|
And, Navto, if someone just plays one of your first two sample scenarios, there's nothing that jumps out as an oddly-shaped fact or piece of plot.
Indeed. In addition to being parts of a whole they are also stand-alone adventures. The larger story arch only becomes evident if a player plays more than one of these. ("Hey.. I know this guy! What the hell is he up to this time..?") The variable continuity elements can easily be included in a sidebar. (If you've played X or Y before this module, Mr Gull knows you and makes a reference about X during conversation.)
This can be done. Continuity adds immensely to the gaming experience and while it might require some hard work on the writers' part its totally worth it in the long run.
|
|
Now let's say four different players come together from different groups at a convention to play your Scenario #9. Of these players, two have played Scenario #17 before, and both of them and a further one of the players have played Scenario #3 before. One of the players has not played any of these scenarios before, but is going to play Scenario #9 later at the convention.
Furthermore, one of the players who has played Scenario #17 got the 'good' result for Sir Gull, whilst the other player 'failed' that scenario in a way disasterous to Sir Gull's career.
Now what is the GM running the game, looking at...
He's looking at a great opportunity for role-play. The GM just needs to jot down a few notes before play starts. Say this group you just described meets up with Sir Gull. The conversation could go something like this: "Some of you I know and have worked with on one or more occasions before... Impressive performance on that job in Sothis, (player X). (Player Y) on the other hand, I'll be watching you carefully this time, so you need to step up."
etc etc.
This is all about the GM listening to his players and reacting. Anecdotes and customized responses are a great way of creating a sense of continuity and hooking player interest. Yes, I am aware that this is a trick, since the continuity is really illusionism. Its meant to create a sense of continuity without actually forcing a series of events.
|
I think a meta-plot is a bad idea, for all the reasons listed by KEJr, really. Pain in the ass for too many people, and too much potential for killing the pickup game aspect of it. Listening to someone describe that sort of thing with Living Greyhawk is what kept me away from it, honestly.
Living Greyhawk was run by volunteers 99 %. I'd rather have a detailed, fully-formed world with continuity to play in than have a mediocre, easily-accessed campaign with no connection between scenarios almost at all.
Let me still remind you that Living Greyhawk was a hugely successful thing despite all the "problems" described here. If the player isn't ready to commit himself or herself to a campaign with continuity, would he/she be willing to play in any home game either?
|
|
Living Greyhawk was run by volunteers 99 %. I'd rather have a detailed, fully-formed world with continuity to play in than have a mediocre, easily-accessed campaign with no connection between scenarios almost at all.
Let me still remind you that Living Greyhawk was a hugely successful thing despite all the "problems" described here. If the player isn't ready to commit himself or herself to a campaign with continuity, would he/she be willing to play in any home game either?
And Paizo has a network as large as the RPGA was at the time of the inception of Living Greyhawk to support and facilitate this network of volunteers, and a comparable number of volunteers?
I'm glad you pointed out that this should be a high time investment effort that has little tolerance for those that aren't dedicated gamers willing to put a great deal of effort into the game. I was under the impression that part of me running these events was to have a campaign up and running that might be able to have a seat open for a curious new player.
I guess I need to ask him how invested he plans on being before I seat him.
In fact, since I'm a bit hesitant to try and juggle all of this meta-plot stuff in order to make sure people can actually take advantage of it, on top of making sure I'm running games that most people at the table can play, on top of trying to get events up and running at the local gaming convention, that I'm not really invested enough in PFS and am doing it a disservice.
I'm glad you pointed this out.
|
I think a meta-plot is a bad idea, for all the reasons listed by KEJr, really. Pain in the ass for too many people, and too much potential for killing the pickup game aspect of it. Listening to someone describe that sort of thing with Living Greyhawk is what kept me away from it, honestly.
You missed out on a magnificnet campaign, then. I have well over a hundred Living Greyhawk modules under my belt, and I never felt the continuity was intrusive. Indeed, the fact there was continuity and community, a sense of a living world beyond my kitchen table, was what kept me with the campaign until its end. The explicit lack of it is what keeps me away from its successor.
Here, I must repeat my plea to avoid the term "meta-plot". It is generally used to mean a plot handed down from above and advanced by the gaming company in their products. In an organised play campaign, the plot would and should be influenced by the player base, us.
A well-written organised play module functions equally well as a single standalone adventure as well as a part of something greater.
If one's fear of continuity is such that an NPC appearing in more than one module without anything else to tie them together is harmful to their enjoyment, I would posit the problem lies not with the campaign, nor with the modules themselves. Perhaps they might be happier with a board game such as Descent or Arkham Horror, for a campaign with no continuity is quite alien to my concept roleplaying games.
