|
For scenarios that offer two PA, how often do players earn both? If you don't want to review your session stats, what's your general feel for it? Is that second PA really that much harder than the first, or is it a gimme?
Here's my breakdown:
For scenarios that only offer 1 PA, I give out 1 PA 94% of the time (33 out of 35 players).
For scenarios that offer 2 PA, I give out 2 PA 77.1% of the time (262 players), 1 PA 13.2% of the time (45 players), and 0 PA 5.3% (18 players).
I think I remember Josh stating that he built the wealth rules around assuming that players get both PA only 50% of the time. I wonder how accurate that really is.
|
For scenarios that offer two PA, how often do players earn both? If you don't want to review your session stats, what's your general feel for it? Is that second PA really that much harder than the first, or is it a gimme?
Here's my breakdown:
For scenarios that only offer 1 PA, I give out 1 PA 94% of the time (33 out of 35 players).
For scenarios that offer 2 PA, I give out 2 PA 77.1% of the time (262 players), 1 PA 13.2% of the time (45 players), and 0 PA 5.3% (18 players).
I think I remember Josh stating that he built the wealth rules around assuming that players get both PA only 50% of the time. I wonder how accurate that really is.
I usually give out full PA. Only on occasion have I not given full. I do get the feeling from the boards however, that a lot of people are giving out full PA because they feel bad. That is not my case ;)
|
In GM'ing 70+ scenarios (watch out Kyle, I'm coming for ya), I have only had a couple of instances that I didn't give out full coin award. For PA, and without doing the research, I would say that my % of awarding 2, is even higher than Kyle's, perhaps approaching 90%. And I can only recall once where a 2 PA opportunity resulted in zero being rewarded. This would exempt PC deaths, of course.
I think that this is probably the trend throughout the society. Most GM's seem reluctant to restrict awards, especially during low levels, for fear of making the player mad. I do see a trend that the chance of missing a PA increases as you level and players with higher level PC's seem to be a bit more accepting of it happening to them. I can only assume that this is because we have already achieved some, or all of the really "wanted" items (armor, weapon, wand, etc) and are okay with waiting longer for the secondary items, or for that next piece of "bling" for their main stuff.
Initially, I handed out full rewards because I wanted to keep players coming back. But, now I am more rigid in requiring them to succeed. Even still, sometimes, I will allow a player to earn a reward without the required skill if they can role-play well or justify using another skill.
|
That second PA can be tough, and I do see some 'sympathy PA' given out which bugs me a bit. Personally, if I miss it I'd rather just miss it.
The idea that people would get 50% of PA is based on the assumption that players would build typical characters. I've seen a good number of players build their characters with a focus on the skills that get them more PA. So the fact that more than 50% is assigned isn't a huge surprise. I think that's Ok since a lot of players also horde their PA in case they get killed and the fact that they are building skills based characters means they are slightly less combat effective.
|
|
Initially, I handed out full rewards because I wanted to keep players coming back. But, now I am more rigid in requiring them to succeed. Even still, sometimes, I will allow a player to earn a reward without the required skill if they can role-play well or justify using another skill.
It gets frustrating that many of the PA require really oddball skills like K(engineering) or sometimes require skills that don't make sense. I had one scenario that said you needed to use your 'brilliant personality' then used Knowledge (local).
I suspect some prestige is given out by GMs because they feel the player doesn't really have a chance to hit the mark. It's one thing to roll poorly on a skill check but when the character has zero chance to get a PA because he can't make a DC 25 Knowledge (nobility) check it's extremely frustrating.
The guide lists suggested classes for each faction and IMO the suggested classes should have a decent chance of getting the PA with a fairly typical build. Certain factions secondary skills make sense also, Knowledge (nobility) makes sense for Taldor but not so much for Qadira. If the PA is assigned this way I sure don't see it from the games I've GMed or played in.
|
Hopefully you mean he's able to get the other more skill focused PC of the same faction...Also, if a PC is unable to make a skill check for the second PA, at least in my experience, that PC is perfectly able to get the other, more skill-focused PCs at the table to do it for him.
-Matt
oddly enough, that is not a requirement. As long as the Mission does not need to be kept seceret, anyone in the group can help if they want.
