|
I GM a lot of tables, and even get to play a few - in recent months I've been gaming every Saturday and every Sunday. I've seen a lot of scenarios over the last three years, and something has occurred to me in recent months - I've been walking away from the table thinking "Wow that was a good game! I haven't played a scenario that good since ... well, last week, really".
By "better", I mean more background, better storytelling, engaging characters, encounters that were built for diplomacy instead of a carefully targeted fireball or power-attack. These were more than just a series of combat encounters leading you to the mission's objective.
I first noticed this with City of Strangers Parts I and II. Miss Feathers and Dakar were stand-outs in this two-parter, though the Duskwardens were also interesting, and the companion book City of Strangers offered these scenarios the kind of support one is used to seeing from an Adventure Path.
Other recent scenarios that have impressed me with rich storytelling opportunity have been We Be Goblins!, You Only Die Twice, The Mantis' Prey, The First Steps Intro series and Sewer Dragons of Absalom (yay Yiddlepode!)
Is it just me, or have scenarios been getting better recently? If you happen to agree, what do you put it down to?
I have a few thoughts / pure speculation:
- Golarion is maturing as a campaign, become more established, there is more in-print background to draw from, Paizo have a better sense of where it's heading than they could when it had just started, and so do we as players;
- Responding to player feedback - City of Strangers was very well received - prompting Paizo to place more emphasisis on background and character than previously;
- I print scenarios double-sided, and they used to fit comfortably in 10-page plastic sleeve booklets with a plastic sleeve page or two to spare. Nowadays I have trouble fitting all the pages into the 10-page sleeves. Recent scenarios have increased page-count than previous seasons, allowing for more background and character development;
- Tier 1-7 scenarios required precious space for multiple stat-blocks. Tier 1-5 and Tier 3-7 scenarios reduce stat-blocks, space that can now be used for background and character development instead;
- Maybe I'm reading too much into this, and I'm just hitting my stride as a GM, recognising and drawing out roleplaying opportunities more than I might have previously?
- and I'm sure Mark Moreland has had a positive influence on the line (cheers, mate!)
So, what do you think?
Cheers,
Stephen (DarkWhite)
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Absolutely agree that the scenarios are improving dramatically. Over and over I am running into scenarios that I want to adapt into my home games (and usually have little trouble doing so), often raiding them for NPCs to use as regularly appearing NPCs, as well. The Azlant Ridge series remains one of my favorites, and Sewer Dragons of Absalom was absolutely stellar.
Golarion maturing definitely helps, as you speculated.
Listening to players also helps, so long as it doesn't get to the point where *only* the players are listened to.
Limiting scenarios to two tiers certainly goes a long way, providing for more writing options.
The only thing I'll disagree on is the increased length. I think the "new" five-hour design is difficult to work with. Most conventions plan for three slots of four hour lengths, and most organized play in stores is done on weekday evenings, after people get off of work (starting at 6:00, if they're lucky). The idea that everyone has (or wants) five hours for a scenario is largely incorrect, I think. I know it is, in Denver. I love it at home, and love having the extra filler to provide options at my tables, but I think each scenario absolutely has to have a very obvious "punt this encounter" notation to keep conventions and stores from always running over on their times.
Otherwise, please keep it up! There have been very few scenarios in the last half year that I have thought needed significant work. And the only one that stands out was the GenCon Special (very sadly lacking in any kind of story to present to players).
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Perhaps better would say that there have been outstanding scenarios, with great characters and fun encounters. (There's a reason Grandmaster Torch is now a recurring character.) But there are fewer disasters than there were in Season 0 and fewer workmanlike but forgettable modules than there were in Season 1.
|
|
Interestingly enough, City of Strangers is also a scenario that stood out to me at the end of Season 1. I completely agree that the scenarios have been steadily increasing in quality. I think a lot of it has to do with how PFS has matured as developers have learned what works and doesn't work for scenarios. For example, many season 0s have been retired for the exact reason that, well, season 0 was an experiment. Some experiments work and some don't. But the end result is something better from lessons learned. As a note to any new GMs reading this thread, for this exact reason, I do not recommend starting from the beginning and working your way forward when choosing scenarios. Start with First Steps, and then work your way through chronologically starting from City of Strangers (which is where the Shadow Lodge arc begins).
I haven't particularly noticed the number of really good scenarios increasing, but I might be inclined to agree with Chris that the number of duds is decreasing.
To be fair, I've played way more Season 0 and Season 1 scenarios than Season 2 and Season 3 scenarios.
Venture-Captain, Croatia & Slovenia
|
Start with First Steps, and then work your way through chronologically starting from City of Strangers (which is where the Shadow Lodge arc begins).
