One module #29 I solved my faction quest but did not get get credit because I figured it out in a round about way and not EXACTLY how the mod said. So no role playing allowed there. I should have just rolled a d20>facepalm<
** spoiler omitted **
You should've been rewarded for finding another solution to your mission, something I'll encourage in a future update of the guide book.
I did enjoy the modules and I like pretty much everything about pathfinder but the Factions and secret quests are pretty much pointless except to have a chance to get more loot if you roll good on a d20.I'm glad you enjoyed them. Most GMs will mix RP in with skill rolls. If you need a good diplomacy roll in my game, for example, I make you roleplay out the conversation and then call for the roll. That way it's not all dice. Not all GMs are the same, however, and I think the roleplaying opportunities in a scenario are directly linked to your GMs style.
DM said Roleplaying gave you +2 on your skill check and that was it for something like intimidate or Diplomacy. It maybe helpful if you included how much a bonus can be awarded.
|
I just played my first 2 pathfinder games. #29 and #30 I was pretty excited about factions and secret missions. After the day was over I came to the realization that faction play is a very small and sad part of pathfinder.
It's true that some scenarios have included some mundane faction missions, but on the whole, factions add a lot of flavour to Pathfinder Society play. I'm sorry the experience was underwhelming for you in this instance, but I'd encourage you to play a few more scenarios and see if you don't agree.
One module #29 I solved my faction quest but did not get get credit because I figured it out in a round about way and not EXACTLY how the mod said. So no role playing allowed there. I should have just rolled a d20
As I watched players try and complete most of their factions secret missions I realized it all came down to dice rolls. If you didn't have the skill chances were you failed your mission.
This is unfortunate. I ran #29 at Unicon last weekend, and the players power-attack/killed everything in the first round of combat, leaving no opportunity for the poor faction member to question anyone. However, he collected evidence exactly as you described to satisfy his faction mission. I never questioned the fact that he didn't make any D20 checks (actually, another character performed a knowledge[religion] roll), he gathered the evidence required to fulfill his faction mission without needing to roll.
I'm reluctant to criticise another GM, because we all dontate our free time to run scenarios for players, and sometimes things don't run as smoothly as we'd like due to time constraints or other reasons, and as Josh said, each GM has their own style, but in this instance I think your GM played hard-line rules-as-written in the scenario, and not really in the spirit of a roleplaying game.
But as I said, different GMs have different approaches to various things, eg at GenConOz one player wanted to lower his pony by rope into the sewers in one scenario, and I said he couldn't - while another GM in a different sewer scenario at the same convention allowed him to do so. Does that make me a bad GM?
There will always be differences of opinion on things during the game, and it's your GM's responsibility to make a ruling during disputes and move the game along. If you have the opportunity, I'd suggest having a friendly chat with your GM about faction missions after the game, suggesting there's often more than one way to accomplish your mission. However, if you consistently run into this problem, and it's affecting your enjoyment of the game, you might want to look for a GM who better suits your style. This isn't always easy, maybe it's your brother running the games, or maybe you're playing at a convention and might not have a choice who GMs your session. If you feel up to the task, you might want to offer to GM a scenario or two yourself, thus sharing the GM burden, and demonstrate your own GM style.
|
As I watched players try and complete most of their factions secret missions I realized it all came down to dice rolls. If you didn't have the skill chances were you failed your mission.
Play in the Taldor faction. Their missions rarely include die rolls. Something I like.
Osirion doesn't have much skill involved either, but their missions are dreadfully boring "fetch me this" type. Well, boring if some player doesn't make a ruckus about it.
Also helping others in faction quests can still be done, I think. "I collect, uh, stamps. Yeah, that's it. Can you get me that letter over there? Thanks!"
|
|
But as I said, different GMs have different approaches to various things, eg at GenConOz one player wanted to lower his pony by rope into the sewers in one scenario, and I said he couldn't - while another GM in a different sewer scenario at the same convention allowed him to do so. Does that make me a bad GM?
