|
Isn't one of the purposes of the Pathfinder Society is to see which faction comes ahead?
That hasn't been the case since very early in the playtest during Season 0.
And these are things I'm not going to reveal. Pathfinder Society is young and growing--I don't want to discourage people by saying, "Your faction is the worst!"
Josh, can we get a fuller explanation as to why faction competition has been deemphasized so much (apparently beyond just announcing a winner)?
To the board crew:
- If your faction was announced as being in 5th place, would that make you want to play PFS less or more?
- What if Josh only announced the winner and didn't give a full breakdown?
- Do you feel that would discourage people from playing in the "losing" faction?
- How does hearing that the faction's are no longer really competing change your view of PFS?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Well, the factions in the game world are still competing, because they're trying to gain influence over Absalom, and they all stand in opposition to each other on this.
But at the beginning of Season 0, Nick and Josh announced a plan wherein players in "the winningest" faction would see some sort of advancement of their faction's fortunes in Absalom. So, there were reasons for players to get their factions to have more successful missions than other factions. If a player could mess up the faction missions for the other players' characters at the table, in a way that didn't break the prohibition on player-versus-player, it was to his advantage to do so.
To my own experience, and as reported on some of these threads, this "zero-sum game" of secret societies led to some unpleasantness.
But the emphasis from the PC's point of view has shifted. The characters are trying to earn the respect of their secret societies by running errands. There's no longer as much of an in-character reason to try to foil someone else's faction missions, because there's no longer an out-of-character reason to make sure that the other factions gain fewer points. It's now what's called an "expanding-sum game," where the number of Faction Prestige points isn't limited, and cooperating so that everybody accomplishes their missions is advantageous for all concerned.
But the emphasis from the PC's point of view has shifted. The characters are trying to earn the respect of their secret societies by running errands. There's no longer as much of an in-character reason to try to foil someone else's faction missions, because there's no longer an out-of-character reason to make sure that the other factions gain fewer points. It's now what's called an "expanding-sum game," where the number of Faction Prestige points isn't limited, and cooperating so that everybody accomplishes their missions is advantageous for all concerned.
This.
Chris has said it much more eloquently and succinctly than the response I was working on in my head.
|
|
It's now what's called an "expanding-sum game," where the number of Faction Prestige points isn't limited, and cooperating so that everybody accomplishes their missions is advantageous for all concerned.
Agreed.
Since there is no faction competition, making sure every character in PFS has as many Prestige Points as possible is now very advantageous.Even though you can't use your PA for other players, parties will have better gear, more access to healing/condition fixing and could benefit from temporary boons more often.
This will make MODs easier to complete, leading to more rewards for all involved.
If fact I can't see any reason why the players shouldn't share their PA missions at the start of every session and work together to make sure everyone's character completes as many of them as possible.
|
|
Chris has said it much more eloquently and succinctly than the response I was working on in my head.
"Because I said so?" That's usually my favorite response. :)
Certain things about the "expanding-sum game" don't sit very well though. Here's just one small example.
|
IMO, the point of D&D, as compared to, say, chess, is that it's a team game, where the whole team wins, or loses. Dividing members of the team into factions that might have very real mechanical benefits from screwing each other over, possibly at the risk of the overall mission, goes completely counter to the point of team-play.
In my experience, playing MMOs that have PVP servers, people tend to *flock* to the side that is winning, because they enjoy beating the stuffings out of people who have no chance of beating them back. I don't much get this mentality (but having played on the other side of such equations, and I can understand the temptation to be the 'roller' and not the 'rolled' for once...).
I tend to pick underdogs. I no one wants to play a Cleric, that's my first choice. If everyone says Ventrue are boring, I'm right there, making a very un-boring Ventrue. If the last thing one would expect would be a Chelaxian Druid who is eagerly looking forward to harmoniously integrating the new infernal ecosystem to that of Golarion when Hell comes to Earth, that's what I'll write up.
But it seems that great numbers of others pick the 'winners,' and if Cheliax was the winning faction, I could see half of the registered players being Chelaxians, and the other half being made up of the also-rans, which would, IMO, detract from the versatility of the setting, particularly in Organized Play, if every other darned character was a Conjurer of Pentacles or a Hellknight in Training or a Signifier of Asmodeus.
|
|
Certain things about the "expanding-sum game" don't sit very well though. Here's just one small example.** spoiler omitted **
... what then? Is he supposed to help? Not hinder, but report?
