Chasm of Scream - Characters penalized for playing?

[Yaramos]

At the Las Vegas NeonCon the beginning of November, I got a chance to play this mod.

Spoiler:

At the very start, we're told by the GM that getting to the Chasm as fast as possible is a priority so we HAD to either spend 2PP each for teleport or pay cash for the spell. We put forth other options, such as one of our players had purchased the vanity award for a ship and would use that to get us there faster but we were again told that we had to teleport, and we had to foot the bill for it.

I had just come off of two GM credits so I had the cash to buy a scroll of teleport, and we were lucky enough to have a mage almost high enough to cast the spell. After his Caster Level check to use the scroll, we arrived and started.

But what about parties without someone who can teleport or means of rapid overland travel?

I realize that 1125 gold may not seem like much (unless everyone just finished upgrading like most of the party had), but to have to pay that or give up your total posilbe PP from the scenario just to play the scenario seems wrong. What happens if nobody has the cash to buy the scroll, pay the cost for spellcasting (450g per person) or can't/won't pay the PA? Do they have to leave the table now?

I haven't had the chance to read the scenario and see if maybe I missed something, but I'd like some input as to why the scenario is set up this way or what should have been done different?

[Mark Moreland]

Such requirements are not part of the printed scenario.

Spoiler:

Your GM interpreted some suggestions of using teleport as a requirement (and incorrectly priced such at 2 PP, despite the scenario listing it as 4 PP). I can see how the text might appear to indicate teleportation is a requirement, but the text does say "How PCs get to Eya's house is up to them." Osprey suggests they use teleportation and the scenario presents a price in Prestige Points for such a casting, but it's not required.

[Yaramos]

Mark Moreland wrote:

Such requirements are not part of the printed scenario.

** spoiler omitted **

Thank you for the info. It seemed odd that we we were told we had to get there this way, but that we had to pay for it ourselves at a significant price.

Again, thanks for clearing that up and I'll keep that in mind if I get the chance to run this scenario.

[Christopher Hamilton]

I think resurrecting an old GM guidance thread is okay...

I just wanted to point out that even though overland travel is an option, it suggests that choosing such an option would be an auto-fail for saving Eya. If not, it completely destroys any believable timeline in the initial story setup. PCs are not supposed to achieve every PP mission, so maybe not that big of a deal.

I may not take that option for low tier but am tempted to let a 10-11 table find Eya dead after they casually make their way to her death zone using overland travel. High tier players should not balk at spending resources to accomplish the mission. If that is not intended, the scenario doesn't really support that as it is written.

[Matthew Trent]

Please run scenarios as written. K? Thanks.

[Christopher Hamilton]

Its written that they need to get there quickly. If they choose a slow path, that is still as written. Unfortunately, it is set up that if they choose to go slowly, the main mission would likely fail. How is that not as written?

Are you suggesting that player choices should have no impact?

[Matthew Trent]

I'm saying that if the VC thinks that it's not urgent enough to pay for a teleport then you shouldn't penalize the players for catching a swift boat or overland travel.

Especially when Mark Moreland who was as iirc PFS Chief Hatwearer at the time says otherwise.

[BigNorseWolf]

Matthew Trent wrote:

I'm saying that if the VC thinks that it's not urgent enough to pay for a teleport then you shouldn't penalize the players for catching a swift boat or overland travel.

Especially when Mark Moreland who was as iirc PFS Chief Hatwearer at the time says otherwise.

"run as written" is different than "run as clarified later in a message board". The DM's interpretation was not unreasonable.