|
After having just run an all weekend long block of the pathfinder modules, I’d like to give a few suggestions on the faction missions. :-)
I have always loved the idea of faction missions and I have seen them pulled off poorly in some organized campaigns and very well done in others (Living Arcanis). I might suggest that you not have a mission for every faction in every single mod. As it stands right now, everyone knows that everyone else has some secret agenda that they have to accomplish and it seems to take away a little of the mystery surrounding them as well as their importance. “Oh yeah, what do you have to do this time Joe? Ah. No biggie, I’ll give you a hand if you want.” Additionally, with every faction having a mission, the faction that is going to have the largest impact on the campaign is just going to be the faction with the most players. Was this intentional or a side-effect?
While I know that some people really dislike character conflict in any form, I would also suggest that occasionally the faction missions should conflict with one another. Maybe one group wants to destroy something that is important to another group, or they both want the same thing, etc. This is especially true of factions like Cheliax. I mean really. They worship Asmodus. They are not going to play nice very often.
What do other people think? Do they like the faction missions as they stand right now? I'm curious.
-Toni
|
I'm pretty cool with the way faction missions work now.
As for which faction rises to the top? Well sure it's going to be easier for the most represented, but these missions are by no means automatic. This goes double for bonus missions.
And sometimes missions can go awry just by wording. Three specific missions come to mind, one of which doesn't give such an opportunity at all.
|
I agree with you Toni. I would like to see Pathfinder Society more like Living Arcanis when it comes to PVP and faction missions. I think the missions need to be a lot harder than they have been. I can see the logic in making them appear more randomly as well. I've seen players make agreements with the other factions to share their missions and although this is not explicitly forbidden I think it goes against the spirit of the game. Perhaps if we understood the consequences of the competition between the factions it would discourage players from being so cooperative. It would be nice if the GM had a carrot to offer players who role-played their faction's ethos well. It's my opinion that there's too much feel-good, everyone's-a-winner-because-they-tried in Pathfinder Society and it erodes the gritty flavor I tasted when I first read the Guide to PFS OP.
|
Perhaps if we understood the consequences of the competition between the factions it would discourage players from being so cooperative. It would be nice if the GM had a carrot to offer players who role-played their faction's ethos well. It's my opinion that there's too much feel-good, everyone's-a-winner-because-they-tried in Pathfinder Society and it erodes the gritty flavor I tasted when I first read the Guide to PFS OP.
I think that it was part of the play test of season 0. I would like to see some multi-faction missions (Cheliax and Quardia securing/helping a slaver together ect). I have had missions fail at my tables. I do think that missions should depend on the number of players that have played that scenario... so if 12 andorans played and 11 got faction mission correct than they get 11/12... if one Chel plays and gets it he gets 1/1 but I'm not sure how well that would work.
|
|
I agree with you Toni.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like you guys are mixing up IC and OOC. OOC I can see why the rules are as such, and fully appreciate the reasoning.
From an IC perspective I know *my* character is part of an underground faction that wishes for more influence over the world and that it's not the only one out there. What my character doesn't know is that every PC I adventure with is in the same boat, more specifically who else is a PC.
For Season 1 and the new rules set, I'm moving away from the idea of Prestige Award dictating one faction being "ahead" of another and more toward the idea of Prestige Award dictating what gear is available to you. I'm less excited about the idea of 1/5 of the players "winning" than I am about players advancing and having fun during each round.
|
|
For Season 1 and the new rules set, I'm moving away from the idea of Prestige Award dictating one faction being "ahead" of another and more toward the idea of Prestige Award dictating what gear is available to you.
Whoa, are you telling me that there will be no 'shift of power' come GenCon?
Don't get me wrong, I couldn't care less if I got a perk for 'guessing' which faction would be most effective. My problem is that there was this promise I heard back when this was first being talked about in the valley of the sun that these factions were 'on equal footing in the City at the Center of the World, each poised to seize control of the city' which I took to mean come *this* GenCon we'd be seeing one heck of an explosion.
Be that explosion the enslavement of Colson Maldris as the Chelaxians forcibly take charge, or the gouging of some Decemverate eyes by Amenopheus (the rheumatoid sage), or an Andoran elected to primarchy despite political shenanigans, or Pasha Muhlia Al-Jakri crippling Absalom's merchant class through contract and dagger, or Taldor turning the grand council into their puppets.
I never expected some sort of grand prize, but for everything to grind to a standstill, that's the path of ruin.
|
For Season 1 and the new rules set, I'm moving away from the idea of Prestige Award dictating one faction being "ahead" of another and more toward the idea of Prestige Award dictating what gear is available to you.Whoa, are you telling me that there will be no 'shift of power' come GenCon?