From the guide:
pg 9 -
... so long as Pathfinders are completing their missions and following orders, the leadership turns a blind eye to the existence of factions within the Society.
pg 8 -
Pathfinder agents are expected to respect one another's claims and stay out of each other's affairs unless offering a helping hand.
So I'd say as long as he isn't endangering your group's PFS mission, you should leave him alone or offer him assistance.
|
|
In my experience, playing MMOs that have PVP servers, people tend to *flock* to the side that is winning, because they enjoy beating the stuffings out of people who have no chance of beating them back.
Although I haven't seen (and assume no one ever will see) the scoring system for the PFSOP, I'd guess it works on some system other than gross prestige earned. Hopefully the winning side isn't just the team with the most active players.
But it seems that great numbers of others pick the 'winners,' and if Cheliax was the winning faction, I could see half of the registered players being Chelaxians, and the other half being made up of the also-rans, which would, IMO, detract from the versatility of the setting, particularly in Organized Play, if every other darned character was a Conjurer of Pentacles or a Hellknight in Training or a Signifier of Asmodeus.
I agree this would probably happen, but it would only apply to new characters as existing characters can't change factions.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I think PFS lost something when this aspect was taken away. I agree that a zero-sum game leads to no fun for a lot of people. But even with no in-game or in-world benefits for one faction winning and another losing, these boards and meatspace games are full of faction rivalries. I'd be hard-pressed to find a thread of 50+ posts that doesn't, at some point, get derailed for a bit by people bashing (in character and jokingly) other people's factions. I love that everyone gets so into it! But after a while, when people see that the name of the faction and even their modus operandi and flavor don't mean anything, some of that enthusiasm is bound to dwindle.
I think the baby was thrown out with the bathwater here, because sure, having an in-game benefit for members of the "winning faction" might sow resentment and cause people to just all play the same faction to guarantee a win. I don't see any reason that one faction can't be declared the winner of season 0, have a short blog post about how that played out in-world, advance the timeline and start over. I don't need a bonus for my PC. I would just love to feel like this living campaign was affecting a living campaign setting. With the level of character wealth being tied to faction prestige, I think people wouldn't resort to sabotaging one another's missions for the sake of the overall standings in a race for control of Absalom. In the end, everyone's party is more likely to survive if everyone has as many prestige as possible, and I think most gamers can meta-game enough to know that. But a meta-plot for PFS reflecting the results of our gaming would be awesome and go a long way toward tying players' choices in game to a large scale result that they can see and follow, whether their faction comes out on top or not.
|
I think PFS lost something when this aspect was taken away. I agree that a zero-sum game leads to no fun for a lot of people. But even with no in-game or in-world benefits for one faction winning and another losing, these boards and meatspace games are full of faction rivalries. I'd be hard-pressed to find a thread of 50+ posts that doesn't, at some point, get derailed for a bit by people bashing (in character and jokingly) other people's factions. I love that everyone gets so into it! But after a while, when people see that the name of the faction and even their modus operandi and flavor don't mean anything, some of that enthusiasm is bound to dwindle.
I think the baby was thrown out with the bathwater here, because sure, having an in-game benefit for members of the "winning faction" might sow resentment and cause people to just all play the same faction to guarantee a win. I don't see any reason that one faction can't be declared the winner of season 0, have a short blog post about how that played out in-world, advance the timeline and start over. I don't need a bonus for my PC. I would just love to feel like this living campaign was affecting a living campaign setting. With the level of character wealth being tied to faction prestige, I think people wouldn't resort to sabotaging one another's missions for the sake of the overall standings in a race for control of Absalom. In the end, everyone's party is more likely to survive if everyone has as many prestige as possible, and I think most gamers can meta-game enough to know that. But a meta-plot for PFS reflecting the results of our gaming would be awesome and go a long way toward tying players' choices in game to a large scale result that they can see and follow, whether their faction comes out on top or not.
