So, to bring this together with another PFS thread, once we get a meta plot going, and I have players wanting to play part 2, 3, or 4 of a linked series so they know how it turns out, and I have to play these in order, and some of the people at my table have already played a few of them out of sequence, and you can't replay them . . . what happens?
Potentially half my table can't play?
In the pursuit of a meta plot that is just as engaging as a home game tailored for the specific characters, its very easy to turn this into a juggernaut that really only works if someone is running it as their home campaign.
I talked about this same issue a while back on my blog where I talk about doing adventure is a "web type" of format that you can play them in "any" order. Would something like that be more of your liking?
|
I like story arcs that link modules together. Having a few series of modules linked this way is nice. There is a great deal of satisfaction when you take a character all the way through a story arc.
However, a huge overall meta plot makes everything feel a bit forced imho. An overall meta plot limits the availible possibilities of bad guys and ideas availible. There needs to be a good mix of modules to play.
|
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?
Man more people putting words in my mouth. I'm not afraid of anything, one way or the other. Please read what I wrote. I will not complain one way or the other about meta-plot.
As far as the people who don't care or don't want meta-plot? There will be people who will not like certain story lines because it might not fit the type of role playing concept they had in mind. Not all stories will be for everyone. I do think that will get some people worked up.
But I also know that you can't please everyone all the time. So bring on the meta-plot, if most people want it. I'm looking forward to seeing it pulled off.
|
|
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.
IMHO that really seems cool. I liked the idea of a few links mods, with the posibility of maybe throwing a mod or so in between to make sure that player don't fall into a rut. That really sounds cool as I like running the adventures more so than playing. It really makes me want to buy these adventures more.
|
Disclaimer: I'm not playing in a PFS but would like to start GMing some games in the near future.
I was disappointed that there was no announcement of the "winner", and bummed that prestige for factions didn't mean anything except to the individual.
In fact, I think that made running a PFS home campaign a lower priority. I still want to do it, but it went from an intense interest to "no big deal, I'll get around to it when I'm not working on one of the APs."
I know, speaking for myself, that metaplot would help. And I would be the GM not a player, so that says something!
|
|
Not all stories will be for everyone. I do think that will get some people worked up.
How is this news? At the moment there are several (most of them, in fact) modules out there that "are not for everyone". And this has also caused people "to get worked up". For proof you needn't look any further than this thread.
To avoid confusion as to who put what into who's mouth I'll just spell it out for you. Non-linked one-shots with little more plot-content than "go get McGuffin X, kill everything between your group and said McGuffin" are definitely not everyone's cup of tea.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
With regard to these linked modules can Paizo please clearly indicate throughout the season in the scenario descriptions on the website 'Characters must have played scenarios x, y, and z before this in that order' (or words to that effect) where applicable, so GMs know what the situation is before they buy and start prepping such scenarios?
If they're handled the same way as The Devil We Know parts 1 & 2, they don't have to be played in order. They're also listed as "Pathfinder Society Scenario #29: The Devil We Know, Part I - Shipyard Rats" and "Pathfinder Society Scenario #30: The Devil We Know, Part II - Cassomir's Locker" so it's neither a secret that they are linked nor that Shipyard Rats precedes Cassomir's Locker. What more would you be looking for?
|
But I also know that you can't please everyone all the time.
Indeed. Trying to please everyone would only result in a certain kind of mediocrity. For example having a stealth mission in there somewhere would eliminate all those grumpy dwarves in full plates.
That being said, I don't really have much to add the discussion. I've said pretty much everything I have in mind, and Josh ponders already.
|
|
...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...
14/32 is plenty to satisfy me for meta-plot, I think that's pretty much in line with previous campaigns - though they might have had longer arcs.
I find these level cap scenarios intriguing, when do you plan for the first one to be announced?
14/32 is plenty to satisfy me for meta-plot, I think that's pretty much in line with previous campaigns - though they might have had longer arcs.I find these level cap scenarios intriguing, when do you plan for the first one to be announced?
The first one will be released in March 2010, when the "hardcore" folks who started playing in August 2008 will start hitting the cap. I'll likely put it on the product page in February or so.
