A Pathfinder Society Scenario designed for levels 1–5.
Valuable relics of religious natures have been disappearing on their way into Absalom and the Pathfinder Society stands to lose countless irreplaceable artifacts if the cause isn't found. Amid the bustling markets of the God's Market in the shadow of the Starstone Cathedral, the Society sets a plan in motion to ensure the parties responsible for the recent thefts are caught and brought to justice.
Written by Dennis Baker.
This scenario is designed for play in Pathfinder Society Organized Play, but can easily be adapted for use with any world. This scenario is compliant with the Open Game License (OGL) and is suitable for use with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.
Product Availability
Fulfilled immediately.
Are there errors or omissions in this product information? Got corrections? Let us know at
store@paizo.com.
Just finished The God's Market Gamble (PFS 3-18) playing at low tier levels 1-2 with my Cleric 2. I gotta be honest with you guys. This took our table with 7 people a long time to do, mainly because of the large numbers of chase challenges that requires skills that no one character at 1st level would have. But .. the thing is. That chase scene was FUN. REALLY FUN. Two of us at the table had done The Disappeared together and the token that we got for that scenario was useful during the chase scene and we made full use of it, which made it even more fun.
We also did things in the wrong order which made things .. interesting for us to do. We also skipped over 1 interview, but at that point, we were running out of time for our slot, so we had to hurry things along. I'm afraid I'm going to have to give this one all 4 or 5 stars even though there were flaws in the scenario, just because the entire table was a laugh riot the entire time. Big props to the GM who ran the game as well, who was unflappable in the face of players who were mostly interested in the luls.
There was a fair amount of rail-roading causing at least one transition to not work well. Basically the group came up with the same solution that the scenario presents later. That said, I did enjoy the investigation portion of the plot. It is the transitions that felt really clunky. It needed a better way of allowing multiple paths to reach the end.
The ending battle can be really tough, make sure you consider the terrain.
From a player's point of view, this was probably the scenario I have liked least of those I have played. We played 4 characters at tier 4-5, the arcane spellcaster that ran with us was only a level 3. I felt that the scenario encounters leading up to the final battle were fine if somewhat frustrating. However, the final showdown at the end was far more deadly than I have ever encountered -- so much so that it felt like a no-win situation. Granted, in retrospect we did not prepare as thoroughly as we might have and we did not have six characters to improve our mix, but it seemed that no matter what we could have done, someone was going to die. Based on the linear (railroad) tracks of the adventure, there was no way to work around it.
My suggestion to those who might still play this: bring a big party with a good mix of skills/spells to improve your individual PCs survivability and be prepared for the worst.
Let me start by saying that I haven't run God's Market Gamble, this is coming from a player stand point, so take that for what it's worth, but but GDG was the worst pathfinder society scenario I have ever played.
I've never felt so railroaded into situations that work against the players so badly as in this scenario. And the worst part is that where most scenario's give players different moments to shine, GMG forced players to perform in situations that they were poorly suited to. At one point in our adventure there were mandatory checks for characters that were actually impossible to make, and by the time the final encounter rolled around and we were already into several rounds of inept combat, I looked around the table to see the GM was the only one having fun, everyone else had this dejected look on their faces that all seemed to say "Why are we even playing this stupid game?"
Now don't get me wrong, it's nice to be challenged once in a while, but it only ever feels like a challenge if there's something you can reasonably do to overcome it. This felt more like being kicked while you were down. Actually, this felt more like being told you were down, and then being kicked for it.
It seems a lot of GMs like this scenario quite a bit, because the villain is actually competent and has good tactics, but it's good to remember that more often than not it's more fun when the villains plans go sideways and you get the better of them. And trading fun for the players for fun for the GM is a poor way to get people to keep playing.
Now I know scenarios can differ with different GMs and different party composition, but I've had nights that were complete failures feel more like successes than this scenario that we did manage to succeed at.
Also, we did play at the low tier, so things could be different for a group of more experienced pathfinders, with a few more tricks up their sleeves.