QFT.
|
yoda8myhead wrote:
I think PFS lost something when this aspect was taken away. I agree that a zero-sum game leads to no fun for a lot of people. But even with no in-game or in-world benefits for one faction winning and another losing, these boards and meatspace games are full of faction rivalries. I'd be hard-pressed to find a thread of 50+ posts that doesn't, at some point, get derailed for a bit by people bashing (in character and jokingly) other people's factions. I love that everyone gets so into it! But after a while, when people see that the name of the faction and even their modus operandi and flavor don't mean anything, some of that enthusiasm is bound to dwindle.I think the baby was thrown out with the bathwater here, because sure, having an in-game benefit for members of the "winning faction" might sow resentment and cause people to just all play the same faction to guarantee a win. I don't see any reason that one faction can't be declared the winner of season 0, have a short blog post about how that played out in-world, advance the timeline and start over. I don't need a bonus for my PC. I would just love to feel like this living campaign was affecting a living campaign setting. With the level of character wealth being tied to faction prestige, I think people wouldn't resort to sabotaging one another's missions for the sake of the overall standings in a race for control of Absalom. In the end, everyone's party is more likely to survive if everyone has as many prestige as possible, and I think most gamers can meta-game enough to know that. But a meta-plot for PFS reflecting the results of our gaming would be awesome and go a long way toward tying players' choices in game to a large scale result that they can see and follow, whether their faction comes out on top or not.
QFT.
+1
Also I fell like I was misleaded with false promises. The rivalry is the the icing on the cake. I do not want to play a game where everybody is always happy. There need to be the possibility to loose. And I am conviced that players won't abandon their factions and join the winning team. It's cool to be the underdog.
How can you abort this Idea of a meta-plot without even trying if it would work out?
After all, thats what attracted gamers to participate.
Do we have a say in this matter?
|
I think PFS lost something when this aspect was taken away. I agree that a zero-sum game leads to no fun for a lot of people. But even with no in-game or in-world benefits for one faction winning and another losing, these boards and meatspace games are full of faction rivalries. I'd be hard-pressed to find a thread of 50+ posts that doesn't, at some point, get derailed for a bit by people bashing (in character and jokingly) other people's factions. I love that everyone gets so into it! But after a while, when people see that the name of the faction and even their modus operandi and flavor don't mean anything, some of that enthusiasm is bound to dwindle.
I think the baby was thrown out with the bathwater here, because sure, having an in-game benefit for members of the "winning faction" might sow resentment and cause people to just all play the same faction to guarantee a win. I don't see any reason that one faction can't be declared the winner of season 0, have a short blog post about how that played out in-world, advance the timeline and start over. I don't need a bonus for my PC. I would just love to feel like this living campaign was affecting a living campaign setting. With the level of character wealth being tied to faction prestige, I think people wouldn't resort to sabotaging one another's missions for the sake of the overall standings in a race for control of Absalom. In the end, everyone's party is more likely to survive if everyone has as many prestige as possible, and I think most gamers can meta-game enough to know that. But a meta-plot for PFS reflecting the results of our gaming would be awesome and go a long way toward tying players' choices in game to a large scale result that they can see and follow, whether their faction comes out on top or not.
I'm going to throw out another QFT simply because I don't have the time to write essentially the same thing.
|
|
If fact I can't see any reason why the players shouldn't share their PA missions at the start of every session and work together to make sure everyone's character completes as many of them as possible.
We’ve also heard of tables with diametrically opposed factions helping each other accomplish their goals. Again, this isn’t anything we oppose, though we don’t want to encourage total helpfulness between factions otherwise the idea of the faction system gets a little less interesting.
So instead of a in-character reason for factions to compete leading to out-of-character unpleasantness, we now have an out-of-character reason for players to cooperate leading to a loss of campaign flavor. Is there a way we can support both player cooperation and faction competition, or do we all think that is impossible?
|
|
For me the Faction is mostly a role playing lever. It stands in for meta-orgs since we are all members of the same meta-org here. It like the traits give a little flavor to build around. It still seems strange that my Qadirian is the moral compass at the table nearly all the time. Really the fact that Qadirians won the 0 year of Pathfinder Society is unimportant.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I don't see any reason that one faction can't be declared the winner of season 0, have a short blog post about how that played out in-world, advance the timeline and start over.+1. That made it fun.
