|
*Paracountess Zarta Dralneen having party after a very successful year addressing Cheliax members*
Thanks you all very much for helping us reach our goals this year, as a thank you, you will find an envelope under your chair with your reward. Please feel free to read them now.
While imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, impersonations are neither flattering nor sincere. You will receive but one warning from me in this regard.
|
This is so awesome.
But I'm a bit concerned about the 'percentage success' model spoken about here. We currently know that the current model aims for a 75% success rate with gaining prestige, and with creative solutions allowed, the actual average rate might be much higher (80-100%?). So it may become impossible for a faction to be threatened with getting wiped from the campaign as everyone will have around 70-100% success, meaning all factions succeed and all goals get achieved year after year, unless a lot of dopey heroes all join one faction.
I'm looking forward to more details that separate 'Opportunities' with 'Faction Missions'.
|
|
This is so awesome.
But I'm a bit concerned about the 'percentage success' model spoken about here. We currently know that the current model aims for a 75% success rate with gaining prestige, and with creative solutions allowed, the actual average rate might be much higher (80-100%?). So it may become impossible for a faction to be threatened with getting wiped from the campaign as everyone will have around 70-100% success, meaning all factions succeed and all goals get achieved year after year, unless a lot of dopey heroes all join one faction.
I'm looking forward to more details that separate 'Opportunities' with 'Faction Missions'.
I don't think anyone has said anything about getting rid of a faction, but I'm not putting words in anyones' mouth.
Although I share your fear in one aspect. Players already feel that the point from their faction mission is a right they should get ... with the fact that now it is truly going to matter; the peevishness we GMs see from a player not getting their faction point is only going to increase.
|
|
Finally, a faction that only reaches the lowest threshold of success might see in-world consequences of its failures, which may determine the faction's goals the following season (perhaps calling into question the faction's very existence).
Right now it sounds like an empty threat as I'm guessing the prestige success rate would be very high. They may need to implement a competitive ranking for factions for the 'overall mission successful' area.
I find it weird that people have already hopped on this hoping more races will come out as a result. Attend/organise a public gaming event already you guys!
Director of Brand Strategy
|
But I'm a bit concerned about the 'percentage success' model spoken about here. We currently know that the current model aims for a 75% success rate with gaining prestige, and with creative solutions allowed, the actual average rate might be much higher (80-100%?). So it may become impossible for a faction to be threatened with getting wiped from the campaign as everyone will have around 70-100% success, meaning all factions succeed and all goals get achieved year after year, unless a lot of dopey heroes all join one faction.
Why would it be a bad thing for all factions to succeed and for all players to feel like, thanks to their efforts, their faction wasn't the loser? We haven't set the benchmarks of different levels of success however, and it might take several seasons to really get the numbers right. There's nothing saying we can't set the threshold for success at 80% and grade all ten factions on a curve. The question really becomes, "how steep a curve do you want?"
|
I think we want the curve steep enough for failure to be a real possibility. If the expected PA gain is 75%, and minimum success is at 70%, then why should players be worried about failure? Victory is only sweet if the risk of failure was real. It is hard to enjoy a reward or campaign arc if the victory is foreknown.
I believe we may also be looking toward upping the difficulty of completing faction missions.
Hm. I've never like the dichotomy of "faction missions are completely mandatory to buy cool stuff, but you're not supposed to get hung up on succeeding", and this doesn't sound like a step forward to me.
|
My second concern comes from Mike's followup post:
Mark and I are very cognizant about the length of scenarios and 4-5 hour time slots.Am I the only one who noticed the contradiction in this sentence? I'm not the most experienced convention attendee around here, but from what I've seen, convention slots aren't 4-5 hours. They're 4 hours. If a scenario last 4 hours and 1 minute, then it's already running late. In the home PFS game I usually play in, it's not a...
Nope, ever since I've been playing (and I believe it started Season 1), scenarios have been designed to be 4-5 hours. Gen Con slots are 5 hours. Con of the North slots here in Minnesota were 6 hours.
My opinion is, at a convention, the only reason we can't get a convention to allow longer slots, is because we aren't asking (demanding).
|
|
Although I share your fear in one aspect. Players already feel that the point from their faction mission is a right they should get ... with the fact that now it is truly going to matter; the peevishness we GMs see from a player not getting their faction point is only going to increase.
