The Path Before You

Unless a faction-specific boon, trait, or vanity is unbalancing and would be removed from the campaign entirely, characters should be able to keep existing purchases and character options. After all, if you change factions voluntarily you keep past traits (which represent your character's background), and anything you'd already purchased should have already taken effect. Depending what factions get the axe—er, are retired—we'll let everyone know what the mechanical effects are for members of those factions.

So, can we assume that, if a faction-specific trait is replicated identically in other traits (or more powerfully in other traits), we will not have to lose it? I ask because I play a character with a high diplomacy, and am using Shadow Diplomat to make it a class skill. If that's yanked out from under me...I would have a very hard time recovering that ability.

As mentioned earlier, we aren't going to give specifics at this time. Please don't make assumptions as those assumptions could be wrong. When/if factions are removed, we will advise how everything will adjust for the affected factions.

Eyes of Ten spoiler

** spoiler omitted **

It isn't something I'm picking on you about. It is something I'm genuinely curious about.

I don't think you're picking on me. I love discussing stuff like this.

Continuing the Eyes of the Ten Spoiler:

That was a lot, I realize, but you see my dilemma? And others, perhaps. Working the existing story into the Season 2 scenarios is easy. Trying to work in the elimination of two factions into *five* seasons worth of stories...yikes. And like I said, if the option is to not play those early seasons' scenarios, that's a poor choice.

Mike's already addressed this, but I wanted to as well. Since day one, players have wanted their actions to have an effect on the game world and the campaign. And we're working very hard to provide that (as mentioned in this thread). To do that, however, it means that the campaign and the world have to change. If the campaign remained static and didn't tell the meta story folks seem to want, then it would just be a series of unrelated adventures in which nothing the PCs did mattered.

As we've said a few times in this thread, if players and GMs want their actions to impact the campaign, they need to play and run scenarios as soon as possible after they're released. This is equally true for people who don't want to have to make a narrative workaround for why certain events seem to be happening out of order. We work very hard to put out quality scenarios on time on a regular interval, but if no one's playing anything current and is just using material from several years ago, then is that really something we need to set as a priority?

I'm asking simply because it seems there are two things people want from the campaign: their actions to impact the story; and to be able to play scenarios in any order at any time and have those scenarios make sense. That's tall order for any campaign and any series of adventures. So I wonder which is the priority for members of the campaign. More impact on the campaign or less connectivity between adventures to make them easier to mix and match or play at any time?

actions to impact the story is a priority for me.

Past seasons and their metaplots are just that. You deal with the lack of verisimilitude. There is no way you can impact the world and not affect how interactions take place in the past.

As we've said a few times in this thread, if players and GMs want their actions to impact the campaign, they need to play and run scenarios as soon as possible after they're released. This is equally true for people who don't want to have to make a narrative workaround for why certain events seem to be happening out of order. We work very hard to put out quality scenarios on time on a regular interval, but if no one's playing anything current and is just using material from several years ago, then is that really something we need to set as a priority?

I'm asking simply because it seems there are two things people want from the campaign: their actions to impact the story; and to be able to play scenarios in any order at any time and have those scenarios make sense. That's tall order for any campaign and any series of adventures. So I wonder which is the priority for members of the campaign. More impact on the campaign or less connectivity between adventures to make them easier to mix and match or play at any time?

You raise a very good, and important point.

I think the winner in this should be change. We, as a culture and race, are afraid of change. That's what you're hearing. Meanwhile, we invite and are excited by it. That's why you've been pestered to make it.

I don't know the answer, honestly. During the last couple years, in my eyes, you have both excelled at balancing what you want and what the campaign needs with what the players want and need. Trust your gut, and do what you think is right. As a player, I want what you are doing. Painlord and I have both been very vocal about that in the past, and I won't quiet down just because I have a sticky situation with a private group.

The only suggestion I can make is to give options to people. If I'm playing a private group through one of the older story lines, don't pull the rug out from under me by forcing me to inflict "must follow" rules on them. Let me play that campaign as I intend to play it, as they are a private group and are not playing at conventions or any stores. How you achieve giving me those options...I don't know. But I'm here to discuss or bounce ideas off, if you need.

