Director of Brand Strategy
|
Hey folks!
With the release of this month's scenarios tonight, two new experiments in how we handle multipart experiments have gone live. I'd like feedback from the community (organizers, GMs, and players) about which of the two methods you prefer, how you think rewards along these lines could be improved, or if you think trying to reward people for playing arcs in order or consecutively is stupid and shouldn't ever be done again.
Now, before people start suggesting it, the current release schedule contains very few instances in which we can release two scenarios of the same tier in a given month, meaning we can't put out a full series in fewer than two consecutive months. I know that's an issue many people have with multiparters, and should we ever change our release schedule, it's something I'll keep in mind.
When providing your feedback, it's very helpful for me to know whether you see yourself mostly as a player, a GM, or event organizer, as that will help me understand from what angle you're analyzing the two approaches.
Thanks for your participation and for taking the time to let me know what works for you and what doesn't so we can continue to make the campaign the best it can be.
|
Now, before people start suggesting it, the current release schedule contains very few instances in which we can release two scenarios of the same tier in a given month, meaning we can't put out a full series in fewer than two consecutive months. I know that's an issue many people have with multiparters, and should we ever change our release schedule, it's something I'll keep in mind.
This right here is the reason it should not be done..
Also I don't think I have yet run a multi-part scenario that everyone has played all of them in a row. Too many things happen and get in the away. Real life happens..
I would prefer not to see it again.
I understand the appeal behind it, to encourage continuity, it also can aggravate those that know they can not play all of them in a row.
If you have to add it again stick only 2 parters.
Edit: As an example I had players choose not to play them because of the boon because they knew they would miss the second part this time around.
Edit Edit: Also Cons are busy things, Many times at Cons players can't play both parts either.
Edit Edit Edit: It also punishes those that can't play them consecutively even if they want to play them consecutively.
Edit Edit Edit Edit: It also adds an unnecessary barrier towards the reward.
|
|
I think that doing multi-part scenarios as two-parters and planning the release so that they are release on consecutive months is the easy way to do it ..
People are less apt to level out of them (i.e. the devil you know it series for an example) and releasing them close together allows coordinators to plan for the scenario for gamedays.
|
|
Gotta agree, in general.
Given the current publishing schedule, no more than a 2-parter, or there is a good chance of people leveling their PCs out of tier.
Consecutive months, for the saqme reason.
One thing I feel strngly about, though, is that it needs to be extremely well documented, bioth that it is a two-parter/multi-parter, and that there are extra benefits to playing the parts consecutively.
On the other hand, given certain of the constraints of Organized Play, it would be terrific if the later part(s) did not do anything to spoil the earlier part(s), as player availability vs game scheduling can have people playing the parts out of order, despite their best intentions.
Heh. As an example, due to convention timing, and local level constraints, I have still not been able to play Part 3 of the Heresy of Man series, although I finally managed to run the whole thing at one point (Parts 1 & 2 credited to one PC, Part 3 to the one who had been hovering at "his next XP levels him out of range to complete this series" for months and many missed play opportunities). Convention timing was that part 3 was not available for play at the convention I played parts 1 & 2 at...
|
|
Heh. As an example, due to convention timing, and local level constraints, I have still not been able to play Part 3 of the Heresy of Man series, although I finally managed to run the whole thing at one point (Parts 1 & 2 credited to one PC, Part 3 to the one who had been hovering at "his next XP levels him out of range to complete this series" for months and many missed play opportunities). Convention timing was that part 3 was not available for play at the convention I played parts 1 & 2 at...
Callarek... if we're ever going to be at the same convention .. let me know... and have a table .. I'll run it for you
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From a player's perspective, I don't think there needs to be a boon for playing the multi-part scenarios in order. I just want the story to be compelling and connected through all of the scenarios.
It may be a nice giveaway for people who have played through an arc in order, but I don't know that it is necessary.
As an organizer, I see the appeal. It helps the players figure out which PCs to play (with the Quest series, the players chose to not start with characters that would level out before Part III because there was an extra incentive) and allows for some easier scheduling. That is not to say that it always works out for the players, but I don't know that there is anything that can be done about that.
As a GM, I would like the add-ons to be kept to a minimum in terms of the mechanical impact they may have on a session.
Having written all of that, I would be much happier (all around) if PFS scenarios were released based on the connectedness of the stories rather than on filling out the selections by tiers. As Paizo is likely never going to adopt that policy (because it probably only appeals to a few), I think that keeping the multi-parts linked and engaging is the best solution. And if there is any way there can be more PC-NPC roleplaying encounters written into to any scenario, that would thrill me.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
It's a tricky thing to pull off.
I'd already signed up to play a particular PC in Wonders in the Weave Part I and then an unrelated scenario at a convention this coming weekend. So I'll lose out on that boon. It's easy to imagine a player choosing not to play a particular character until he gets a chance to play Part II, or feeling wronged that he loses out.
Of course, once the meta-gaming knowledge of the boon filters out, fewer people will make that kind of mistake.
