[Gameday XIII] #5-09 - The Traitor's Lodge (Inactive)

Game Master Mustaparta

It's a little odd with the anachronistic was Pathfinder Society works now, but I feel like we have to assume our characters know nothing that happened from #5-10 forward. I am a tiny little spellcaster and want out now that we have finished or job. But I would also expect most agents to think we have done enough without facing any other demons.

B3 shows on the map as explored. And just because some really experienced agents defeated some scary monsters does not mean our relatively inexperienced agents are going to be so reckless.

If B3 is shown as explored, then we should have gotten full gold. But our chronicle sheet says otherwise. The discussion can end right now if the GM could fix the chronicle for us.

First I should explain why the error of not running the encounter happened as it did. On page 19 it states that "Upon earning 5 or more Evidence Points, the PCs earn Karsos’s full attention as threats rather than curiosities". You finished with 4 from the dungeon itself (2 from library in B6 and 2 from B10. 2 more were given when you brought Valais to the lodge. This situation was covered in GM thread, which made it seem that last 2 points don't count for the encounter.

At this point, the PCs are no longer able to explore area B at their leisure. Although facing this oncoming evil is beyond the intended scope of the scenario for the PCs, the GM should make it clear in-game that whatever is coming is beyond the PCs’ capabilities to handle.

In my opinion scenario makes it clear that continuing to loot will lead to combat with Big bad one.

Also, I don't think that by the rules we can choose to go back down (if the adventure even allows it; it may not). The adventure had ended, and so we can't go back and redo our decisions from earlier; all that could happen was to fix the GM error of not running the minotaur adventure on our way back up.

I'm trusting advice of more experienced GM here so it was premature to reveal that part of map as it was not explored.

Thank you for the explanations, GM. It sounds like part of what happened here was a few issues with the writing of the scenario being a little rough.

Colin, I think you are failing to understand that not getting all the gold due to player actions is a common thing. In fact, the rewards for scenarios would put players beyond expected WBL as a way to make up for not getting full gold sometimes. The GM's choices cannot skip part of the story or reduce rewards, but that of the players can.

When the dice were rolled to decide which direction to explore first, that determined that we would not get full gold. We may not like it, but that's how the scenario is written.

No one complained about the adventure ending until people saw less than full gold. To change player decisions to try to get that gold would be metagaming, and is forbidden.

GM, does this mean the original chronicle sheets are still correct?

I fully support whatever the GM decide to be the outcome. And I would like to use my Elixir of Treasure Seeking boon to increase my gold earned by 150gp to compensate for the missing reward.

Colin, I think you are failing to understand that not getting all the gold due to player actions is a common thing.

I see your point, and I acknowledge that not getting all the gold due to player actions is a common occurrence. However, my concern is that just because something is common doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good design or should happen as frequently—kind of like how car accidents are common but not something we’d want to normalize. My issue here is less about missing gold in general and more about the specific way this scenario handles it, which feels arbitrary and disconnected from meaningful player agency.

Let me explain:

When our characters descend to room B1, we’re presented with two directions to explore. If the GM uses a hand-drawn vinyl map, Roll20, Foundry, or a Google Slide map—even with unexplored rooms obscured—it’s often easy to infer from the visible space and boundaries that there's more content to the right than to the left. This creates a metagaming dilemma: choosing to explore left first, without triggering the Koth’Vaul, requires some degree of metagaming, which we’re told is forbidden. If, instead, a player makes the decision completely free of metagaming—like Arxoias flipping a coin—there’s a 50% chance they miss the content in room B3 and, consequently, lose the associated gold.

Having played 157 different PFS scenarios and run 99 of them (not counting modules and quests), I’ve seen a wide range of approaches to rewarding or penalizing players. For example:
- Scenario where you lose 16gp for not going into a kitchen and grabbing a knife set.
- Scenario where you can earn full gold rewards but still fail both the primary and secondary missions.
- Scenario where you lose gold for not fighting neutral NPCs or digging through the belongings of companions you’ve traveled with for months.
- Scenario where bonus gold outside the chronicle sheet is handed out for murderhobo behavior.
In most cases, players lose gold by failing to overcome a challenge. If the obstacle is bypassed or resolved in some way, the PFS Guide instructs the GM to still award the associated rewards.

This scenario, however, is different. Here, players aren’t failing in the traditional sense—they aren’t incapable of completing the objective or willfully choosing not to. As I explained earlier, without metagaming, there’s a 50% chance the relevant rooms are simply skipped. As we’ve seen, once you move on, there’s often no clear way to return without significant GM leniency. What did the players subjectively do wrong to justify reduced gold? Nothing. There was no failed challenge or unaddressed obstacle—it’s simply a matter of which direction they chose first.

Even more frustrating is that the missing loot in this case, the cooling component in Thurl’s walk-in fridge, a wand of something, isn’t hidden behind any meaningful challenge. There’s no trap, no lock, no puzzle, and no skill check to find it. It doesn’t require identifying magical properties or overcoming an enemy. It’s literally a “grab and go” item.

Penalizing players and withholding rewards for something so trivial—especially when they aren’t at fault—is, in my opinion, poor design. It’s akin to saying, “Flip a coin before heading to work, and if it’s tails, you earn 20% less today.” It feels arbitrary and unjustified.

I’m relieved to note that I haven’t encountered similar designs in later seasons' scenarios. But this one stands out as an example of how not to design player rewards. I hope my explanation help you understand where my frustration comes from.