And it was the one part of my "pitch" to new players at game days and meetups that made them seem genuinely interested in PFS over other games. They loved the idea that their success would be reflected on a larger scale.
|
|
And it was the one part of my "pitch" to new players at game days and meetups that made them seem genuinely interested in PFS over other games. They loved the idea that their success would be reflected on a larger scale.I don't see any reason that one faction can't be declared the winner of season 0, have a short blog post about how that played out in-world, advance the timeline and start over.+1. That made it fun.
Same here. That's how I got my wife excited to play in organized games!
|
|
It's also what got me excited about PFS. I like the secret society intrigue and ploting bits. Granted, working intentionally to hinder other character's advancement is a very low and despicable act, but what we have currently is a weak facade of what was intended and it's more than a bit disappointing. IMHO, of course.
It's also what got me excited about PFS. I like the secret society intrigue and ploting bits. Granted, working intentionally to hinder other character's advancement is a very low and despicable act, but what we have currently is a weak facade of what was intended and it's more than a bit disappointing. IMHO, of course.
I will have to agree. One of the major things that drew me to this game was the thought that by my actions I would be influencing the world via my faction. Without this, I do not see that the players really have any effect on the world which is one of the great things about a campaign game.
|
|
Tough call. Honestly, the PA points seem a little meaningless without some sort of larger scheme to play. Without the quests being tailored to each faction and if the writers had just one quest for all players at the table, it would be easier to write the senario and get cooperative play from all the players to get the PA done and all would gain the credit.
I mean, the faction awards have already been consolidated to one chart.
If you are concerned about rivalry causing players to leave the PFS, i would cast those worries aside. As an example, the worlds most favorite MMORPG has over 11 million players and they have factions.
When at the table, I do tend to like to roleplay the rivalry, but I have not seen where someone was put off by a bit of good RPing.
|
I'm pretty much in favor of removal of a faction winning or losing. The last thing I want to hear every year is how "Faction A" won again easily, and that my chosen faction was at the bottom. If I had to deal with that I would probably not consider bothering with it at all. In World of Warcraft, when my faction end up losing horribly in all engagements I had with the other faction, I just had to stop playing that portion of the game because it was so frustrating to see my efforts having no impact on the world.
That said, I would like the prestige awards to make it seem like that I am causing something in the world (but only if it isn't a winner/loser situation). If it were just set up so there was a blog post referencing some achievement by a faction when they hit some number of total prestige awards. This would hopefully mean that all factions would be getting regular mentions and they would be more likely to cycle through all groups rather than just describing how one single group has won again.
|
|
If you are concerned about rivalry causing players to leave the PFS, i would cast those worries aside. As an example, the worlds most favorite MMORPG has over 11 million players and they have factions.
Have you seen the amount of griefing that goes on in PvP servers, or the frustration caused by hugely lopsided Wintergrasp or Battleground engagements in non-PvP servers? If there weren't ways of completely tuning out the PvP aspects of WoW, I doubt it would have 11 million players.
|
|
That said, I would like the prestige awards to make it seem like that I am causing something in the world (but only if it isn't a winner/loser situation). If it were just set up so there was a blog post referencing some achievement by a faction when they hit some number of total prestige awards. This would hopefully mean that all factions would be getting regular mentions and they would be more likely to cycle through all groups rather than just describing how one single group has won again.
I like this idea. It reminds of the concept of guild levels used in the Warhammer MMO (and coming in the next expansion of WoW). The more you do for your faction, the more cool things your faction receives. 2000 characters earn faction points for Andoran and Andoran faction dice become available. Taldor characters earn 3000 points and a Taldor faction exclusive scenario is crafted for the summer conventions. You could come up with a variety of cheap rewards either in-game or out-of-game like messageboard titles, new avatars, certificates, etc.
|
|
The "I don't want to have my faction always coming in last and I don't want to hear the same faction winning every year" can easily be solved. Instead of using absolutes, use a comparison.
Ex. Season 0 (Real numbers, I swear!)
Taldor - 43,781
Qadira - 12,240
Osirion - 11,576
Andoran - 10,843
Cheliax - 3,240
Josh would simply report that "Taldor was the winning faction, and their influence within the city of Absalom and the world of Golarion has increased." Obviously no numbers would be reported.