If Pathfinder Society is to be developed solely to be good for pickup games, then that is what it will become, and for naught else, to be turned to as a game of the very last resort. I cannot invest myself any more meaningully in a campaign where my own actions have no consequence beyond the pace of accumulation for abstract resources and every adventure exists in a vacuum than I can in a game of Munchkin.
|
|
And Paizo has a network as large as the RPGA was at the time of the inception of Living Greyhawk to support and facilitate this network of volunteers, and a comparable number of volunteers?
I'm glad you pointed out that this should be a high time investment effort that has little tolerance for those that aren't dedicated gamers willing to put a great deal of effort into the game. I was under the impression that part of me running these events was to have a campaign up and running that might be able to have a seat open for a curious new player.
I guess I need to ask him how invested he plans on being before I seat him.
In fact, since I'm a bit hesitant to try and juggle all of this meta-plot stuff in order to make sure people can actually take advantage of it, on top of making sure I'm running games that most people at the table can play, on top of trying to get events up and running at the local gaming convention, that I'm not really invested enough in PFS and am doing it a disservice.
I'm glad you pointed this out.
I was particularly referencing to what had been said about Living Greyhawk. It had been governed by volunteers and it turned out great.
For the rest of the response I can response with NiTessine's post:
If Pathfinder Society is to be developed solely to be good for pickup games, then that is what it will become, and for naught else, to be turned to as a game of the very last resort. I cannot invest myself any more meaningully in a campaign where my own actions have no consequence beyond the pace of accumulation for abstract resources and every adventure exists in a vacuum than I can in a game of Munchkin.
|
|
If I understand you correctly, your proposed solution to the specific situation I gave is to completely ignore (except for purposes of determining NPC's reaction) conflicting experiences of meta-plot; in consequence I'm not clear if what you actually want is meta-plot or more frequent use of highly detailed recurring NPCs? :-?
True continuity can only be accomplished by, well, continuous events. That is events playing out in a set order. Since we can't get this (gets a tad too complicated for some people, and obviously for convention pick-up games), what we have to settle for is the next best thing, which in this case is the illusion of true continuity of events AND a continuity of characters and locations. These are two very distinct things. For the GM who wants to emphasize the continuity aspects of his games the tools are right there to make diamonds out of raw materials. For the GM who just wants a pick-up no-brainer dungeon crawl, that's there as well since the continuity elements are in no way forced.
|
|
Deussu/NiTessine:
Correct me if I am wrong but it looks to me from Wikipedia as if the RPGA and 'The Circle' had free rein from Wizards of the Coast to do whatever they wanted with living Greyhawk and Oerth? That living Greyhawk effectively determined the events and 'canon' of Oerth?
According to what I know, you are correct. And yes, Living Greyhawk determined the canon of Oerth.
However, I'm not saying PFS should do the same. It had been said a long time ago that PFS will not make great changes to Golarion. That's why the Adventure Paths are for. The scale is adjustable though. Having changes happen in the factions' shadow war and the standings of venture-captains would be a nice change of pace.
EDIT: In addition including continuity would by no means mean all the scenarios produced would be tied to the grand plot of the world. A majority (or at least 50%) would inevitably be stand-alone adventures, maybe with some small references to recurring NPCs.
|
|
Deussu/NiTessine:
Correct me if I am wrong but it looks to me from Wikipedia as if the RPGA and 'The Circle' had free rein from Wizards of the Coast to do whatever they wanted with living Greyhawk and Oerth? That living Greyhawk effectively determined the events and 'canon' of Oerth?
Yes, this is correct. As far as I recall, no other Greyhawk material was released during the run of the Living Greyhawk campaign.
Having continuity, however, does not mean you have to make big changes to the world with the plots. The Pathfinder Chronicles and Companions have kept sufficient distance from the world that, in my opinion, Pathfinder Society could quite comfortably operate its own plotlines without disturbing the status quo set down in the sourcebooks.
If one wanted to go laying national capitals to ruin, though, one could declare Pathfinder Society to be a separate continuity, but that would incur some significant bookkeeping to keep track of the houses still left standing, and it would raise the threshold for joining the campaign. I am not in favour of this solution.
The Pathfinder Society doesn't strike me as an organisation to get involved in stuff like that, anyway. Indiana Jones could have his adventures quite comfortably without destroying any tourist attractions that weren't invented for the purpose.
|
I've heard people requesting more linkages between adventures, more of a sense of "something going on" in the campaign beyond the events of a given scenario.Do you feel this way?
