Following the player disappearance (and non-replacement) mentioned here, the remainder of the party experienced, effectively, TPK.
I'm trying to figure out what next. The group still wants to persist with PFS (I have to say, I have my own doubts after this and if there's one more negative experience I will personally give up PFS on PbP). I'd like some advice on cleaning up the scenario:
- those players who disappeared - I should register/hand out sheets such that they played the scenario, exp gained, etc.
- characters killed - also register/hand out sheets, mark the characters as dead
- 2 characters were actually killed, the remaining 2 were trapped in a situation from which they couldn't escape - treat all as dead?
- Restart with newly created characters? But none of the players can replay this particular scenario, despite not completing it?
For future reference - I can't add new players mid-scenario? Have them rush in and join the fray?
Thanks.
#1 - Correct. Unfortunately, these characters would not be considered 'dead.' They simply only completed a portion of the scenario.
#2 - Yes.
#3 - Yes, they are essentially reported as dead, unfortunately. Unless they have enough PP saved up to cover the costs of being rescued.
#4 - Correct. The players can create new PCs, but they cannot attempt this scenario again even though they did not complete it unless the following is met: GM star replay is available or the PCs are played in Core mode, then you can replay every scenario once more.
It really stinks for the players who lost characters due to the other players leaving, but that is one of the risks of PFS.
*EDIT*
Missed your last question somehow. I'm not positive on this one, but I believe you can have PCs join partly through the scenario, but they would only receive partial credit for the scenario.
|
I don't know how the following rule applies to PbP, but...
When playing a game that lasts multiple sessions, you can add new characters in (and have people play early sessions but not later sessions). In that case they earn 1 less xp and pp than they otherwise would per session missed. Not sure about the gold adjustment.
So I guess if you were able to find players willing to take a chronicle with 0xp and 0 to 1pp and burn their ability to play the full scenario, there's an argument to be made for bringing in replacement characters. It might also be the case, though, that those rules only apply to modules and AP chapters.
If they were not dead and you're calling the scenario over, it is not really appropriate to mark them as dead.
- 2 characters were actually killed, the remaining 2 were trapped in a situation from which they couldn't escape - treat all as dead?
It is basically the same concept of being arrested by guards. PCs are treated as dead unless they are able to afford the rescue costs.
#4 - Correct. The players can create new PCs, but they cannot attempt this scenario again even though they did not complete it unless the following is met: GM star replay is available or the PCs are played in Core mode, then you can replay every scenario once more.
This is indeed Core - but you were I guess referring to the ability to replay it in Regular?
So I guess if you were able to find players willing to take a chronicle with 0xp and 0 to 1pp and burn their ability to play the full scenario, there's an argument to be made for bringing in replacement characters. It might also be the case, though, that those rules only apply to modules and AP chapters.
I may be able to do that - we're trying to get through a campaign of linked scenarios, so I might be able to get players willing to sign up for this one on reduced reward if they can get into the rest of the campaign.
Can anyone else confirm if I can intro new PCs on this basis?
Thanks everyone for the answers so far.
|
Since you mentioned that this is the start of a series of linked scenarios run as a campaign, it might be worth asking if the first scenario is one of the "evergreens" (written only for level 1-2, such as The Confirmation, The Wounded Wisp, and the Consortium Compact). Evergreen scenarios can be played any number of times for credit on a 1st level character (plus once with a 2nd level character), so if that is the case, you could start again with the same scenario.
Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Pullman
|
It is basically the same concept of being arrested by guards. PCs are treated as dead unless they are able to afford the rescue costs.If they were not dead and you're calling the scenario over, it is not really appropriate to mark them as dead.
- 2 characters were actually killed, the remaining 2 were trapped in a situation from which they couldn't escape - treat all as dead?
If the GM is deciding to end the game where some of the people are not dead but in a disadvantageous position, they cannot just decide that the players are dead or captured.
They must discuss the options with the players and come to an agreement about how to handle it.
If the GM is deciding to end the game where some of the people are not dead but in a disadvantageous position, they cannot just decide that the players are dead or captured.