Using the absolutes, Season 1 would probably look something like:
Taldor - 51,589
Osirion - 17,926
Andoran - 14,341
Qadira - 11,813
Cheliax - 4,174
Josh could then announce that Taldor won again, but perhaps instead, he could focus on the change in influence throughout the world. If he announced how everyone's influence changed (compared to the previous season), it would like something like:
Osirion +54.8%
Andoran +32.2%
Cheliax +28.8%
Taldor +17.8%
Qadira -3.4%
If he didn't want to post the actual percentages (especially if they all went down or something else drastic), then he could just state that "Osirion increased their influence by the most and "won" season 1."
Using this method means that after every GOOD year, the faction has to do even better to stay on top. Factions with BAD years would do well the next year w/o as much effort. This also means, that the smaller your Faction, the more impact and influence you have over their performance!
I wouldn't care about my faction winning or losing. I would care about having another player try to sabotage my faction mission because he cares about his faction winning or losing.
I wouldn't care about my faction winning or losing. I would care about having another player try to sabotage my faction mission because he cares about his faction winning or losing.Which is already expressly forbidden in the current guide.
One thing that could at least bring factions to the forfront again is maybe to throw in penalties for doing certain things.
(IE as a Chelaxian you aid in destroying a high up Asmodeous Priest)|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I wouldn't care about my faction winning or losing. I would care about having another player try to sabotage my faction mission because he cares about his faction winning or losing.
Which is already expressly forbidden in the current guide.
Kyle, I've looked over Chapter 3 (Factions) and Chapter 5 (The Rules of Organized Play) of the Guide several times, and I can't find anything about how it's wrong to foil another PCs faction mission. It's wrong to attack another PC, to bully another PC, and to cheat. Could you show me where in the rules you're finding that sabotaging another's mission is "expressly forbidden"?
'Cause, as far as I can tell, it's encouraged by the faction heads, and it's well within character for many PCs. I was under the impression that that's why they're supposed to be kept secret.
That said, I would like the prestige awards to make it seem like that I am causing something in the world (but only if it isn't a winner/loser situation). If it were just set up so there was a blog post referencing some achievement by a faction when they hit some number of total prestige awards. This would hopefully mean that all factions would be getting regular mentions and they would be more likely to cycle through all groups rather than just describing how one single group has won again.
This has given me some ideas.
|
|
Kyle, I've looked over Chapter 3 (Factions) and Chapter 5 (The Rules of Organized Play) of the Guide several times, and I can't find anything about how it's wrong to foil another PCs faction mission. It's wrong to attack another PC, to bully another PC, and to cheat. Could you show me where in the rules you're finding that sabotaging another's mission is "expressly forbidden"?'Cause, as far as I can tell, it's encouraged by the faction heads, and it's well within character for many PCs. I was under the impression that that's why they're supposed to be kept secret.
Chapter 2
'Pathfinder agents are expected to respect one another's claims and stay out of each other's affairs unless offering a helping hand.'Presumably since faction missions aren't PFS business, they are the affair of the individual Pathfinder.
It may be within your character's devotion to his faction to interfere with another character's mission, but it is grounds for dismissal from the Pathfinder Society.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Chapter 2
'Pathfinder agents are expected to respect one another's claims and stay out of each other's affairs unless offering a helping hand.'Presumably since faction missions aren't PFS business, they are the affair of the individual Pathfinder.
It may be within your character's devotion to his faction to interfere with another character's mission, but it is grounds for dismissal from the Pathfinder Society.
I read this the same way. When I run a table, I consider cockblocking another player's faction mission to be PVP and I simply don't allow it. If someone attempts to carry out their mission and another player gets in their way on purpose, I ignore the actions of the disruptive player to allow everyone a fair shot at getting their prestige. Now that their PC wealth is so closely tied to their success or failure, it is even more important that people who try to get their prestige have the chance to do so.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I ignore the actions of the disruptive player to allow everyone a fair shot at getting their prestige. Now that their PC wealth is so closely tied to their success or failure, it is even more important that people who try to get their prestige have the chance to do so.
What about accidentally doing it?
Silent Tide Spoiler
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I ignore the actions of the disruptive player to allow everyone a fair shot at getting their prestige. Now that their PC wealth is so closely tied to their success or failure, it is even more important that people who try to get their prestige have the chance to do so.What about accidentally doing it?