Yes I do. I'm not saying everything needs to advance a metaplot, but we need something once every two or three years that really shakes up the world. A war ending or starting, the return of Tar Baphon, the Tarrasque getting out. Something big.
Do you wish your in-character actions had more of an impact on the overall "plot" of the campaign?
Yes, particularly in the case of the Organized Play, and tracking prestige awards is a great way to shift something, at the beginning of each season you should write out the results of each faction 'winning' that season, put it in an envelope and open it at the gencon at the end of that season.
Should the campaign have an overall "plot" at all?
It doesn't need a world-spanning plot ala The Wheel of Time, but the world does need to evolve to feel real to me someone playing from the beginning.
For recordkeeping sake, I loved the oWoD metaplot and how the Camarilla LARPs had an impact on it.
|
|
How about something like important PC decisions in specific scenarios which could be reported & tallied? For example, the PCs recover a relic for a shady patron, but they discover it is a dangerous weapon. Do they keep their mouths shut and hand it over to their patron, or will they blow the whistle? The decision of each table could be reported and after a certain length of time, the more common result would determine the direction for a followup scenario or arc.
Pro:
- It gives players the opportunity to impact their shared world. This may (or may not) expand the player base.
Con:
- It requires a little extra time from GMs (to fill out one additional field for the PCs' decision.
- It requires an investment on Paizo's part in the areas of reporting (to add the extra field) and scenario writing (commissioning the follow-up scenario instead of just accepting submissions).
- It means a significant delay between the decision scenario and the followup, in order to allow time for a majority of the player base to play it and then to have the followup written.
I hope there is a better way to do this type of thing, because what I've suggested sounds like a pretty risky venture on Paizo's part.
|
At Gen Con I heard some grousing about the lack of a coherent meta-plot for the Pathfinder Society campaign. I suspect this is in part driven by the focus of the faction prestige system changing from a competition of team vs. team to a personal goal related to availability of rewards. And the fact that we haven't announced which faction "won" season 0.
I've heard people requesting more linkages between adventures, more of a sense of "something going on" in the campaign beyond the events of a given scenario.
Do you feel this way?
Do you disagree, and prefer things the way they are now?
Do you wish your in-character actions had more of an impact on the overall "plot" of the campaign?
Should the campaign have an overall "plot" at all?
Please discuss.
Yes, absolutely there should be "something going on". For me, the experience of getting to interact in a world with many other participants is part of the allure of organized play. That said there are some very valid arguments against it too. The arguments for and against have gotten me thinking about similar examples in TV shows.
Some TV shows have huge amounts of ongoing plot. There are big things happening and deep character development but if you miss a week, or watch them out of order you'll be in for a confusing and unsatisfying ride because you don't know the characters and you don't know what's going on. Battlestar Galactica and Lost come to mind as examples.
On the opposite end of the spectrum you have shows that are completely episodic. After one or two episodes you know all of the important characters and how they relate and you can watch them in literally any order and it doesn't matter because everything is self contained in the episode. These are shows like Gilligans Island and the Simpsons.
Somewhere in the middle are the episodic shows that work in some character development and side stories. If you sit down and watch a random show you'll be able to follow the story and enjoy it but you might miss some of the side plot if you haven't been watching weekly.
Shows like CSI fit into this category.
These three categories can transition nicely to campaign set up as well. The games with deep plot and character development are awesome, but best saved for home games. The buy in is too high to be enjoyable for casual players and con games.
The games where the world resets at the end of the adventure, i think, would be very frustrating. It's funny to watch Gilligan and the Skipper try to get off the island week after week but I really have no interest in playing Gilligan, knowing that whatever I do, I'm back to square one next time I sit down. I know, I'd get to level up and get new stuff and new powers but whether Gilligan is 1st level or 15th, he's still stuck on the island.
I think the middle template is ideal for an organized play campaign. Anyone should be able to sit down and play most any adventure and follow what's going on without any but the most basic of background knowledge. Also, adventure order should rarely matter, allowing people to jump in anywhere. However, for those people that play most of the adventures and stick with it for multiple years, I think there should be a feeling of something going on and some sense of accomplishment.
Specifically, I would like to see the organizations of the world (5 national factions, aspis consortium and pathfinder decemvirate) having long reaching goals that are revealed over the course of a season with the players having some choices to make regarding who they help.
|
|
A great example of the middle ground that Marvin is talking about is Friends. Each episode for the most part stands alone. However you can tell if you havewatched enough to know some of the meta-plots where each episode is in relation to the rest of the series by how the meta-plots are bing handled.
|
I think that you are going into a slippery slope on this one. If you have an ongoing plot, you are going to go on beyond the time line established. I had thought that Glorion was going to be effectively frozen in regards to that.
