|
There's a big difference between meant to be played in order and "play them in order, without anything else in between, or you're missing out on something". If its going to be done that way, it needs to come with a warning sign.
Its always a decision by the player, but it should be an informed decision. People need to know in advance when to schedule these, whether to set their advancement on the slow track, and most importantly not to say "OOOO new mod lets run it NooOOOOOoow" and have to wait for the next one in the series to come out.
|
|
To me though, if someone walks and leaves others in the lurch solely because it would disqualify them from getting a boon I would think them rather selfish. This of course wouldn't apply if there's already a legal table.
Why do you consider it fair to ask a player to sit down at a 2nd/3rd part of a scenario chain when he hasn't played the first part (and give up his boon), but selfish for that player to not want to sit down?
I would consider the table selfish for asking the player to sit down so that they could get their boon.
First off, I am talking about walking away just because they wouldn't get a boon: that being their sole reason for refusing to play. Would it still be selfish if the two players at the table already played out of order to help make other tables happen?
Yes, it is selfish both ways; however, I do put a priority on games being played (people having fun vs. not). When people refuse to compromise to promote fun for everyone then we all lose.
A concrete example: last game day we had 7 people sitting around wanting to play PFS with no one having volunteered to GM the low level table. I was at this table as well due to being scheduled to run a high level table that didn't get enough players. I could have said "tough noogies" and refused to GM a scenario cold, but where does that leave the gaming group? Others have run scenarios for me cold, and so I return that favor.
Mike, I see your point, however, I feel there is a monumental difference between stepping up and judging to allow a table to go off vs. loosing something on a character that you want because others want the same thing.
While the boon may not be all that and a bag of chips too, it's still something and perhaps I'd like to play the scenarios back to back and see the story line vs. jump into it in the middle of the story and not get the whole thing.
We may have to agree to disagree on this point. Personally I'd side with the player that was backing out of the table. It's his right to decide when to play his character and if he doesn't want (and his sole reason is that he wants the boon) then that's ok.
|
|
There's a big difference between meant to be played in order and "play them in order, without anything else in between, or you're missing out on something". If its going to be done that way, it needs to come with a warning sign.
Its always a decision by the player, but it should be an informed decision. People need to know in advance when to schedule these, whether to set their advancement on the slow track, and most importantly not to say "OOOO new mod lets run it NooOOOOOoow" and have to wait for the next one in the series to come out.
"The Sundered Path" is the first scenario in the two-part The Rats of Round Mountain campaign arc. The story concludes in Pathfinder Society Scenario #3–22: The Rats of Round Mountain—Part II: Pagoda of the Rat. Both chapters are intended to be played in order and PCs who do will receive a special reward at the arc's conclusion.
Right from the product description. Not enough? If convention/game day coordinators don't feel like putting that part in their description, it's on them.
|
"The Sundered Path" is the first scenario in the two-part The Rats of Round Mountain campaign arc. The story concludes in Pathfinder Society Scenario #3–22: The Rats of Round Mountain—Part II: Pagoda of the Rat. Both chapters are intended to be played in order and PCs who do will receive a special reward at the arc's conclusion.Right from the product description. Not enough? If convention/game day coordinators don't feel like putting that part in their description, it's on them.
Kyle, not to put words in Wolf's mouth but the comment was that the scenario doesn't clearly mention that no play is allowed in between. This quote still doesn't provide that level of detail. There is a difference between "should be played in order" and "should be played in order with no gaps".
I've already witnessed a store coordinator not inform his players once, so it is a legitimate concern.
|
|
I'm with Dragonmoon on this one. People play multi-parters out of order all the time, and it's usually not by choice. At my first convention a couple of months ago, I played part 2 of a series where I'd missed part 1, just because it was the only PFS scenario available in that slot, and playing PFS was the main reason I was there at the con.Good News Fromper! There will be a chance to play part two in the Sunshine State at a convention to be named shortly. I am shooting for an end of June plans.
