|
What I would not prefer is fewer combats which are more difficult. I already see too many situations where the party survives due to obvious GM pity, thanks.
I have found that in many cases changing some of the encounters from "Fights to the death" to "Fights until half the bad guys are dead or until on 10% HP are left" shortens the encounters without losing the meaning or point of the encounter. Especially with flunkies or filler encounters. It has always bugged me that many, many of the encounters with flunkies have the flunkies with such an iron clad zeal that there is no room for morale checks, they just fight to the death. That is not always necessary.
I would hate to see less encounters or combats as well.
|
Has anyone even tried starting a Regular basis PFS at one of your Local Game Shops?
1. There was an attempt to start a regular PFS game at a shop in a nearby suburb. I was unable to make that game due to a prior commitment and there were no additional meetings.
2. There was an attempt to run PFS on a monthly basis at a local game store. However, there was not sufficient player interest to make it viable. The only table which actually ran in 3-4 months was composed entirely of players from our home group who needed to get a module in so we could meet the tier requirements for an upcoming module.
3. The local stores are not very supportive of PFS or LFR. One store had an established LFR game day with two slots of four tables each when it cut back to allowing two tables. Low product sales was the reason, although not what they said publicly. That change drove away a lot of players and DM's and play has never recovered (store in #2). Another local store has made a push for MtG players the past few months which has led a monthly PFS game (as well as one of my home PFS games) to move to a new store where room was available.
|
Dragnmoon: Here in Denver we have biweekly events in 3 to 4 shops. So yes and it rocks. :)
Robyn: Sadly in Colorado we get 4 hour slots at cons with HARD stop points. Can't shove 5 to 6 hours of mod in 4 hours then so sorry.
The issue with Module length creep is that you end up as situations like the old RPGA mods. Here is an example of a game I was in (A living City game if you care).
Me: Hi my Character's name is Talvo he is a Human Fighter.
GM: Shut up!
Me: Hu?
GM: If you don't know the other PC's then tough I have a schedule.
Me: Your still unpacking your books. I was seeing what was at the table.
GM: I have 9 combats to run and only 4 hours to do it. So shut your trap and roll initiative while I read the boxed text.
Other player: My dwarf sneers at the elf.
GM: Thats enough role playing if you want the XP I need to start NOW!
GM then rambles off the Boxed Text at blistering pace..
I stopped playing RPGA after that game,and didn't go back to organized play till JP got me hooked on Pathfinder Society. *Shakes fist at JP*
The last thing I want to see as a player is a GM so crunched for time that he makes the game unfun.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
When it comes to conventions times can be an issue. Face it most cons run 4 hour slots. I also want to play in other games, and if time slots for PFS don't match up with those other games, PFS gets cut from my schedule.
Rather than post multiple quotes, I'm just paraphrasing and attributing that quote to "several people."
More importantly, I would like to point out that, if PFS is a marketting tool meant to be used at conventions and stores to rope new and existing players into more purchases, then that quote is a severe danger. It illustrates quite clearly what will happen over the course of time if 5 hours becomes the *expected* norm for PFS scenarios. People will stop playing Pathfinder as regularly in those environments, and product sales will slow.
Of course, all those home players out there will continue to support it, and it will never go away, but what company doesn't want as much growth as they can possibly get for their product? Why would you be okay locking yourself out of two-thirds of your marketing opportunities?
As I have said in the other thread, the extra content is very enjoyable. I think it has dramatically improved the quality of the scenarios, and I love having the option to run longer games. But I also need to maintain the ability to run a 4 hour game without detracting from the experience.
Please write methods into modules that give me this option.
|
|
Jason: Yes it was. Like I said after that game I cut up my RPGA card and didn't come back to organized play till about a year ago. That GM was also the only one to ever get all zeros from me in his review. In fact I was for a long time very anti-organized play. But I like PFS and just want it to be as good as it can be.