Exactly what I wanted to ask :D I've just started first PFS events in my area (well, whole country but its a small one) with First Steps (did No 1 & 2 sofar) and I'm wondering which scenarios to pick up after we're done with these three?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFS scenarios are improving, yes. However, they still tend to suffer from two easily-fixed problems:
-Too much combat. See Sewer Dragons of Absalom. Modules really need to max out at three combats to have room for an actual story. Two combats for a story-driven scenario.
-Too many "chump" combats which add nothing to the experience, other than making your players roll initiative, smash everything, then spend a couple of wand charges to heal any damage taken. By removing these extraneous combats altogether, PFS will take a big step in improving module quality.
As well as a new problem:
-Too many factions. First Steps really highlights this issue; the ten faction heads are crammed into the three modules, to the point where there are too many names to keep straight, much less remember them all. The factions have yet to become a really involved experience; having ten of them seals their fate. There really needs to be around four instead. Four factions with their own plotlines as well actual involvement in the main plot. This would also make room for faction-specific rewards, boons, and enmities on the Chronicle sheets.
Again, the modules are improving, but are honestly being held back by some basic problems. Fix those, and we'll be on our way to a solid experience.
-Matt
|
I definitely think there has been an increase in quality in scenarios. I agree I think a lot of it has been from lessons learned from previous seasons. Especially from season 0 and then season 1. I think a lot of those lessons were applied to season 2 and now season 3 where they have had great success. There has been a lot more roleplaying in scenarios, challenging combat, interesting non-combat challenges, and more interesting characters. That and there is now a full, season long story going on each year. Which helps to add some emphasis to what the players are doing in the Society.
There are certainly far less complete duds then there were in the past. There also seems to be a bit more polish then there was in the past. Faction missions seem to be much more thematic according to the faction then they were in Season 0, and less random in their content.
City of Strangers makes for a couple of my favorite scenarios. Especially Part I where you get some excellent roleplaying opportunities. I think one of the appeals of scenarios like that, like Bloodcove Disguise, Sewer Dragons of Absalom, and Murder on the Throaty Mermaid is that I never do know how the PCs will react when I GM those scenarios. Players get choices in how they approach problems, and I get to roll with their actions. And they really are a ton of fun to run and play through.
|
|
Just a note about the factions. For me so far, the 10 factions are working. Why? Because there's only one mission per faction. It's actually meant less faction clutter for me.
I did a seven player table and five factions were there, and I don't think it slowed the table down hardly at all.
But maybe I'm just used to everyone having a different faction and doing two missions per player. If some of you have Andoran heavy tables and now people are trying different factions, it probably means more faction missions for you, not less.
Anyway, my players and I are enjoying the new factions. Go Team Shadow Lodge. :)
|
|
I think that there have always been high quality scenarios, and that many of my favourites are still from Season 0.
However, I do think that they have improved on average. And they are better at incorporating overplot, expanding on previous adventures, detailing NPC contacts, and having more variation between them. They have also drastically improved in physical presentation.
In some ways, I think I'm more forgiving of Season 0 because it was the experimental year. And it's easy to be positive about the majority of the remaining 19 scenarios.
Season 1 suffered slightly because of the large story arcs. Without getting into specific criticisms, 10 of the 28 were The Devil We Know, Echoes of the Everwar, or Eyes of the Ten. Similarly, there were a disproportinate number of level 7+ scenarios. For me, it took away the immediate gratification of having a new scenario come out and running it before it had been spoiled on the boards.
Now, Mark has a handle on to handle multi-part stories, overplots, tiering (no 1-7, more low level), new rule integration, etc. The previous seasons all introduced at least one of those things. Authors have a greater range of examples to use as well.
Just some Ramblings.
|
|
I was there when the whole thing started, right from Season 0. After the first four scenarios I was excited; those four scenarios were very very good.
After that it was mostly downwards. The rest of the season matched the awesome of the first scenarios only seldomly. My last straw were the first four scenarios of Season 1: Shipyard Rats, Cassomir's Locker, Sniper in the Deep (haven't played), and the hated Drow of the Darklands Pyramid. The whole scene in Finland stopped playing altogether. Seriously, they were that bad.
It wasn't until this Summer when one GM (NiTessine) figured he'd reinvigorate the campaign by running a double-rounder; Bloodcove Disguise and Rescue at Azlant Ridge. That made things roll again. Two years of hiatus, phew.
I haven't played enough scenarios to say about the how the scenarios are in general, but better than Season 0. All Season 2 scenarios I've played (01, 02, 13) have been at least good.
I kinda agree with Mattastrophic; stapled-in combats are a plague that needs to gotten rid of.
|
PFS scenarios are improving, yes. However, they still tend to suffer from two easily-fixed problems:
-Too much combat. See Sewer Dragons of Absalom. Modules really need to max out at three combats to have room for an actual story. Two combats for a story-driven scenario.