Now I know there is a defferance between Society games and other products, but that line will become blurrier as time goes on IMHO.
Personally I can see multiple options here and I can be good with almost all of them. It might be easier to just link a few mods together to make player feel that thier players are making a differance. But if we start to see world events in PS play, are't players going to expect that sort of change in newer suplements.
I do realize that it doesn't have to be that way. But if you have heard some grumbling about lack of meta-plot, what are they going to say if the Meta plot doesn't extent to other products?
|
|
I think that you are going into a slippery slope on this one. If you have an ongoing plot, you are going to go on beyond the time line established. I had thought that Glorion was going to be effectively frozen in regards to that.
Now I know there is a defferance between Society games and other products, but that line will become blurrier as time goes on IMHO.
The problem is that if you freeze the time line and never advance anything, the setting becomes stagnant. Just like water that is not flowing and has nothing else coming in, it eventually will become posion. Ultimately, each AP, each adventure published, each sourcebook published adds something new and brings in more material. And yes, it even advances the timeline unless you assume that every AP and every adventure occurs right at the same time. Each event subtly changes Golarion and makes it a richer, more vibrant world. That is th only way that a world remains fun to play in is if it is a living, breathing, active world.
|
|
The problem is that if you freeze the time line and never advance anything, the setting becomes stagnant. Just like water that is not flowing and has nothing else coming in, it eventually will become posion. Ultimately, each AP, each adventure published, each sourcebook published adds something new and brings in more material. And yes, it even advances the timeline unless you assume that every AP and every adventure occurs right at the same time. Each event subtly changes Golarion and makes it a richer, more vibrant world. That is th only way that a world remains fun to play in is if it is a living, breathing, active world.I think that you are going into a slippery slope on this one. If you have an ongoing plot, you are going to go on beyond the time line established. I had thought that Glorion was going to be effectively frozen in regards to that.
Now I know there is a defferance between Society games and other products, but that line will become blurrier as time goes on IMHO.
While there is not much of a specific meta-plot per se, it seems that the PFS Scenarios are set in the year corresponding to when they are published, as are the APs, replacing "200x" with "470x AR". For example, scenarios from Year 0 (started in 2008) and the Curse of the Crimson Throne and Legacy of Fire Adventure Paths start in 4708 AR. The setting slowly evolves, with what seems to be a presumption that the Good Guys successfully conclude the actions in the Adventure Paths set in Golarion. (Granted, the presumption is logical, or they'd have to redraw a few maps in a hurry ...) Year 1 PFS scenarios, the remainder of Legacy of Fire and Council of Thieves could be considered as set / starting in 4709 AR. Kingmaker will start rolling in 4710 AR.
In short, I agree with Fryer on this one.
|
|
Yes, meta- or standard plot please.
Better yet, relax the module word count and allow writers to include story, description, and non-stat block “fluff” – especially if it helps to bring the Golarion setting to life. I don’t think it would be possible to actually add plot without this step first.
The PFS modules I’ve played so far have been disconnected and disjointed and probably could have been set in any campaign setting. They are great for playing pick-up games where no one really cares what the outcome is…but they don’t support anything close to a shared campaign.
CJ
|
Meta-plots are cool but I think are best saved for home run campaigns and adventure paths.
If we add a meta-plot to PFS, what is to separate it from regular Pathfinder Adventure Paths being run at home?
While a meta-plot might seem like a cool idea at first I think it also hedges in the writers and a lot of really cool ideas might get dropped to the cutting room floor in favor of ideas that further the meta-plot.
A good compromise might be to have mini-campaigns at GenCon and / or available for play at other cons. A mini-campaign could consist of 3 to 4 adventures that could be played in 3-4 hour sessions that tie together into one complete and self contained story line. Other than that as other mods are released throughout the year they should be self contained.
|
|
Do you feel this way?
No, I have noticed some of my senarios I have played in were not recorded by the GMs and I realize getting people to take the time to post the results without a perk will be hard to do. I do not mind the results not being posted though I will say the fact I spent a lot of time and effort on season 0, and when the conversion guide came out I was disheartened to find we could not keep any of our boons/items from Season 0.
Do you disagree, and prefer things the way they are now?