Dragon: +1 on the keep the optional content but make sure the mod can fit in a 4 hour block.
|
What I would not prefer is fewer combats which are more difficult. I already see too many situations where the party survives due to obvious GM pity, thanks.
interesting, I see too many fights where a non-minmaxed fighter has such a high AC that the bad guys can only hit him on a 20... in a 5 foot hallway, so they can't get to the rest of the party... maybe its just the everwar series
interesting, I see too many fights where a non-minmaxed fighter has such a high AC that the bad guys can only hit him on a 20... in a 5 foot hallway, so they can't get to the rest of the party... maybe its just the everwar series
What I would not prefer is fewer combats which are more difficult. I already see too many situations where the party survives due to obvious GM pity, thanks.
I see plenty of fights like that as well, but I find those only mildly distasteful. Compared to "GM's pity saves" which I find extremely distasteful.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Locally, there is no PFS run on a regular basis by any of the local game shops.As anyone even tried starting a Regular basis PFS at one of your Local Game Shops?
When I moved here in San Antonio a year ago there was not one PFS game locally either until I started it. It went from 0 to 20 very quickly twice a month.
That is how Denver ended up with 3-5 stores running PFS at any given time. People going to store owners and saying 'can we set it up in your store', coordinating online with other organizers to avoid direct competition in a 'you run on second and fourth tuesday night at X store, I run first and third thursday at y store, someone else does the third Saturday all day at z store.' Also, gift certificates are given to encourage GMs, raised by charging $2 a slot.
It's also a model that only works with around a four hour slot ( typically 6-10 PM). While it's apparent this model is not the norm everywhere, it is normal enough, to fit in evening game shops, run 3 slots a day comfortably at cons with a little time to go over. Basically, it seems to serve most games well.
So why abandon it?
|
glad to see i am not the only 1 with time challenges. i still feel a necessity for me to take deliberate action to speed up my games.
i hate drawing out whole maps in advance. for home games(pick up next week where you left off meaning no time limits), i will draw out maps as the pcs get to spots that have line of sight but it seems every mod has at least one or more time consuming maps so i predraw for pfs. i refuse to buy map packs for lack of money to throw away on somthing so rarely used and because i truly hate all the damn squares that are half bush/cave wall/curves. rather draw clearly defined terrain/spaces.
also feel i should drive the mod rather than read box text and wait for players to slowly move forward, somtimes ignorant of the sensitive situations of a givan mod because of all the noise making box text hard to follow.
do not forget, some people prioritize getting home, especially on a weeknight
|
|
I have been playing PFS in Denver, Colorado for just over one year now. I really enjoy it. One of the things that makes it great is the 4-hour slots. This allows me, a 30-something IT professional, to fit PFS into my work schedule.
I play most of the time at the Wednesday night sessions at the shop closest to my home. I also play at Drogon's store (Enchanted Grounds) on the third Saturday of the month. If the slots are extended to 5-hour slots, I won't be able to play as much. Wednesday nights would certainly be out, since making the current 6:00 PM start time for the sessions is just barely workable with my work schedule. If the start time had to be moved to 5:00 PM to allow for a 5-hour slot, I couldn't play.
Also, the 4-hour slots work for the games at Enchanted Grounds. This allows for 2 4-hour sessions on a Saturday before the "Open Mike" night starts up. I like to play both, since it is about a 40-50 minute drive for me to get to the store. Having two sessions in a day really makes it worthwhile for me. I would have a hard time justifying the money for gas if there were not two slots offered.
Not to mention that the 4-hour slots at the local conventions allow me to get in 3 games in a day rather than 2.
I also have a problem with the content of the Season 3 modules. They drag at the end. Even when trying to fit 5 hours worth of roleplaying into 4, the modules lose my interest after a bit. I just played #3-03: The Ghenett Manor Gauntlet yesterday. By the time we completed the two main objectives of module, I was thinking "screw the faction mission, I just want this to end."
The bottom line for me is that 4-hour slots work for me as a PFS player. I don't ever want to get into a situation like dartnet described. If that ever happens to me in PFS I will stop playing PFS.
I also have a problem with the content of the Season 3 modules. They drag at the end. Even when trying to fit 5 hours worth of roleplaying into 4, the modules lose my interest after a bit. I just played #3-03: The Ghenett Manor Gauntlet yesterday. By the time we completed the two main objectives of module, I was thinking "screw the faction mission, I just want this to end."