-Too many "chump" combats which add nothing to the experience, other than making your players roll initiative, smash everything, then spend a couple of wand charges to heal any damage taken. By removing these extraneous combats altogether, PFS will take a big step in improving module quality.
Agreed. Twice in the last month our GM had to cut "also-ran" mod combats to same time. (Sewer Dragons was one.)
Caveat: that doesn't mean we should support 5-minute day wizards and barbarians. (I've always considered "chase" encounters very interesting, as they reward careful management of limited class abilities.)
|
However, I do think that they have improved on average. And they are better at incorporating overplot, expanding on previous adventures, detailing NPC contacts, and having more variation between them. They have also drastically improved in physical presentation.
I've been playing since the first module came out in Gen Con 2008. It was my first experience at a Gen Con, and my first Organized Play experience. After one game I went and rearranged my whole schedule so I could play again. I still consider module #1: The Silent Tide to be one of the true "classic" modules and one of the best written to date (in a large part due to the efforts of my now favorite module writer, Michael Kortes).
I think what Neil has noted here is true - it's not that the peaks have gotten higher, it's that the standard deviation has shrunk considerably and there are far fewer valleys than there used to be. I remember the days of there being quite a few "duds" (fortunately many have been retired). What really set the momentum for me though are the cohesive storylines put in place by Mark, which have been amazing. I credit Bloodcove Disguise, Rescue at Azlant Ridge, and the City of Strangers series as being the turning point.
To be fair though, two of my favorite modules one-off's from season 0 (Silent Tide) and season 1 (Voice in the Void).
|
|
I've been playing since late Season 0, and I really do have to say that the quality has drastically improved. There were a few gems from Season 0, but that's it.... just a few great mods. Season 1 was better, but not by much. It really started ramping up in Season 2 and from what I hope is Season 3.
My viewpoint on the 10 factions is that I absolutely LOVE it. I always hated having 6 players and one, maybe 2 factions at the table. While I still will sometimes only have 2-3 factions representing it does seem to be getting better and better. Throughout the campaign part of the roleplaying that I like the best is the "banter" between different factions and races. As a GM I sometimes love to just sit and watch an Andoran and Chelaxian have at it verbally, but still be cooperating as Pathfinders.
|
|
The quality seems to be improving to me, but I attribute some of that to newer modules and not year zero modules. I'm not saying the year zero modules are bad, but the necessity to convert them to PF means that they are clunkier than the newer ones. All of my PFS play has been under the PF rules, so I never experienced the old ones in the system they were written for.
|
|
Thanks for everyone's feedback, it's good to hear I'm not alone on this.
Probably a discussion for another thread, but I thought I'd address Drogon's feedback regarding scenario length:
The only thing I'll disagree on is the increased length. I think the "new" five-hour design is difficult to work with. Most conventions plan for three slots of four hour lengths, and most organized play in stores is done on weekday evenings, after people get off of work (starting at 6:00, if they're lucky). The idea that everyone has (or wants) five hours for a scenario is largely incorrect, I think. I know it is, in Denver. I love it at home, and love having the extra filler to provide options at my tables, but I think each scenario absolutely has to have a very obvious "punt this encounter" notation to keep conventions and stores from always running over on their times.
Scenario length is going to affect different people depending on when/where they play. I've recently heard the following feedback from different stores:
1) Why would I play one game at Store A when I can play two games at Store B?
2) The GM hand-waved us through the last couple of encounters, because we were running short of time, and he believed we had the numbers to walk through it, it was very unfulfilling, I felt cheated out of the game (second game at Store B)
Personally, I'm loving the five-hour session length. It's great for home games, and it's great for a game store day held on a Saturday or Sunday. We generally start at 11 am and play until 5 or 6 pm with an hour break for lunch.
The down-side is that I now refuse to play evening sessions after work, because if I leave work around 6pm, reach the venue around 7pm, it's 8pm before people have ordered take-away and settled down to game, and you can't finish a game before midnight. I've had one too many games rushed and encounters hand-waved to ever agree to play under those conditions again.
I want to enjoy the roleplay encounters, and deliver the best experience I can for my players, and not just bulldoze our way through combat encounters, or simply dismiss them as optional encounters.
As a result, for the last two conventions I've run PFS, I've switched from cramming three back-to-back scenarios per day to running two scenarios comfortably instead. It's a winning formula that guarantees meal-breaks, encourages more interaction between players, doesn't burn out your GMs, and you remember storylines well after the game. Players often come to PFS sessions because they don't currently have a home-group, so factoring in social time away from the table, eg lunch-breaks, is also important for networking and building the local community.