Time to clearly and firmly state they are not a right, and are earned just like any other part of the game. That there is no way for someone to "succeed" 100% of the time. No realistic way at least.
|
|
I believe we may also be looking toward upping the difficulty of completing faction missions.Hm. I've never like the dichotomy of "faction missions are completely mandatory to buy cool stuff, but you're not supposed to get hung up on succeeding", and this doesn't sound like a step forward to me.
We explored the idea of disconnecting fame with purchase power. Unfortunately, it is too tightly wound into the foundation of PFS currently that we couldn't remove it at this time and make it work smoothly. We are still looking for ways to do that very thing but no ideas that would work have come across my desk yet.
|
|
Although I share your fear in one aspect. Players already feel that the point from their faction mission is a right they should get ... with the fact that now it is truly going to matter; the peevishness we GMs see from a player not getting their faction point is only going to increase.Time to clearly and firmly state they are not a right, and are earned just like any other part of the game. That there is no way for someone to "succeed" 100% of the time. No realistic way at least.
What's the point ... we can state this until we're blue in the face (some already have) and it's not sinking in...
I think some players are in for a hard reality check when the faction mission get harder.. and I think we're going to see a lot more of those players on the boards complaining about how hard they are... but that's just my pessimistic viewpoint lol.
I don't think anyone has said anything about getting rid of a faction, but I'm not putting words in anyones' mouth.
Last sentence of the next to last paragraph of the blog:
Finally, a faction that only reaches the lowest threshold of success might see in-world consequences of its failures, which may determine the faction's goals the following season (perhaps calling into question the faction's very existence).
Sounds like with extreme results, and corresponding lack of popularity, that a faction could be killed off.
|
|
I don't think anyone has said anything about getting rid of a faction, but I'm not putting words in anyones' mouth.
Last sentence of the next to last paragraph of the blog:
Finally, a faction that only reaches the lowest threshold of success might see in-world consequences of its failures, which may determine the faction's goals the following season (perhaps calling into question the faction's very existence).Sounds like with extreme results, and corresponding lack of popularity, that a faction could be killed off.
And the sad thing is, I know every player and GM immediately thinks "Oh please, let the __________ faction die!"
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If enough people all pick the same faction in the above statement, then we'd be doing right by the campaign to meet their demands. But we're going to let actual play results determine that rather than message board postings, which reflect only a small percentage of the entire campaign's population. I'd rather we provide fun stories and motivations for all ten factions to succeed however, even if one or more of them might be lagging in popularity. For those players who do like the less popular factions, it's still a rewarding experience to really be able to sink your teeth into those character concepts.
|
I believe we may also be looking toward upping the difficulty of completing faction missions.Just to clarify, up the difficulty of completing the missions, but also give GM's more leeway in how said missions are accomplished?
I am trying to wrap my head around this..
You are going to make the missions more difficult to complete but easier for the GMs to give it to them...
Looking forward to see how you do that..
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I have already encountered this. A player was unable to do the faction mission. (actually missed what chance he had due to ... a lot of things) And so came up with a "creative solution". Just lie. Run a bluff on the VC. And proceeded to roll badly, with a poor skill bonus and get something like a 15 bluff check. AND 6 players at the table expected me to give him the point. Were in fact disapointed that I had not. (thou no one said "the Judge robbed you guy" the feeling was there).
One of the stipulations of GMs having more leeway will be that lying to your faction head won't cut it. If you tell Colson Maldris (or any faction head) that you did such-and-such and you actually didn't, they're going to find out eventually, and when they do, they won't be pleased. Which is the opposite of prestige.
|
I have already encountered this. A player was unable to do the faction mission. (actually missed what chance he had due to ... a lot of things) And so came up with a "creative solution". Just lie. Run a bluff on the VC. And proceeded to roll badly, with a poor skill bonus and get something like a 15 bluff check. AND 6 players at the table expected me to give him the point. Were in fact disapointed that I had not. (thou no one said "the Judge robbed you guy" the feeling was there).One of the stipulations of GMs having more leeway will be that lying to your faction head won't cut it. If you tell Colson Maldris (or any faction head) that you did such-and-such and you actually didn't, they're going to find out eventually, and when they do, they won't be pleased. Which is the opposite of prestige.