The bottom line for me is that 4-hour slots work for me as a PFS player. I don't ever want to get into a situation like dartnet described. If that ever happens to me in PFS I will stop playing PFS.
Can you say a little more about what "dragged" for you? Since the module is open-ended, players can approach it from many angles and take the encounters in different orders. I watched Ghenett played six or more times at GenCon and none took more than four hours, nor did things seem to drag.
Of course, I do have something of a bias. ; )
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Can you say a little more about what "dragged" for you? Since the module is open-ended, players can approach it from many angles and take the encounters in different orders. I watched Ghenett played six or more times at GenCon and none took more than four hours, nor did things seem to drag.
I also have a problem with the content of the Season 3 modules. They drag at the end. Even when trying to fit 5 hours worth of roleplaying into 4, the modules lose my interest after a bit. I just played #3-03: The Ghenett Manor Gauntlet yesterday. By the time we completed the two main objectives of module, I was thinking "screw the faction mission, I just want this to end."
I'm the one who ran it, so I'm going to blame myself.
As a frame of reference, know that it was the first time I had run it, and I had not played it, either. With this one under my belt, I know what I would do to speed things up. Regardless, what made it "drag" yesterday:
1 - They were an APL 7 group of 5 who played up. This just inherently makes combats go longer.
2 - I like role playing, so the opening sequence (VC presentation, trip, meeting the caretaker, and having tea) went a little longer than it should have. Plus, when they met Besai I kind of got into it. Enough so that they re-gagged him and stuffed him back in the hole. Heh...
3 - I killed someone. Or, at least, I killed someone until he figured out his math was wrong (and I confirmed). Someone dying is usually a let-down for a group, and the rechecking of the math took a bit of back and forth. Plus, two people were dealing with a bad "save or else" condition while he was "dead," and that took some time to work out.
4 - It was the second of two modules, so by hour 8 I was a bit testy (especially due to lack of sleep over the course of the week), so I got confrontational with one guy when I shouldn't have. That never makes players think, "Yay! Fun!" Likely, if I had kept my mouth shut there, it would have been better.
At any rate, not really the module's fault, but for the fact that it was written with a five-hour time frame in mind - and we, of course, were trying to squash it into four hours. It's a fun scenario, I think, especially now that I know what I would do differently, and I'm looking forward to running it again (should I get the chance).
If Doug wishes to refute anything I said, of course, he's welcome to. I'm also fine with being criticized, Doug, so don't hold back. I'm always willing to hear what I need to do to improve.
|
|
2 - I like role playing, so the opening sequence (VC presentation, trip, meeting the caretaker, and having tea) went a little longer than it should have. Plus, when they met Besai I kind of got into it. Enough so that they re-gagged him and stuffed him back in the hole. Heh...
That makes sense. I felt proud that my Paladin stuffed the gag back in his mouth (she thought it was a crime to be wearing what he was wearing). Btw, we Denverites are starting to dominate this thread.
And Drogon, you did your usual outstanding job. For what it's worth, I think I extended the Apis consortium combat needlessly also.
|
As a frame of reference, know that it was the first time I had run it, and I had not played it, either. With this one under my belt, I know what I would do to speed things up.
I had a similar experience GMing this one. Not a bad scenario per se, just that I was trying to prep two scenarios in the same week, a busy week, and Ghenett was the second of the two, so suffered from tiredness and my own unprepearedness.
This is often what makes scenarios run over-time, and why I always strive to slot-zero scenarios before running them at public gamedays. As Drogon said, I'll know what to do next time I run it, and it should be a much better experience.
By contrast, Sewer Dragons of Absalom was the first of the two scenarios, which I had fully prepared before the weekend, and it ran spectacularly - quite possibly my favourite scenario yet. So prep time makes a big difference to player and even GM perceptions of a scenario, and players who get the second run of a scenario inevitably get a better experience, and also impacts on run-time.