Edit: You have to be thinking about the ideas raised in my last paragraph at least a little bit. How in the world do you expect to implement AP sanctioned play if you aren't considering home groups and the length of time those campaigns can run? Forcing those kinds of games to completely derail their stories mid-campaign due to factors they had nothing to do with would be pretty detrimental to that marketing effort, I'd think. Consider the options in this light, as well.

If they are a private group, then is anything really being forced on them or you? If they never play at a store or convention, does it really matter? It is essentially a home campaign at that point. Again, not snarky comment, just a simple question.

If they are a private group, then is anything really being forced on them or you? If they never play at a store or convention, does it really matter? It is essentially a home campaign at that point. Again, not snarky comment, just a simple question.

Sure. Right up until you take away my "Taldor" button, thereby making my home game a true home game, and not a PFS home game. Make sense?

Michael Brock wrote:

If they are a private group, then is anything really being forced on them or you? If they never play at a store or convention, does it really matter? It is essentially a home campaign at that point. Again, not snarky comment, just a simple question.

Sure. Right up until you take away my "Taldor" button, thereby making my home game a true home game, and not a PFS home game. Make sense?

Not yet. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong. It sounds like these players are never going to use these characters at a store or convention. They will never interact with any other characters or players outside of this home PFS campaign with these characters. It is essentially a home campaign.

We also plan to give the player base plenty of notice so that adjustments can be made with as much lead time and as little grief as possible. This isn't something we are going to announce and then implement 24 hours later.

Drogon wrote:

Michael Brock wrote:

If they are a private group, then is anything really being forced on them or you? If they never play at a store or convention, does it really matter? It is essentially a home campaign at that point. Again, not snarky comment, just a simple question.

Sure. Right up until you take away my "Taldor" button, thereby making my home game a true home game, and not a PFS home game. Make sense?

Not yet. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong. It sounds like these players are never going to use these characters at a store or convention. They will never interact with any other characters or players outside of this home PFS campaign with these characters. It is essentially a home campaign.

We also plan to give the player base plenty of notice so that adjustments can be made with as much lead time and as little grief as possible. This isn't something we are going to announce and then implement 24 hours later.

Perhaps they wish to have the option of playing the character elsewhere if the home PFS game falls apart. Or the option of playing elsewhere if they can no longer be part of the home PFS game, without having to make a new character.

Well, my point was less about being against change and more regarding character builds. Had I known that Shadow Diplomat would be ruled out, I would have picked a different diplomacy trait...which may have meant that I would pick a different religion trait, a different combat trait, etc. It would likely require significant rebuilding. Of course, I feel that it is likely to be moot in my case, but I think that these are questions which necessary to be asked.

I like the idea that our actions have impact on the campaign. You'll note that no player is complaining about the fact that an NPC might be killed off. I think that the cautious reaction is due to each of us trying to envision how our character would change without our current faction and the normal fear, uncertainty and doubt that goes along with that - after all, factions are not just fluff, they are an odd hybrid of rules and roleplay material.

Well, we all know Osirion can't be axed. Their "Risen Guard" boon prohibits a character from ever leaving the faction! We can't have characters banned by the decline of a faction, now can we? Long Live Osirion!

*Gets off Asmodean Soapbox*

Perhaps they wish to have the option of playing the character elsewhere if the home PFS game falls apart. Or the option of playing elsewhere if they can no longer be part of the home PFS game, without having to make a new character.

Then I will echo what Mark said earlier:

"I'm asking simply because it seems there are two things people want from the campaign: their actions to impact the story; and to be able to play scenarios in any order at any time and have those scenarios make sense. That's tall order for any campaign and any series of adventures. So I wonder which is the priority for members of the campaign. More impact on the campaign or less connectivity between adventures to make them easier to mix and match or play at any time?"

I don't think you can have it both ways. If people want their actions to impact the story and campaign, part of that is impacting which factions remain and which are no longer seen as fulfilling an important role in the Society through play.

So, which do you side with?

Well, we all know Osirion can't be axed. Their "Risen Guard" boon prohibits a character from ever leaving the faction! We can't have characters banned by the decline of a faction, now can we? Long Live Osirion!

*Gets off Asmodean Soapbox*

Well, if you take away the benefit of that vanity, they're dead anyway...

