Tarrintino |
Thought I'd start a thread talking about Season 3 of PFS.
What are you all looking forward to in Season 3?
What any changes to the rules or to Golarion would you like to see happen in Season 3
If the Shadow Lodge was the "big bad" of Season 2, and thoughts on what it will be in Season 3?
Would you like to share any "overheard conversations" regarding what's coming down from Paizo on Season 3?
Tarrintino |
I personally would like to see a war break out in the campaign world, and see how the PFS operates around the warring factions. Will the PFS try to remain neutral regarding the sides of the war, or will they have to make a stand with one of the sides?
This was an interesting side to much of the gaming going on in the old Living Greyhawk setting, as PC's got swept up in the war either directly working for one of the sides, or indirectly by getting caught up with the effects the war was having on the region.
I'd also like to see adventures that take the players to areas not really seen so far in the scenarios so far. With the release of the "Ultimate Combat" book and the "Jade Regent Adventure Path", I think a scenario trilogy taking the players to Tian Xia would be interesting. I'd also like to see an adventure taking the players to Nex & Jalmeray to explore the Vudrani culture, as well.
Painlord |
I'd also like to see alternatives to playing in PFS without actually having to be a fruity Pathfinder.
Huh? What?
What do you have against Pete Apple?
What about The Orange One?
Hate the color yellow? Whudyagot against Banana? Or LeMone Zadaste?
And purple? My favorite flavor and I like a Bunch of Grapes and hope he joins the Society soon.
And that girl, DJ Cherry Pie, rocks the PFS boat.
They be fine Pathfinders, all of them.
-Pain
p.s. I'm going to keep Rootabega out of this.
TwilightKnight |
Assuming that the threat of the Shadow Lodge is largely put down by the end of the current season, The Aspis Consortium could turn up the heat. The society will likely be in a weakened recovery position due to the internal conflict and a good BBEG always knows when to hit you when you're at your weakest.
I'd like to see an earthquake destroy Alkenstar
Why? Simply to eliminate the presence of guns and the gunslinger? Sounds petty
I'd also like to see alternatives to playing in PFS without actually having to be a fruity Pathfinder
I hope this does not happen. The society gives OP some flavor and most players, in my experience, like it. It's a foundation for why all these differing types of characters would be found adventuring together.
Enevhar Aldarion |
It has already been stated by either Mark or Hyrum that the Factions would again have a bigger role to play in Season 3, sort of like back in Season 0, but different? Though unless they throw out the No PVP rule, and I hope they don't, it will not be an increase on the confrontational side of things.
TwilightKnight |
I would like to see some faction oriented bonus's. For instance which ever faction has earned the most PA last season will get some sort of bonus perhaps a boon to a charisma check, this could also be implemented with standing PA.
I like this idea, but I caution against providing a framework under which one faction gains a benefit that others don't. This could influence some antagonism between players of differing factions.
How about the "leading" faction gain a social bonus in large cities where their faction's position can be used? And other factions get one in smaller ares where the "leading" faction has a smaller power-base.
Or perhaps it is limited to certain locale's where that faction is more prevalent? Each faction would gain a boon, of a different type, depending on their position of power.
Red-Assassin |
I was typing out a response. Upon thinking about this, I realized giving a faction some sort of bonus would be in fact a very bad thing to do. Perhaps leading to PvP or perhaps people playing against each other during faction mission. A small change like this could build up a momentum and lead to bad situation. Thanks Twilight
So a weird idea at conventions have a huge event where you gather players according to factions....
Demoyn |
Why? Simply to eliminate the presence of guns and the gunslinger? Sounds petty
Yup. Almost as petty as continually forcing us to accept a cowboy archetype even after the backlash against them.
I hope this does not happen. The society gives OP some flavor and most players, in my experience, like it. It's a foundation for why all these differing types of characters would be found adventuring together.
I suppose you don't see making more money in a day than a farmer makes in his life as being a reason to put up with differing types of characters? And yet your statement is actually quite the contrary. Having to be a member of the Pathfinder Society means that we CAN'T have too much variance in our characters (theoretically) because we all have to be "treasure hunters". I'd like just a little more variance with my characters, thanks (though I do understand completely why the creators of PFS chose to go this route).
Mark Garringer |
Demoyn wrote:Yup. Almost as petty as continually forcing us to accept a cowboy archetype even after the backlash against them.There's a solution that Paizo mentioned that brings everything full circle:
If you don't want them in your game, DON'T USE THEM!
My two copper.
Kthxbai.
ZOMG! There was a gunslinger, a samurai and someone who showed up with a Plague of Shadows Chronicle at Who's Yer Con. The PFS room almost imploded. Oh no, wait, everyone still had a fantastic time!