Don't get me wrong, I couldn't care less if I got a perk for 'guessing' which faction would be most effective. My problem is that there was this promise I heard back when this was first being talked about in the valley of the sun that these factions were 'on equal footing in the City at the Center of the World, each poised to seize control of the city' which I took to mean come *this* GenCon we'd be seeing one heck of an explosion.
Be that explosion the enslavement of Colson Maldris as the Chelaxians forcibly take charge, or the gouging of some Decemverate eyes by Amenopheus (the rheumatoid sage), or an Andoran elected to primarchy despite political shenanigans, or Pasha Muhlia Al-Jakri crippling Absalom's merchant class through contract and dagger, or Taldor turning the grand council into their puppets.
I never expected some sort of grand prize, but for everything to grind to a standstill, that's the path of ruin.
I played a Living Greyhawk interactive a few years ago in which there was a boat race skiing along a frozen river. Teams had to race to a check-point, then search for hidden idols representing one of the Greyhawk gods. There were potentially two idols per team. This race is held every year, and the first team across the line can declare any one of their held idols (Deities) to hold favour over the next 12 months. The previous year was won by the Deity holding the winter portfolio, hence many of the scenarios for that season contained references to failing crops and unseasonal weather and hence the race being held on a frozen river this year. Most teams were keen to break that deity's hold on the region for the next 12 months.
This is the kind of influence I might have expected from the shadow war in Absalom, for example.
|
|
I suppose I can see how someone could take what I’m saying as confusing OOC and IC. Honestly, it is a little bit of both. I think that the actions IC should affect more of the OOC in terms of which group has the greater influence in the world. (Which, I guess is sorta OOC and IC!) I think that it shouldn’t necessarily be how many people play this particular faction, but if they were successful, how they were successful, and WHICH of the missions were successful. Right now, it doesn’t matter if I stick a note proclaiming the evils of slavery, or I rob a tomb - the outcome is the same. Unfortunately, I’m not really sure how to dictate this any better. Perhaps have premiers have a greater impact? Or make the missions more difficult? (I know that people say failing can happen but in my experience, it has been very rare.)
While the groups with the most players will have a greater pool of points, I think the world itself should also affect who is going to rise. I mean, say you have this tiny country but 75% of the players are have that as their faction and a massive country has only 5% - shouldn’t the size or even current power of the country have SOME affect on it? Maybe I just want too much realism in my gaming. :D
This should absolutely be about fun, cleverness, and struggle. There should be missions that make you or the others at your table go ‘OH!’ or missions that make the character that is doing it think twice. As well as missions that a character may outright refuse – to which there should also be consequences.
Maybe I’m also saying that right now they seem too simple and too straightforward? I agree with Doug that to me, it just seems that everyone is happy-lovey, everyone did a good job type feeling. Which is fine sometimes but I wonder if it should be the norm.
I will say that I love the little story points and details that are written into the missions. Currently, they are written in such a way as to give a good feel of the faction that they are representing. Awesomeness in a can!
-Toni
|
|
I have always loved the idea of faction missions and I have seen them pulled off poorly in some organized campaigns and very well done in others (Living Arcanis).
While I know that some people really dislike character conflict in any form, I would also suggest that occasionally the faction missions should conflict with one another. Maybe one group wants to destroy something that is important to another group, or they both want the same thing, etc.
As I have expressed in other threads, I have seen too many instances of Living Arcanis games put on hold for an hour while two players argue over who recovered/destroyed a particular item, while the GM attempts to adjudicate the no-win situation, while the other players at the table sit by helplessly, until one player storms from the table mid-game. I don't EVER want to see this occur in a Society game, and I think the organised play guidelines and non-conflicting faction missions go a long way to help ensure this.
Having said that, however, I have explored alternative ways of dealing with faction missions (deliberately failing faction missions) which have lead to Living Arcanis like mission conflicts, so I do appreciate the appeal, but perhaps only within home games among friends rather than open to the public convention sessions where you may be unfamiliar with the other players at the table, and things can get personal and ugly real fast.
|
|
This should absolutely be about fun, cleverness, and struggle. There should be missions that make you or the others at your table go ‘OH!’ or missions that make the character that is doing it think twice. As well as missions that a character may outright refuse – to which there should also be consequences.
Maybe I’m also saying that right now they seem too simple and too straightforward?
Some missions do seem too simplistic, you literally trip over some faction mission items you need to recover.