Plus there is nothing from stopping our home group from running it after Oasis, but before Dom's announced con. Don't worry, be happy... as a group we can work toward playing the follow-up as soon as possible.
I think one rule of thumb that could be followed here, that would reduce headaches for everyone involved is that 1. these "must play in order" scenarios be released sequentially without large gaps of time between the releases (or together) and 2. organizers *should be* cognizant of this restriction before adding a singular scenario to the line-up without the next available for play at the same event and consider whether it should actually be hosted "solo" at the event in question.
Everything else, meh, I think it is work-out-able by individual players, GM and organizers at regular public/home events. I don't think it is really that big of a deal except that it adds additional planning- the benefit I see is that players get to experience a story-line that may come off as being more seamless. :-)
WJ
|
|
"The Sundered Path" is the first scenario in the two-part The Rats of Round Mountain campaign arc. The story concludes in Pathfinder Society Scenario #3–22: The Rats of Round Mountain—Part II: Pagoda of the Rat. Both chapters are intended to be played in order and PCs who do will receive a special reward at the arc's conclusion.Kyle, not to put words in Wolf's mouth but the comment was that the scenario doesn't clearly mention that no play is allowed in between. This quote still doesn't provide that level of detail. There is a difference between "should be played in order" and "should be played in order with no gaps".
I've already witnessed a store coordinator not inform his players once, so it is a legitimate concern.
Emphasis mine. Not enough or did your coordinator not bother to read it? Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not trying to defend the product description or the new rule for that matter. I just have this feeling that even if the product description said in big bold letters "THIS SCENARIO MUST BE PLAYED IN ORDER WITH THE REST OF THE SERIES WITHOUT PLAYING ANY SCENARIOS IN BETWEEN OR THE PLAYERS WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR A SPECIAL BOON," that it STILL wouldn't be enough for everyone, especially those who can't/won't/don't read the product page.
|
|
Sorry Kyle, but "played in order" and "played in order with nothing else in between" are not the same thing.
No bacon sprinkles for you.
Apparently you missed my point. Gimme back my sprinkles.
I'll clarify it for the Jiggy's ;-) No matter how Paizo advertises it, there will still be players/GMs/coordinators who miss it whether through their own laziness or out of pure chance (and everything in between). It's going to happen no matter what the product description/website/scenario cover says.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry Kyle, but "played in order" and "played in order with nothing else in between" are not the same thing.
No bacon sprinkles for you.
Apparently you missed my point. Gimme back my sprinkles.
I'll clarify it for the Jiggy's ;-) No matter how Paizo advertises it, there will still be players/GMs/coordinators who miss it whether through their own laziness or out of pure chance (and everything in between). It's going to happen no matter what the product description/website/scenario cover says.
*wrestles sprinkles back from Kyle*
Hey! Not yet, buster!
Yes, people will still miss it no matter what. Doesn't mean we shouldn't still try to be clear, or sympathize with the confused when we're not.
There will always be people who get confused, but we still try to be clear.
There will always be people who game the system, but we still have rules.
There will always be people who fail to understand a given mechanic, but we still try to explain and help.
Just because you'll never achieve perfect results doesn't mean there's no point in trying harder.
EDIT: Wow, that got way too serious. FWARBLEGARFF!!!
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
At some point Jiggy, the level of effort, is significantly higher than the return. You stop when it's more effort than it's worth.
Agreed.
I think Kyle is saying, we should have reached that point by now.
And I'm saying he's wrong, obviously. ;) Hence the lack of sprinkles!
*casts magic circle against Kyle and puts the sprinkles in it*
|
|
*Casts "VC Sleep (No Save)" on Jiggy* *motions to Kyle to take his sprinkles**contingent dimensional anchor*Good thing my CMD versus Steal is 109!
*dim doors away with the sprinkles*
*Readied counterspell*
Sorry, Dan. I'm with Jiggy on this one. No sprinkles for Kyle.