There's clearly a need for a shorter format similar to the Quest published in Kobold Quarterly for stores that run evening games.
For anyone playing two scenarios per day at a store, or three per day at a convention, but feel the encounters are being rushed or it's all combat but the story feels unsatisfying, then maybe you're trying to cram too much into your road-trip, and not stopping to enjoy the scenery or meet the locals.
If this is happening for you, consider adjusting the schedule at your next convention or game day and see if you notice an improvement. If you're a player, consider giving the GM feedback after the game if you feel the session was rushed. Probably, he thinks he's doing the right thing by offering more sessions. However, given the option to prepare less scenarios each week, just might make his life a little easier and enjoy the game more too.
Cheers,
Stephen (DarkWhite)
|
|
I wasn't even aware the session's hour slot was increased to five ...
Well, locally store games are a rarity; in Finland such a tradition has never arrived, and I doubt it will any time soon. And conventions don't have strict time slots; the GMs can choose to run for 8 hours if they feel so. Plenty of space to go around.
Personally I like longer scenarios a lot more. They have more beef. But please not just more combats.
|
|
Thanks for everyone's feedback, it's good to hear I'm not alone on this.
I miss the good old days at Gen Con where the slots were 8:00 AM to Noon; Noon to 4:00 PM; 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM; and 8:00 PM to Midnight. It allowed a reasonable amount of sleep and you could take a slot off to visit the dealer room or have a nice meal. If you were hardcore, you could game all day and survive on pop-tarts and soda. Once they changed Gen Con from 13 slots to 10, it became a lot more of a hassle to volunteer and the per slot cost of gaming skyrocketed. My last Gen Con I spent over $110 per slot on motel, parking, admission, and game fees. I'm sure that is cheap to those of you coming from Australia and Europe, but I can attend other conventions for a fraction of the money.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I've recently heard the following feedback from different stores:
1) Why would I play one game at Store A when I can play two games at Store B?
2) The GM hand-waved us through the last couple of encounters, because we were running short of time, and he believed we had the numbers to walk through it, it was very unfulfilling, I felt cheated out of the game (second game at Store B)
These are certainly two of the biggest issues with the length and lack of ability for a GM to cut an "optional" encounter.
But your proposed fix has a huge hole: profit.
If I go to the convention and tell them I'm only running 2/3 of the slots I used to run, that's a pretty big disincentive to them; I suspect the result would be less support from them - less space in the convention book, less promotion on their website, and less space at the convention itself. Why would they give me everything that they used to when I'm only making them 2/3 the money that someone else will? So, they'd cut the available space and give the lion's share to a different game that actually plans on running three slots over the course of the day.
In my store, every hour I stay open costs me money. Being open an extra hour on the evenings I run PFS would do one of two things: become cost prohibitive or be confusing to those customers who didn't participate in PFS. "They were open last week on Monday at 11:00. I don't know why they're not this week. Guess we can go somewhere else..." And, yes, that matters, as I'm a coffee shop, as well. Having consistent hours is a big part of doing business in that environment. So, extending those hours would cost me not just two hours a month, but 20, as I would have to extend all of my evening hours. PFS makes me money, and I love it, but spending an extra $2500 per month in costs just so I can run a 5-hour slot doesn't quite make sense. The 10:00 PM to 11:00 PM crowd isn't even close to that profitable.
I, too, like the longer length. I do everything I can to run it that way, but it just isn't practical in a store environment, nor in most convention environments.
I think they should leave the length as is, with one change: mark one encounter in each scenario as "don't run this if you don't have time" and make sure that it doesn't impact money, prestige, etc. They have done this in some modules. They need to be consistent about it, is all.
This is just my opinion, by the way. I'm fine with the status quo. I can figure it out. I certainly would invite and encourage the change I am proposing, but it is not necessary to keep me invested in promoting this game.
But please not just more combats.
100% agree. This was the problem with the GenCon Special this year. Eventually we all just looked at each other and said, "Another fight? Whatever..."
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Thanks for everyone's feedback, it's good to hear I'm not alone on this.I miss the good old days at Gen Con where the slots were 8:00 AM to Noon; Noon to 4:00 PM; 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM; and 8:00 PM to Midnight. It allowed a reasonable amount of sleep and you could take a slot off to visit the dealer room or have a nice meal. If you were hardcore, you could game all day and survive on pop-tarts and soda. Once they changed Gen Con from 13 slots to 10, it became a lot more of a hassle to volunteer and the per slot cost of gaming skyrocketed. My last Gen Con I spent over $110 per slot on motel, parking, admission, and game fees. I'm sure that is cheap to those of you coming from Australia and Europe, but I can attend other conventions for a fraction of the money.