Kyle Baird |
I think people should be able to express their opinions without essentially being told "Love it or leave it."
Don't you?
Opinions are fine, but people need realize when they have to accept something is out of their control and move on. Gunslingers are part of PFS. That's not going to change no matter how many people post their hatred for them on these boards. If that class existing ruins the game for you, move on.
Callarek |
TwilightKnight wrote:Yup. Almost as petty as continually forcing us to accept a cowboy archetype even after the backlash against them.
Why? Simply to eliminate the presence of guns and the gunslinger? Sounds petty
Maybe you are seeing cowboys where others (myself, for one) do not, because cowboy is only one of the ways they can be handled.
To be honest, constant snarking is not the way to approach this.
TwilightKnight wrote:I suppose you don't see making more money in a day than a farmer makes in his life as being a reason to put up with differing types of characters? And yet your statement is actually quite the contrary. Having to be a member of the Pathfinder Society means that we CAN'T have too much variance in our characters (theoretically) because we all have to be "treasure hunters". I'd like just a little more variance with my characters, thanks (though I do understand completely why the creators of PFS chose to go this route).
I hope this does not happen. The society gives OP some flavor and most players, in my experience, like it. It's a foundation for why all these differing types of characters would be found adventuring together.
Demoyn, right now, from your postings, it sounds like you would be happier, much, in a home game, rather than in the constrained environments of Organized Play.
In a home game, you don't have to allow gunslingers.
In a home game, you don't have to be a Pathfinder.
In a home game, you can use different character creation rules.
In a home game, you can use non-Paizo materials.
Just something to think about.
Demoyn |
If that class existing ruins the game for you, move on.
Don't worry, I will. I'll take as many people with me as I can, too. Unfortunately I love the game (the way it was) and I'd like to give Paizo a chance to fix it first.
Is it really so bad to try and fix a relationship that you love before just giving up completely on it? I'd make some witty remark about divorce rates, but who am I kidding? We're all socially unacceptable gaming nerds; we don't affect the divorce rate. :)
Demoyn |
Maybe you are seeing cowboys where others (myself, for one) do not, because cowboy is only one of the ways they can be handled.
If you don't see a cowboy you should try magnifying the picture of the iconic gunslinger. There is not a single group in history that ONLY specialized in guns before the wild west.
Demoyn, right now, from your postings, it sounds like you would be happier, much, in a home game, rather than in the constrained environments of Organized Play.
Thanks for your concern, but I actually prefer the constrained environment of organized play. I do also have a Pathfinder home campaign right now, though. I'm not a fan of being forced to be a Pathfinder, but it's something that I decided when I started playing that I could live with.
The question was asked of what we'd like to see in season 3. I answered the question honestly, and, paired with Mark Moreland's recent question about AP expenditure, something I think might even be possible in the near future.
As for my happiness in organized play; I'm perfectly happy at the moment. There hasn't been a single gunslinger in my area that made it more than one game before getting thrown in the trash. That's exactly the way a gunslinger should be treated.
Erik Mona Chief Creative Officer, Publisher |
TwilightKnight wrote:
Why? Simply to eliminate the presence of guns and the gunslinger? Sounds pettyYup. Almost as petty as continually forcing us to accept a cowboy archetype even after the backlash against them.
Let's dial it down a notch, chum.
There are 14,000 players in the Pathfinder Society campaign.
Not all of them like the same things. I am not a huge fan of dwarves, but lots of people like them, so they're in.
If I'm seated at a table with a guy playing a dwarf, I try to make the best of it.
So try to make the best of it.
Callarek |
Is it really so bad to try and fix a relationship that you love before just giving up completely on it? I'd make some witty remark about divorce rates, but who am I kidding? We're all socially unacceptable gaming nerds; we don't affect the divorce rate. :)
If you are trying to "fix" it, you are, sure as shooting, approaching it in the totally wrong fashion.
Right now, your posts are coming across as purely negative, not as "loving the game" but hating the whole thing.
Negative, obnoxious posting will not, absolutely NOT, get you anything close to what you want.
Instead of requesting the impossible "Let me use PA to destroy Alkenstar", why not start a new thread, over in the Ultimate Combat area, requesting a widening of the Gunslinger modus?
As to the image, would this also mean that, since the Fighter iconic is shown with two swords, you can only play a two-sword fighter? Just because the image invokes, for you, a cowboy, does not mean that a Gunslinger HAS to be a cowboy.