If the said sewer entrance would be only 3 feet wide, I wouldn't allow a pony to go in either. Quite often I make a query how the other players feel about a pony being pushed through a manhole. Frankly, mounts (not including dogs) are unsuitable to any underground/dungeon environment.
|
The Pony in the Sewer
In the case of this senario the indication for the opening was a ten foot squaare looking down into a large dry area.
We actually all agreed as a party for this particular player to get his mount into play as he'd had a fairly frustrating time at the Con so far with many of the missions not allowing his mount for use.
He waas a gnome riding a medium mount (same size category as a riding dog you'll note). It weighed about the same as the half orc paladin in his armour and none of us were being asked to roll balance checks or move over difficult ground.
In this particular case, the mount was fine as far as we were all concerned :) Particularly since it was a trained war mount.
It also added a lot of humour to the situation which we all appreciated at the time.
As for faction missions
At GenCon Oz we played down the importance of faction missions a little, mostly becasue the majority of players were of one faction. I played two games where I was the only character not of the same the faction as the others. If we'd played up the faction missions a little more, this would have left me fairly isolated.
However, on Sunday, as I said in my earlier post, my faction mission specifically required good roleplay to succeed. I had to get some diplomatic stuff achieved but it had to be done secretly so the other party memebers didn't find out. It was a very challenging situation and one that really encouraged my creativeness, and it was handled very well by the DM.
Hopefully you won't let two scenarios spoil your impression of the Faction missions completely. They do vary.
Cheers
|
|
The Pony in the Sewer
I think the difference between a Pony being lowered into a sewer by rope, and a character climbing down himself, are things like arms, legs, opposable thumbs, familiarity with the task vs fear of not having all four feet firmly on solid ground, etc. I've seen too many incidences of distressed horses having to be pulled out of mud-holes they could not get themselves out of, or being put down after a steeple-chase fall, because they weren't built for such tasks. Though this is a fantasy game, and maybe "war-trained" counters some of these concerns?
I've also taken to heart Jason Bulmahn's comments regarding giving Paladins the option of a bonded weapon instead of a warhorse, because you can't take your horse with you into every dungeon.
Another point to make is that some players optimise their characters for mounted combat, and will take every opportunity to do so*, even when the situation is rediculous. I'm not suggesting this was the case with this player, and I don't encourage taking toys away from players, but just as a Cleric in a scenario without Undead, or a Ranger far from his favoured terrain with his favoured enemies nowhere to be found, players sometimes need to be reminded that not all scenarios are suited to their particular niche.
*Similar incident: we had just played a Season 0 scenario in which the antagonists were wielding spiked chains. I discussed with the players I was substituting for whips instead, because spiked chains no longer grant reach, and discussed the reasons this weapon was down-graded in Pathfinder RPG. Then in the very next scenario, one of the players swapped his character out for one wielding an Urumi from the Campaign Setting book, which he declared was even more broken than the spiked chain! I (not so discreetly) looked up Chapter 13 of the Guide to Organised Play, and then searched the Paizo messageboards on my mobile phone, expecting to see this weapon on the banned list, but no such ruling was apparent, so I kept my concerns to myself. To be fair, I haven't compared the urumi with the spiked chain to see whether it should have suffered the same fate, but I was a little taken aback by the player's brazeness, nonetheless.
In retrospect, I could have been more lenient with the pony, I made a decision on the spot, though I thought it was a reasonable one to make under the circumstances. But it does come down to GM style, which is why I mentioned it in this context. Though the arguments Wrath makes above are also good ones.
|
|
Then in the very next scenario, one of the players swapped his character out for one wielding an Urumi from the Campaign Setting book, which he declared was even more broken than the spiked chain! I (not so discreetly) looked up Chapter 13 of the Guide to Organised Play, and then searched the Paizo messageboards on my mobile phone, expecting to see this weapon on the banned list, but no such ruling was apparent, so I kept my concerns to myself. To be fair, I haven't compared the urumi with the spiked chain to see whether it should have suffered the same fate, but I was a little taken aback by the player's brazeness, nonetheless.