Yup.
And if conventions are forced to split their slots even further to conform to Pathfinder Society, the casualty will be the amount of space being offered to PFS. Count on it.
|
|
The only thing I'll disagree on is the increased length. I think the "new" five-hour design is difficult to work with.
Most conventions plan for three slots of four hour lengths, and most organized play in stores is done on weekday evenings, after people get off of work (starting at 6:00, if they're lucky). The idea that everyone has (or wants) five hours for a scenario is largely incorrect, I think.
"This depends on where you play." "At your next game day or convention...."
Ah...no.
Let's not talk about "at the next game day or convention." Let's talk about "at your next game session in store" -- because that was the issue Drogon raised -- and that's where he is right.
While you are right that it does "depend on where you play", that's not a proper assessment of the problem. It's simpler than that. This isn't a subjective problem, but one which, as a marketer must assess from a design perspective, how to maximize the potential # of happy customers.
It is quickly evident that a five hour session cannot meet that test.
While it is true that from the individual gamer's point of view, it does depend on where and when he or she games, Paizo has to see this from a height of 30,000 feet and not from a worm's eye view.
PFS scenarios are created for in-store play. There is no maybe about it. That is their #1 purpose as a marketing tool for Paizo. The fact that they are also available at a game day or at a convention is a BONUS -- but it isn't the purpose of the PFS OP marketing program.
As we discussed recently in this forum, there is a great disparity between availability of in-store play area on weekends vs. on weekdays. Generally speaking, weekend times are "prime-time" and weekday evenings are non-prime-time.
The larger the urban area you go to, the more expensive the space becomes and the less available weekend time gets for players of RPGs. The prime time goes to CCG players who spend WAY more money at an event that RPG players do. That's reality and there is nothing which has emerged in this current hobby games market to contraindicate that reality.
Virtually every retailer will agree on this point. And to be clear, Drogon is the owner of a large store in the Denver area.
Without putting too fine a point on it -- I think Drogon is balls on accurate and the move to longer modules that are more problematic to run during weeknights was a design/marketing mistake. FULL STOP. There is no "depends" to that frank assessment from 30,000 feet up.
If the OP is taking place in a large urban area in North America, the overwhelming majority of stores just aren't open from 6:00 to 11:00 p.m.. Indeed, 6:00 to 10:00 p.m. is pushing it. There it is.
Indeed, it was for this reason that WotC aimed D&D Encounters for Wednesday evenings for 2 hours in length. This suited their unique interests as WotC didn't want the competition with Magic:TG during prime time anyway -- and they didn't want the difficulty on selling stores on staying open past 8:00 p.m..
While a two hour session does not make for a better game, I do see WotC's reasons. From a marketing perspective, they make sense.
That said, four hours is apparently manageable - barely. But five hours just isn't. There isn't much suggestion that the five hours is available -- simply that encounters are being cut and game play hastened in order to fit the module into the available slot. Something has to give here.
So the trend in scenario length for an OP program intended to be played from stores is large cities in North America was just wrong-headed in its premise and could not and cannot fully achieve the marketing objectives of the program in the largest urban centres in North America as a result.
Keep the design at 3.0 to 4 .0 hours and matters will be much improved without gamers' game experience being all that adversely affected.
Canadian Maplecakes
|
As someone who had the privilege of writing for Season 1 and now have another scenario at the end of the month, I must say that a lot of the improvement I've noticed comes from dealing with Mark Moreland.
Mark was able to provide clear guidelines of exactly what he wanted in a scenario for Season 3 and was available to answer questions / send information when needed. Even before the release of the new factions, I had all the information I needed to work them into the scenario. Paizo was really on the ball with having that information ready, which really helped when compared to my previous submission which was very much 'fire and forget'.
That being said, thanks everyone... no pressure on Song of the Sea Witch being good or anything ;)
|
|
But your proposed fix has a huge hole: profit.
If I go to the convention and tell them I'm only running 2/3 of the slots I used to run, that's a pretty big disincentive to them; I suspect the result would be less support from them - less space in the convention book, less promotion on their website, and less space at the convention itself. Why would they give me everything that they used to when I'm only making them 2/3 the money that someone else will? So, they'd cut the available space and give the lion's share to a different game that actually plans on running three slots over the course of the day.
I take your point regarding in-store evening play, which is why I suggested more of the shorter Ambush in Absalom Quest format.
However, it's untrue that conventions will lose out via this schedule. I've been running 2x 6hr = 12hrs instead of 3x 4hr = 12hrs at local conventions (includes meal-break and mustering/admin time). Same time allocation, better game experience. The con orgs receive the same amount of cash from PFS, because we're paying by the hour either way. Don't dismiss this out-of-hand, we have successfully made this transition at Melbourne conventions this year, and Sydney and Brisbane are following suit, for zero net loss. It has been well received by everyone.