(Kidding, of course. I doubt anybody would go that far.)

When playing older scenarios there are 5 new factions that correspond to each of the original factions. I think as long as both eliminated factions aren't both the original and the associated faction (ex. Andoran and Silver Crusade) it won't be too terribly hard to keep older scenarios stitched together. Otherwise, I don't see faction reduction having too much effect on scenarios except perhaps those where the factions are directly involved in the storyline (ex. The Dalsine Affair).

As for running older scenarios, that's sometimes a necessary evil. Living in the same town as West Michigan Venture Captain Dan Luckett, (esquire) I can tell you that there are sometimes as many as 3 or 4 games within driving distance within one week. While most players don't participate in all or even most, there are some die-hards that do play in so many that's its difficult finding scenarios for them to play. I have to believe that's at least part of the reason he busts out some of the older ones (in addition to trying to also keep the newer scenarios fresh at local cons, to generate more interest, in order to impress convention organizers and keep PFS coming back).

Well, we all know Osirion can't be axed. Their "Risen Guard" boon prohibits a character from ever leaving the faction! We can't have characters banned by the decline of a faction, now can we? Long Live Osirion!

*Gets off Asmodean Soapbox*

Then you better hope enough is done to save the Ruby Prince. If he dies, I think characters have a lot more to worry about since the Pathfinder Society, and they being members, will be blamed directly for the death of the ruler. ;-)

Drogon wrote:

Michael Brock wrote:

If they are a private group, then is anything really being forced on them or you? If they never play at a store or convention, does it really matter? It is essentially a home campaign at that point. Again, not snarky comment, just a simple question.

Sure. Right up until you take away my "Taldor" button, thereby making my home game a true home game, and not a PFS home game. Make sense?

Not yet. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong. It sounds like these players are never going to use these characters at a store or convention. They will never interact with any other characters or players outside of this home PFS campaign with these characters. It is essentially a home campaign.

Yes, and no. It is a home game in the sense that they are playing the Season Two story arc exclusively with me. But, if a player is going to miss a session, one of the options I enjoy exercising is for everyone else to get out their "backup" characters and play other scenarios with different stories. We have even had other GMs run sessions for us, and I get to join them as a player. They loved that. Essentially, through this method, they are experiencing true PFS play. I will admit that I am choosy about "guest" GMs and about which scenarios they play. But they don't get any filter in those situations.

Likewise, they still enjoy going online and updating their characters and looking at the list of scenarios they've played to walk themselves through the story thus far. Once again, if Taldor goes away, that guy loses a bit of his identity, and I lose the ability to keep the game sanctioned without asking him to switch factions. Which, admittedly, would be kind of cool *after* The Dalsine Affair (staying with my example of Taldor getting the ax - which I'm sure is inaccurate).

We also plan to give the player base plenty of notice so that adjustments can be made with as much lead time and as little grief as possible. This isn't something we are going to announce and then implement 24 hours later.

I understand. Honestly, I'm likely to have this campaign finished by the time you guys pull this off, and I seriously doubt anyone else will be in my position (well, notwithstanding AP players). Given that much time, I'm sure I'll be fine and will come up with something if I haven't finished, yet.

More than anything, I'm worried about the little details.

"Man, I just played through first level with this new system: Pathfinder Society. There's a character in those modules who is AWESOME. The Paracountess, they call her. I'm totally choosing that faction to join."

"The Paracountess is a nun, dude. Cheliax isn't involved with the Pathfinder Society anymore."

"What? Then why was she in that scenario? And why did she want me to join her faction? That's stupid..."

Details can kill a marketing plan. You gotta be careful, is all I'm saying. Have a way of keeping this kind of thing "tidy." Like you had with the Shadow War story line becoming an every-now-and-then Rogue Shadow Lodge Cell story line.

Edit: An idea: just create a new character that can be superimposed over any appearance of "dead" characters within older scenarios. Or simple guidelines suggesting how to deal with appearances of missing factions in prior stories. Essentially, give GMs the tools to "rewrite" the fluff that has been changed from older scenarios.

Going back to our earlier discussion:

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

Well, we all know Osirion can't be axed. Their "Risen Guard" boon prohibits a character from ever leaving the faction! We can't have characters banned by the decline of a faction, now can we? Long Live Osirion!

