of ice II

First of all, Jiggy, no problems. I appreciate you making clear who's doing what. And I also appreciate the kind words.

--+--+--

Regarding "Before the Dawn", I think Andrew is mistaken.

Although it's implausible, PCs who play "Before the Dawn" Parts I and II back to back, have ready access to anything they need back in Absalom, including weeks off. It's one of those disconnects that you agree to, in an Organized Play environment. (Like two characters on the same team, one of whom has encountered "Mists of Mwangi" already, and another who's planning to go to the Blakros Museum and encounter the Mists next. Doesn't make a lick of sense in-character.)

--+--+--

The wording for "Dogged Adventurer" is pretty clear. If you need spellcasting, can you go back, get it, and still keep the boon? If your archer needs to refill his quiver, can he go back and buy arrows, and still retain the boon? If your Fighter 6/ Hellknight 1 rises in level and can buy and wear Hellknight armor, can she go back to Absalom, get the armor, and still retain the boon?

I think the right thing to do would be to warn the party at the beginning of "Rats of Round Mountain I" about the boon and its ramifications. I'd be explicit and address the players rather than the PCs in-character. And I'd let the character buy up whatever equipment he or she might need, in order to level up in the field. (For the same reason, I might well encourage players to buy raise dead scrolls and diamonds, even if they normally plan to bring PCs back with prestige.)

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.

Chris Mortika = Old School sexy

The wording for "Dogged Adventurer" is pretty clear.

How do you know the name of the boon?

We know you don't read scenarios you're GMing Dragnmoon, that much is obvious.

grrr, that was supposed to say, I don't read scenarios I am Not GMing... grrr

First of all, Jiggy, no problems. I appreciate you making clear who's doing what. And I also appreciate the kind words.

--+--+--

Regarding "Before the Dawn", I think Andrew is mistaken.

Although it's implausible, PCs who play "Before the Dawn" Parts I and II back to back, have ready access to anything they need back in Absalom, including weeks off. It's one of those disconnects that you agree to, in an Organized Play environment. (Like two characters on the same team, one of whom has encountered "Mists of Mwangi" already, and another who's planning to go to the Blakros Museum and encounter the Mists next. Doesn't make a lick of sense in-character.)

--+--+--

The wording for "Dogged Adventurer" is pretty clear. If you need spellcasting, can you go back, get it, and still keep the boon? If your archer needs to refill his quiver, can he go back and buy arrows, and still retain the boon? If your Fighter 6/ Hellknight 1 rises in level and can buy and wear Hellknight armor, can she go back to Absalom, get the armor, and still retain the boon?

I think the right thing to do would be to warn the party at the beginning of "Rats of Round Mountain I" about the boon and its ramifications. I'd be explicit and address the players rather than the PCs in-character. And I'd let the character buy up whatever equipment he or she might need, in order to level up in the field. (For the same reason, I might well encourage players to buy raise dead scrolls and diamonds, even if they normally plan to bring PCs back with prestige.)

Hmm... I never ran Azlant Ridge, just played in it. So didn't read the scenario. GM didn't let us buy anything before we started.

How do you know the name of the boon?

1) It's been named earlier in the thread.

2) I am prepping for Origins, Kyle, where I'll be running both parts. I've been avoiding looking at the scenario pages, but I still have to copy off the Chronicle sheets and sign them.

If that's a problem, I can withdraw from the game Saturday.

Chris Mortika wrote:

The wording for "Dogged Adventurer" is pretty clear.

How do you know the name of the boon?

I know it from somewhere in these boards. I'd have to dig, but it's here somewhere.

Chris Mortika wrote:

The wording for "Dogged Adventurer" is pretty clear.

How do you know the name of the boon?

Michael Brock quoted it above.

EDIT: ninja'ed

Defends on the new class. Your wizard gets new spells.

Which are from independent research. The wizard is assumed to be studying and taking notes at night, on lunch breaks , and when he levels he's finished two 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.)