Examples of faction missions I have enjoyed:
Posting counter-revolutionary notices in public places - players can get real creative with these kind of missions which can be very entertaining!
Faction missions with moral dilemmas attached, which some characters have to think real hard about whether they want that prestige point or maintain their integrity.
Examples of faction missions I haven't enjoyed:
Missions which require the faction player to make a skill check penalises the player for not having enough ranks or poor dice rolls, leaving success/failure to random chance can be quite disappointing.
Instead, mission objects should be discovered by overcoming an encounter which the whole group may help with, eg a ring worn by an enemy who needs to be defeated, or climbing a tree and defending against an eagle protecting it's nest.
|
|
Examples of faction missions I haven't enjoyed:
Missions which require the faction player to make a skill check penalises the player for not having enough ranks or poor dice rolls, leaving success/failure to random chance can be quite disappointing.
.
Humm...You can always ask to another player having the appropriate skill to make the check for you: better be less secretive than incur total failure. Of course the other (faction!) player may or may not help you....
Remember also when outside combat you can take 10 on many skill checks...
Such skill related missions are good for overall game balance: you don't need anymore just doing damage (and healing it) like in RPGA's Living Greyhawk.
|
|
Also you can hire people (DMG 105 ok'd by J himself) to do these checks for you. In one instance when the whole party failed a DC 15 roll the pair of faction members held 'auditions' involving scholars being asked to 'relate the significance' of something (with a fairly long line of hopefuls). Thankfully the dice suddenly went hot natural 20, saving time and coin.
Whoa, are you telling me that there will be no 'shift of power' come GenCon?
I certainly didn't say that. If one of the factions has done better during the year, it *may* influence our product lines in a subtle fashion through the next season. That's always been the stated goal in so far as "shift of power" is concerned.
Don't get me wrong, I couldn't care less if I got a perk for 'guessing' which faction would be most effective. My problem is that there was this promise I heard back when this was first being talked about in the valley of the sun that these factions were 'on equal footing in the City at the Center of the World, each poised to seize control of the city' which I took to mean come *this* GenCon we'd be seeing one heck of an explosion.
To be fair, just because someone takes our description of season 0 to mean we'd cause "one heck of an explosion" doesn't automatically make it so we did. The factions began season 0 on even footing and the season is deciding where that footing lays, but in the end, I'm less happy alienating 4/5 of the org play system by calling them losers and very happy about telling everyone they get gear based on their ability to complete missions for their faction. This system prevents the "I'm going to make a Chelish character and intentionally fail missions to make them lose" idea.
Be that explosion the enslavement of Colson Maldris as the Chelaxians forcibly take charge, or the gouging of some Decemverate eyes by Amenopheus (the rheumatoid sage), or an Andoran elected to primarchy despite political shenanigans, or Pasha Muhlia Al-Jakri crippling Absalom's merchant class through contract and dagger, or Taldor turning the grand council into their puppets.
The last thing I'm going to do is actually change the world based on org play. Can't do it, won't do it, not interested in doing it. What I *am* interested in doing is subtly shifting the power based on OP and dropping periodic hints into products throughout the next year about who is gaining and who is waning in power. We never promised the world itself would be changed--in fact, we stated the opposite numerous times. It's not my world to break.
I never expected some sort of grand prize, but for everything to grind to a standstill, that's the path of ruin.
I fail to see how this is anything of the sort.
stuff about LG
That.
|
|
This system prevents the "I'm going to make a Chelish character and intentionally fail missions to make them lose" idea.
Thanks Josh, your point duly noted :-)
Slips antics aside for a moment, I hope this doesn't mean the end of controversial faction missions which make a character choose between completing a faction mission, or forfeiting it on moral grounds? The one I have in mind (without giving away too many spoilers) was the first meeting with Grandmaster Torch (I haven't played the second one yet). I've run this scenario four times now, and each time it has been one of the most debated in-game sessions we've seen, and has lead to one character choosing to forfeit his faction mission on moral grounds.
I can think of other hypothetical situations, a faction mission to free a prisoner who you know to be guilty of his crime, etc. With Cheliax, slavery, and other edgy elements common throughout Golarion, I think these situations can lead to brilliant role-playing opportunities.
The caveat, of course, is that they don't lead to player vs player conflict, perhaps a secret faction mission confines the conflict to a single player's inner-conflict alone.
This could be tricky to script, and I'd understand if Society scenarios avoided conflicts for the reasons stated previously, but these are the scenarios that leave everyone feeling they've participated in a roleplaying experience to remember.