Seriously, I'm not understanding why you would argue against accurate verbiage in the scenario description.
|
*Casts "VC Sleep (No Save)" on Jiggy* *motions to Kyle to take his sprinkles**contingent dimensional anchor*Good thing my CMD versus Steal is 109!
*dim doors away with the sprinkles*
*Readied counterspell*
Sorry, Dan. I'm with Jiggy on this one. No sprinkles for Kyle.
Seriously, I'm not understanding why you would argue against accurate verbiage in the scenario description.
Because I agree with Kyle. I don't see how we could be any more clear, without getting into "Lawyer Speak"
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Let me see your character sheet? you look Humanoid (Reptilian)... You can't reskin.
I got hit with a peculiar polymorph effect a while back that made me look like this without changing any of my elf characteristics. At least, that's what the GM said. I suspect scenario modification.
|
|
I'm with Jiggy on this one. The wording doesn't say that the parts have to be played without any other scenarios in between. It just says they have to be played in order.
As an example of the difference, I'll bring up the same example I mentioned earlier in the thread. My group is currently going through The Devil We Know, which is a 4 part series from season 1. After playing the first two parts, most members of our group went to a convention and used our characters for other things, before returning to play parts 3 and 4.
So everyone who shows up for all 4 parts will have played them in order, but with interruptions in between. If that series had a boon like this new two parter, nobody would qualify for it, despite playing the scenarios in order.
Also, the quote above doesn't mention that you can't level up between parts. Apparently, if the first part brings your xp total up to a multiple of 3, then you automatically lose the boon for the 2nd part, even if you do play the parts in order with nothing in between. Shouldn't that be mentioned in advance, too?
|
|
Kyle, you did. On this page.
I'm not trying to defend the product description or the new rule for that matter.
|
"Characters who play both scenarios in order and with no intervening scenarios receive a special award."
No lawyer speak required.
And if that's what the product description for the scenario actually said, then we'd all be in agreement.
If the product page indicated they must be played in order without interruption by another scenario, then the coordinator or GM wouldn’t have to necessarily tell the players.
But in my experience, the players largely don’t read the blurbs; they just show up to play.
So it is up to GM’s and Coordinators to make sure that the players are aware as they sit down to play. That way they could make a different decision about which character to play or whether they wanted to play at that table at all on that date.
If a GM purposely doesn’t inform the players of this (It indicates on page 4 and 18 of Part I, that they must be played in order without interruption by another scenario to get the special boon) to make sure his table goes off, then informs them afterwards, that’s a blindside. And a player would have every right to be upset to have that sprung on them unawares.
|
|
If a GM purposely doesn’t inform the players of this (It indicates on page 4 and 18 of Part I, that they must be played in order without interruption by another scenario to get the special boon) to make sure his table goes off, then informs them afterwards, that’s a blindside. And a player would have every right to be upset to have that sprung on them unawares.
Coordinators aren't always GMs. I know I don't always read the scenario before scheduling it. That's why it's important that little land mines like this are put in the scenario description as well, so that coordinators can be aware of it when planning their events.
|
|
Coordinators aren't always GMs. I know I don't always read the scenario before scheduling it. That's why it's important that little land mines like this are put in the scenario description as well, so that coordinators can be aware of it when planning their events.
If a GM purposely doesn’t inform the players of this (It indicates on page 4 and 18 of Part I, that they must be played in order without interruption by another scenario to get the special boon) to make sure his table goes off, then informs them afterwards, that’s a blindside. And a player would have every right to be upset to have that sprung on them unawares.
Fair point, I understand your point of view, being in the same position. As I've taken over a larger playing field, I've had to back off of GMing so much, and let my GMs take over that role. I still do the Coordinating from the "Field Tent" though.
|
Also, the quote above doesn't mention that you can't level up between parts. Apparently, if the first part brings your xp total up to a multiple of 3, then you automatically lose the boon for the 2nd part, even if you do play the parts in order with nothing in between. Shouldn't that be mentioned in advance, too?