As for weekend gaming being more "premium" time than weekday evenings, and competing for available table space with collectible card gaming, that does appear to vary by store and location. I don't have the answer for everyone's situation, I'm only relaying what has worked for me localy, that been cons and weekend gaming, and what I have seen is too many sessions being crammed into one day, and some of the improvements in recent season scenarios, story background and characterisation we've been discussing in this thread, not being realised as a consequence.
Cheers,
Stephen (DarkWhite)
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
The con orgs receive the same amount of cash from PFS, because we're paying by the hour either way.
Okay, you have a very different model, then. Every convention I've ever been to charges players by the "slot" not by the hour. Perhaps my scope has been too limited in what I've attended, but I've never heard of it being done differently (until your post).
Don't dismiss this out-of-hand, we have successfully made this transition at Melbourne conventions this year, and Sydney and Brisbane are following suit, for zero net loss. It has been well received by everyone.
I believe you. I would love to give it a whirl at our conventions in Denver. If, however, we had done so at Tacticon a couple weeks ago, we would have had 38 tables fill instead of 55. Each table is worth $18 to the convention. So, $1000 vs. $685. I've just cut their numbers by 30%, using the same amount of space and time. They'll respond by giving me less space.
As for weekend gaming being more "premium" time than evenings, and competing for available table space with collectible card gaming, that does appear to vary by store and location.
Magic is king. That won't change for a while. That having been said, however, I provide weekend space to every game I support in my store. I rotate through them all on a week to week basis and give them all top billing.
In fact, one of the things that pisses me off about Magic is that they have no care whatsoever about what else might be going on, and work very hard at stuffing events into every weekend during the year. I have to fight this pretty regularly, because without weekend events for Pathfinder, WarMachine, Hordes, HeroScape, etc., those games will die down and not be as worthwhile as they currently are for me. As I'm unwilling to let that happen, I schedule the space and fight the "Magic only" trend as much as I can.
If I am forced to only run PFS on the weekends due to a 5-hour length being standard, then the adjustment will be to not run PFS. The adjustment will not, under any circumstances, be to dedicate all weekend space to PFS. I don't think that adjustment would be good for this program, or this game.
Sorry. I feel like I'm derailing your thread. In an effort to get back on task, I'm going to reiterate the feeling that I really *really* like the extra length. I truly enjoy the extra story. I really want that to continue, as I *love* this in a home game or a non-scheduled game where I don't have to worry about time restrictions.
I simply want everyone to figure out a way to make them all adjustable so that we're not rushing or hand-waving or upsetting anyone's expectations.
|
|
Sorry. I feel like I'm derailing your thread.
Actually, I think I derailed my own thread.
Please feel free to redirect any further discussion regarding session length in this existing thread on the topic :-)
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Sorry. I feel like I'm derailing your thread.Actually, I think I derailed my own thread.
Please feel free to redirect any further discussion regarding session length in this existing thread on the topic :-)
I have to admit: for selfish reasons I'm leaving that thread alone. I like my voice being heard, rather than lost in the background noise. It'll get heard here (you're a VC, after all).
But I promise to not continue shouting in here. I've said what I wanted to say, and I can't think what I would add, so I'll happily leave it alone.
Well, I take it back: please consider what I said from a marketing perspective, like Steel_Wind did, and don't dismiss it simply for role play reasons. Marketing at the store level matters more than you could know. Don't ignore that aspect of organized play.
*Now* I'll leave it alone...
|
|
My two cents;
having GM'd a good bit of Season 0, I really enjoyed them. A couple were tricky and really benefited from good preparation.
But Dralkard Manor was brilliant! there was so much scope to play with... I ran Asmodeous Mirage, using information off the boards and again with a little bit of tweaking it was fine. Frankly anyone stupid enough to annoy a dragon needs to get clobbered; the earlier in organised play, the better.
After retro-fitting mod after mod I didn't really notice the 'lows'? Maybe it's the group I game with.
and talking length. It varies, it's great to have a throw-a-way encounter - I have found a combination of; new players, a long day, and a full table can and does lead to running overtime. We just have to make sure everyone has a good time.
I've only run a handful of tables this far, but 2 of the have been season 3, and there has been a lot of flavor and background added in compared to what i know of previous seasons. It looks to me like the quality is spot on with what we expect from Paizo ;)
|
|
PFS scenarios are created for in-store play. There is no maybe about it. That is their #1 purpose as a marketing tool for Paizo. The fact that they are also available at a game day or at a convention is a BONUS -- but it isn't the purpose of the PFS OP marketing program.