Cheers,
Stephen (DarkWhite)
As a frame of reference, know that it was the first time I had run it, and I had not played it, either. With this one under my belt, I know what I would do to speed things up.I had a similar experience GMing this one. Not a bad scenario per se, just that I was trying to prep two scenarios in the same week, a busy week, and Ghenett was the second of the two, so suffered from tiredness and my own unprepearedness.
This is often what makes scenarios run over-time, and why I always strive to slot-zero scenarios before running them at public gamedays. As Drogon said, I'll know what to do next time I run it, and it should be a much better experience.
By contrast, Sewer Dragons of Absalom was the first of the two scenarios, which I had fully prepared before the weekend, and it ran spectacularly - quite possibly my favourite scenario yet. So prep time makes a big difference to player and even GM perceptions of a scenario, and players who get the second run of a scenario inevitably get a better experience, and also impacts on run-time.
I think the open-ended nature of this scenario really makes prep time very important--this is not a PFS that responds well to "winging it." That said, if I write more for PFS I think I will keep this variable in mind a bit more.
|
When I run PFS games I have a little digital clock next to me to keep an eye on the time, that tends to help with time constraints.
Generally I have no issues getting through a PFS mod in less than 4 hours. One mod (Cassomir's Locker) took 2.5 hours (although they did miss one of the bigger encounters.)
Generally it's down to style though. I know GM's I have played with who squeeze out every last second of the 4 hour slot. Others have taken only a couple of hours to hack through a mod. In one instance I had a GM say "yeah this guy is toast" and stop an encounter before the final blow was struck. (Not that that bothered me, it was doubtful that the guy would have been able to do anything else.)
Personally, I think the key is running in your own style. However you should never leave it too late to run the final encounter and you should never rush your players to the detriment of the mod. A happy medium is best, the players should have time to smell the flowers and roleplay a bit.
Especially if the flowers are poisonous...
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And Drogon, you did your usual outstanding job.
Thanks, Kerney. Still think I could have done better.
I had a similar experience GMing this one. Not a bad scenario per se, just that I was trying to prep two scenarios in the same week, a busy week, and Ghenett was the second of the two, so suffered from tiredness and my own unprepearedness.
This is often what makes scenarios run over-time, and why I always strive to slot-zero scenarios before running them at public gamedays. As Drogon said, I'll know what to do next time I run it, and it should be a much better experience.
By contrast, Sewer Dragons of Absalom was the first of the two scenarios, which I had fully prepared before the weekend, and it ran spectacularly - quite possibly my favourite scenario yet. So prep time makes a big difference to player and even GM perceptions of a scenario, and players who get the second run of a scenario inevitably get a better experience, and also impacts on run-time.
It's funny how much our experiences mirror each other; I, too, ran Sewer Dragons first that morning. I was fully prepped for both, but I had run Sewer Dragons once before, and had played it before that, so was fully aware of what to do, and it ran smoothly as a result. I just wasn't prepared for how much I would enjoy the NPCs in Ghenett Manor, so I went long with my role playing.
I guess I kind of want to point that out as part of the "length" issues we're discussing. It has been my observation that PFS players are flocking to this Organized Play system (away from other systems) because of the richness of the role playing experience. If, for some reason, what we are excising from the scenarios is the RP part of the Game, then people will not have as much fun.
This is why I'm saying that, when writing scenarios, making sure one of the combat encounters can easily be removed is what is necessary. Cutting story content or making the play experience less rich would be detrimental.
|
As a frame of reference, know that it was the first time I had run it, and I had not played it, either. With this one under my belt, I know what I would do to speed things up.I had a similar experience GMing this one. Not a bad scenario per se, just that I was trying to prep two scenarios in the same week, a busy week, and Ghenett was the second of the two, so suffered from tiredness and my own unprepearedness.
To really echo these statements, I first ran it at Dragon*Con, in a four hour slot, that started 45 minutes late, in the middle of the day, with a slot starting immediately at our end time. Oh and I hadn't run nor played it before.