I had a group Hire Help!
|
oddly enough, that is not a requirement. As long as the Mission does not need to be kept seceret, anyone in the group can help if they want.
I had a group Hire Help!
While I personally wish that the second PA would get harder, by the rules you can ask other factions for aid. Recently I've been trying to keep it more and more secretive for missions and who is what faction, but I can only do so much. Hopefully in the future the Guide will change and punish characters who seek help from other factions (Although it would be nice if the Taldans would know who each other is, the Qadirans know who each other is, etc.).
|
|
Here's my breakdown:
Max PA 1:
97.26% 1 PA (71 players)
2.74% 0 PA (2 players)
Max PA 2:
77.1% 2 PA (81 players)
22.9% 1 PA (24 players)
0% 0 PA
This has taken out my own DM awards, Master of the Fallen Fortress, and the Society Special.
Edit: Kyle that's really creepy that we have the same 2 PA percentage...
Second Edit: Analyzing all seasons added together (I only ran 1-2 during Season 0 so this is fairly accurate), I give out 1.46 PA per character per session. That is actually fairly accurate to the "supposed to have" number of PA. For all we know there were easier missions for Season 1 to compensate for Season 0?
|
|
I've seen a good number of players build their characters with a focus on the skills that get them more PA.Yeah, there are a few Boracles running around to do just that. ;-P
Hey now, he's built specifically to be a PA monkey. So what if that's all he can do is get himself (and everyone else at the table) their PA? What else would you expect from a fedora wearing, whip toting archaeologist gnome who can top out at a DC 54 Knowledge (History) check at 3rd level?
|
|
Hopefully in the future the Guide will change and punish characters who seek help from other factions
In theory I really like this idea. The idea of the factions missions should have some secrecy. Unfortunately, in play, I would not support if unless it was a hard rule. Too often, I see a number of players at the table from the more common factions (Andoran/Cheliax) and rarely do I see more than one Taldor/Qadiran. Only allowing same faction to help each other would require that you shift the difficulty of the missions to compensate for representation. Otherwise, we would start to see even fewer of those in favor of the common ones so you could earn your PA more readily. Selecting, for example, Qadira for fluff/role-play reason should not punish you in comparison to the other players. Incidentally, if the original concept of tracking the factions and having their level of power be reflected by actual play, would make this even better. The faction missions for the leading faction could be made more difficult and reflect the increase in members. While the lower factions, could have easier missions reflecting that their members will likely be on their own. This is kind of like handicapping sports such as drafts, and gives the lower factions an opportunity to improve their base through gameplay.
|
|
Hopefully in the future the Guide will change and punish characters who seek help from other factionsIn theory I really like this idea. The idea of the factions missions should have some secrecy. Unfortunately, in play, I would not support if unless it was a hard rule. Too often, I see a number of players at the table from the more common factions (Andoran/Cheliax) and rarely do I see more than one Taldor/Qadiran. Only allowing same faction to help each other would require that you shift the difficulty of the missions to compensate for representation. Otherwise, we would start to see even fewer of those in favor of the common ones so you could earn your PA more readily. Selecting, for example, Qadira for fluff/role-play reason should not punish you in comparison to the other players. Incidentally, if the original concept of tracking the factions and having their level of power be reflected by actual play, would make this even better. The faction missions for the leading faction could be made more difficult and reflect the increase in members. While the lower factions, could have easier missions reflecting that their members will likely be on their own. This is kind of like handicapping sports such as drafts, and gives the lower factions an opportunity to improve their base through gameplay.
In our group we generally don't assist with each other's faction missions because we respect the idea that 'faction missions are secret'. Ultimately I see the faction thing as part of the spirit of society play. It's not a hard and fast rule but it's there for a reason.
I agree though, it definitely puts the players who choose the less common factions at a disadvantage.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
For scenarios that offer two PA, how often do players earn both?
Maybe it is the player base, but I rarely have Andorian PC not manage both PA (as in I can't remember the last game I ran or played that didn't get full PA.)
I rarely fail to give up full PA for Osirion/Qad factions (probably gut feel 80-90 %)
I sometimes have trouble with Taldan players but at least one is mostly disinterested in faction missions (60%?)
I often have trouble with Cheliax players (probably 40-50%)
So to me, it comes out to which faction.
|
|
And I thought I'm overly generous ...