There needs to be continuity from season 1 on out if you want people to buy into the idea and support a "living game". You do not want to accidentally alienate your player base by changing rules every season. I like the idea of GMs getting rewarded for eating adventures. Maybe a GM leaderboard for most games recorded with a monthly gift from Paizo may get their attention in keeping better records. The plots/stories are well written by new talent. Josh does a great job handling and coaching the new guys on how to write for Paizo.
Do you wish your in-character actions had more of an impact on the overall "plot" of the campaign?
The PA system is interesting. If you guys have an overall goal for the factions, say something like "This season, the natural borders of each country will expand/contract depending on how well the factions do. At the end of the season, the society game gains a new campaign sourcebook with a new timeline in which the changes take effect. For example Piren's bluff suddenly becomes under Cheliax control. All the results of the faction quests do not have to become that epic. For instance, If a faction quest says "save so-in-so from the dragon" Give a PA target number of 100, if 100 people play that adventure and save so-and-so gaining the PA, have that person as an NPC in a updated campaign book which will give life and meaning to players who have encountered them in the senario.
Should the campaign have an overall "plot" at all?
Why not? Sounds good but I would not make all the senarios based on the overall plot. It would be an editing nightmare and I wouldnt wish that on Josh. If you have 30 senarios for a season, take 6 out and have it like an adventure path module (senario style).
Hope this helps, thank you for asking the question.
... and when the conversion guide came out I was disheartened to find we could not keep any of our boons/items from Season 0.
You were supposed to keep your boons. Pretty much everything else was converted.
Good thread. I'll keep reading.
|
|
... and when the conversion guide came out I was disheartened to find we could not keep any of our boons/items from Season 0.You were supposed to keep your boons. Pretty much everything else was converted.
Good thread. I'll keep reading.
Sir Joshua,
Have you had the time to plow through the Paizocon II boons (such as the Cup of Cayden) yet? That cup has no cost, so I'm presuming at present it qualifies as a boon - but my player that has it would like to be sure before playing that character again.
I can't believe so many people are against PFS having a story... being a campaign; not just a bunch of one off adventures. Having played Living Greyhawk, I just assumed that there would be a Meta-plot in PFS, and hearing that there isn't actually makes me think twice about starting to play PFS, despite having already purchased scenarios and corresponding flip-mats.
What the heck is supposed to be your motivation to play? Just to level your characters?
|
|
I’d like to have meta-gaming in PFS and here’s how I suggest it be done:
Concerning PFS Guidelines:
Firstly PFS Guidelines specifically state that its campaign is loosely based on the material presented in Pathfinder books, which explains why certain aspects are not allowed in organized play. Second it should read that PFS uses its own time line so that its events have no bearing upon actual published canon; unless those events are being used for home play, in which case the GM has final approval.
Concerning PFS storyline:
If you’re talking meta-game and influencing story then AEG has the longest and most successful storyline in the history of gaming. I’d like to see PFS adopt a storyline format similar to how AEG runs L5R, meaning every player has an impact upon the storyline. The storyline should be important but at the same time not influence the canon of the actual Pathfinder product line. As mentioned that was a hang-up with Greyhawk and its source material which toward the end had story information that didn’t make sense to people who weren’t playing in the RPGA. AEG while having great success with the storyline has also realized that if it’s tied to the product line it will turn some players away; which is why their 4th edition for the RPG will not be tied to the storyline as announced at Gen Con last month.
In L5R, belonging to a clan is important to the storyline so too should belonging to a faction mean something in PFS. First to stress the importance of factions only one per player should be allowed during the course of a given year or story arch. To play up the meta-gaming element, each faction should have its own section of the website that members can login to and read letters. These letters, basically fiction tied to the storyline, should be from important NPC society members within their given faction revealing information concerning the overall story.
There are a few things which could be done concerning meta-game to reinforce the importance of factions. Have special votes where each faction has a stake in the outcome, influencing the storyline. Develop something like AEG’s koku which may be collected or traded in. (I don’t expect it to be stuck in books, but it could be stuck on flip maps or the various decks and booster packs.) It could be called Faction Rewards or something like that. AEG allows koku to be turned in for promo cards and either last year or the year before they held a contest where the clan who turned in the most determined the storyline event the contest was set up for. Paizo could do the same allowing these rewards to be collected and turned in for faction related items (such as rare item cards bearing faction symbols) or saved up and sent in to help determine outcomes when contests are announced.