While I agree with a lot of your points, PFS is a marketing tool for Paizo whether it's a home game or not. I don't think it was designed solely for in-store play (but I could be wrong). What are the stats on how many games are run in-store vs home games? I'm willing to bet more games are played at home (and having said that, I bet many home games aren't even reported).
That said, four hours is apparently manageable - barely. But five hours just isn't. There isn't much suggestion that the five hours is available -- simply that encounters are being cut and game play hastened in order to fit the module into the available slot. Something has to give here.
If you ask Paizo to reduce the length of scenarios, all they're going to do is cut out encounters, storyline, and probably roleplaying as well. No offense, but screw that. If anyone is going to be cutting encounters and content, wouldn't you rather be the one that decides which content gets cut out? I know I do. And for home games I'd cut nothing. It takes experience to run games in a smaller time slot (that I don't have yet), but it can be done.
I think a lot of the improvements we're seeing in lately in scenarios are because scenarios are longer than (short) season 0 scenarios. I'd hate to see us going in reverse by reducing the page count.
My 2 cents.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
What are the stats on how many games are run in-store vs home games? I'm willing to bet more games are played at home.
I doubt it. My store, alone, accounts for 13 tables per month, not counting impromptu tables. I track my numbers, of course, and I seat an average of 55 different PFS players each month, not counting GMs. I am constantly getting new players due to the programs we offer, and those new players translate into sales for Paizo (and my store, of course).
Organized Play, no matter the game, is designed as a vehicle for companies to get stores to show off their product. Paizo is included in this. Yes, role playing games happen to have a large at-home market, as well, and Paizo's is more in touch with online tools than most, but reaching and capturing new players at the store level is what organized play is meant for.
If you ask Paizo to reduce the length of scenarios, all they're going to do is cut out encounters, storyline, and probably roleplaying as well. No offense, but screw that.
Please, no. You're right: screw that.
I wholeheartedly agree. Don't cut encounters or story, or anything else at all. Merely make sure one encounter is written as "easily removed."
This encounter is easily removed from a game, and removing it does not, in any way, detract from an already excellent module. Leaving it in merely adds a little excitement and a different flavor, but the group who doesn't experience it will never notice.
I repeat (and will speak for Steel_Wind on this, as well): DO NOT CUT CONTENT. Just make sure to provide options and flexibility.
[Edit] Sorry, Dark White. I even looked at that other thread to see if I should go there to continue, but it looked thoroughly derailed in a different way. I tried; honest, I did...
|
|
I have to admit: for selfish reasons I'm leaving that thread alone. I like my voice being heard, rather than lost in the background noise. It'll get heard here (you're a VC, after all).
Don't worry, I'm watching that thread too. I posted a lengthy opinion there about 9 months ago after running PFS at Arcanacon to a two scenarios per day schedule, and have since run PFS at Conquest to the same schedule - I am convinced of the benefits. PFS at SydCon, Shadow Lodge, Unicon and PaizoConOz will also run by a two scenarios per day schedule, but at least two of these venues close at 8pm, so it's really not possible to run a third evening game anyway.
I know it's not always possible to run a 5hr game, but where it is possible, you should.
Well, I take it back: please consider what I said from a marketing perspective, like Steel_Wind did, and don't dismiss it simply for role play reasons. Marketing at the store level matters more than you could know. Don't ignore that aspect of organized play.
It should come as no surprise to anyone here that Paizo regard the PFS Organised Play campaign as a crucial support component to their product offering, and home-games, conventions and regular store gamedays are each important aspects of that.
If your local store hasn't yet signed up to the Retailers page, please ask them to do so.
Cheers,
Stephen (DarkWhite)
|
|
Merely make sure one encounter is written as "easily removed."
I do agree with this. However, "optional" or "easily removed" also needs to be handled carefully. It shouldn't be so optional that it's a waste of players time. It's a cleverly written scenario that could be "easily removed" without players feeling like they're missing something, while still offering something of value to players who do play it.
|
|
I think the scenarios are improving in quality.
I think Steel wind has made some very good points.
“The larger the urban area you go to, the more expensive the space becomes and the less available weekend time gets for players of RPGs. The prime time goes to CCG players who spend WAY more money at an event that RPG players do”
I think this largely plays out. I live in Vermont and I run a weekly PFS game at our local gaming store called Toy City in Keene New Hampshire. I run the game on Saturday night. Last year I was lived in Durham NC for about 8 months. I played and GMed PFS games in Raleigh NC, in a store called Game Theory. There they had a very active group run by VC Steve Miller. The PFS games were on Monday nights and Thursday nights. (two tables on Monday, and often five tables on Thursday nights). Last fall, I lived in New Jersey for a few months, and I got to play with the PFS group in New York city. We met on Wednesday nights in a Café.