I just wanted to add: it would be easier for a player to ignore a larger plot, and knock down doors, and kill things; than for a player to make up a plot themselves, and knock down doors, and kill things.
|
The first one will be released in March 2010, when the "hardcore" folks who started playing in August 2008 will start hitting the cap. I'll likely put it on the product page in February or so.
Perhaps a little sooner !
In New York there are quite a few (about 3 or 4) 'hardcore' folks at level 10 already - there are even more of us that have hit level 9 (and another handful I met at GenCon) and the majority of the New York society (30+) have hit levels 7-8.
So by December/January there will be quite a few of us with keen interest and saying 'so what's next ?'
The first one will be released in March 2010, when the "hardcore" folks who started playing in August 2008 will start hitting the cap. I'll likely put it on the product page in February or so.Perhaps a little sooner !
In New York there are quite a few (about 3 or 4) 'hardcore' folks at level 10 already - there are even more of us that have hit level 9 (and another handful I met at GenCon) and the majority of the New York society (30+) have hit levels 7-8.
So by December/January there will be quite a few of us with keen interest and saying 'so what's next ?'
Assuming they're playing Tier-appropriate scenarios, they'll hit level 12 in February and the Tier 12 scenario will come out in March.
|
|
I've waited a while to post in this thread. I wanted time to think it through, and being a half-orc that takes time.
When I play PFS Scenarios, I want to feel as though my success on this mission matters. I want it to matter to my character. I want it to matter to my faction. I want it to matter to the world. I also want to feel as though my character is a member of a party, a member of a mostly secret society, a member of my chosen faction, and a part of the world as a whole. My actions should feel as though they influence all of these aspects.
|
|
Oh and to voice my opinion, 14 out of 32 being 'plotty' and such would be sufficient for me. I haven't played Cassomir's Locker yet, so I don't know what kind of connection The Devil We Know really has.
And as a late response to those that think it's too much of a hassle to determine which character has played what, I disagree. Living Greyhawk had several instances where having a Favor for a particular organization was asked before the scenario started. It might have not resulted in more than a little in-game praise by the said organization, but nevertheless it was nice.
So prior to the game the GM would ask to see the chronicle sheet of a certain module(s), nothing more than that.
|
|
Not all stories will be for everyone. I do think that will get some people worked up.How is this news? At the moment there are several (most of them, in fact) modules out there that "are not for everyone". And this has also caused people "to get worked up". For proof you needn't look any further than this thread.
To avoid confusion as to who put what into who's mouth I'll just spell it out for you. Non-linked one-shots with little more plot-content than "go get McGuffin X, kill everything between your group and said McGuffin" are definitely not everyone's cup of tea.
Let me spell something out for you. Once again you are putting words in my mouth. You cannot infer that from what I said that everyone who plays PS games would like Non-linked one-shots with little more plot-content than "go get McGuffin X, kill everything between your group and said McGuffin"
You might want to take some time and think before you post. Tearing down people around you that are willing to go your way in a discussion is not really in your best interest. I can work with meta-plot, all I am trying to do is point out some possible pitfalls along the way. Please stop worring about people making constructive comments.
As far as the chain of adventures Meta-Plot vs. story line plot not being for every one. Most players are ok with the idea of one adventure being sub par for them, most will not stand for 4, 5 or 6 being sub par for them. That was the point I was trying to get across. That is a big deal. If you can't get the players to come back to the table it's a big issue. I do see some ways around it. If you have a group that doesn't seem to like a Meta plot adventure, you could simply finishup what you have and start up on another line of PS adventures. But that does mean that futher adventues in the line might get avoided altogether that might be real gems.
|
|
You might want to take some time and think before you post. Tearing down people around you that are willing to go your way in a discussion is not really in your best interest. I can work with meta-plot, all I am trying to do is point out some possible pitfalls along the way. Please stop worrying about people making constructive comments.