Huh? I think you misunderstood the comment from Mark.... the question he was answering was about someone playing part 1 of a tier 5-9 scenario at 9 and 2/3 thus leveling him up to 10 and making him not able to play part 2 as he is too high for the tier. Mark said in this instance, he would not be able to play the second part, which means he would not be able to get the boon.
|
|
I think what needs to happen and what the campaign is trying to do is get coordinators (game day, convention, home games) to see multi-part scenarios as something that is intended to be played in order.. for real. It's going to take a shift in that thinking for it to work.
Players: Show up to play. They want the opportunities to get all the benefits they can. Some really plan out the order of which scenarios they want to play. This, from my experience, is the minority.
GMs: Run what needs to be run. Most have at least one character they care about and would like to the opportunities to get all the benefits they can.
Coordinators: Want every player and GM happy. Want every table filled to capacity, exactly by the time the slot starts. Want support from the campaign to make scheduling as easy as possible. (see the guarantee of a 1-5 scenario released every month)
Obviously this change makes it harder for coordinators. What it offers in exchange is greater continuity for players' characters, something that has been specifically asked for.
If you're a coordinator, come up with a better way to offer that continuity w/o a big of an impact on your responsibilities. OR come up with other ideas that could make your job easier and perhaps offset this new multi-part scenario experiment.
I think what needs to happen and what the campaign is trying to do is get coordinators (game day, convention, home games) to see multi-part scenarios as something that is intended to be played in order.. for real. It's going to take a shift in that thinking for it to work.
Not really; there's already a category of extra-long scenarios that are supposed to be played over multiple session. I.e., modules.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Cpt-kirstov, I raised the question that earning a new experience level in certain circumstances requires the character to get spells scribed in his spellbook, or get a new item, or be inducted into a new organization. In short, to return to civilization.
"Rats of Round Mountain" is for Levels 7 - 11. Let's say my monk PC has 23 xp, and plans to take his next level as Living Monolith. He completes "Rats I" and earns enough XP to rise to 8th level. What happens? How does he get his ka stone? It would have been much better for him to postpone "Rats I", but there was no way for him to know that.
|
|
Cpt-kirstov, I raised the question that earning a new experience level in certain circumstances requires the character to get spells scribed in his spellbook, or get a new item, or be inducted into a new organization. In short, to return to civilization.
"Rats of Round Mountain" is for Levels 7 - 11. Let's say my monk PC has 23 xp, and plans to take his next level as Living Monolith. He completes "Rats I" and earns enough XP to rise to 8th level. What happens? How does he get his ka stone? It would have been much better for him to postpone "Rats I", but there was no way for him to know that.
Your monk can get his ka stone when he goes back to Absalom for his raise dead. ;-)
|
|
Obviously this change makes it harder for coordinators. What it offers in exchange is greater continuity for players' characters, something that has been specifically asked for.
If you're a coordinator, come up with a better way to offer that continuity w/o a big of an impact on your responsibilities. OR come up with other ideas that could make your job easier and perhaps offset this new multi-part scenario experiment.
I don't think it *has* to make it harder for coordinators. Just don't put it on the regular schedule.
I keep seeing posts that say PFS isn't right for everyone. That is probably true, but maybe that goes in the other direction as well; every scenario isn't right for every game day situation. There are plenty of places to spend blood sweat and tears and people - coordinators, GMs, and players - will all need to decide where best to direct their efforts. It may be that story arc scenarios when laid out like this fit best as special events only in some places.
|
|
Not really; there's already a category of extra-long scenarios that are supposed to be played over multiple session. I.e., modules.
Modules must be played in order and it's clear that you can't play anything in between.
Multi-part scenarios should be played in order and you get an extra boon for doing so.
|
|
Obviously this change makes it harder for coordinators. What it offers in exchange is greater continuity for players' characters, something that has been specifically asked for.