2PA 75.3% 58
1PA 23.4% 18
0PA 1.3%1(dead)
1PA 75% 9
0PA 25% 3
I do notice that for new players at a CON the numbers are a lot lower - for my home games they are higher. One issue is at home I often have 2 Andorens and 2 Taldor members. That helps. I even had one game with 100% Andorans ...
The other bit that helps is time. 50% of missed faction points are due to time constraints - not doing the full sweep. Especially Voices in the Void can be done at a CON successfully without a full sweep.
Thod
Ps: just realize I need to add 4 times 2PA as I just finished a game half an hour ago. Okay - seems I should better go to bed and report first thing in the morning instead of browsing the boards ...
I've seen a good number of players build their characters with a focus on the skills that get them more PA.
This, and also, as has been mentioned in other threads here, the number of players ignoring the main Society mission of the scenario in order to focus on the Faction missions seems to be increasing.
|
I've seen a good number of players build their characters with a focus on the skills that get them more PA.This, and also, as has been mentioned in other threads here, the number of players ignoring the main Society mission of the scenario in order to focus on the Faction missions seems to be increasing.
I think this is inevitable, and mirrors real life, there are some explorers who went 'with the backing of the monarchy' but really just wanted to find enough gold to line their own pockets, and didn't really care about claiming land
|
In regards to being secret, if a player wants to keep it secret, that's fine.
In one instance, however, my bard gnome really needed help opening an item to get at what was inside, though it wasn't valuable to anyone else. (disable device) A rogue from another faction helped me out (in character) and asked if he could compare his map to my own, since I had been working on it the whole time and had much better results.
Thus, we both got PA, while working together in character and without explaining why.
|
|
In our group we generally don't assist with each other's faction missions because we respect the idea that 'faction missions are secret'. Ultimately I see the faction thing as part of the spirit of society play. It's not a hard and fast rule but it's there for a reason.
I feel the opposite: sure the factions are secret, as are their motives, but the jobs they're asking you to do are no more secret than your main mission (excepting, of course, those missions that specifically state "...and don't let anyone see you do it.").
Tables I play at almost *always* help each other with faction missions, mainly because I almost always jump in after character introductions with something like,
"Hey, one more thing. I know some of you may have other motives for going on this mission, and I don't expect you to tell me if you don't want to. Honestly, though, I've got a couple of things I'd like to get done while we're out there. If any of you are willing to help me [find a statue's head, draw a map, convince X to see things my way, etc., etc.], then I'm happy to help out with whatever you need done, no questions asked. Just let me know how I can help."
I get a lot more PA that way, and I suspect that others at my tables do, too, because we're all more willing to help each other out.
|
|
2/2 85.6%
You big softy.
In regards to being secret, if a player wants to keep it secret, that's fine.
Generally speaking, if at all possible, I wait to hand out the faction missions until the tracking sheet has been filled out. That way I don't need to openly ask for people's faction. If they want to broadcast it, fine. If not, that's fine too.
|
|
but it appears that I am more cruel than Dougdoug. And Kyle.
Wow.
Not so! For 2 PA mods, you have an average of 1.697 PA per player per scenario. I, on the other hand only hand out 1.677 PA per player per scenario. :-)
You'll notice my original percentages don't add up to 100%, even though I included the zero PA players. I'd rather not comment on the "-" PA instances.
|
Hopefully you mean he's able to get the other more skill focused PC of the same faction...Also, if a PC is unable to make a skill check for the second PA, at least in my experience, that PC is perfectly able to get the other, more skill-focused PCs at the table to do it for him.
-Matt
oddly enough, that is not a requirement. As long as the Mission does not need to be kept seceret, anyone in the group can help if they want.
I had a group Hire Help!
I've had my 3 Int Animal Companion assist in Heal checks so that players from other factions could get their goal. (I'm picturing an animal licking a companion's wounds...which gets a little creepy when it's a Large Ape...)
I've rolled diplomacy for characters outside my faction trying to get an NPC to meet with their representatives. "Hey, Bob here would really like his Qadira agents to meet with you if it's convenient. He's a really great guy, and even though we of Cheliax are plotting the downfall of Qadira, it'd be great if you'd help him out by taking the meeting."
|
|
I've had my 3 Int Animal Companion assist in Heal checks so that players from other factions could get their goal. (I'm picturing an animal licking a companion's wounds...which gets a little creepy when it's a Large Ape...)