Going back to what AEG has done with the clans, I understand Paizo can’t do the same as the rivalry AEG uses fuels the cardgame which has the most influence on their storyline. In-game rivalry at the game table doesn’t help game play or team work, which is what the Pathfinder RPG is actually all about. In-game rivalry could also drive players off and we don’t want that. What should be done is changing faction objectives so that in the module each faction seems to work toward a common goal or at least somewhat common goals, but overall the objective might not be the same for each faction. Everyone might want to save the mayor of a town, but later on when it’s determined that more Cheliaxians helped him than any other faction it might be revealed that he was swayed to provide land for a Hellkinght outpost.
When it comes to the scenarios have the storyline be connected but not necessarily tied directly to the module. Short run storylines might be written directly into a one shot module or cover a three part storyline or just as easily be subject to a vote on the Paizo website. Overarching storylines should touch every module or a large portion done within a year with updates posted throughout the year to let people know what’s happening. A short run storyline might be stopping a devil from coming into power in Cheliax while the overarching story for the year might be preventing a full out war between all the countries with certain module outcomes deciding who, if anyone, goes to war. Outcomes could be determined via collecting scenario reports during the first month or two of their availability. Certain points of the overarching storyline might only run at given conventions or at least premier at them, such as Gen Con or Paizocon events determining who wins the war!
Finally this next part is really important and I can’t stress it enough. Introduce Pathfinder fiction to the website! I’m not talking about what’s planned or being done with the professional line, but fiction related directly to the PFS campaign and hopefully written by a story team made up of PFS fans. Serenrae knows there’s a lot of talent out there; just look at Wayfinder and you’ll see that. Organize a team and put them to voluntary work supporting the campaign as story scribes. They’ll get more writing experience which could lead to a job later on or at least a reputation that will open better doors for them.
My point with all the storyline stuff is that if AEG has one of the best and longest run meta-gaming campaigns why can’t Paizo do it? I think the key no matter what is decided will be finding the right balance which will help players become and stay interested in PFS; thus being excited about the campaign. Whatever this balance is it will not be a burden to Paizo or sink their reputation. I hope we see a long and successful campaign whichever direction it goes.
|
|
DM4hire: Some good points. However, I can't resist nitpicking your terminology somewhat:
The metaplot is the overarching storyline that binds together events in a role-playing game. Major story events that change the world, or simply move important non-player characters from one place to another, are part of the metaplot for a game.
Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game.
|
|
I'm with Sothmektri and KEJR et al. here; I would find an over-arching story a bit diruptive both as a player and GM. In fact, I wouldn't probably want to GM for a group that hasn't played the same scenarios; too much hassle working out who's played and succeeded/failed in which scenario and how it should affect the current adventure (premise, NPCs and the perceived story arc).
If I were to pick up (or play in) PFS modules, I don't need a complex storyline -- no matter how well it would be written; I want an easy-to-run adventure in which the "action" can start right from the start. I reserve complex storylines over-arcing campaign plots to my home games, and that's enough for me.
|
|
As a former Plot Director for Living City (the very first ongoing campaign of this nature), Metaorganization Director for Blackmoor, Invisible King (plot coordinator for a specific region) for the Living Arcanis campaign, and a tournament author for other campaigns, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of having ongoing story arcs in a campaign.
Golarion has so much rich and vibrant material in such a short period of time (which I find impressive), it is a bit of a shame that it is really not being utilized. There is barely any political intrigue, moral challenges/quandries, or riveting NPCs to deal with in the current slate of PFS events. That is what made past ongoing campaign popular and had players have 'vested interests' in the characters they are playing because they are making an impact on the overall arc...not the same ol' combat after combat encounters (I had at least 5 combats in one of the GenCon mods...absolutely ridiculous) which is plaguing the campaign right now.
Every event doesnt have to be a 'story event'. One shots are the norm in campaigns that have multiple plotlines to break things up a bit...but they could also be meaningful as well instead of the atypical dungeon crawl. For those detractors of metaplot and want PFS to remain in the status quo, all I can really say is, it has worked succesfully in the past with little complaint. If they want to see samples of mods with a true story behind it, some campaigns like www.livingarcanis.com and Shining Jewel (dont recall the website) allow their adventures to be downloaded for free.
If PFS is going to be adding more 'metaplot' to spicen the campaign up (which I am totally for), I hope that they will be able to slow down the leveling pace of the player characters (as I know my main will be retiring once 3 months worth of future mods are released), so they can actually see a storyline through.
|
|
If I were to pick up (or play in) PFS modules, I don't need a complex storyline -- no matter how well it would be written; I want an easy-to-run adventure in which the "action" can start right from the start. I reserve complex storylines over-arcing campaign plots to my home games, and that's enough for me.