If you're a coordinator, come up with a better way to offer that continuity w/o a big of an impact on your responsibilities. OR come up with other ideas that could make your job easier and perhaps offset this new multi-part scenario experiment.
I don't think it *has* to make it harder for coordinators. Just don't put it on the regular schedule.
I keep seeing posts that say PFS isn't right for everyone. That is probably true, but maybe that goes in the other direction as well; every scenario isn't right for every game day situation. There are plenty of places to spend blood sweat and tears and people - coordinators, GMs, and players will all need to decide where best to direct their efforts. It may be that story arc scenarios when laid out like this fit best as special events only in some places.
While I see your point, I don't agree with multi-arc scenarios needing to be only for special events. It's a matter of coordination. If part 2 of a scenario comes out, and you see in the blub that it's meant to be run with part 2.. it's a simple matter of waiting until part 2 comes out and not scheduling them to be run on separate days.
Easy explanation to players that the scenarios are written to be run together and that is how you are scheduling it.
|
|
The product description clearly states:
"The Sundered Path" is the first scenario in the two-part The Rats of Round Mountain campaign arc. The story concludes in Pathfinder Society Scenario #3–22: The Rats of Round Mountain—Part II: Pagoda of the Rat. Both chapters are intended to be played in order and PCs who do will receive a special reward at the arc's conclusion.
Page 4 of the scenario advises:
Players who choose not to return to Golarion at the end of the scenario (making no Day Job check and purchasing no equipment) gain an additional boon at the end of the second scenario if they play it as the immediate follow-up to part one. See the Conclusion section on page 18 for more information on this option.
Page 18 of the scenario advises:
PCs who remain in the tapestry receives the Dogged Adventurer boon on this Chronicle sheet, which will grant them a special reward should they complete both parts of The Rats of Round Mountain story arc consecutively, in order, and without leaving the tapestry until the end of Part II: Pagoda of the Rat. If a PC opts to leave the tapestry at the end of this scenario, the GM should fill out her Chronicle normally, but cross off the Dogged Adventurer boon. If a PC who receives this boon is used to play through a different scenario between Part I: The Sundered Path and Part II: Pagoda of the Rat, she forfeits any benefits the boon may provide at the end of the second scenario, and the GM should cross it off her Chronicle
The Chronicle sheet advises the same thing.
I don't kow how much clearer we can make it. We leave it on GMs and coordinators to make players aware of these specifics. What else would you suggest above and beyond mentioning in four different locations?
On a side note, people are always asking for us to give GMs more latitude to do their own thing to make adventures more memorable and a better challenge. When something as important as this is clearly spelled out in four places for the GM and/or coordinator to advise players, and it doesn't happen, now maybe you start to get a little insight into why it is very difficult for me to decide to move towards that direction at this time. People keep saying trust the GMs to do the right thing. We are trying to move towards doing that with these instructions posted in four places and it still isn't enough. Perhaps another topic to further discuss this topic but before I start providing opportunities for GMs to have more discretion, they first have to show they can do it with something as simple as advising players about one boon that might become available if they follow one direction.
|
|
I agree with you; it *is* a matter of coordination and where best to put your coordination energy. This could be something that is coordinated differently than the regular game day. Our regular game night only has one slot, so for them to be part of the regular schedule, they would have to be on separate days. But that doesn't mean it's not doable, just not doable as part of the regular way we schedule now.
For instance, instead of it going on warhorn and people signing up for it, people sign up, agree to play at both/all of the events, GMs agree to run both/all of the scenarios, and then I'll schedule the table for them.
They *are* kind of like modules in that they don't fit well to the four hour weekday evening slot, so maybe we schedule them like we do modules, Bass-akwards. We don't schedule a module with only part of it in hand, so we maybe we don't schedule this until all parts are in. We don't put modules into our regular slots, but schedule them on a separate day (we run 1st and 3rd Thursday, so when a 5th one turns up, we do this) and make arrangements to finish it outside of the regular calendar.
