|
I also don't like the (hypothetical) scenario where people who read spoilers get all kinds of awesome boons (because they know it's important to play the scenarios back-to-back or whatever other nuance is required) and that people who avoid spoilers get jack squat.
+1. That too.
Get rid of "If City of Strangers 2 was the most recent chronicle this character has played through..." idea, and replace it with (For Penumbral Accords)"If this character has played through both Mists of Mwangi and Voice in the Void, he gets a +4 bonus on Knowledge History rolls regarding Blackros museum in this scenario. if he has only played through one of the two, he gets +2, instead."
+1. Great idea.
|
Quick question to those that keep saying this...
How does it encourage consecutive play?
Assuming Coordinators schedule back to back multi parters *If they don't that is another issue* How does adding this restriction change the reasons player miss games?
My point is that, the opportunity for consecutive play is there with proper coordination, but adding this restriction does not change the fact that a player can't make it to a game.
We can beat about the bush on this -- or we can get straight to the point.
There is a difference between:
(1) "can't" make it to the game; and
(2) "won't" make it to the game.
The first presupposes a sincerely committed player but an utterly unavoidable conflict, whereas the other recognizes that often what may be happening is an expression of a player's recreational priorities.
(1) Won't be impacted by the consecutive boon policy, whereas (2) might be.
Am I prepared to sacrifice the benefits that might otherwise accrue to those players in (1), on the altar of encouraging a change in the priorites and behaviour of those in (2)?
Answer: YES
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
Both Bob and GodsGMit make good points; a boon should mean something later for the character, not just be something consequential that the player will promptly forget because it will never come into play.
I like the idea of a sequential boon that focuses on something fitting for the rest of the story arc. (Bob)
I also like the idea of character knowledge being compiled by having been through a series of scenarios based on a return to a familiar location (GodsDMit)
It is far easier to schedule "spiritual sequels" then through story arcs, but often they come out so much later that the player has advanced his character out of the tier range to continue play. A reward boon for having waited makes it more worthwhile.
Personally, I wish some of these "spiritual sequels" went beyond the tier range. Foe Example: If Mists of Mwangi (1-5) lead into Voice in the Void (3-7), then to Penumbral Accords (5-9) finishing with Echoes of the Overwatched (7-11). Think of how the challenges could have scaled based on that sequence!
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I wish some of these "spiritual sequels" went beyond the tier range. Foe Example: If Mists of Mwangi (1-5) lead into Voice in the Void (3-7), then to Penumbral Accords (5-9) finishing with Echoes of the Overwatched (7-11). Think of how the challenges could have scaled based on that sequence!
Now that we have a good base of low-level Blakros scenarios, I plan to release some for higher tiers that continue the ongoing storyline with the family and the museum. We'll have a really cool one by the end of the season, but I can't talk about it yet.
|
Personally, I wish some of these "spiritual sequels" went beyond the tier range. Foe Example: If Mists of Mwangi (1-5) lead into Voice in the Void (3-7), then to Penumbral Accords (5-9) finishing with Echoes of the Overwatched (7-11). Think of how the challenges could have scaled based on that sequence!Now that we have a good base of low-level Blakros scenarios, I plan to release some for higher tiers that continue the ongoing storyline with the family and the museum. We'll have a really cool one by the end of the season, but I can't talk about it yet.
You just did!!!1! *Nerd Rage at teaser*
Cool, they're always popular scenarios.
|
|
Quick question to those that keep saying this...
How does it encourage consecutive play?
Assuming Coordinators schedule back to back multi parters *If they don't that is another issue* How does adding this restriction change the reasons player miss games?
My point is that, the opportunity for consecutive play is there with proper coordination, but adding this restriction does not change the fact that a player can't make it to a game.
We can beat about the bush on this -- or we can get straight to the point.
There is a difference between:
(1) "can't" make it to the game; and
(2) "won't" make it to the game.The first presupposes a sincerely committed player but an utterly unavoidable conflict, whereas the other recognizes that often what may be happening is an expression of a player's recreational priorities.
(1) Won't be impacted by the consecutive boon policy, whereas (2) might be.
Am I prepared to sacrifice the benefits that might otherwise accrue to those players in (1), on the altar of encouraging a change in the priorites and behaviour of those in (2)?
Answer: YES
True answer: It ain't gonna make a difference to the #2 players.
How do you define the difference between "can't" and "won't"?
Wife only lets you go to one slot of Game Day, then you have to take her out to dinner?
Relatives coming to town?
Sick?
Work schedule says that getting up for a 9 am slot is absurd?
Work schedule says that staying for a slot that is set to run to midnight is absurd?
Playing one slot at a Game Day/Convention, then scheduled to ru the next slot, where the sequel is scheduled? Heck, maybe even being set as the GM for that slot, and had originally planned on giving the credit to the PC you played part 1 with?
On the same note, was it conclusively stated that you could GM part 1, give the credit to one of your PCs, and then, if the next game you play with that specific PC is part 2, he qualifies for the boon?
Sorry, IMO, real life trumps gaming, not because I want it to, but because it has to.
As an example, my work schedule is 3:30 pm to Midnight. I usually stay up after work, not get up a long time before work, so 10:00 am, when the Las Vegas Game Day used to be, was something that could easily be missed, due to trying to get up 4 hours before my normal alarm time. And, I will admit, after missing the 10:00 am - 2:00 pm slot, I would frequently wind up low on initiative to come to the afternoon slot. To be honest, this kind of Boon requirement would make my coming to the second slot even less likely. Not only would my energy be off, but, on finding that I missed out on the boon, would tend to lead toward some nerdrage about it.
Overall, linked boons like this would need to be well advertised for it to have a hope in hell of changing the 2s from coming when they feel like it to people who come unless they have an overriding reason not to.