Where did you get the idea that a living campaign should be a series of unrelated one-shots? Just curious. To me a living campaign is something that breathes and develops. Where the actions of player characters matter and affect the world. This is the main reason I'm involved in the Pathfinder Society in the first place. If I wanted to play a series of unrelated, no-brainer monster bashes, I'd play WoW or DD4. Perhaps you should look into those?
|
|
If I were to pick up (or play in) PFS modules, I don't need a complex storyline -- no matter how well it would be written; I want an easy-to-run adventure in which the "action" can start right from the start. I reserve complex storylines over-arcing campaign plots to my home games, and that's enough for me.Where did you get the idea that a living campaign should be a series of unrelated one-shots? Just curious. To me a living campaign is something that breathes and develops. Where the actions of player characters matter and affect the world. This is the main reason I'm involved in the Pathfinder Society in the first place. If I wanted to play a series of unrelated, no-brainer monster bashes, I'd play WoW or DD4. Perhaps you should look into those?
Well put! After playing, gming, writing for, and coordinating living campaigns since 1994, this is the first time I ever heard that some players and GMs do NOT want a story in a living campaign.
|
|
If I were to pick up (or play in) PFS modules, I don't need a complex storyline -- no matter how well it would be written; I want an easy-to-run adventure in which the "action" can start right from the start. I reserve complex storylines over-arcing campaign plots to my home games, and that's enough for me.Where did you get the idea that a living campaign should be a series of unrelated one-shots? Just curious. To me a living campaign is something that breathes and develops. Where the actions of player characters matter and affect the world. This is the main reason I'm involved in the Pathfinder Society in the first place. If I wanted to play a series of unrelated, no-brainer monster bashes, I'd play WoW or DD4. Perhaps you should look into those?
There should be room for both styles of play. At Gencon I had players who were very interested in the plot and I had players who only followed the plot to get prestige points, and I also had players who just wanted to test thier builds and kick but. I enjoyed running the game for all of them.
I will still like to run games if we do decide to go with a metaplot and I will not stand in it's way. I will say that I think it's somewhat risky. But I have said that before so sorry for beating a dead horse. Paizo has come up with some pretty creative solutions before, this this could be one of those times.
|
|
There should be room for both styles of play. At Gencon I had players who were very interested in the plot and I had players who only followed the plot to get prestige points, and I also had players who just wanted to test thier builds and kick but. I enjoyed running the game for all of them.
Frankly I don't see how a metaplot/continuity could hurt the issue since some players follow the plot only to get the prestige points and some just completely ignore it. If the group seems to be completely oblivious of a grand plot and just want to roll dice, so be it.
A grand plot is just a plus, it doesn't bring any problems or hindrances. People just tend to be very suspicious and preconceived.
Additionally I've seen many here post and mention they've played Living Greyhawk or some other global campaign before PFS. Nearly all (if not all?) are for a metaplot/continuity. Coincidence? I think not.
|
|
Consider the various player types (from Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering):
The Power Gamer: Likes to make the most of the game system
The Butt-Kicker: Likes to let off steam by crushing the opposition
The Tactician: Likes to develop plans and execute as a party
The Specialist: Likes to play particular types of characters (bards, ninjas, dual-wielding rangers)
The Method Actor: Likes to be immersed in their character
The Storyteller: Likes to be immersed in the developing story
The Casual Gamer: Likes to game with friends
ChattyDM summarizes the laws in his blog. You can also find a multitude of online quizzes to indentify what player type you are.
What aspects of Pathfinder Society appeal to each type?
The Power Gamer: Options in the Pathfinder RPG rules and Chapter 13 that allow them to create a strong character.
The Butt-Kicker: Scenarios with plentiful combat encounters.
The Tactician: Scenarios with interesting combat and non-combat choices (due to skills, terrain, or other factors).
The Specialist: Options in the Pathfinder RPG rules and Chapter 13 that allow them to create a particular character. Scenarios that allow that type of character to shine.
The Method Actor: Interesting consequences for their character in scenarios (boons, titles, curses, reputation).
The Storyteller: Interesting consequences for the game world in scenarios (society, factions, recurring NPC's).
The Casual Gamer: Friends who also play Pathfinder Society.
Based on the comments in the thread so far, we have people speaking up in support of most of these player types. Based on the nine scenarios I've played or judged, I'd say Pathfinder Society does an excellent job of catering to Power Gamers, Butt Kickers, and Tacticians. I'd say we can do more to appeal to Method Actors and Storytellers.
|
|
Frankly I don't see how a metaplot/continuity could hurt the issue since some players follow the plot only to get the prestige points and some just completely ignore it. If the group seems to be completely oblivious of a grand plot and just want to roll dice, so be it.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that Metaplot would hurt PS games. All I said was there should be room for all differant types of players.