Silent Tide Spoiler
** spoiler omitted **
I think most GMs can tell when someone is roleplaying and when they're being a jerk. If it's accidental, I work around it as best I can so that the person can get their goal met and the non-faction member can still have fun. Sometimes I've had to prod people to work things out in character, but if that becomes too contentious or time consuming I reserve the right to GM fiat the situation so that the person trying to get their prestige isn't prevented from doing so by someone who doesn't realize what they're doing. In almost every case, simply saying to the non-faction player that they're blocking someone else's prestige has made their PC have a change of heart or find some way to both get what they want. But the number of times it's come up has been so few that I don't see prestige griefing as ever being system breaking.
|
|
I mentioned something similar to what I’m going to say in one of the other threads related to current discussions. Here it is:
Why not divide the modules into groups. If we have 28 modules a year and 14 of them are metaplot and 14 are not. Why can’t 14 be combat focused and 14 not as well? On top of which why can’t 14 of them deal with faction rivalry and 14 focus just on PFS objectives without the rivalry? That would break down to 7 modules that contained all three aspects, 7 modules that contained the direct opposite of all three aspects, and the other 14 being a mix of all three. Though for simplicities sake it might be easier to just bump the yearly mod count to 30 and do 10/10/10. Referencing my other post for example, the so called Hard Points could be modules that are faction rivalry/combat heavy/metaplot and Soft Points would be non-faction rivalry/combat light/no metaplot. Going in to a Hard Point mod the players will know that there will be faction rivalry, lots of combat, and their actions will have a definite impact upon the campaign. Soft Points will be more role-playing, kicking back with the friends for a good time and further the cause of the society and everyone gets along, holding hands, passing out cookies, and singing “Asmodeus Loves the Little Children”. The “Mystery” Points are the spice to the campaign as they may or may not have an impact upon metaplot or pit us against other factions, and vary in the amount of combat a character will see.
I had another idea but lost it trying to extrapolate the math in my head. If it comes back I’ll post it.
|
So if there is no Faction competition anymore, why make a big deal of handing out faction missions and keeping them secret.
Just hand out a general page with all faction missions on it, we make note of what factions are at the table and work together to accomplish the missions.
In the last scenario we played, The Third Riddle, the general mission was accomplished as soon as we entered the Sphinx. The faction missions were further in. We could have literally entered, turned around and left (BTW we considered doing just that- as Cheliax got their mission upon accomplishing the general mission as well).
Instead we, Cheliax, bugged the others to reveal their missions so we could all help and get it over with quickly.
Wouldn't it just be easier to make these faction missions general knowledge and just get on with the gaming then?
And heck, is there really any reason to keep faction missions at all? If there is no result from doing them why do them (besides metagaming and doing them for special rewards).
So if there is no Faction competition anymore, why make a big deal of handing out faction missions and keeping them secret.
Just hand out a general page with all faction missions on it, we make note of what factions are at the table and work together to accomplish the missions.
** spoiler omitted **
Wouldn't it just be easier to make these faction missions general knowledge and just get on with the gaming then?
And heck, is there really any reason to keep faction missions at all? If there is no result from doing them why do them (besides metagaming and doing them for special rewards).
I am in strong agreement with Krome here. There needs to be some attachment to the factions, story and player. The Player NEEDS to have a way to affect the game. That is one of the things that makes Organized gaming great for me....Its that you can play a mod and your actions will affect how the world will evolve...Even if it is just in a small manner...
|
|
I am in strong agreement with Krome here. There needs to be some attachment to the factions, story and player. The Player NEEDS to have a way to affect the game. That is one of the things that makes Organized gaming great for me....Its that you can play a mod and your actions will affect how the world will evolve...Even if it is just in a small manner...So if there is no Faction competition anymore, why make a big deal of handing out faction missions and keeping them secret.
Just hand out a general page with all faction missions on it, we make note of what factions are at the table and work together to accomplish the missions.
** spoiler omitted **
Wouldn't it just be easier to make these faction missions general knowledge and just get on with the gaming then?
And heck, is there really any reason to keep faction missions at all? If there is no result from doing them why do them (besides metagaming and doing them for special rewards).