Talking about Ape Companions.... If Kortz ever says on these boards that I am out to kill his Companions, It is a LIE!!! Ok so I killed his last 2 and almost killed his new ape this last game, the first one he played it, but it is a coincidence I say!!!!
|
|
Talking about Ape Companions.... If Kortz ever says on these boards that I am out to kill his Companions, It is a LIE!!! Ok so I killed his last 2 and almost killed his new ape this last game, the first one he played it, but it is a coincidence I say!!!!
I've had my 3 Int Animal Companion assist in Heal checks so that players from other factions could get their goal. (I'm picturing an animal licking a companion's wounds...which gets a little creepy when it's a Large Ape...)
The nice thing about an animal companion is that they cost no PA or money to "raise", they just come back for the next module.
And, if you are ever in a pinch, they make a nice subject for "Animate Dead". Can you say Fast Zombie Large Ape with Bite, Claw, Claw, Slam, Slam?
|
|
The nice thing about an animal companion is that they cost no PA or money to "raise", they just come back for the next module.
And, if you are ever in a pinch, they make a nice subject for "Animate Dead". Can you say Fast Zombie Large Ape with Bite, Claw, Claw, Slam, Slam?
Well, minus tricks (if they have less than 3 int). I've only killed a couple animal companions as I have no remorse for them. So little HP too!
|
|
I got my pet ape an amulet of mighty fists (vicious) and generally cast bristle on it to maximize both it's damage taking and damage dealing potential.
I haven't played yet since I bought him the amulet, I wonder if Tatunga will ever make it through an adventure now.
Sweet. I'll have to consider that. I've got mine wielding a Lucerne Hammer now (for the 3d6 and 20' reach), but I hadn't even thought of the vicious.
|
|
Off the top of my head...
0/2 - 0%
1/2 - 7%
2/2 - 93%
Looks like I need to be tougher, I'm way to easy on them.
In addition:
Andoran - 69
Cheliax - 51
Osirion - 33
Qadira - 30
Taldor - 41
Usually, the reason someone doesn't get full PA at my table is because they can't make the DC because they don't even have the skill, or it is required to be secretive and they let the cat out of the bag.
I have made a character specifically for making PA checks. Sounds silly, but is something I wanted to try.
I do have a theory on PA.
Table 12-4 "Character Wealth by Level" from the PRPG, pg 399.
Table 11-2 "Prestige and Item Purchases" from v2.2 of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, pg 25.
Also, on pg 400 of the PRPG, it states "Characters should spend no more than half their total wealth on any single item."
Taking all of this into account, one could assume that each progression of PA listed is a level, i.e. 4 PA = level 2, 9 PA = level 3, and so on to 67 PA = level 15.
If this is true than one would naturally assume that the premise is that the average character would be receiving 1.4 PA per scenario, or about an extra PA every other scenario.
|
|
I have some neat tricks to get players to lose their PA. (I know that sounds/reads horrible...) :)
One of them is when there's a requirement to deliver a letter specifically without reading it. I will print out a "letter," roll it up, and tape it closed. After the player reads their faction mission, I will ask if they understand it. If they acknowledge, I will hand them the sealed letter and inform them that it's their faction mission. If the player opens the letter, they find wording on the letter something akin to, "Congratulations, you just failed your faction mission."
|
|
This has been an interesting discussion. Does anyone feel that the Faction mission DC should be scaled based on Tier? Just a thought.
[Sidebar] The first thing that came to my mind after reading this was running games for Living Greyhawk (LG). Every DC had several numbers behind it, a different one for each APL involved in the adventure. AHHHH, good times. ;-) I like the PFS scenarios so much better. I also remember the adventures containing 30 to 60 pages of material to read before you ran it. Glad PFS has contained that and kept it at about 20 pages or less. [/Sidebar]
|
|
This has been an interesting discussion. Does anyone feel that the Faction mission DC should be scaled based on Tier? Just a thought.
Absolutely, especially in tier 1-7 scenario. If the DC is static, you have to make it a challenge for the 6-7 and virtually unreachable for the 1-2. Make is reasonable for the 1-2, and 6-7 are likely auto-successes.