DM's are encouraged to provide loot to the party if they find a non combat solution, I don't see why the same thing shouldn't apply for things that come with the class.

We're walking, we're walking... he who can pulleth this sword from the stone shall *shkink* "Hey guys look what I found"

Or just loot it off the corpse of the next people you kill. Shouldn't take long.

Your alchemist might get new abilities that require new materials.

A 20th level alchemist uses the same kit as the first level one.

Same with rogue talents or ninja tricks. (It's hard to cast poison smoke without poison.

Fighter: Hey guys, anyone know if these mushrooms are poiso... ERK.

Ninja: Hmmm... I'll take some of those to go...

The only people who are going to level out of it are the level 9's with 2 xp which assuming an even distribution of levels would be 6.7% of characters, less considering those using the slow track.

Hmm... I never ran Azlant Ridge, just played in it. So didn't read the scenario. GM didn't let us buy anything before we started.

As the GM in question, the scenario starts you in the middle of nowhere with an implied hurried fleeing which to me reads "no time to buy things. "

Kyle Baird wrote:

How do you know the name of the boon?

1) It's been named earlier in the thread.

2) I am prepping for Origins, Kyle, where I'll be running both parts. I've been avoiding looking at the scenario pages, but I still have to copy off the Chronicle sheets and sign them.

If that's a problem, I can withdraw from the game Saturday.

I find it odd that you couldn't wait until after Saturday night to read and print these.

Andrew Christian wrote:

Hmm... I never ran Azlant Ridge, just played in it. So didn't read the scenario. GM didn't let us buy anything before we started.

As the GM in question, the scenario starts you in the middle of nowhere with an implied hurried fleeing which to me reads "no time to buy things. "

I don’t disagree. I’d probably run it the same way.

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.

This is a good point. As a matter of fact, I had planned for months to get QfP 1-3 on my Zen Archer, until eventually the local gamestore PFS had the three of them signed up for consecutive weeks. I played 1 and 2, and then suddenly, one of the two GMs got sick. But we still had too many players for one table.

Well, at first I put out a call to see if we could find someone else who wasn't pending the boon to run it, but as it became clearer and clearer that no one was going to step up, I also received the QfP series in my downloads unrelatedly due to being a Con GM. So I looked at the boon, just to see what I was missing, since I knew I was going to offer to GM to help out, just as I had the last few times we needed extra GMs. Long story short, as many of you already know, 90% of characters can't possibly use that boon at all. Relieved that the boon was actually worthless, I went forward with no reservations.

So I think Chris brings up a good point--it would have helped immensely here to know what the opportunity cost was, so I could make an informed decision.

When everyone talks about how it's poor planning or fickle players that lead to missing the boon, consider also the emergency fill-in GMs (like me) who plan everything out months in advance, keep careful record of all the scenarios everyone in the group have played, but then lose it all to save the group from GM illness. This time it didn't matter, but it totally can. And it isn't the only time we have had sick GMs who were last-second no-shows.

I know the first counterpoint to this--"if you play Part 1 and then last minute GM Part 2, technically you could still get the boon, since you can credit another character". Given the size of our local group (particularly if the multi-parter is 5-9 or 7-11, as both of the ones that give boons with the strictest requirements have been so far), we can't really just schedule it again, since now everyone in that tier but the emergency GM has played it.

I suppose this whole concern will be negated if the boons for GMs rule currently in the pipeline allows a GM to credit Part 2 to a character who just played Part 1 and get the boon.

So everyone can stop talking in hypotheticals and leading the conversation in pointless (albeit unavoidable, given the information out there) circles, here's the deal (if you want to be surprised, don't read the spoiler; like really, all the cards on the table folks):

[Edit] Ok, so not all the cards. But the ones regarding this boon. There are still a few other perks for going straight through, though these are the big ones.

So everyone can stop talking in hypotheticals and lead the conversation in pointless circles, here's the deal (if you want to be surprised, don't read the spoiler; like really, all the cards on the table folks):

** spoiler omitted **

[Edit] Ok, so not all the cards. But the ones regarding this boon. There are still a few other perks for going straight through, though these are the big ones.