The 5 hour time may need to be addressed. If i am running out of time i cut encounters. Perhaps a three or four hour scenario length might be more manageable.
But yes I think the scenarios are getting better.
|
|
Jason,
1 - More home vs store play for PFS?: Not a chance. You're projecting dude :)
2 - #1 purpose does not mean sole. They clearly write special modules for use at conventions and support them heavily, too. But, yeah, PFS is principally designed for in-store play to market the game and that's their design focus. They have a whole kick-ass AP line for at-home play. Their stand-alone PFRPG module line, never a HUGE seller at retail, is now straddling both spheres in terms of design for both home/PFS use. Personally, I think this is a GREAT idea and I am a big supporter of this approach for stand-alone mods. Big thumbs up to that. Moreland has the right idea there.
3. I have no problem with encounters that can easily be cut from PFS. See Season #3's Frostfur Captives and the "wolves" encounter. Perfect example on how to do it. I'm fine with that.
But then again, see Season #1 Shipyard Rats: with a great example of how not to do it. This was the first mod which signaled a move to a more four to five hour format and it was awkwardly done. Way too many combat encounters!
So I'm good with this approach: in general, make a combat entirely optional with not a HINT of a faction mission nearby it. I don't want to have to parse the text as I'm running under the gun whether or not a faction mission was there too. Make it a separate Act, make the whole dam Act clearly optional and then move on. I'm fine with this. To Mark Moreland's credit, that is for the most part, the current approach, too. But too many encounters in total -- or too many free-form role-play encounters is not a strong design, imo, and is just asking for trouble when it comes to play length.
Three combats + two role-play encounters = Chronicle Sheet and we're done. The vast majority of scenarios follow this pattern and time-wise, I'm good with that.
|
|
If your local store hasn't yet signed up to the Retailers page, please ask them to do so.
Stephen,
I am unable to tell, since the search function is not working correctly. I put in my zip code, 89119 in Las Vegas, NV; and it gives me 79 hits, which is way too many, and includes stores in places like Albany NY, which is going to be way more than 50 miles away from my zip code....
Who do I contact about this issue with the search function?
|
|
I am unable to tell, since the search function is not working correctly. I put in my zip code, 89119 in Las Vegas, NV; and it gives me 79 hits, which is way too many, and includes stores in places like Albany NY, which is going to be way more than 50 miles away from my zip code...
Hi Callarek,
At the top of the screen, it says IMPORTANT: No retailers were found, and then proceeds to list ALL retailers (currently 79) unfiltered.
So it appears that no retailers in your area have signed up yet, so you could suggest this to them next time you drop into their store.
Cheers,
Stephen (DarkWhite)
|
|
Jason,
1 - More home vs store play for PFS?: Not a chance. You're projecting dude :)
It really depends on your area. around here, I know of 15 home tables of PFS a month vs 2 game store tables a month. and I've called every game/comic/hobby store within a 40+ mile radius of my house. They either don't have a player base, or the ones that do don't have more than a 3 hour period open in their play area in between card game tournaments during the weekend, and close by 7 on weekdays.
I added a spoiler tag
|
|
Jason,
1 - More home vs store play for PFS?: Not a chance. You're projecting dude :)
I'm not so sure, do you have access to Paizo's stats on how many games are run at home versus at a store? Does Paizo know? Until you get solid stats, it's just opinion and you're 'projecting' just as much as I am.
In Toronto, we didn't even have in-store games until 2 months ago. In non-urban areas, I'm sure players still play at home without in-store support. Gaming stores (and book stores) are rare these days.
My point is PFS was meant for both home games and in-store games. Should it do a better job at supporting 4 hour slots? Sure. To the detriment of home play and quality of scenarios? I hope not.
But, yeah, PFS is principally designed for in-store play to market the game and that's their design focus.
Obviously their design focus isn't principally for store games, or they wouldn't have moved from a 4 hour standard to 5 hours. Unless they made a huge error. I don't think it's up to us to tell them they made a huge error though, I have no idea what their intent was.
But too many encounters in total -- or too many free-form role-play encounters is not a strong design, imo, and is...
I guess we disagree since I like free form roleplaying encounters. I don't think they're "bad design".
Aren't scenarios with free form (or sandbox) roleplaying encounters some of the most popular? Like 'City of Strangers 1', 'Murder on the Throaty Mermaid', 'Frostfur Captives' and (to a certain extent) 'Bloodcove Disguise'?
(Sandbox) Freeform roleplaying scenarios are fairly rare, but they are appreciated. As a coordinator at a store, it's pretty easy to steer clear of these types of scenarios if you don't think they work in a 4 hour slot. There are plenty of other scenarios to chose from.