|
When I played Silent Tide it was my first Mod. with PFS. At the time the DM indicated to us there were Acts and money would be alotted between acts. We would have immediate access to that cash to buy items in game and we would deduct that amount from our perspective AR at the end of the mod. I have not seen that since the first mod. Now I am about to DM the fourth installment Mists of Mwangi. Mind you I already played it. In that mod. they have acts and it specifically says how much money the players should be awarded or not at the end of each Act. My DM for that mod. never mentioned we could use the money in game as needed between Acts. So my question is: Are some of the mods., particularly the ones structured like 1 and 5, designed to allow players access to there cashflow in game between Acts. Or did the DM misinterpret the structure of the mod in game 1. This question is specifically for PFS Paizo staff but any thoughts are appreciated.
|
|
i think the big difference between Silent Tide and Mists of Mwangi is the setup of the scenario. in Silent Tide, there is assumed to be some time between the acts in which you may have time to spend that money (it's more of a time-based scenario). in Mists of Mwangi, it is assumed
that being said, i haven't seen anything officially stating that PCs can or cannot spend money between acts. it's really going to be up to the DM to use common sense. if the mod involves nothing but the PCs exploring some underground tomb recently discovered in the wild interiors of the Isle of Kortos, there aren't likely to be any opportunities for them to purchase gear between acts.
Venture-Captain, Arizona—Tucson
|
Are some of the mods. (particularly the ones structured like 1 and 5) designed to allow players access to there cashflow in game between Acts. Or did the DM misinterpret the structure of the mod in game 1?
Treasure is calculated at the completion of each act, but the characters' ability to spend their ill-gotten loot depends on whether it's realistic to do so. If a character is in a large city, the PCs could reasonably pass captured equipment to a broker or dealer in such goods. In other circumstances, that might be impossible: Wandering the wilderness, there are few merchants. Gamemasters should be generous; after all, there may just be a fence in Absalom's Puddles District willing to buy salvaged gear in the middle of the night.
Ultimately, it's up to each GM as to when the money is allocated.
My usual interpretation of the ridiculous (in pseudo-reality) valuation for scenarios is that the greedy, rapacious, self-serving, ..., cheating, barbarous Pathfinder Society basically just robs its employees at the end of any given scenario.
"Thanks for bringing us this stuff. Here's your 5% cut. You can buy it back from us at book, since we're feeling generous."
I usually allow my players to sell all loot and use all coin immediately within the scenario when they receive it. I then get the pleasure of shaking out their pockets when they complete their mission. Just have them keep track of what they spend, and if whatever remains is still more than the module lets you keep (and it almost invariably is) then just shake 'em down to the cap at the end.
Excuses:
I get that this is a security measure of sorts to prevent cheating and provide "fairness" (o_O), and this is slightly tongue-in-cheek, but I'm just not a fan of the Greyhawk sheets (unless they're simply more evidence that the PFS is completely and irredeemably evil, which admittedly would be brilliantly meta.)