Basically, the mod is written very well and actually can easily be done in a four hour slot (even a 3 1/2 hour slot, if you push it). It really just comes to variables on how you run some of the encounters and well... how prepared you are for the scenario.
|
|
Dragon: You were doing great on Saturday so don't sweat it.
I don't think my players noticed that I wasn't running my best game last week either (or were too polite to mention). I think sometimes we are our own worse critic, even when the players are having fun, we know when things could have run better.
I just wasn't prepared for how much I would enjoy the NPCs in Ghenett Manor, so I went long with my role playing.
For me, I saw the potential for roleplaying NPCs, but hadn't given myself time to give them the personality they deserved. It was functional, but could have been better.
It has been my observation that PFS players are flocking to this Organized Play system (away from other systems) because of the richness of the role playing experience.
I believe so. It's certainly one of the campaign's strengths.
I think Pathfinder also has really solid rules, and three years of sourcebooks have really helped expand the game both in terms of rules and background to give Pathfinder it's own identity. This wasn't always the case - in the early days every week someone would post "what is the Pathfinder equivalent to the 3.5 warlock?" etc. But nowadays we're so spoiled for choice, I could never have time to play all the character ideas these books inspire me with.
Certainly not everyone is drawn to the game for the rich roleplaying experience, many do just want to build a character that delivers the most damage per round and win the game. But I think most players recognise Pathfinder Society as the "premium" world-wide organised play campaign currently available.
|
|
And Drogon, you did your usual outstanding job.Thanks, Kerney. Still think I could have done better.
Yes, but at the same time 'your minimal acceptable standard' was still higher then most GMs I've played with over than the last month prime time experince. That comes with experince and hard work. It's something I see with frequent GMs across the board. For example, I know my first table is something I'd rather forget compared to where I am now. I know the same is true of Dartnet.
|
|
I don't think my players noticed that I wasn't running my best game last week either (or were too polite to mention). I think sometimes we are our own worse critic, even when the players are having fun, we know when things could have run better.
Every single time I run a mod, I think back on it and think of things I could have done better, or handled differently, that would have made for a better experience for the players in some way.
Even if it's my 3rd or 4th or 10th run through of the same mod.
Every single time.
|
|
5 hour mods are great for home games, but at cons and stores they are just too long. I've noticed a lot of mods now have an optional combat encounter. I think this is a good way to adjust for a 4 or 5 hour slot. But it is really up to the GM to know the mod and cut sections, if needed, to fit the slot. GMs that run long to make sure the players get the full experience (and I don't mean XPs of course) can annoy players who need that time for a break before the next slot musters.
One issue I haven't seen raised yet for 5 or 6 hour slots is if you get a mod or GM you just don't agree with. That is half your day. With 4 hour slots you have at least 2 other games (maybe 3) to make up for the bad experience.
|
|
With 4 hour slots you have at least 2 other games (maybe 3) to make up for the bad experience.
At least (maybe) 3 other games? Really? That assumes 4hr slots, 8am - midnight, no meal-breaks between sessions, huge potential for one session over-running into the next, GM-burnout, tired/irritable players who turn up late to the following day's session. I've been to cons like this, Quantity does not equal Quality. Is this what we want Pathfinder Society to be known for?
One issue I haven't seen raised yet for 5 or 6 hour slots is if you get a mod or GM you just don't agree with. That is half your day.
So should we not run Pathfinder Modules at public events for similar reasons? Players and GMs seem to be requesting them, I received a request to run Feast of Ravenmore at PaizoConOz only yesterday.
I do think this is a legitimate problem for running all-day sessions such as Pathfinder Modules, however I haven't yet seen this problem with 5 hour Pathfinder Society scenarios. Sometimes you get a bad table, a player or GM you don't agree with, or more likely an encounter that just drains everyone. However, in the case of encounters that turn sour, they're often exasperated by rushing against the clock to get the scenario wrapped up before the next session starts.
GMs that run long to make sure the players get the full experience (and I don't mean XPs of course) can annoy players who need that time for a break before the next slot musters.
More reason to ensure the schedule you're running to allows for this. Don't run scenarios back-to-back without breaks. You might be able to crunch your own sceanrios, but don't expect other volunteer GMs at the event will always be able to.