Nooooooooooooooo! You dirty rat! Now nobody will want to risk death in Part 1 first!

You dirty rat!

I see what you did there. ;)

I find it sad and disappointing that a community couldn't be open minded enough to try something new and instead get so aggravated over this experimental issue, to the point where Mark and Mike abandon their plan. All over 16 days of not playing a character while the players wait for part 2. Wow.

So everyone can stop talking in hypotheticals and leading the conversation in pointless (albeit unavoidable, given the information out there) circles, here's the deal (if you want to be surprised, don't read the spoiler; like really, all the cards on the table folks):

** spoiler omitted **

[Edit] Ok, so not all the cards. But the ones regarding this boon. There are still a few other perks for going straight through, though these are the big ones.

Mark, I think that's an awesome improvement over the way it was done for Wonders Part 1 and 2. Bravo!

I look forward to seeing the cool things you and Mike have in store for us next!

I find it sad and disappointing that a community couldn't be open minded enough to try something new and instead get so aggravated over this experimental issue, to the point where Mark and Mike abandon their plan. All over 16 days of not playing a character while the players wait for part 2. Wow.

A-yep. +1.

I like and appreciate that Mike and Mark continue to explore ways to make boons and multi-story arcs happen. Testing and trying to find the best combination of things is necessary and appreciated if the campaign is going to advance.

I believe that we need PFS to continue to grow and evolve.

While the implementation/notice may not have been perfect, I *LOVE* that they are trying new things and willing to experiment.

-Pain

I find it odd that you couldn't wait until after Saturday night to read and print these.

Answered privately.

Todd Morgan wrote:

I find it sad and disappointing that a community couldn't be open minded enough to try something new and instead get so aggravated over this experimental issue, to the point where Mark and Mike abandon their plan. All over 16 days of not playing a character while the players wait for part 2. Wow.

A-yep. +1.

I like and appreciate that Mike and Mark continue to explore ways to make boons and multi-story arcs happen. Testing and trying to find the best combination of things is necessary and appreciated if the campaign is going to advance.

I believe that we need PFS to continue to grow and evolve.

While the implementation/notice may not have been perfect, I *LOVE* that they are trying new things and willing to experiment.

-Pain

+1. I think the only players who have a right to be upset, were the ones that were not properly informed by their GM and were essentially blindsided (and had plans to play those characters in other events, but now can't play in those events because of the blindside).

I find it sad and disappointing that a community couldn't be open minded enough to try something new and instead get so aggravated over this experimental issue, to the point where Mark and Mike abandon their plan. All over 16 days of not playing a character while the players wait for part 2. Wow.

That really is not the crux of most of the concerns.

If you read the thread more closely, you'll see that most of the "negative" comments (and, really, they're from a handful of posters) are from players and GMs whose groups have already shown that getting the same players at consecutive sessions is difficult (if not impossible), due to real-life conflicts. This is not a concern which I, personally, share, but I don't presume that what will work for me will work for everyone.

Of the other concerns, most were around players (and GMs) not realizing the need for playing the two adventures consecutively in order to gain the additional boon.

Ultimately, I agree with what was posted earlier: not every adventure is going to fit with every group's play ability or style. I like the idea of having a module that can (but does not have to) be a "two-rounder", and I'd be surprised if it becomes the rule, rather than the exception.

I'm going to be brief, just to be mindful of my place in things.

There's a lot to be said about learning by doing, and sometimes we don't get a really good idea 100% perfect the first time- because we're learning. It's hard to see the end result till we try to implement it.

But out of these experiments we get some cool things, as well as the opportunity of doing it better the next time.

I'd ask that you give Mark and Mike some grace to try some innovation (and by proxy the writers, who get to implement these ideas and learn and develop too.

Its hard to spontaneously generate perfection. Please consider giving them a chance.