A grand plot is just a plus, it doesn't bring any problems or hindrances. People just tend to be very suspicious and preconceived.
It will be a plus for some, maybe even a majority, for others it will just be over looked. As long as most every one is happy, so be it.
|
|
It will be a plus for some, maybe even a majority, for others it will just be over looked. As long as most every one is happy, so be it.
The argument still stands. If it would be overlooked, why would anyone not interested in meta-plot be against it? Are you people worried that plot elements would take up so much space in the module that you'd have to settle for *shudder* maybe one combat encounter per scenario less?
How's this: once a year Paizo puts out a module ideal (from what I take is the preference of at least some of the people against meta-plot in this thread) for the pick-up replays gamer. It would consist of a dungeon with five rooms. For each room there would be an encounter chart on which the GM rolls randomly when the group enters. This module, and only this module, could be replayed indefinitely, since it would be different each time! Ingenious! And no pesky fluff or plot getting in the way of a good old fashioned slug-fest! Roll for initiative, its time to role-play!
Yes, I am indeed joking.
|
|
How's this: once a year Paizo puts out a module ideal (from what I take is the preference of at least some of the people against meta-plot in this thread) for the pick-up replays gamer. It would consist of a dungeon with five rooms. For each room there would be an encounter chart on which the GM rolls randomly when the group enters. This module, and only this module, could be replayed indefinitely, since it would be different each time! Ingenious! And no pesky fluff or plot getting in the way of a good old fashioned slug-fest! Roll for initiative, its time to role-play!
Yes, I am indeed joking.
What makes it hilarious is that there is a dungeon within walking distance of Absalom that has matching flavor: the Spire of Nex. Add a table that randomly changes the layout and description of each room and you're good to go.
I think Paizo and/or GM's could do something a lot more interesting with the Spire, but it is practically written as the replayable dungeon.
|
|
What makes it hilarious is that there is a dungeon within walking distance of Absalom that has matching flavor: the Spire of Nex. Add a table that randomly changes the layout and description of each room and you're good to go.
I think Paizo and/or GM's could do something a lot more interesting with the Spire, but it is practically written as the replayable dungeon.
Indeed it is. I was thinking they've used this method for at least two scenario's already.
"Captain! There is trouble on the holodeck! Again!"
You were supposed to keep your boons. Pretty much everything else was converted.*smiles* so then, I get to keep my +2 divine bonus to Wisdom from Paizocon vision quest? Excellent. I had a GM at Dragon Con question it and to avoid problems, I adjusted my stat back down.
The PaizoCon boons weren't what I had in mind when I made that statement. Some of those were .... a bit excessive (it was our first interactive). I'm referring to the boons that were on the chronicle sheets from season 0 scenarios, not the boons from the PaizoCon interactive. You don't get to keep those, I'm afraid.
Before everyone lynches me, we'll do something better at PaizoCon 2010, something that will count and be balanced with the rest of the system, but something still unique and interesting enough to make you glad you came. That interactive was fun, but it was a learning experience for me particularly.
Adding a LA- or LG-style over-arching meta plot that spans most all of the scenarios in a given season is probably not something we'll do.
BUT
I've already planned several story arcs into season 1 (the Devil We Know is going to be 4 or 5 linked adventures across the year and there are two other 3-or-so scenarios in length arcs coming up as well) and I've got a plan for the level cap scenarios (Tier 12) that involve those scenarios, each year, being a continuous 4-part "holy crap this is what's really going on behind the scenes of the PFS" mini-path or arc.
That's 14 scenarios out of each Season's 32 being connected in one arc or the other. So you get some meta-plot or story arcs and you also get the Indiana Jones-styled "archaeology" romps that the Society is known for on Golarion. If the 14 scenarios that make the various arcs prove to be popular (say, their sales are much higher than the one-shots), I'll certainly consider expanding this in Season 2 to a higher number.
Everyone who has a very strong opinion about this topic would do well to remember that none of you are forming a consensus. There isn't a majority opinion among you (and certainly not in this thread). I have to make decisions about the campaign that benefit Paizo, benefit our product lines, keep the majority of the players happy, and bring new players into the campaign. Sometimes I will make decisions that follow those guidelines and make some of the people unhappy. It can't be avoided. What I will continue to strive to do is make the campaign better and better with each passing month and hope you'll continue to help me make it better.