Either that, or you cause even more issues in the PC gap issue that was raised during the module playing rules were under discussion.
Heck, I have a PC who is just 11th level, instead of retired, because of not wanting to play him until I could run him through a scenario that has still never been run locally, except by me, and that was at holding him with the last XP he could take at that level reserved for this specific scenario.
As a result of that, I missed out on some of the rare local chances to play higher level scenarios for quite some time. Now I have another character, who is at a point where he can be played in 4 more scenarios, if that one is not one of them, before I have to put him on hold to play in that scenario. And I can't GM it to unlock this PC, I did that for the other one.
So:
Parts 1 & 2: played with Callarek, Part 3 GM credit for Callarek
Parts 1 & 2: GM credit for Kinevon, need to play part 3 to credit it to Kinevon
The consecutive boon would have a good chance of locking up PCs even tighter, really. Not a good thing, IMO.
|
|
Get writing, Bob. You're scheduled to write this one. And you aren't allowed to use any verbs. Have fun!Sounds like ample use of passive voice is in order.
Wait, is that the collective sound of all the design/development team's heads exploding? muahahahaha
how can you write in passive voice without verbs?
There is no such thing as passive voice when everything is a run-on hanging participle.
Also, what is the basis for the boons? I understand that QfP is 3 parts an probably got a stronger boon that way, but WitW seems to have a fairly low powered boon and VERY situational use.
It could be just coincidence, but most of the boons I've seen in PFS scenarios would fit that description (fairly low powered and VERY situational). Along the lines of a +2 bonus to a particular skill in a very particular circumstance.
|
|
Also, what is the basis for the boons? I understand that QfP is 3 parts an probably got a stronger boon that way, but WitW seems to have a fairly low powered boon and VERY situational use.It could be just coincidence, but most of the boons I've seen in PFS scenarios would fit that description (fairly low powered and VERY situational). Along the lines of a +2 bonus to a particular skill in a very particular circumstance.
A circumstance that won't ever been seen again, as most of them only work in that region. Perhaps one day we will see more scenarios returning to these lands, but for now, I don't see the point of most of these boons.
I've gotten one useful boon: a +1 to some skills usable while in Absalom. That's about it, though.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A circumstance that won't ever been seen again, as most of them only work in that region. Perhaps one day we will see more scenarios returning to these lands, but for now, I don't see the point of most of these boons.
Mark and I are cognizant of that and trying to make that better.
|
I generally echo the suggestion to remove the "If You've Played These Scenarios back-to-back in order..." qualifier and just have a boon that gets better if you've already played the previous scenarios, but not necessarily just before.
If there are modules you really want to see played in order without interruption by other scenarios, it may be better to merge the two into a a single 2-round event versus a circumstantial boon requiring they be played in order.
|
|
I, for one, love the way the two parts of the Wonders in the Weave scenarios are meant to be played in close succession, and that there is a boon for doing so.
You guys shouldn't think of it as being unfairly cheated out of a reward, just because you weren't able to play them back to back. You should be happy for those get to claim the prize. If every treasure, boon or prestige point were easily available for everyone, they wouldn't be special. They would be kinda like the pointless trophies in videogames that you get for just playing: They are worthless if you can't not get them.
Be glad that someone else gets a gift, not mad that you didn't get it.
|
|
As I GM PFS more than I play and do both only at cons (with a few rare exceptions) I don't think this is workable except with rare PFS dedicated cons where the players are pre-assigned to tables by the organiser.
It also assumes your GMs are up for running scenarios back to back at a convention which further limits the supply.
With not enough GMs at cons player sign-ups are a lottery so signing-up for back to back scenarios is a problem anyway - and con rules often prevent or frown on pre-sign-ups. When I have run con two parters back-to-back only a subset of players have managed to make it for both.
There is also a timing issue in that a con may occur between the parts being published.
I think this would discourage me from GMing multi-part scenarios at cons.
Overall I think this initiative effectively pushes multi-part scenarios towards the club and home scene and away from cons.
|
|
I played Wonders in the Weave back to back at Gamicon. I thought the warning in part 1 was good, was slightly awkward since I also won a boon that I wanted to apply but had to wait till after part 2 to get the boon.
My biggest problem with the boon (You are probably tired of hearing this complaint by now) is I was expecting something special, thanks to the warning in part one. (Why warn me I might miss out unless it's something special?) However what I got was another overly specific boon that I'm dubious of its continued use.
I feel like the boon should have been broader, perhaps providing a bonus against Aspis Consortium members everywhere (not just the weave)
|
|
I, for one, love the way the two parts of the Wonders in the Weave scenarios are meant to be played in close succession, and that there is a boon for doing so.
You guys shouldn't think of it as being unfairly cheated out of a reward, just because you weren't able to play them back to back. You should be happy for those get to claim the prize. If every treasure, boon or prestige point were easily available for everyone, they wouldn't be special. They would be kinda like the pointless trophies in videogames that you get for just playing: They are worthless if you can't not get them.
Be glad that someone else gets a gift, not mad that you didn't get it.
My problem would be if the boon were not advertised in the standard blurb for the two+ scenarios, along with the play back-to-back requirement.
Without those, it becomes a matter of pure chance, where, with them, it is something that can be consciously planned.
Of course, since GMs don't get boons, I am not sure if there is any real mechanism in place to encourage GMs to want to run the scenarios as intended.
|
My paladin died in the first one. Since she was first level, I was hoping to make a new character and finish the Quest for Perfection series. But I heard that the specific character has to play through all three. So no boon for me. :(
A player in our group yesterday was disappointed because he had accidentally had level to 6th and was unable to play part 3, which would have been great for his druid.