Without some sort of result, it seems to me, I might as well just play the modules. Occasionally pick up a Society scenario for something different or to fill the gap. Or just play Society games but not bother registering and just play free-form. Why play Society if there is no benefit or result?
I'm not trying to be a butt-head but just trying to understand.
|
|
I am in strong agreement with Krome here. There needs to be some attachment to the factions, story and player. The Player NEEDS to have a way to affect the game. That is one of the things that makes Organized gaming great for me....Its that you can play a mod and your actions will affect how the world will evolve...Even if it is just in a small manner...So if there is no Faction competition anymore, why make a big deal of handing out faction missions and keeping them secret.
Just hand out a general page with all faction missions on it, we make note of what factions are at the table and work together to accomplish the missions.
** spoiler omitted **
Wouldn't it just be easier to make these faction missions general knowledge and just get on with the gaming then?
And heck, is there really any reason to keep faction missions at all? If there is no result from doing them why do them (besides metagaming and doing them for special rewards).
Without some sort of result, it seems to me, I might as well just play the modules. Occasionally pick up a Society scenario for something different or to fill the gap. Or just play Society games but not bother registering and just play free-form. Why play Society if there is no benefit or result?
I'm not trying to be a b%%~-head but just trying to understand.
But I think the same issue is present in any organized play game. Due to the format of the games, you aren't going to see the effects of you actions on NPCs in other scenarios spread to later sessions. If you decide that you insult your commander in the Pathfinder society, he isn't going to (and more likely can't) remember that he should hate you. In these games, the only changes that you create will be seen through your character. It might be a bonus on Diplomacy rolls with some group that a scenario gave you for saving them.
The way I see it, working with the Society does produce a benefits and other results from the perspective from my character. If I want my individual actions to have a dramatic effect on the world such that they are visible to everyone though, I just don't think Pathfinder Society is capable of meeting that need.
|
|
Normally I wouldn't care about having an effect on the game world, as you say. But the faction competition was a perfect way to have some.
Now granted I can see some players being butt heads and working against players. I teased that I might do that once but of course never would. I suspect that a player that actually would work against other players doesn't need much incentive to do so anyway.
Now honestly I don't mind the competition being gone. But, if it is gone go ahead make the faction missions a group effort. We're going to do that anyway, unless someone is being a jerk about it. It just makes it easier.
|
|
Normally I wouldn't care about having an effect on the game world, as you say. But the faction competition was a perfect way to have some.
Now granted I can see some players being butt heads and working against players. I teased that I might do that once but of course never would. I suspect that a player that actually would work against other players doesn't need much incentive to do so anyway.
Now honestly I don't mind the competition being gone. But, if it is gone go ahead make the faction missions a group effort. We're going to do that anyway, unless someone is being a jerk about it. It just makes it easier.
Sure, it's easier to accomplish the faction missions if they're approached as a group effort. But that's not really the goal of the game is it? This is a role-playing game, and personally I find having individual motivations for characters which are accounted for in a scenario makes for very interesting role-play.
|
|
Sure, it's easier to accomplish the faction missions if they're approached as a group effort. But that's not really the goal of the game is it?
I think it is now. I've felt burned in a couple of the games I've played because my interpretation of my faction mission was not the same as my DMs. Also, the Prestige Award is now tied to stuff you can get and do, so not gaining PA in an adventure has far reaching effects -- it delays each and every PA bonus that you are awarded.
Faction missions are suppose to be secret. I have no problems at all telling the other players at the table what I need to do. I'm not working against them, I'm willing to help them get thier mission accomplished and hopefully they'll help me. That, I believe, leads to even more cooperation and potential role playing at the table.
-Swiftbrook
Just My Thoughts
|
|
The "I don't want to have my faction always coming in last and I don't want to hear the same faction winning every year" can easily be solved. Instead of using absolutes, use a comparison.
Ex. Season 0 (Real numbers, I swear!)
Taldor - 43,781
Qadira - 12,240
Osirion - 11,576
Andoran - 10,843
Cheliax - 3,240Josh would simply report that "Taldor was the winning faction, and their influence within the city of Absalom and the world of Golarion has increased." Obviously no numbers would be reported.