This past weekend I ran Scenario #30 (Cassomir's Locker). I had a player with a Qadiran character.
Qadiran character missed a number of the red-X crates. After the scenario was over, I told the Qadiran character's player that he did not get the additional PA because he didn't find enough of them. At this point, his character didn't know that he hadn't found all the crates and there wasn't anything he could have done to resolve it. He suggested that his character tell the Qadiran contact that he found all the crates... However, since his Qadiran contact had a bill of goods for the shipment, if he reported an incorrect number it could simply have been the wrong shipment. The point was to report the correct number, which was provided in the scenario and not in the faction missive. He did, however, earn 1 PA for his other faction mission.
I've try to make sure I tell all of my players outright that they should not expect to get their faction mission PA every time. The faction missions are difficult, and often dice-dependent, and they're meant to be. That said, some players don't really make a fuss over it. I honestly feel bad, though, when I have to tell any of my players that the dice didn't roll in their favor... almost as bad as I cringe when I roll and confirm a critical hit against one of them. Y'know, like I've kicked a puppy.
|
I will admit that 10 factions seems or quite cumbersome in my limited experience running games, but I don't want to see factions disappear off the map. Among my friends there is some really enjoyable banter about factions depending on which PC is being played. I think that less focus on the rivalry will diminish some of the role play that occurs between PCs during scenarios.
In summary, Qadira is awesome. Andoran rocks a little less but is still cool. Silver Crusade: Real men look out for their fellow men.
|
|
One thing I hope to see stressed to players is to have your "faction plans" all mapped out.
So as not to bog down the session. well too much. I could see some of my Kids getting the whole night Side tracked over thinking it.
Since they will get all wrapped up into there faction.
and not have done any of there home work. I have a few Jr.high school players at my normal table.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I believe we may also be looking toward upping the difficulty of completing faction missions.
One thing I would like to see taken into account is the capability of characters at different tiers to succeed on faction missions. As things stand now, often a single skill check is given, with a flat DC. A level 1 character would be very hard-pressed to make such a check, unless their character happened to be specialized in exactly that skill. However, a level 5 PC would have a much greater chance of having any ranks in the skill, and could potentially have five times the number of ranks. Making faction missions much harder than they are now would make it very difficult for a low-tier character to succeed.
An easy way to address this would be to tier the DCs of the appropriate checks. Of course, if a "creative solution" is being used, then there might not even *be* any skill checks required, in which case this wouldn't matter at all.
|
|
I believe we may also be looking toward upping the difficulty of completing faction missions.One thing I would like to see taken into account is the capability of characters at different tiers to succeed on faction missions. As things stand now, often a single skill check is given, with a flat DC. A level 1 character would be very hard-pressed to make such a check, unless their character happened to be specialized in exactly that skill. However, a level 5 PC would have a much greater chance of having any ranks in the skill, and could potentially have five times the number of ranks. Making faction missions much harder than they are now would make it very difficult for a low-tier character to succeed.
An easy way to address this would be to tier the DCs of the appropriate checks. Of course, if a "creative solution" is being used, then there might not even *be* any skill checks required, in which case this wouldn't matter at all.
I also once thought that scaling of checks should be done for not just faction missions, but other skill checks integral to the scenario itself. That’s what we did in Living Dragonstar when Stephen Mumford and I ran that particular campaign.
However, the counter-argument actually makes a ton of sense to me.
Many of the DCs are hard-coded DCs within the RAW, and to scale them could whole-scale change the texture of the scenario, making much more difficult for a GM to prep effectively. So simple scaling is not the answer.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Some skills don't have a lot of variability in how they work. Swim is based on how calm or choppy the water is; Sense Motive to pass a secret message is a set DC; Acrobatics to jump a specific distance is set; Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Bluff are all set by the stats of the creature you're using them on. One of the benefits of the new system is that PCs can use creative solutions to obtain the same goals in a given circumstance without needing to make that one single skill check, but if they're using a skill that has a set DC, they still need to meet that DC to succeed in what they're trying to do.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Some skills don't have a lot of variability in how they work. Swim is based on how calm or choppy the water is; Sense Motive to pass a secret message is a set DC; Acrobatics to jump a specific distance is set; Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Bluff are all set by the stats of the creature you're using them on. One of the benefits of the new system is that PCs can use creative solutions to obtain the same goals in a given circumstance without needing to make that one single skill check, but if they're using a skill that has a set DC, they still need to meet that DC to succeed in what they're trying to do.