Urumi is a lot better than Spiked Chain when regarding damage and overall "hurting" capability, but worse in the aspects of tricking. Flying Talon (Campaign Setting as well) is a mini-Spiked chain, doing all the necessary tricks but lacking damage output.
I wonder what weapon my Finesse Trickster fighter should use once Flying Talon is nerfed. It's inevitable, I know. Might also make the trickster almost useless.
About the substitution though ... I wouldn't substitute Spiked chains with whips. Knowing the encounter, the enemies would become laughable as they would have no way to deal damage with their whips. I need to put this into large consideration what to do with the encounter, as that encounter is not backwards compatible. Paizo people can say whatever they want, but it's not compatible. The tactics do not work with the current weapons. They just don't.
|
|
About the substitution though ... I wouldn't substitute Spiked chains with whips. Knowing the encounter, the enemies would become laughable as they would have no way to deal damage with their whips.
You're right. I know whips only deal non-lethal damage, I was okay with that, but I didn't realise they do NO damage to anyone with an armour bonus of +1 or better. Hmmm ... note that one for future reference.
I need to put this into large consideration what to do with the encounter, as that encounter is not backwards compatible. Paizo people can say whatever they want, but it's not compatible. The tactics do not work with the current weapons. They just don't.
I agree. I've deliberated over this both times I ran it.
At GenConOz, I asked the players when they approached the encounter whether they wanted to play it with 3.5 reach opponents, or Pathfinder non-reach opponents? Given the terrain, they all agreed it wouldn't provide the same challenge without reach, so we ran it the old-school way.
More recently at Unicon, I tried a quick conversion by substituting spiked chains with whips. In hind-sight, I probably should have substituted with long-spears.
Live and learn.
|
|
The Pony in the Sewer
I was wondering if there were any precedents, so I googled "Lord of the Rings" (the book our beloved game was inspired by) and "Pony" and found the following:
Q: When was Bill forced to leave the company?
A: Moria. Bill would not be able to maneuver through the mines of Moria so they had to leave him.
Poor Bill :-(
|
In retrospect, I could have been more lenient with the pony, I made a decision on the spot, though I thought it was a reasonable one to make under the circumstances. But it does come down to GM style, which is why I mentioned it in this context. Though the arguments Wrath makes above are also good ones.
I think this is the thing that matters. DMs at these games have to keep flow as well as rules consistency, or fun breaks down for everyone.
I wouldn't tell a Dm they were wrong for allowing it, or disallowing it. I would have issues with failing a faction mission that was "find out this persons deity" for bringing back their holy symbol. Unless of course they hadn't used it when casting spells, and they were the sort of person who would carry a fake around to put people off the scent... ;)
|
|
Steering the boat back on course...
Not all GMs are the same, however, and I think the roleplaying opportunities in a scenario are directly linked to your GMs style.
Unfortunately, as I observed above, roleplaying opportunities in a scenario, at least as I've discovered from playing module-based organized-play campaigns, are also directly linked to the number of combats in a four-hour module.
Four-plus is just too many. The combats crowd everything else out.
GMing style, there's nothing the central leadership can do about that. The number of combats per module, central leadership has control over that.
-Matt
|
|
Steering the boat back on course...
Unfortunately, as I observed above, roleplaying opportunities in a scenario, at least as I've discovered from playing module-based organized-play campaigns, are also directly linked to the number of combats in a four-hour module.
Four-plus is just too many. The combats crowd everything else out.
-Matt
Certainly the 4 games I played hold up to this idea Matt. The first two were combat intensive and far less roleplay could be achieved (within the time constraints of a Con game). The second two had far less combat and more roleplay investigation.