*Gets off Asmodean Soapbox*

Then you better hope enough is done to save the Ruby Prince. If he dies, I think characters have a lot more to worry about since the Pathfinder Society, and they being members, will be blamed directly for the death of the ruler.

Well, bugger.

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

Well, we all know Osirion can't be axed. Their "Risen Guard" boon prohibits a character from ever leaving the faction! We can't have characters banned by the decline of a faction, now can we? Long Live Osirion!

*Gets off Asmodean Soapbox*

Then you better hope enough is done to save the Ruby Prince. If he dies, I think characters have a lot more to worry about since the Pathfinder Society, and they being members, will be blamed directly for the death of the ruler.

I'm worried that this pretty much confirms my worries about PFS having an overly large impact on the campaign setting for non-PFS players. :(

(and Osirion in particular)

((I really wanted a 64-page book about an Osirion that hadn't gone to hell too))

@Jeff I understand that and am very cognizant. We may have to make changes to First Steps or retire it, or put something else in its place entirely. I is something we have thought on and we still debating the merits of all the options.

Michael Brock wrote:

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

Well, we all know Osirion can't be axed. Their "Risen Guard" boon prohibits a character from ever leaving the faction! We can't have characters banned by the decline of a faction, now can we? Long Live Osirion!

*Gets off Asmodean Soapbox*

Then you better hope enough is done to save the Ruby Prince. If he dies, I think characters have a lot more to worry about since the Pathfinder Society, and they being members, will be blamed directly for the death of the ruler.

I'm worried that this pretty much confirms my worries about PFS having an overly large impact on the campaign setting for non-PFS players. :(

(and Osirion in particular)

((I really wanted a 64-page book about an Osirion that hadn't gone to hell too))

It was tongue in cheek more picking on Alexander than anything. It's why I went back and placed a smile with a wink. He's a Saints fan and I'm required to pick on him once a week at minimum.

Michael Brock wrote:

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

Well, we all know Osirion can't be axed. Their "Risen Guard" boon prohibits a character from ever leaving the faction! We can't have characters banned by the decline of a faction, now can we? Long Live Osirion!

*Gets off Asmodean Soapbox*

Then you better hope enough is done to save the Ruby Prince. If he dies, I think characters have a lot more to worry about since the Pathfinder Society, and they being members, will be blamed directly for the death of the ruler.

Well, bugger.

Man, but wouldn't having Osirion be the nemesis for a season be cool? Then you could write a scenario with your character as a major bad guy trying to exact revenge against the Society members he feels are to blame. It'd be like a little consolation prize (;

relievededed

Thanks for the clarification. :)

relievededed

Thanks for the clarification. :)

Besides, if the Ruby Prince dies, then we could introduce the Diamond Prince who is ten times more powerful, and way cooler than that sorry red, ruby guy ;-)

Or maybe the Emerald Prince who has been envious ever since his cousin took power.

@Jeff I understand that and am very cognizant. We may have to make changes to First Steps or retire it, or put something else in its place entirely. I is something we have thought on and we still debating the merits of all the options.

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I realize that this series is really your only challenge. Everything else can be handled without too much difficulty. First Steps though...ugh.

Honestly, it's a series that is hard to pull of as written, anyway. Retiring it and doing something else isn't a bad option even without the faction consideration.

In case you missed my edit, above, make sure you look at that idea.

Mikaze wrote:

relievededed

Thanks for the clarification. :)

Besides, if the Ruby Prince dies, then we could introduce the Diamond Prince who is ten times more powerful, and way cooler than that sorry red, ruby guy ;-)

Also, there's still the Ruby Prince's son and daughter to continue the line...

...dammit Ancient Egyptian geneology, no. >:(

In case you missed my edit, above, make sure you look at that idea.

I read everything you write with earnest, Jeff ;-). And, why wasn't I a guest at your game last time I was in Denver. Very distraught to learn of this news of a secret society I didnt receive an invite to. You and I WILL talk the next time I'm in Denver.