Removing optional encounters serves a much-needed purpose, but so does scheduling sessions that allow the full game to be played as it was written.
There are actually many circumstances being discussed here - home games, 4hr con sessions, evening store sessions.
I understand the difficulties of scheduling evening store games, I think they're best served by cutting optional encounters or releasing more 2hr Quests without impacting on 5hr scenarios that are receiving good feedback in the Have PFS scenarios been getting better of late thread.
However, too many people are jumping on this thread saying "but our cons run 4hrs slots". Yeah, I know. Our cons run 2.5 to 3hr slots, you wanna try that? No. You can negotiate the PFS con schedule for a better result for all involved. 3x 4hrs = 2x 6hrs. 4x 4hrs = 3x 5hrs. There are options available, others are doing it, consider the benefits, give it a try.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand the difficulties of scheduling evening store games, I think they're best served by cutting optional encounters or releasing more 2hr Quests without impacting on 5hr scenarios that are receiving good feedback in the Have PFS scenarios been getting better of late thread.
However, too many people are jumping on this thread saying "but our cons run 4hrs slots". Yeah, I know. Our cons run 2.5 to 3hr slots, you wanna try that? No. You can negotiate the PFS con schedule for a better result for all involved. 3x 4hrs = 2x 6hrs. 4x 4hrs = 3x 5hrs. There are options available, others are doing it, consider the benefits, give it a try.
Unfortunately, the Quests are not a suitable replacement for scenarios: they work fine as a fill-in or introduction, but not as a full time store promotional tool (discounting the lack of current Quests).
And switching the schedule at a convention (if you have that amount of control available) only works if all of your players and GMs are only there for PFS, and don't need their schedules to mesh with the rest of the convention.
To be clear, I don't want the scenarios chopped. I just want allowance made for the significant number of sessions (possibly even the majority) which do not have the 5 hours which the assumption was changed to.
I think it's possible to satisfy both camps - 4 hour complete scenarios, with a more in-depth experience (and possible extra encounter) if you play 5.
|
|
My 2 copper,
I agree with you Neil. As I see it there are 2 different models of PFS organizing here.Yes I know that home games make a 3rd but bear with me.
1. The fewer but bigger events model. This model is really useful for groups that cover a huge area and there players are more spread out. In this model a 5+ hour modules are the way to go.
2. The more often but smaller events model. This is a model that works well in places like Denver where the players are clumped in one area and/or there is a huge amount of game shops in one city. That model the 3 to 4 hour Mods work better.
There is nothing wrong with eater model. However if one model was forced on a group that uses the other model. Like if Denver had to go to the fewer but bigger model it would be disastrous for that group. As that group would loose allot of there members, and that is in no ones interest. SO that should not be the course that PFS takes.
There is a middle way as Neil stated. The mods can be set up to accomadate both models and we can all have fun and grow the Society and PLAY PLAY PLAY!
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
a concise post that exactly nails the problem.
One thing I'll add to his above statement. Quests do not fill the need for "short slot" play because of another major factor: no reward. Without getting XP or gold, no one will be interested in playing these on a regular basis.
Pathfinder Society is a marketing tool that is meant to be utilized at home games, stores, and conventions.
Home games have great flexibility when it comes to time. Often, Pathfinder is the game of choice for these groups of individuals, who always play together. The faces don't change, the location doesn't change, and no one is going to get antsy about having to leave/close/get to the next slot (unless family or work issues come up, of course). These people, by the way, are "captured," meaning they are not going to stop playing PFS any time soon. Why would they? They have a game they like with a location they like, along with a group of players they like, and the modules are great.
Stores and conventions do not (universally) have this flexibility. They also will see a far more divergent group of people playing, so need to be able to present a consistent schedule to better be able to capture people who are dipping in to PFS to see what Pathfinder RPG is like - which is what PFS is designed to do, by the way. Forcing those environments to conform to the 5-hour standard will result in less face time for Pathfinder Society in those environments, as the PFS coordinators will often be told "no." Fewer people will be captured, resulting in a slowing of sales and word of mouth.
