In all of Paizo's other products, we avoid using the 2nd person voice in read-aloud text like the plague. ("You go there and see this and you did that and blah blah blah.") In Pathfinder Society scenarios, however, we have this necessary evil of using 2nd person text to give the GM a story tool to get the players right into the action. With the scenarios on a 4-hour time limit, this seemed like the best course of action waaaaaaaaaaay back when we developed the framework for a scenario.

But we're starting to wonder if it's still the best way to do it. So, what you like to see? Would you, as a Pathfinder Society GM (and, really, that's who we want to hear from as this has more of an impact on the GMs than the players) want to see a continuation of the 2nd person read-aloud text to get the scenario started or would you rather have a "Here's what the PCs need to know before this gets started ..." section with bullet points so that you, as the GM, can set the story rather than the author and developer setting the story?

I'm eager to hear what you think.

Off the cuff I am fine with the 2nd person voice. After I have run a scenario 4-5 times I start to customize it to the story that I'd like to tell, but the way things are laid out now gives me a solid base to start with. This is important when a GM hasn't had time to prep a scenario also. Due to the many distractions at the table I tend to highlight the mission goals again even after I've read the briefing to the players. So my vote is to leave things as they are and focus energy on other areas.

I'd rather have bullet points, lists of names, short descriptions of events, a brief mission description, and timelines than read-aloud texts. I never use the read-aloud -texts anyway. Then again, I GM in Finnish.

I think most GM's that are experienced could run it either way. The 2nd person text I think helps newer GM's. I for one will paraphase text to my flavor of running as i think most others will to. The more you run a particular round the more you will do this as well as add character to the NPC's. These are of course my opinions.

I almost exclusively run scenarios via Fantasy Grounds (with a great group of people met at PaizoCon :), and in that situation I prefer being able to simply copy the text of introductory dialogue and description into the chat window. That way I can just get the info out there and away we go on the adventure.

Really, though, I'm fine with either choice. It would definitely make the introduction feel a lot less "packaged" if bullet points were used instead of a chunk of second-person text, but it might make it just a little bit harder to get a game going if the GM hasn't had much time to prepare (as is sometimes the case at conventions with newly released scenarios).

I agree with Doug Doug. The second person narrative is fine, and in some cases even helpful. I typically hate second person (when Thomas Harris adds second person passages to his stories it makes me want to vomit day-glo.) However, in Society context I think second person makes it easier for the GM to jump the characters into the middle of the action. Also, as someone who works almost 60 hours a week, I like that I can grab a scenario, read it once, and be able to run it competently without having to "wing" the intro.

I definitely prefer the 2nd person narratives. My imagination and oration abilities aren't always up to par.

I like them because they are beautiful.

Many of the introductions are well written and it is particulalrly useful to get the scenario started with characters already in the scenario. Although I tend to adapt and improvise elements to elaborate on the character of the venture captain I will always use the majority of the introduction as written. So my vote is definitely to keep them.

Continue it! I love the intros. I have different voices for the various Venture-Captains. I would be VERY disappointed if you switched to a bulleted introduction. Part of the fun of the scenario is the way the adventure is introduced. Please don't remove it.

I vote to keep the 2nd person. Reason is players of organized play need a bit of prodding to get into the game. I'm not being negative or speaking ill of the players but it's true. They need something that focuses them to get started. Once hooked, they are good to go as long as the carrots guide them. I've written adventures for organized play not using the 2nd person and kept the adventure a bit open ended. I thought giving the DMs and players room to create and explore would be a good change of pace. The reviews weren't good and the people who spoke to me said they were thoroughly confused because the opening read aloud didn't tell them what to do.

That's been my experience.

The reviews weren't good and the people who spoke to me said they were thoroughly confused because the opening read aloud didn't tell them what to do.

So, basically what you and a few other people are saying is this: Society Roleplayers are so used to railroad tracks, that removing them would leave them high and dry?

How is this a good thing?

Society Roleplayers are so used to railroad tracks, that removing them would leave them high and dry?

How is this a good thing?

Navdi, I've written about a dozen organized play adventures and DM'd hundreds of OP game day and convention slots. I replied to Josh's question based on my experience. It wasn't an isolated event and I don't think I need to defend it. I gave one example to support my reply instead of writing a laundry list of them. I don't believe Josh's question was posted to incite debate. He asked for GM feedback.

Rene

Players don't get angry when DM's deviate from the box text word-for-word wise, and it's not unfair as long as you convey all the same information. If you leave it as is then experienced DM's will deviate anyway (and already are) and new or less confident GM's don't have to invent skills they don't have in order to play. Best if everything is spelled out in order to make it as accessible as possible. You could just add the "or paraphrase" back to the "read this to the players" instruction to reinforce what's fungible and what's not, and you're good to go.

Also, anything that could potentially drag out a PFS session (like giving player too much of a time leash by getting loose with the setup) and you're asking for trouble. I have a hard enough time cranking people through in the allotted time as it is. Out here in the wild (with players of dubious skill that somehow show up at my table) you have to account for some, well, slowness.

In regular campaigns, I almost always paraphrase boxed text, but when it comes to running PFS scenarios, I like having the text as a good jumping off point. As has been pointed out, with a time limit, something that quickly summarizes the adventure and sets the stage is appreciated, and the temptation to make the intro too long or give away too much is present.

Long story short, I'd keep the intros in the same style.

I'm happy with the intros as they are. I generally try to make them my own, but having the intro in its current style reminds me not to fall too in love with my interpretation, but rather to get the game moving.