I understand your frustration, and agree it's not the best writing I've seen, but I disagree with your push for someone to fix it. Only the scenario author or developers can fix it, not the GM. Sometimes we just have to say 'oops, made the wrong random choice. I guess we'll get less gold' and leave it at that.

@Mustaparta - I am assuming that the adventure is now over and that the original chronicle sheet is correct (with the reduced gold value). If not please correct me. Thanks. :)

Since the GM is the final arbiter in the matter anyway I figure I might as well present as many argument and solution as I can and let the GM decides. Sorry if I was too pushy.

Putting GM hat on, chitchat time
Oh the maze part is even worse. On high tier you are supposed have 12 of those 10x10 maze tiles for players to wander around looking for the exit, and they almost has to make check every round to determine which small portion of the wall is fake, and which portion of it is real wall. Even if the PC can beeline the exit, there're minimum of 4 tiles of maze to go through.
What I did is to roll a d4 and pick the corresponding maze tile from the 4 given, and just say that's where the ghost minotaur decided to strike, and play it out from there. They took down the minotaur with ease just like we did, and all had fun.
You see, normally incorporeal undeads are good at hiding in walls and places where you can't hit it. But when a large sized ghost 5-ft step into the wall, half of his butt is still showing through because how the wall here are diagonal or fake, so the PC can still smack at it...

Not to mention the title on the top of many pages are still The Confirmation (5-08, the one we just played is 5-09) instead of the title for this scenarios, The Traitor's Lodge, shows how much room for improvement this scenario has...

Losing gold in scenarios is uncommon, but it should not be treated as a punishment or a failure. You get rewarded for accomplishing things. Is it fair? Not always. Nothing is. And Paizo's baseline for getting treasure, based on comments on SF1 and PF2, is about 80% is normal. I don't enjoy missing rewards, but it is part of the game, so when it happens, I shrug and move on.

And yes, at least in my group it is a common joke that a proper Pathfinder must kill anything they meet and steal everything not bolted down (then steal the bolts).

You can add "not getting full rewards because you disabled a pit trap that had loot at the bottom" to the list.

Nothing will ever change again in PF1. Paizo is willing to keep it running, but it's not their primary system and anything likely to be updated already has been.

Colin, I think you are failing to understand that not getting all the gold due to player actions is a common thing. In fact, the rewards for scenarios would put players beyond expected WBL as a way to make up for not getting full gold sometimes. The GM's choices cannot skip part of the story or reduce rewards, but that of the players can.

Thanks for helping to explain this. It happens and its part of game.

GM, does this mean the original chronicle sheets are still correct?

Yes, we have quite discussed this in detail and Organized play rules don't allow GMs to fix this after game is finished.

Mika Kitsune wrote:

GM, does this mean the original chronicle sheets are still correct?

Yes, we have quite discussed this in detail and Organized play rules don't allow GMs to fix this after game is finished.

So, we can just go back to where you posted them and download from there?

BTW, what WOULD the super-scary-TPK thing have been???

Mika Kitsune wrote:

GM, does this mean the original chronicle sheets are still correct?

Yes, we have quite discussed this in detail and Organized play rules don't allow GMs to fix this after game is finished.

Kind of surprised that having to go back and do the fight had no effect on our sheets, though I guess this enemy didn't have any of the loot.

Mustaparta wrote:

Mika Kitsune wrote:

GM, does this mean the original chronicle sheets are still correct?

Yes, we have quite discussed this in detail and Organized play rules don't allow GMs to fix this after game is finished.

Kind of surprised that having to go back and do the fight had no effect on our sheets, though I guess this enemy didn't have any of the loot.

Which is also why the minotaur is easy to hit, since as a ghost it cannot carry most physical object...and armor, which most living minotaur relies on for defense along with natural armor

Mustaparta wrote:

Mika Kitsune wrote:

GM, does this mean the original chronicle sheets are still correct?

Yes, we have quite discussed this in detail and Organized play rules don't allow GMs to fix this after game is finished.

So, we can just go back to where you posted them and download from there?

BTW, what WOULD the super-scary-TPK thing have been???

Yes, chronicles are still there.

Scary one was Glabrezu, CR around 13 IIRC.

Scary one was Glabrezu, CR around 13 IIRC.

Makes sense judging from his relationship with Thurl, come to think of it!

Here are Chronicles. Let me know if anything is missing.

Okay, I have one concern regarding mine: The Grand Lodge-exclusive Boon is X'd out; must it be? I thought you said we'd excelled at finding all the information we sought, which sounds like what ought to earn me that Boon.

*Looks around* Huh, was I the only "company-man" in this crew? How about you, Wither? I don't see a Faction affiliation next to you.

Okay, I have one concern regarding mine: The Grand Lodge-exclusive Boon is X'd out; must it be? I thought you said we'd excelled at finding all the information we sought, which sounds like what ought to earn me that Boon.

*Looks around* Huh, was I the only "company-man" in this crew? How about you, Wither? I don't see a Faction affiliation next to you.

Again its the areas you didn't explore that contained evidence relevant to that boon. 7 evidence points was needed for the boon and you gathered 6.

Ekanta Hanoi wrote:

Okay, I have one concern regarding mine: The Grand Lodge-exclusive Boon is X'd out; must it be? I thought you said we'd excelled at finding all the information we sought, which sounds like what ought to earn me that Boon.

*Looks around* Huh, was I the only "company-man" in this crew? How about you, Wither? I don't see a Faction affiliation next to you.

Again its the areas you didn't explore that contained evidence relevant to that boon. 7 evidence points was needed for the boon and you gathered 6.

*facepalm* All but for the flip of an E-coin....

Sheet downloaded. Thanks for running this.