UPDATE: So I thought it might be a little unfair to judge the scenario from just having played it, and having now read through the scenario twice, I've come to realize it was a number of bad GM calls and improper implementation of the written material that handcuffed our PCs more than the actual write up. As such it goes from 1 star to 3, still think some of the original complaints are still valid, but it was probably the GM interpretation that turned it into such an aggravating adventure. Just goes to show how much a bad night for a GM can affect a game.
Looking forward to this one tonight Dennis. After Sewer Dragons (which remains my favorite scenario from Season 3 so far) you've set the bar pretty high!
Looking very good so far: Investigation, roleplay, complications, link to an unusual piece of setting background.
A couple of possible tactics/spell errors I spotted on first skim:
Was there a miscalculation or resize of the, erm, maguffin?
Spoiler:
Shrink Item is 2 cubic ft per level and by my calculation the item is over 28 cubic ft so unless we have a 15th level spell shrink isn’t happening. So it looks like we either have to resize the maguffin or ignore the tactic or be "creative" about hollow objects and shrink item RAI. Also as specified I think it would weigh three quarters of a ton when full which seems a bit much. Dropping the size of the item by 1 ft in each dimension would fix it.
Otherwise this is a fun and smart tactic.
This is a city based encounter and I don’t think you can
The keg is nearly empty, with only some dregs in there. There is a reference to this in the description of the item but reading it, I can see how you missed it. "The keg has old char marks on it as if it had been in a fire, and it still sloshes with the remnants of hops and ale." I thought I'd said it explicitly, but looking at the text, it's not very clear. The keg is empty with some dregs sloshing in the bottom.
With regards to shrink item, I suppose there is a question of whether an items volume includes the empty space inside of it, or just the item itself. My assumption was that so long as the contents of the container, plus the physical container were less than the total volume you are fine. If this bothers you then perhaps a smaller keg might make sense or increase the caster level of the scroll.
You can either assume a small amount of grass and plants is growing in this relatively un-trafficked alley or just use an alternate spell, the two of them have a fairly decent mix of spells to pull from.
My comment about weight when full was to point out it was very large, possibly infeasibly large. I appreciate that excluding air the volume is probably only about 2 cf.
It may trigger player mutterings using Shrink and Entangle in that way. I wouldn't normally rule that either of those spells worked like that.
Entangle applies to the last encounter too. Though there may be a market stall or two that provides the greenery for a fun application of it.
Tom Qadim
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32, 2012 Top 4
There is some potential confusion about the Sczarni faction mission which mentions the fence specifically but he doesn't have the list the players are looking for, the list they are looking for is in the warehouse.
Perhaps, have Barnell tell the PCs he gets all his clients from his contact.
Aye, it is truly a great scenario. I had a blast running it and my players thoroughly enjoyed playing it. The God's Market Gamble felt very cinematic, thanks in large to the chase scene, and my players really immersed themselves in the investigation.
Not sure what I was thinking there, maybe there was a change in poison type. I suggest you just run it how it's written and not worry about it too much.
Gencon session last night was a blast - party really loved this scenario. There were four dwarves at the table, and at one point in the scenario the game turned into a spontaneous pub crawl. When they encountered the Maguffin
Spoiler:
the last keg that Caiden Cailean drank from before the Test of the Starstone
,
the game temporarily turned into a giant drinking party. Good fun.
I just played this today. It was a lot of fun with the variety of challenges and character driven plot.
I have only played the scenario, I have not read it yet. I do have one big question/point of clarification.
Spoiler:
In the final combat the setting was the market place. The BBEG is 20 feet up in a crow’s nest. The GM said the scenario specifically states that the BBEG has a clear line of sight to "every square in the marketplace". Huh? Why? It’s a busy market. There are carts and small shops all over the place. Why can’t a player duck behind an Orange Stand to gain Total Cover? This seems perfectly logical and a really fun way to use the artful terrain provided. Otherwise just have it in an open courtyard. Having no cover is frankly murder on level 1 characters. It makes no sense to me. Please clarify the intent of that phrase in the scenario and how it’s supposed to work.
I did double check this and I made a mistake when I said that. The words said: Nearly everywhere in the market. So I gave cover to people with no clear line of sight during the combat. It was early on in the original initiative order as well. (1rst round) So it was corrected and I blamed myself for not reading it correctly :)