I concede your point about the DCs of certain things being static. However, nothing is to say that those aspects of the scenario couldn't be easier or harder.
For example, I know of at least one scenario that has something like "during the storm, the PCs must make DC 12 Fortitude saves against the cold weather. At tier 4-5, the storm is much more severe, requiring DC 16 Fortitude saves."
Using that logic, there's nothing to say you couldn't do something like, "Getting the McGuffin requires a DC 10 Swim check. At Tier 4-5, the water is moving more swiftly, requiring a DC 15 Swim check to cross."
Obviously, not *every* check can be modified that way, but a good number of them can be.
|
|
Some skills don't have a lot of variability in how they work. Swim is based on how calm or choppy the water is; Sense Motive to pass a secret message is a set DC; Acrobatics to jump a specific distance is set; Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Bluff are all set by the stats of the creature you're using them on. One of the benefits of the new system is that PCs can use creative solutions to obtain the same goals in a given circumstance without needing to make that one single skill check, but if they're using a skill that has a set DC, they still need to meet that DC to succeed in what they're trying to do.I concede your point about the DCs of certain things being static. However, nothing is to say that those aspects of the scenario couldn't be easier or harder.
For example, I know of at least one scenario that has something like "during the storm, the PCs must make DC 12 Fortitude saves against the cold weather. At tier 4-5, the storm is much more severe, requiring DC 16 Fortitude saves."
Using that logic, there's nothing to say you couldn't do something like, "Getting the McGuffin requires a DC 10 Swim check. At Tier 4-5, the water is moving more swiftly, requiring a DC 15 Swim check to cross."
Obviously, not *every* check can be modified that way, but a good number of them can be.
The problem with those scenarios is it makes them incredibly hard to prep. It is incredibly easy to use the wrong DC as often you skim the text to find the numbers as you go are running the scenario.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing i would like to see is after a GM has Run an Adventure more then once let him Apply the "faction" for GM'ing still. His Charter's are getting nothing more from it. in the way of Gold or EXP.
He could apply it to any of the 10 faction's for playing.
For some of the GM's that Gm the same mod 4 and 5 times it would be away they could have some fun with it. :>
|
|
I'm really liking the sounds of where this is headed, though I am wondering what you guys are going to do with the characters that belong to a faction if/when one dies off. Would those players be allowed to pick a new faction for their character?
I dont really expect an answer, I know something like that is a long way away. ;)
|
|
I believe he was talking about allowing GMs to get prestige from GMing, after they'd already gotten GM credit. Or maybe just adding to the total pool for "Andoran" or whoever they'd like.
Yes that is what was trying to say add it to the "pool"
or waht ever it gonig to get added up.not get "EXTRA" credit.
|
|
I'm really liking the sounds of where this is headed, though I am wondering what you guys are going to do with the characters that belong to a faction if/when one dies off. Would those players be allowed to pick a new faction for their character?
I dont really expect an answer, I know something like that is a long way away. ;)
I can't imagine that Mike wouldn't allow it, but I haven't heard any talk of this particular issue.
Love these plans, and, perhaps more importantly, I love the direction you are steering PFS.
|
|
That is the plan.
Just to clarify, up the difficulty of completing the missions, but also give GM's more leeway in how said missions are accomplished?
This is very very good news. I strongly suggest you look through the earlier seasons' scenerios, publish revised society missions for them, and make this retroactive.
|
|
This is very very good news. I strongly suggest you look through the earlier seasons' scenerios, publish revised society missions for them, and make this retroactive.That is the plan.
Just to clarify, up the difficulty of completing the missions, but also give GM's more leeway in how said missions are accomplished?
Mark and Mike have previously said they are not going to be able to go back and do any real edits on previous scenarios. It takes up their fairly limited man hours they can put towards products, and their focus is on getting out new quality scenarios rather than revamping old ones.