I'm not saying people don't or shouldn't use them, but use them in ways that work for your place/area/group. And if, for whatever reason, nothing makes it work well, then don't use them, and play them elsewhere. There is plenty to stress about, this doesn't have to be that one more thing that loses me another GM, or PFS a coordinator, a table players.
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Gulf
|
If you're a coordinator, come up with a better way to offer that continuity w/o a big of an impact on your responsibilities. OR come up with other ideas that could make your job easier and perhaps offset this new multi-part scenario experiment.
Part II releases a day before Memorial Day, so offering it at a Memorial Day weekend con is inadvisable, because of prep time. The Coordinator for Oasis knows his stuff, and would never offer an event that drops a day before the con opens.
As an allied coordinator, I am going to offer this at another event in the future, and will make that known at Oasis. There are a couple of things I wanted to settle before making a public announcement for a convention in summer. There are unfortunately two convention events that weekend.
I love this change Kyle, at future events this is going to help. I don't care for bacon sprinkles.
|
|
read through the last 2 months of scenarios and you'll understandMy "Field Intelligence" must be flawed, I have no idea what that is.I still do the Coordinating from the "Field Tent" though.** spoiler omitted **
I'm not personally running any of the last 2 months of sessions currently. So, it must be buried in the actual scenario, not in the blurb. I'll figure it out some other time.
|
|
The product description clearly states:
"The Sundered Path" is the first scenario in the two-part The Rats of Round Mountain campaign arc. The story concludes in Pathfinder Society Scenario #3–22: The Rats of Round Mountain—Part II: Pagoda of the Rat. Both chapters are intended to be played in order and PCs who do will receive a special reward at the arc's conclusion.
Page 4 of the scenario advises:
Players who choose not to return to Golarion at the end of the scenario (making no Day Job check and purchasing no equipment) gain an additional boon at the end of the second scenario if they play it as the immediate follow-up to part one. See the Conclusion section on page 18 for more information on this option.
Page 18 of the scenario advises:
PCs who remain in the tapestry receives the Dogged Adventurer boon on this Chronicle sheet, which will grant them a special reward should they complete both parts of The Rats of Round Mountain story arc consecutively, in order, and without leaving the tapestry until the end of Part II: Pagoda of the Rat. If a PC opts to leave the tapestry at the end of this scenario, the GM should fill out her Chronicle normally, but cross off the Dogged Adventurer boon. If a PC who receives this boon is used to play through a different scenario between Part I: The Sundered Path and Part II: Pagoda of the Rat, she forfeits any benefits the boon may provide at the end of the second scenario, and the GM should cross it off her Chronicle
The Chronicle sheet advises the same thing.
I don't kow how much clearer we can make it. We leave it on GMs and coordinators to make players aware of these specifics. What else would you suggest above and beyond mentioning in four different locations?
On a side note, people are always asking for us to give GMs more latitude to do their own thing to make adventures more memorable and a better challenge. When something as important as this is clearly spelled out in four places for the GM and/or coordinator to advise...
And as mentioned above, it's not spelled out in all four places. It's spelled out in the scenario, for those who read it. The product description leaves out the part about not being allowed to play other scenarios in between. That's a pretty key piece of information. Adding the phrase "without playing any other scenarios in between" to the bolded sentence from the product description above would clear that up.
Not that people won't miss it even then. But I think it's safe to say that event coordinators who aren't personally GMing this scenario, or who are scheduling far enough in advance that they haven't read it yet, would like to know that in advance.
And this thread is the only place I've seen a mention that leveling between the parts wouldn't be allowed. That effectively rules out 1/3 of characters from being able to play part 1 if they want the boon. Again, that's a key piece of information that should be made obvious in advance, even to those who don't read this blog post and attached thread.