However I liked the mix. It's good to have a blend of scenario types. It makes life more interesting for players. Perhaps there could be a bit of an indication of the style of play that a scenario supports. If a scenario mentions combat intensive, or diplomatic mission or investigation it might help players decide their preferred scenarios based on play style.
Unfortunately that also tends to give away info about scencarios and also can be a self fulfilling kind of idea. (If you tell people its a combat heavy game, they solve everythign with combat :) )
Dark white (and those reading the pony scenario) - spoilered to stop derailing topic :)
I agree it's a GMs choice and none of the players at our table argued that. We only really let this situation happen to increase that players enjoyment. It was a fun situation but we didn't over do it. There were places the pony couldn't go, and the poor old gnome had to ride the long way to get most places.
It was fun.
The same Gm prevented the pony from entering the boat in the previous scenario, because we couldn't come up with a plausable way to get it on and use it. The palyer was happy enough to oblige.
I think it all worked for the best really. It would have been interesting to see what happened to the poor pony if any blocking terrain had occured or some form of gas or scary creature spooked it into the water. Ahhh, fun times.
|
|
Why even be secret about it [faction missions]?
I've been wondering the same. The character I'm currently playing - absolutely clueless, and without any knowledge skills - did the following for the faction missions of his first three scenarios.
Scenario 1 Does anyone know what does this McGuffin that I'm describing in detail (as it reads in this letter) look like? Or where might I find something like that, in case I would need to find it?
Scenario 2 (after being disrupted a few times when trying to read his faction mission) Hmm.. The letter I got has far too many far too fancy words for me to understand. My fellow pathfinder from another faction, could you read this letter to me? Or better yet, could you just state what I need to do. Thank you.
Scenario 3 Outrageous! Now they're expecting me to do this - which I'm describing in detail. This has to be an error. Instead, I'm going to do it this way (alternative way for getting the faction points), as surely this is what they meant.
I actually think giving out the faction missions have made them far more enjoyable. And they have generated a lot more role playing than keeping them to myself. Which, quite frankly, generates none.
|
|
I share the frustration of role-play vs roll-play in the PFS scenarios. What I have found is even scenarios that scream "role-play!" many players will ignore the opportunity and roll for init instead.
I am very curious about this thread. This is going to be the litmus test of whether good roleplaying is valued. And the ownership is on everyone, GMs and players alike to ensure the hackers-n-slashers do not monopolize the industry with kick-in-the-door actions all the time. There is a time and a place for all styles, but we should not succumb to think-headed play when PAIZO goes to great lengths to design incredible stories!
-Pax
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm for think-headed play. ;)
I know. But give me an opportunity...
BUSY, man. You? You've been sparse on the ground lately, so I imagine very much so.
|
How important is it in PFS to be optimised and how much is character flavour? I know in RPGA you would just about get shot for coming to a con with a non combat orientaed character.
It really depends. It most depends on the difficulty of the scenario and it also depends on how many players are in the group.
If you have 6+ players at the table it would be fine. If you have 5 or less it could be a TPK depending on the scenario.
Remember, society adventures aren't supposed to be modified (to accommodate non-optimized character concepts) and imo, many scenarios don't allow for much roleplaying (at least the depth of roleplaying that I'm used to).
So imo, you'll be fine at a big table (6), but at a small table of 4 it would be better to go with a more optimized character concept imo.
|
|
My how that story has grown.
There is a group of players in Finland (of which Deussu and many other messageboard regulars are apart) that devour the scenarios so I keep an eye on how long scenarios take them to get a gauge of how fast our hardcore players clear each type of scenario.
Actually playing #30 The Devil We Know Part 2 - Cassomir's Locker took us 5 hours to complete. That was, however, because we took very odd tactics in the first encounter (also ran back to the store to buy ladders...)
By the way what is a hardcore player?
A casual player is someone who plays PFS scenarios. A hardcore player plays the s~*~ out of them until anything resembling author intent lies crumpled in a bloody heap in the corner.