As to all the Gunslingers you say have been thrown away, maybe you should wait for a final comclusion on that once the final version has been released. The current playtest is to find and fix the issues with the class. Besides the fact that someone doesn't like the iconic image associated with the class.
bugleyman |
Opinions are fine, but people need realize when they have to accept something is out of their control and move on. Gunslingers are part of PFS. That's not going to change no matter how many people post their hatred for them on these boards. If that class existing ruins the game for you, move on.
Actually, I'd wager that if 50,000 people showed up and expressed their disguist with the gunslinger, they would, in fact, be gone.
But let's not be silly. I get the sense that I've stepped into the middle of something ongoing, so I'm going to step right back out of it. :P
Enevhar Aldarion |
As to all the Gunslingers you say have been thrown away, maybe you should wait for a final comclusion on that once the final version has been released. The current playtest is to find and fix the issues with the class. Besides the fact that someone doesn't like the iconic image associated with the class.
Well, if he is referring to just PFS play, then I could see gunslingers being thrown away because not all guns are allowed on Golarion or in PFS play. The iconic Old-West Gunslinger with two revolvers blazing away or taking out enemies at long range with the lever-action Winchester rifle is impossible because the firearms technology is not that advanced on Golarion. It is more a Three Musketeers type of character, where you fire off your two single-shot pistols, then pull your sword and charge into melee combat. I think the problem is more the name of the class and not what they can or cannot do on Golarion. I really think there needs to be a Golarion-specific variant of the Gunslinger called the Swashbuckler or Musketeer, if there is not already, which would fit the setting much better than the standard Gunslinger.
Deanoth |
bugleyman wrote:Opinions are fine, but people need realize when they have to accept something is out of their control and move on. Gunslingers are part of PFS. That's not going to change no matter how many people post their hatred for them on these boards. If that class existing ruins the game for you, move on.I think people should be able to express their opinions without essentially being told "Love it or leave it."
Don't you?
Just like you do not truly need to say "Then Quit" statement. People know that they might not be able to change things but still want to voice their opinions just like you voiced your opinion about theirs.
While Gunslingers may be part of the game it does not mean that everyone has to be quiet about it and then not want change and here on the forums is where to affect change. So it is your turn to accept that in return.
kikai13 |
I, for one, would love to see more multi-part scenarios. These tend to be the ones my players like the best.
I would also like to see more scenarios similar to "The City of Strangers," wherein every encounter occurs on a flip-mat or map pack. If possible, I would like to see scenarios that use only the flip-mats, as I find the map packs tend to slide apart during combats and aren't as easy for me to use.
The third thing I would like to see is more dwarves, but only at Erik's tables. 8D
And if a particular class or whatever bothers you and you wind up at a table where someone is playing that class, ask if you can switch tables. I don't think anybody is gonna get offended. Just say you prefer your gaming without the offending class and play with a different gm. Everybody is there to have fun anyway, and if playing with that class isn't fun for you, I'm sure you can be accomodated!
No big deal, and we can all roll some dice and have some fun!
Deanoth |
I personally would love to also see more multi-part scenarios as well, they seem to go over big and are usually more fun. I think that the idea of rewarding someone for the most faction PA though would be a huge mistake as it breeds a form of competition and that is not what this organization is about. Anything that rewards time in play and the amount of times you have played the game seems to deter new players from wanting to play and say "Why would I want to even try when he already has it?"
I enjoy Pathfinder Society and think that it can accomplish a lot but I would hate to see some of the mistakes that the RPGA made in some of their living campaigns be made in this organization.
I think that having a special event that can be done locally for each Pathfinder lodge area to be held by a Venture Captain would be an awesome thing to do. By doing it locally those that can not afford to travel quite as far as a major convention would still be able to attend the local one and still feel special in that regard and not feel left out. This to me alone feels more important and could be a better chance to bring in new people to the Pathfinder Society and I think that above all else is what we want to accomplish? Maybe even having a special game day in each Pathfinder lodge that the Venture Captain organizes? Making it Annual would be best IMHO. Maybe I am just having a wishful thinking day here hehe. :)
-jon
Thea Peters |
The majority of what I'd like to see has already been said ... so reiteration lol
more of the shadowlodge and aspis consortium
PA buys for non-combat things
more linked adventures, that including revisiting fun areas such as Kaer Maga
large inclusion of the meaning behinds factions other than just letting them be something additional for the players to focus on.