Michael Brock wrote:

Mikaze wrote:

relievededed

Thanks for the clarification. :)

Besides, if the Ruby Prince dies, then we could introduce the Diamond Prince who is ten times more powerful, and way cooler than that sorry red, ruby guy ;-)

Also, there's still the Ruby Prince's son and daughter to continue the line...

...dammit Ancient Egyptian geneology, no. >:(

The Topaz and the Aquamarine. Yeah, they both suck. The Sapphire Sage would just assinate both and take his rightful place in the throne.

relievededed

Thanks for the clarification. :)

Also consider that, in order for Mike and Mark to do what they're doing, they're going to be forced to diverge a little from Golarion canon. I can't imagine that they can pull this kind of stuff off without cracking a few sacred eggs. But, so long as PFS remains confined to the Organized Play world, and Paizo continues to publish stuff for the legion of fans that *don't* play PFS, they are going to have some story lines that don't quite match up.

I.E., in regular Golarion, Osirion continues on as a country that is trying to reestablish itself into prominence within the Inner Sear. In the PFS Organized Play version of Golarion, however, the Diamond Prince Mike alluded to rises from the sands and begins his assault on everything the Society holds dear, up to and including Absalom. Paizo will never publish that Campaign Seting book, but PFS will certainly be playing with it for a season or two. Just like there are plenty of games out there where Karzoug won, right?

Drogon wrote:

In case you missed my edit, above, make sure you look at that idea.

I read everything you write with earnest, Jeff ;-). And, why wasn't I a guest at your game last time I was in Denver. Very distraught to learn of this news of a secret society I didnt receive an invite to. You and I WILL talk the next time I'm in Denver.

I'm honored. Thank you.

And believe me, nothing would be better received than to have you participate in a game with us. Next time you're going to be in town give me a bit of warning, would you? (-:

One other point. We would much rather add stuff to canon and not remove it, much like the resurrection of a new Runelord as mentioned in the blog.

Very distraught to learn of this news of a secret society I didnt receive an invite to. You and I WILL talk the next time I'm in Denver.

While you are there Mike, make sure they have got their s~!% together and they got event code numbers on their chronicle sheets! ;)

Mikaze wrote:

Michael Brock wrote:

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

Well, we all know Osirion can't be axed. Their "Risen Guard" boon prohibits a character from ever leaving the faction! We can't have characters banned by the decline of a faction, now can we? Long Live Osirion!

*Gets off Asmodean Soapbox*

Then you better hope enough is done to save the Ruby Prince. If he dies, I think characters have a lot more to worry about since the Pathfinder Society, and they being members, will be blamed directly for the death of the ruler.

I'm worried that this pretty much confirms my worries about PFS having an overly large impact on the campaign setting for non-PFS players. :(

(and Osirion in particular)

((I really wanted a 64-page book about an Osirion that hadn't gone to hell too))

It was tongue in cheek more picking on Alexander than anything. It's why I went back and placed a smile with a wink. He's a Saints fan and I'm required to pick on him once a week at minimum.

He doesn't need to say a thing this season. Ever single freaking game, back to the New Orleans 'aints. The game against the Falcons? Ugh, Mike is going to be insufferable at Kublacon...

Not going to Kubla in 2013 so you are safe.

Im starting to see so many possibilities as factions become the 'bad' guy or adversary's of the society.

Taldor give up on their pipe dream of trying to rule Absalom and pull out of the society or disallow any countrymen from being members

Cheliax (who from what I understand arnt fans of the Society to begin with) pull out as the more fanatical members of a certain family disallow links with the society

Shadow Lodge: Decides that the Society is still using and abusing the members at large and break off again to possibly work with Aspis who have a better dental plan

Silver Crusade: Cannot morally justify working alongside Chelaxian 'devil worshippers' and take their bat and ball and leave.

Osirion: Ruby Prince dies and his advisors/ family decide he only got ill because of foreign exposure so decide to shut the borders and imprison any pathfinders carting away loot. Would lead to some interesting 'Rescue Crazy Professor X' missions.

Not going to Kubla in 2013 so you are safe.

If its a Bay Area convention, I'll likely be going.

One other point. We would much rather add stuff to canon and not remove it, much like the resurrection of a new Runelord as mentioned in the blog.

Does this mean things that happen In pathfinder society are cannon now (I was under the assumption that the Pfs Golarion and the Main Golarion were seperate.)