Using the absolutes, Season 1 would probably look something like:
Taldor - 51,589
Osirion - 17,926
Andoran - 14,341
Qadira - 11,813
Cheliax - 4,174Josh could then announce that Taldor won again, but perhaps instead, he could focus on the change in influence throughout the world. If he announced how everyone's influence changed (compared to the previous season), it would like something like:
Osirion +54.8%
Andoran +32.2%
Cheliax +28.8%
Taldor +17.8%
Qadira -3.4%If he didn't want to post the actual percentages (especially if they all went down or something else drastic), then he could just state that "Osirion increased their influence by the most and "won" season 1."
Using this method means that after every GOOD year, the faction has to do even better to stay on top. Factions with BAD years would do well the next year w/o as much effort. This also means, that the smaller your Faction, the more impact and influence you have over their performance!
Now wait a minute... those numbers are nothing but laughably weak Taldorian propaganda -- everyone (and I mean *EVERYONE*) knows Cheliax came on top!
|
I've felt burned in a couple of the games I've played because my interpretation of my faction mission was not the same as my DMs.
This has bugged me a couple of times... Here is an example.
In my studies of the derros, I’v read that they often drive their slaves before them as guards and soldiers—should you find some poor Darklands denizen in slavish servitude to the derros, give him the option of freedom before you strike him down. Even evil creatures do not deserve the shackles of tyranny.
Now before every battle I gave the option of freedom telling the to free themselves from the shackles of slavery, by the wording of the mission that is exactly what is said I have to do, but to actually get the faction point I had to free a mite slave in area A2 or B2 earn 1 bonus Prestige Award.
The mission said nothing about actually freeing them but to give them the option, and I did that. I was a bit upset that I did not get my 2nd faction point.
I don't think it is a problem with DM interpretation, I think it is a problem with Player interpretation. The faction missions sometimes need to be more clear.
|
|
IMHO, I think the root problem is that the Pathfinder Society is not properly defined in the setting just yet.
What is the Pathfinder Society? is it a bunch of archeologists looking for long-lost relics to bridge the gaps within history books? or are they simply a worldwide organization of tomb robbers bent on amassing untold wealth, led by a mysterious guiding hand?
Why do they attract agents from the world over?
Why do nobles and other influencial NPCs try to give "missions" to these agents, which could amount to a form of "homeland kickback" or "indirect raincheck bribe" to be cashed in later when the agent retires and returns to his/her homeland?
I'd like some of these questions to be answered at some point (To clarify, I dropped out of Path Society at about #13 due to real-world reasons and NOT because I disliked the module; BUT... if I get back into it, I'd like to see some of this stuff tackled, other suspension of disbelief won't be there for me and I'll get bored with yet another "Living Grind")
The more I look at it, the more I want to AVOID having the Pathfinders stand in for some kind of "good" organization akin to the Harpers or some other overdone inexplicable PC-hook engine.
In fact, I'd like the Pathfinders be a simple True Neutral legal entity (i.e. a company!) that has gone global (i.e. a multinational) with so many ramifications in every country that regardless of how many heads you chop, the large hydra monster of an organization will keep running... this way you can better explain why some Chelaxian Hellknight ex-pats would tag along some Andoren clerics of Iomedae. It's simple, pure, hard CASH that leads the nose of this train, and there's nothing to stop it.
Thoughts? Comments?
|
|
IMHO, I think the root problem is that the Pathfinder Society is not properly defined in the setting just yet.
What is the Pathfinder Society? is it a bunch of archeologists looking for long-lost relics to bridge the gaps within history books? or are they simply a worldwide organization of tomb robbers bent on amassing untold wealth, led by a mysterious guiding hand?
Why do they attract agents from the world over?
Why do nobles and other influencial NPCs try to give "missions" to these agents, which could amount to a form of "homeland kickback" or "indirect raincheck bribe" to be cashed in later when the agent retires and returns to his/her homeland?
Oo, now that would make for an interesting campaign; Pathfinder becomes a sort of fantasy X-files campaign where our characters are trying to figure out just what's really going on within the organization. Suddenly our characters are faced with the possiblity that the PFS may have objectives they aren't to sure about and don't want to happen. To make things more interesting some modules could lead to one conclusion while another might lead to a total opposite.