Mark Garringer |
I think that having a special event that can be done locally for each Pathfinder lodge area to be held by a Venture Captain would be an awesome thing to do. By doing it locally those that can not afford to travel quite as far as a major convention would still be able to attend the local one and still feel special in that regard and not feel left out. This to me alone feels more important and could be a better chance to bring in new people to the Pathfinder Society and I think that above all else is what we want to accomplish? Maybe even having a special game day in each Pathfinder lodge that the Venture Captain organizes? Making it Annual would be best IMHO. Maybe I am just having a wishful thinking day here hehe. :)
Most of what you are saying here is part of the job description and requires no special event (season change) or additional approval or incentive from Hyrum. It's still early though and there is more blood than coffee in my veins at the moment so maybe I'm not understanding you =)
I am not an old RPGA hand (this is my first Organized Play experience), but I don't really feel that exclusive content is a huge new player draw. New players generally don't know anything about the world, the game, or our internal resource distributions. It's more important that a new player get seated with a great GM than seated with a GM who has exclusive content.
Dragnmoon |
Not all of them like the same things. I am not a huge fan of dwarves, but lots of people like them, so they're in.
If I'm seated at a table with a guy playing a dwarf, I try to make the best of it.
So try to make the best of it.
Cool, I can get you and Demoyn upset at the same table with my Dwarfish Gunslinger.. ;)
MisterSlanky |
I, for one, would love to see more multi-part scenarios. These tend to be the ones my players like the best.
I don't mind multi-part scenarios, but I do dislike those that go on for four modules, especially when they're written in a manner that explicitly states "you must play modules #1 and #2 to play #3, and you must play #3 to play #4. It can cause pretty significant hiccups when a player misses one of the modules, or when a bunch of new players show up to a gameday.
I can't wait to see the return of faction play. I do hope they add in a more traditional "Pathfinder Society" faction instead of the national factions, as there are times I wish that the option were there. I do hope though that the new system is less about "winning" and more about "moving the story ahead" though.
Mark Garringer |
I can't wait to see the return of faction play. I do hope they add in a more traditional "Pathfinder Society" faction instead of the national factions, as there are times I wish that the option were there. I do hope though that the new system is less about "winning" and more about "moving the story ahead" though.
What would be fantastic would be if Season 3 were story-arched out for each Faction in 4 plot points that would be triggered each quarter if the faction reported PA hit some predefined goal. The players would know there are 4 plot points, but not know what they were.
MisterSlanky |
What would be fantastic would be if Season 3 were story-arched out for each Faction in 4 plot points that would be triggered each quarter if the faction reported PA hit some predefined goal. The players would know there are 4 plot points, but not know what they were.
That would be an interesting take on it. Turn it into a game less about winning, and more about meeting goals for the faction. In a way they already use this kind of system in the annual Pathfinder Special (if X number of tables do Y, then Z happens). The difficult part of this system is keeping those faction goals throughout the year's adventures. Perhaps a way to do it would be to run a four part module (I know, not my favorite), where each module has a 3-month lag-time and those plot points are written into those modules, changing them as the factions report in. It wouldn't be the easiest thing to manage, but it might work.
Kyle Baird |
Tables for true multipart scenarios are, in my limited (...) experience, very difficult to fill especially at conventions. The subset of players who can play a given part 2 of a scenario is much less than the subset of players who can play a non-multipart scenario of the same levels.
Echoes of the Everwar has been one of the most difficult to fill. It seems there's always a couple of players looking to play a particular part, but never enough to fill a table w/o resorting to GM's replaying or NPCs. Heresy of Man has been equally as difficult if not slightly harder to fill.
Both of these series are not ones you want to play with 3 players and an NPC. At Who's Yer Con this past weekend, the only table we ever couldn't form was for HoM Pt 3. There was one "true" player signed up for it and two players who wanted to play it with a pregen. Mark made the decision to seat these players at different tables so that the player with the real character wouldn't have to shell out 5,450+ gp.
One other thing I run into with these multi-parters is that, even with the two-parters, most players (around 70-80%) have no clue why they're related. Echoes of the Everwar is a prime example. They have no clue how the first three are similar. They usually have no idea what the Everwar even was. I try exceedingly hard to provide the players with resources to make the connections, but it doesn't always stick. This isn't a problem with the scenarios per say, I realize that. But the problem does exist and gets worse for multi-parters. If the scenario is all by itself, it doesn't really matter if the player doesn't take any information away from the scenario as long as they had a good time.
Don't get me wrong, I personally love playing the multi-parters. It's a great chance to feel more connected to what's happening in the world. So as a player, I love them. As a GM and psuedo-coordinator I hate them with a passion.
MisterSlanky |
Don't get me wrong, I personally love playing the multi-parters. It's a great chance to feel more connected to what's happening in the world. So as a player, I love them. As a GM and psuedo-coordinator I hate them with a passion.
