|
An obvious observation:
The more players of the same faction at a table, the easier it is to complete this faction secret(s) mission(s).
Thus, for convention play, we should limit the number of characters of the same faction at two per table. If you have 3 or more of the same faction the table, these guys controls the party agenda...
(In the event were this situation is unavoidable cause we do not have all the time we want for marshalling tables, then we should instruct the GM to be 'thougher' on secret mission objectives).
Something else:
It could be interesting, however, for only one slot of a 'big convention next summer' , to marshall tables with every character belonging to the same faction! Think it would be quite fun to meet some of our 'faction brothers' in a special scenario. Of course, faction objectives would be quite hard to meet in such scenario...
For the Glory of PFS.....!!!
An obvious observation:
The more players of the same faction at a table, the easier it is to complete this faction secret(s) mission(s).
Thus, for convention play, we should limit the number of characters of the same faction at two per table. If you have 3 or more of the same faction the table, these guys controls the party agenda...
(In the event were this situation is unavoidable cause we do not have all the time we want for marshalling tables, then we should instruct the GM to be 'thougher' on secret mission objectives).
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the mission objectives were not supposed to be particularly difficult to complete. It's just a fun extra thing to do.
|
Essel, it seems like what you are proposing would needlessly complicate the game. Mustering balanced tables is already difficult enough without bringing in faction balance. Some people like to keep their faction a secret from the other players, what you propose may give that away. Players are not supposed to oppose other players over faction orders. If it does occur the GM is supposed to intervene and facilitate a solution so everyone has an opportunity to succeed. Having a lot of PCs who belong to the same faction at the same table is a double-edged sword, so I can see why Essel would feel it appropriate to spread them out. But if I come to GenCon with a group of friends and all our characters belong to the same faction & create a balanced party, I'm not going to be happy when a marshal tells me he/she has to split us up so everyone can have more fun. I haven't heard any significant number of players complain that they were railroaded by a table of like-minded players who all belonged to the same faction. Until that happens, I'd leave Essel's suggestion up to the players when they muster rather than make it a convention rule.
I know I sound like I'm being contrary to new ideas, but the theme of Pathfinder Society seems to be "Let's keep it simple, the complications will happen without us helping to create them". Some people would like to see specific changes made, but I'd rather the vocal minority not dictate the direction the campaign takes. I trust the campaign administration to observe and evaluate what needs to be changed. Every time a new rule is introduced it has to be integrated into the Guidelines document also. I'd prefer there be as few revisions as possible to the Guidelines to PFS Organized Play. It reduces the wear and tear on our campaign admin.
|
|
Essel, it seems like what you are proposing would needlessly complicate the game. Mustering balanced tables is already difficult enough without bringing in faction balance. Some people like to keep their faction a secret from the other players, what you propose may give that away. Players are not supposed to oppose other players over faction orders. If it does occur the GM is supposed to intervene and facilitate a solution so everyone has an opportunity to succeed. Having a lot of PCs who belong to the same faction at the same table is a double-edged sword, so I can see why Essel would feel it appropriate to spread them out. But if I come to GenCon with a group of friends and all our characters belong to the same faction & create a balanced party, I'm not going to be happy when a marshal tells me he/she has to split us up so everyone can have more fun. I haven't heard any significant number of players complain that they were railroaded by a table of like-minded players who all belonged to the same faction. Until that happens, I'd leave Essel's suggestion up to the players when they muster rather than make it a convention rule.
Doug, I am pretty sure some people will come to GenCon with "pre-mustered tables of the same faction" and I would like to assess beforehand if this may cause some problems.
If everyone is of the same faction, think it is fair for every player.
If there is 5 Taldor and 1 Osirion, I would feel uncomfortable at that table.
|
|
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the mission objectives were not supposed to be particularly difficult to complete. It's just a fun extra thing to do.
Hogarth, you are right at least for 1 PA Pathfinder Chronicles.
For Chronicles with 2 PA, it is my opinion as a GM (and other GMs also) that the 2nd PA should be more difficult to get...
And mission objectives are more than just an extra funnny thing, seems to me that most of game fun and role-play comes from these missions...
|
|
I have to strongly agree with Doug. You go to a con to play with friends, some who may live in different parts of the country. If someone tried to dictate, that due to the same faction, we would be unable to play together. That would seriously turn me off the system.
I have been at tables where 4 members of the same faction missed the PA and the 2 players from other factions got it.
The point is to have fun
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hello, Essel. thank you for posting. You bring up some good points.
I have a few questions: you say that you would feel uneasy being, say, the only Osirian PC at your table if everyone else were, say, Taldan. Why? Do you feel that their characters would try to prevent you from completing your faction mission?