Sometimes I just can't help but think it's a good idea that I don't do PFS (at least not yet anyway...). Last thing I'd want to face is the chance that my preferred lodge is gonna get cut because it's not popular.

There's only one or two of them that I really feel at all like I could support.

Doesn't that sound cool though? Dynamic worlds in the RPG setting?

My biggest beef with alot of the DnD encounters stuff was a) constant reseting of your characters and b) no impact from characters.

In this campaign
*My characters have no curses or hated foes.
*They have boons, but only a couple I can be bothered to remember.
*They've only truly failed once, between 6 characters (faction missions nonwithstanding) - I want to fail more, not because of nasty inhuman things, but because my party can't navigate a complicated social challenge, or can't stand by it's morals.

Also, The most memorable scenarios for me in this campaign:
*Defending the Alamo scenes (2 scenarios)
*Herding Refugees through freezing wilderness
*Infiltrating a kingdom in disguise
*Racing to win a tournament (not the Ruby Phoenix, but the precursor)
*Negotiating a peace with angry fey
*Sneaking into the demon-lands

On the whole, anything with meaningful impact, or percieved impact, or risk of death has stuck in my memory. Dealing with the shadow lodge, or artifact grabs, tend to be hazy.

In comparison, in previous OP campaigns, some things I have done:
raised up a god
*accidentally given evil artifacts to bad people
*confronted a dictatorial regime, and cared.
*had travelling papers for my character
*had those papers torn up (at the table, in my face, not in game)
*seen characters cursed to be shadowy versions of themselves

It's not entirely fair to compare campaigns, but I am saying I find campaigns with failure, risk and consequence to be most rewarding and memorable.

Just my $.02

(sorry about the formatting - typing from a phone)

I don't get the feeling "my" actions are impacting the campaign though.

If one of the campaign centre-points had a meaningful choice maybe, but totting up presteige points is removed from character agency. The implication seems to be (from a purely arithmetic point of view) that we should stop helping other factions completing thier missions...

Something that I've not seen discussed so far:

I recall a post few years back that commented on how geographically skewed the popular choice of faction was - Cheliax being unusually popular in Scandinavia was the example, I think. If a faction is eliminated based on globally summed data, do we risk alienation of players from a specific region?

More anecdotal evidence - lots of people here have said that Sczarni are thin on the ground. My experience of play in the UK is that there is almost always one at the table.

I very much like the idea of players actions impacting upon the course of the meta-plot. However I don't want this to come at the risk of damaging efforts to draw in new players (re the comments about First Steps) or attempts to get organised play started in areas where cultural differences draw players to factions other than the global favourites.

My suggestion for First Steps is to do a new version, which is basically the same adventures, but with minor tweaks to cut out any eliminated factions. Kinda like how The Midnight Mauler had a version in season 2 that only "special" GMs could run, and a general release in 3rd season. By re-using the same adventures, it'll be easier to modify them, and easier for experienced GMs to continue running them, compared to having to write a completely new intro series.

Fortress of the Nail still says "Unavailable" on its page. Mark, do you have an expected release date (Jan, Feb, March)? By guesstimation it comes out January alongside 4-EX Day of the Demon?

I personally could live without Sczarni, Silver Crusade or Lantern Lodge. Grand Lodge, Taldor and Osirion wouldn't be missed tooooo much by me, either; I'd really hate to see Andoran or Cheliax get cut, though.

It was tongue in cheek more picking on Alexander than anything. It's why I went back and placed a smile with a wink. He's a Saints fan and I'm required to pick on him once a week at minimum.

hey don't pick on saints fans. if you're born in the new orleans area they inject you with something that makes you loyal no matter how horribly they do. i'm sure of it.

honestly, how do you think they kept any fans considering they didn't have a winning season (win more games than they lose) for the first 20 years of their existence?

Its a good thing the samurai I am making for Lantern Lodge has an easy way out of service by way of becoming Ronin...

Cripes, 50 new posts? Anything I should know?

Cripes, 50 new posts? Anything I should know?

All characters will be reset for the end of the world. Every character involved gets a boon that gives them a one-time +1 bonus on Knowledge (Nobility). Everybody should panic.