This was stated perfectly. I love the stories involved in the multi-parters, but man they're a pain in the butt to coordinate. If I were to make one request, it would be that we cap the multi-part modules at two parts. Part 2 is notoriously hard to fill, and in my experience always seems to be played by a bunch of new players who just showed up and got stuck at the table, which then ruins their fun for Part 1. Adding in Parts 3 and 4 make things completely untenable for anything but a home game.
Demoyn |
Erik Mona wrote:Cool, I can get you and Demoyn upset at the same table with my Dwarfish Gunslinger.. ;)Not all of them like the same things. I am not a huge fan of dwarves, but lots of people like them, so they're in.
If I'm seated at a table with a guy playing a dwarf, I try to make the best of it.
So try to make the best of it.
We need a like button on these forums.
Demoyn |
Don't get me wrong, I personally love playing the multi-parters. It's a great chance to feel more connected to what's happening in the world. So as a player, I love them. As a GM and psuedo-coordinator I hate them with a passion.
This. As a coordinator I can tell you that season two has far too many multi-part scenarios and not enough 1-7 mods.
Arnim Thayer Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau |
I, for one, would love to see more multi-part scenarios. These tend to be the ones my players like the best.
I would also like to see more scenarios similar to "The City of Strangers," wherein every encounter occurs on a flip-mat or map pack. If possible, I would like to see scenarios that use only the flip-mats, as I find the map packs tend to slide apart during combats and aren't as easy for me to use.
The third thing I would like to see is more dwarves, but only at Erik's tables. 8D
And if a particular class or whatever bothers you and you wind up at a table where someone is playing that class, ask if you can switch tables. I don't think anybody is gonna get offended. Just say you prefer your gaming without the offending class and play with a different gm. Everybody is there to have fun anyway, and if playing with that class isn't fun for you, I'm sure you can be accommodated!
No big deal, and we can all roll some dice and have some fun!
I'm, Arnim Thayer, an I approve this message!
I too would like some more multi-part scenarios, but I am a much bigger fan of the "pseudo-sequels" such as the Blackros trilogy, or the three that feature Grandmaster Torch. The only problem with muli-part storys in the pass has been how they are released. Luckily, the long delay problem was addressed back with the Devil We know series. The solution is to get all the parts out quickly to prevent players for leveling up and out of finishing a story arc. Shorter story arcs (2 and 3 parters) help speed that up as well.
raylyynsedai |
Thought I'd start a thread talking about Season 3 of PFS.
What are you all looking forward to in Season 3?
What any changes to the rules or to Golarion would you like to see happen in Season 3
If the Shadow Lodge was the "big bad" of Season 2, and thoughts on what it will be in Season 3?
Would you like to share any "overheard conversations" regarding what's coming down from Paizo on Season 3?
I love PFS as is. (including Gunslingers, which i plan to make one when play test is over for society play. but not a cowboy. I want to make a Halfling or Gnome sniper! thief/gunslinger multiclass)
the war Idea sounds fun as long as it avoids pvp.
I would love to gm some sessions where players actually effect in major ways the political power structure of the game world. it does not have to be pertinent to society but it should be published. ie. say the Qadira faction over several months completes more missions / gains more pa. the Qadiran satraps are able to monopolize more trade routes into areas. no direct effect on play. but published so that the Golarian campaign setting changes.
raylyynsedai |
Don't get me wrong, I personally love playing the multi-parters. It's a great chance to feel more connected to what's happening in the world. So as a player, I love them. As a GM and psuedo-coordinator I hate them with a passion.
I have read several in preparing to run them in a store game. and I am of the same mind. if not for the fact that my store game is a core of the same 5-6 people every time. I would not be considering running them there.
I am not planning on offering mufti-part scenarios at my convention this summer. instead focusing on some of the great stand alone sessions. this is not to say the others are bad. just i for see many more organizational issues with them that i want to avoid on my first Convention.
Lamplighter |
Don't get me wrong, I personally love playing the multi-parters. It's a great chance to feel more connected to what's happening in the world. So as a player, I love them. As a GM and psuedo-coordinator I hate them with a passion.
Does anyone know how many games are played at cons versus game stores or home games? I'm running one fairly stable group, with a second more transient group out of a game store, and frankly the multi-part scenarios are the most popular for those folks who are more interested in a stable, campaign-like experience within organized play. Sure, I could see cons or larger groups hating them; hence my question. I expect that there are more con GMs posting here than home/store game GMs, since by definition people who GM at cons are more active, so I'd love to know the actual reported stats.
As to original post: I'd love to have the Pathfinder Society as my faction, or have the option of not having a faction without paying a massive penalty. Most of my players would rather be part of a party, rather than a bunch of individuals on private tasks who just share a cab to the adventure site. Again, my groups... YMMV.