If the goal is to offer as much play experience to as many people as possible in an effort to reach out to create more customers, why would you narrow down your marketing field to only include those players who (largely) are already purchasing your product?
Like Neil said, don't cut content. Just provide options that make both camps happy.
|
There is nothing wrong with eater model. However if one model was forced on a group that uses the other model. Like if Denver had to go to the fewer but bigger model it would be disastrous for that group. As that group would loose allot of there members, and that is in no ones interest. SO that should not be the course that PFS takes.
I think it's an exaggeration to say that using longer/shorter scenario in a shorter/longer time slot is a disaster. Currently, people are GMing the 5 hour scenarios in 4 hour slots.
I'll be GMing 5 hour scenarios in a 4 hour time slot and it's not a disaster, I just have to choose what I'm including and what I'm excluding, and what I want to emphasize. My first attempt didn't go that well, but with experience it should be easy.
And I'm doing the opposite on Sunday, I'm taking 2 short scenarios (3 hours each) and play both back-to-back with my home group. Sure... they're not as satisyfing or in-depth as a 5 hour scenario (we'll have to see what my players think), but they still work.
A good GM can adapt to either situation. I'm guessing what we're seeing right now is PFS is expanding rapidly, so a lot of new GMs (to PFS) are struggling to adapt scenarios to different time slots.
|
|
One more comment.
I'm not sure anyone sees a trend, but many of the best scenarios are long scenarios. I think what makes them so good is that they are using larger amounts of time for storytelling. They're more in-depth. It's not the "McDonalds" experience of "getting it done as fast as possible" in 3-4 hours.
For some reason, people think they can compact these awesome scenarios into 3-4 hours, and still get the same feeling, the same experience. How does that make sense? Something MUST be missing from the experience, and it will never be as good. Many season 0 scenarios had that feedback, they fit into 3-4 hours but they lacked depth. Do you really want to go back to that? If we do, I just think the storytelling will decrease, and I really don't want to see that.
I also don't want to see optional encounters that are just filler. I don't want the optional encounter to be irrelevant, a "filler combat", something that I'd want to remove even from a 5 hour game. The people playing in the 4 hour slots are just going to have to realize, you're going to miss something good, whether it's Paizo cutting down to 4 hours or whether it's the GM cutting down to 4 hours.
Hopefully Paizo can think of something to satisfy everyone. In the meantime I'll be cutting non-important things to fit to 4 hours, while hopefully still maintaining the spirit of the scenario.
|
|
Jason: I think your missing the point. What Neil, Dragon, and myself are asking for is that the modules be set up so with more optional encounters so when your in a situation where time is not an issue theses games have more content, and like wise when like with at least in one of the shops here in Denver and there is a heavy time pressure the GM can make the adjustments to give the players the story with out the optional content.
|
|
Stuff
Yup, I wasn't disagreeing with you on that. I just thought using the word "disaster" for the current situation was a bit of an exaggeration.
I also don't want to see any optional encounters feeling optional, so that I wouldn't want to play them if I had more time. Right now most of the encounters are relevant. My preference is to have GMs use their good judgement and cut time (or encounters) and handwave things they don't find useful. This keeps the essence of the story without making most of the scenario filler.
One thing I'll add to his above statement. Quests do not fill the need for "short slot" play because of another major factor: no reward. Without getting XP or gold, no one will be interested in playing these on a regular basis.
I agree, they'll never fill the need for short slot play until they provide a reward for playing.
Maybe quests should be modified so that they provide 1/2 XP, 1/2 gold compared to a full scenario. Then quests could go head-to-head with the D&D encounters program, in those limited time slots.
|
|
Yup, I wasn't disagreeing with you on that. I just thought using the word "disaster" for the current situation was a bit of an exaggeration.
I will stand by my words. Actions or polices that would force a group that is using one of the 2 models that I described above to use the other model I described above would have a strong and negative impact on the attendance for that group. Or one could say it would be in a word "disastrous" to that group. I use strong words to make points with out having to give long winded responses. But I do see your point. ;)