Anything you've ever heard of the Finnish PFS players pales in comparison to the dark and unfathomable truth.
|
|
This is unfortunate. I ran #29 at Unicon last weekend, and the players power-attack/killed everything in the first round of combat, leaving no opportunity for the poor faction member to question anyone.Just as a general comment on this, and I have no idea if you did/did not rule it this way....
So often I see DM's rule that enemies that are dropped to negative HPs are instantly dead. While I can see that for speed of play in which none of the PCs are interested in capturing/interrogating prisoners, there's nothing I've seen in the rules that exempt NPCs from going to -con/having stabilize checks. My NG cleric of Saranrae often goes to stabilize enemies, then gets them bound up before bringing them back up to at least 0...both to interrogate them, and because he believes in giving people a shot of redemption :).
My cleric of Pharasma likes the DM to keep track of dead or dying NPCs, but only because she likes to Death Knell the tough ones. Kind of like the express elevator to Pharasma's Boneyard. This is not the cleric who asked Josh if you could Death Knell an ox before going into an encounter, that guy was cheesy...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh..and to address the original question....
A lot of it depends on whether or not you're playing at a game that follows the usual convention time limits, or a more open ended format. Within a 4 hour 'slot', the GM has to keep the game going at a steady pace. At a home/game store/online game in which the players/GM are willing to expand the playtime, you can keep RP going as long as people are willing to....
(Now, our recent online session of a '4 hour' mod that lasted 11 hours should still not be considered typical...but we all had a blast!)
Now that is funny!
:)I had a recent experience of seeing (fortunately only verbally) one of the hobbit player characters, on being upset about getting his clothing dirty in the sewers we were walking through, he took off all his clothing, and when confronting the bandit/baddies in the sewer after that he would run screaming after them, yelling at them to "come back and fight like men!".
I believe that it put the fear of hobbits in a the entire party!!
(my eyes, my eyes, I'm blind I tell you!)
I can only speak for myself.
But I had most of my fun at GenCon Oz with pathfinder when I was role playing, some other made it a little hard which was frustating.
Not when I was with you DarkWhite.
But over all it seems alot like when your dad says go make your own fun.
I know it's been awile since we have heard those words well some sooner than other but thats not the point.
The point is this that, you can role-play many aspects of game.
You know what my character was or at least how he will be remembered?
As a barrister.
Not as FIGHT-TOR, but as Seth Calador, Barrister at law ready to defend anyone even gnolls.
But don't take him on your nature loving hike to the mountains he will burn everything to the ground. (well most likely not but he will think about it.)
So I would say that there is plenty of chances to role play.
I had a recent experience of seeing (fortunately only verbally) one of the hobbit player characters, )
Psst. Don't use the term 'hobbit'. No really. They're halflings for a reason..and that reason being TSR (The original publishers of D&D) got their rear ends sued off by Tolkien's estate for....not sure if it was trademark or copyright or what specific area of law, but in general 'intellectual property' stealing. So they had to change some of the descriptors/etc. to 'distinguish' them from hobbits, like dropping the hairy feet.
Course, nothing's stopping you from in your _home_ game making them more like hobbits....
Yeah, they got sued for not getting permission to use hobbits or ents for D&D, so now they are halflings and treants.
I had a recent experience of seeing (fortunately only verbally) one of the hobbit player characters, )
Psst. Don't use the term 'hobbit'. No really. They're halflings for a reason..and that reason being TSR (The original publishers of D&D) got their rear ends sued off by Tolkien's estate for....not sure if it was trademark or copyright or what specific area of law, but in general 'intellectual property' stealing. So they had to change some of the descriptors/etc. to 'distinguish' them from hobbits, like dropping the hairy feet.
Course, nothing's stopping you from in your _home_ game making them more like hobbits....
Until Tolkien's estate shows up at my door with an army of elves, dwarves and men to take back what's rightfully theirs, I'll keep calling them hobbits. Just be glad I stopped calling elves Orlandos. ;)