Now you're "putting words" into his mouth. This bickering better stop before a moderator will notice. I don't want this thread to get locked just because some people can't get along.
|
|
You might want to take some time and think before you post. Tearing down people around you that are willing to go your way in a discussion is not really in your best interest. I can work with meta-plot, all I am trying to do is point out some possible pitfalls along the way. Please stop worrying about people making constructive comments.Now you're "putting words" into his mouth. This bickering better stop before a moderator will notice. I don't want this thread to get locked just because some people can't get along.
I can't really be arguing with him, I don't disagree with him.
Wait, wait, wait! 32 scenarios a year? I thought there were 28. Are we getting 4 more in season 1 than we had in season 0?
LOL
There are 28 a year. There are 32 out now.
Drat! Thanks for getting my hopes up!
There's a brick of solid gold in your mailbox.
|
|
Here's a thought...
Let's say that X amount of adventures are "meta-plot" adventures and Y amount of adventures are random "this week's episode" adventures.
One way to keep everyone happy would be to have favors, boons, unique items, etc, from Group Y be useful in the adventures from Group X.
For example, if during the "Save missing Pathfinder Bob" adventure, the players, well, save missing Pathfinder Bob, and gain his boon, then maybe that boon could have a use in main plot. Same with enmities and disfavors; they would negatively impact the experience of the main plot.
This way, we'd have a coherent world, rather than a series of LFR-style crawls.
-Matt
|
|
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?
Maybe I don't just see Pathfinder Society being identical to LGR or any other "living" campaign? It may be just my own understanding of the philosophy behind PFS, but I don't think it *should* function as an instrument to change the setting. If I sit down to play at a convention, I'm not expecting to "leave my mark" on whatever setting the GM is running; rather, I'm there to try out different games and settings and generally have fun. If it's a PFS society scenario, I might want to gain some experience for my character while adventuring in my favorite setting, plus meet some other Pathfinder fans and share the fun with them.
As I already said, I run intrigue-laden, roleplaying-heavy campaigns with a lot of twists, hundreds of NPCs and generally implement a lot of setting information and details into every session. Player characters and their actions *do* matter, but that's a different thing because it's my "home" game -- I can easily keep track of the metaplot going on in the background and how the PCs relate to it. However, as a GM running PFS scenarions, I wouldn't want to have a restricting, ever-developing metaplot that forces me not only to keep track of what's happening everywhere but to make necessary adjustments to the adventure PC backstories. And neither would I, as a player, want to be "infodumped" for 20 minutes about the regional and overall metaplot before every session. It has nothing to do with "no-brainer monster bashes" -- I'm all fine with with complex plots, but I just don't see complex campaign arcs as being ideal for this type of playing or GMing.
As far as LGR goes, my own impression (which may be wrong; I never belonged to RPGA, but I know guys who did) is that the overall metaplot for the setting seemed to be 'Greyhawk Wars, part 2', i.e. the local high-level NPC, demigod, monster or otherplanar threat gathering an army, some evil artifacts and overall trashing the region. Honestly, when you listen to someone explaining it all (and maybe I was told a biased explanation and I'm wrong) how forests and villages are burning here and countries being razed there and kings and dukes killed left and right... it seemed I was listening to the same plot several times in succession. Plus it changed Greyhawk a lot more than I suspect was originally intended.
I don't think PFS should try to emulate LGR; not only would this require careful judging of which major changes/twists should be implemented into "canon" and which shouldn't. This would also require that Paizo will make sure the module and novel authors would pay heed to the PFS metaplot. Otherwise we have two consistencies that overlap on some points and differentiate on others, and while it works for "home" campaigns, I don't think it would be a wise move here.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
1) Do you feel this way?
2) Do you disagree, and prefer things the way they are now?
3) Do you wish your in-character actions had more of an impact on the overall "plot" of the campaign?
4) Should the campaign have an overall "plot" at all?
1) I'm happy now.
2) I'm indifferent, so long as the changes to the world are not on the order of the changes to LFR in 4E (i.e. new LFR looks nothing like old FR.)
3) This would be interesting. Something like LFR's "did the players save the guy" or "did the players kill the guy" questions. You could pool the ran modules and "pick" the outcome based on the number of people that did whatever?
4) I wouldn't object to it, but I'm happy playing now.