They must discuss the options with the players and come to an agreement about how to handle it.
Actually the players agree. But I'd prefer to find some way of continuing the scenario if possible, hence the question as to whether some additional players can join at this point. The two "dead" players have not bled out yet, but the remaining two are both outnumbered and fragile. If not, the players would prefer to just finish rather than act through their own destruction.
Since you mentioned that this is the start of a series of linked scenarios run as a campaign, it might be worth asking if the first scenario is one of the "evergreens" (written only for level 1-2, such as The Confirmation, The Wounded Wisp, and the Consortium Compact). Evergreen scenarios can be played any number of times for credit on a 1st level character (plus once with a 2nd level character), so if that is the case, you could start again with the same scenario.
Nope, it's Frozen Fingers of Midnight.
If the rest of the group still wants to move forward after a TPK, then I'm guessing you have a dedicated group (now that you've weeded out the others), and should only have positive experiences going forward!
Well, as long as they don't all die half way through a scenario every time ...
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
You cannot add PCs to replace PCs who have died.
You can however replace the PCs of players who have gone AWOL with the closest equivalent Pregen. (On my phone, or I would give you the link.)
Given that it sounds like they lost the fight as a direct result of you not knowing you could do that, I think it would not be unreasonable to "wind back the clock" a little bit to include the pregens in the fight, and see if it would have changed the outcome.
You cannot add PCs to replace PCs who have died.
You can however replace the PCs of players who have gone AWOL with the closest equivalent Pregen. (On my phone, or I would give you the link.)
Given that it sounds like they lost the fight as a direct result of you not knowing you could do that, I think it would not be unreasonable to "wind back the clock" a little bit to include the pregens in the fight, and see if it would have changed the outcome.
Thanks. The proposal is to replace the PCs who went AWOL with new players, mid-scenario. If that's possible I think it wouldn't be necessary to turn back the clock. There are 4 players, 2 are down. I was proposing to introduce 2 new players and have them play the rest of the scenario. We're about at the end of Act 2.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
No, you cannot add new players. You can replace the PCs of the player who left with an equivalent Pregen (As if you were adding a pregen to make the table legal.)
You can't add PCs to replace the two who died. And you cannot add new players.
The only time you could have added a new player is back when one player left, just as the scenario was starting, you could have given his slot to someone else.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Relevant Rule:
Sometimes circumstances prevent a player from completing a scenario. Reasons include—but are not limited to—personal emergencies, device battery issues, venue problems, and bad timing. To mitigate the impact on the table, GMs may exercise their discretion by adjusting the scenario’s subtier to accommodate the table’s new APL, bring in the pregenerated character that most closely resembles the lost PC, or postpone the game until all players are able to complete the scenario. In the event that a character sheet is no longer accessible due to a loss of battery power, the player may play the pregenerated character and apply the scenario’s rewards to his original character. In all cases where the GM applies one of the above remedies, rewards for all players are based on the lowest subtier played during the scenario.
Note that bringing in new players is not on the list of solutions.
No, you cannot add new players. You can replace the PCs of the player who left with an equivalent Pregen (As if you were adding a pregen to make the table legal.)
So I can add 2 pregens (of appropriate class) to the scenario and bot them (for the rest of the scenario)?
Do they have to have the same names, if so?
Sometimes circumstances prevent a player from completing a scenario. Reasons include—but are not limited to—personal emergencies, device battery issues, venue problems, and bad timing. To mitigate the impact on the table, GMs may exercise their discretion by adjusting the scenario’s subtier to accommodate the table’s new APL, bring in the pregenerated character that most closely resembles the lost PC, or postpone the game until all players are able to complete the scenario. In the event that a character sheet is no longer accessible due to a loss of battery power, the player may play the pregenerated character and apply the scenario’s rewards to his original character. In all cases where the GM applies one of the above remedies, rewards for all players are based on the lowest subtier played during the scenario.
Our posts crossed. Many thanks for this - question/clarification above still applies. I'm guessing that the answer to the first part is yes, given the context of Tonya's answer in the link.