My understanding is that that wouldn't be allowed.
Second, you feel that the faction missions are a big part of the adventures. I haven't gotten that impression. And it would be a shame if a bunch of friends were told that they couldn't play together because other people were placing importance on an aspect of the game they probably couldn't care less about.
For what it's worth, I've run four PFS tables: to at conventions, and two at a local game store. In three of them, the players completely ignored the faction missions and just played to win the scenario.
Also, you say that a second faction point should be tougher, and you say that other DMs agree with you. Is that a preference stated on the boards anywhere?
Lastly, you do realize that mustering in one big clump is counter-productive, right? If all of my local Qadiran allies join with me at a table, we'll very likely to achieve one Qadiran faction mission. If we were spread among five tables, we could have achieved five faction missions.
(Josh, am I getting that right?)
|
|
In my limited experience with playing the first four scenarios, I have observed the missions usually do not conflict. The only conflict I saw among them was in the secret, bonus PA. My understanding was that to get the bonus point, you had to understand and roleplay your faction correctly. Because the second PA action was not in the faction mission handout, you were more likely to take the action if you were acting in character.
On the other hand, there are some things that give the impression that faction missions are more competitive than I'd hoped. For instance, the Qadiran sleight of hand bonus feat, and ambiguity about the t-shirts. I'm a strong proponent of the view that you should only get the free re-roll if you're honest about your faction. If someone in the faction you're wearing relied on you to get the award because they weren't playing a good class match for whatever the goal was, I think they would be bitter you deceived them. I also feel that the three rules on player conduct should be enough to get people to play as if their characters are unaware that the other pathfinders in the party belong to different factions. Since the award is shared to all characters in the faction if one character suceeds, I think it's fine to assume that all characters in a faction know who their allies are. But it doesn't follow they would assume the other PCs are in other factions; it might be perfectly logical to think they're just ordinary pathfinders.
|
|
Hello, Essel. thank you for posting. You bring up some good points.
I have a few questions: you say that you would feel uneasy being, say, the only Osirian PC at your table if everyone else were, say, Taldan. Why? Do you feel that their characters would try to prevent you from completing your faction mission?
Second, you feel that the faction missions are a big part of the adventures.
Also, you say that a second faction point should be tougher, and you say that other DMs agree with you. Is that a preference stated on the boards anywhere?
Lastly, you do realize that mustering in one big clump is counter-productive, right?
Hello Chris,
Seemed to me during a mod, the other players did prevented me to complete the 2nd PA...(see Moonbeam post in GM discussion: Murder on Silken Caravan).
When I compare PFS with "a past campaign allowing LOTS of extra material from the numerous splatbooks" seem to me that the missions and secret factions are in fact replacing the non-OGL material (for the best).
Think we should suggest Convention players to "spread out factions" (nor more of two of the same per table), but not make it mandatory.
As I said before, packing up tales with everyone belonging to the same faction could be fun also, but during a special slot/mod.
Hope this answers your questions
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I think that when all is said and done, class and level balance should trump factions. They're there to add flavor, and having played 8 scenarios with all sorts of combinations of factions among the players, I've never seen a lopsided table hurt or help a game more than an unbalanced party (like no healer or tank). Especially in conventions, it's really a lot to ask for organizers to add that element into the mustering mix as well, and for very little in-game result.
|
|
I think that when all is said and done, class and level balance should trump factions. They're there to add flavor, and having played 8 scenarios with all sorts of combinations of factions among the players, I've never seen a lopsided table hurt or help a game more than an unbalanced party (like no healer or tank). Especially in conventions, it's really a lot to ask for organizers to add that element into the mustering mix as well, and for very little in-game result.
I agree. Class diversity is a survival imperative in D&D, especially when playing with strangers, as they may be new, casual or infrequent players, or just be used to different tactics. I suppose an all druid or all cleric party would work as an exception, but other than that, you want a balanced party more than a unified front of the same faction.
SPOILERS re: "Murder on the Silken Caravan"
Chad
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
*very tenative anouncement* if some of the judges for Origins want to play the scenarios with their own characters before running them, I'd be willing to run the Convention adventures for Con DMs *very tennative announcement*
Anyway, yes I think that it's better to balance a table with "Ok, table 1 would like a rogue, while table 3 requests a second cleric." instead of "I've a table of Chelish, on rye."
As others have said, mustering a complete table is hard enough--mustering a balanced party at a table is even harder. And adding the "only two faction PCs per table" complexity to the mustering process makes the whole thing downright impossible. This isn't something I'm willing to look into.
There's enough play balanced across a variety of different styles that I'm not afraid of one play style (convention, store, home) out-balancing the others.