Recommendation: there are fewer scenarios in the 7 - 11 tier, and most players have fewer characters in that range than they do between levels 3 and 6 or so. If you make the multi-part boon available in the higher tiers, it will be simpler for people to coordinate.
|
I like the idea in general, but I agree it would work better for higher level play than lower level and for 2-parters instead of 3-4 parts.
From an GM/ organizer standpoint, I think it adds additional work that the GM must go through when passing out the chronicles to make sure that those who play the second half really havent played anything else since the first half.
Im not saying we would wind up with players lying just to get the extra boon, but it could happen, especially with people who arent as familiar with PFS or this new element of it.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea of multipart boons, like the one I noticed the one when I ran Wonders in the Weave part 1. However, I dislike the part where it requires the next chronicle sheet to be the one that allows you to be eligible for the special boon. Since there's a lull between scenario release times, the current system seems only to benefit those with multiple characters, or those who "take a break" from society play, only to return when the second/third/etc parts have been released. I would fix this by changing the way multipart boons work. Rather than having it be the next chronicle sheet (e.g. part one as 11 then part two 12), just require the parts to go in order (e.g. 11 then something else as 12 then 13) but not necessarily be back to back.
Because of the way they work currently, no one in my area will receive the Wonders in the Weave boon, because they wanted to continue playing their character during the intervening time. We shouldn't punish players for wanting to play.
|
|
I think this would be cool even for 3/4 parters if the boons built on each other as you progress through. And (this is important) the boons actually matter. It's somewhat ridiculous to receive a very circumstantial boon that is likely to never get used again. Giving me a +1 to Intimidate checks with members of my faction, as an example, would be poor. First, how often will I even interact with a faction-mate during the game, and when will I need to intimidate them?
I digress. You need to ask yourself what are you trying to accomplish (if anything) with the boon. If you want to entice players to run through the scenario in order and sequentially, then the boon has to be worth them possibly having to give up a session or two to wait for the conclusion to be offered. This could lead to some complaints because it could discourage regular play. And if the boon is too good, there will be complaints from those who could not complete them and earn the boon. Obviously, the scenario would have to be released in sequential months if not in the same month.
OTOH, make the boons very marginal so there really isn't much lost by not earning them. But then what is the point? Giving a bonus boon for playing the way you would anyway has no value.
|
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
I haven't seen the boons yet, though I hope to Monday when we finish part 3 of Quest for Perfection. But I do have a question: What happens if you have a holiday boon halfway through? If what the others have said that you have to have the chronicles one right after another, can you just not have a holiday boon (should one be available, or any other special boon like con boons), would it be ignored, or do some creative paperwork with it?
|
|
Because of the way they work currently, no one in my area will receive the Wonders in the Weave boon, because they wanted to continue playing their character during the intervening time. We shouldn't punish players for wanting to play.
I agree that we should not punish them. IMO, this is an issue that the organizer needs to be responsible for. If you know that there is a dependent boon, then you should delay offering part 1 until part II is released and then schedule them is back-to-back sessions. Perhaps even offer them across multiple sessions if your area can accommodate that. I don't want this to turn into telling anyone how to run their games, just that the organizer can reduce the impact of this with some creative scheduling. In the end, some players are not going to earn the boon and that should not be the end of the world.
|
|
Because of the way they work currently, no one in my area will receive the Wonders in the Weave boon, because they wanted to continue playing their character during the intervening time. We shouldn't punish players for wanting to play.I agree that we should not punish them. IMO, this is an issue that the organizer needs to be responsible for. If you know that there is a dependent boon, then you should delay offering part 1 until part II is released and then schedule them is back-to-back sessions. Perhaps even offer them across multiple sessions if your area can accommodate that. I don't want this to turn into telling anyone how to run their games, just that the organizer can reduce the impact of this with some creative scheduling. In the end, some players are not going to earn the boon and that should not be the end of the world.
Agreed. It's not like the scenarios are being released six months apart; they're one month after the other. If the organizer can delay offering the first part for three weeks, then that'll work nicely with the timing for the second one.
It also encourages people to try a different character if they do end up having to wait. Some players have multiple characters already, so it works fine for them. For those who have only one, it nudges them in the "Well, why don't you try something different in the meantime?" direction.
Frankly, I love the idea of encouraging story continuity for a given character.
|
|
some players are not going to earn the boon and that should not be the end of the world.
Bob, that is my question...why? Why should we add this barrier to the boon? Why make it that some people in the end won't get the boon because they missed a game because things happen.
To me this is really unnecessary, and adding barriers like this just does not seem like a good idea.
If in the end people will miss the boon because they could not make it to a game, or for what ever other reason they can't play them in a row then this addition is not worth it.
I am unsure of the purpose of it, but I can see the fall out of it.
|
|
On encouraging story continuity, it is logical that most coordinators already schedule multi part scenarios consecutively, so the opportunity in most cases is already there for story continuity.
The issue is that players don't play them consecutively not because they don't want to or do not have the opportunity to, but because things happen and they either miss a game, go to a con in between or many other reasons.
Adding this boon does not actually address that problem at all, if it even is a problem.
So that is why I don't understand the purpose of this barrier to the boon.
This in no way encourags story continuity because the reason for lack of it it not related to the fix.
|
|
I think its completely reasonable to award a multi-part boon to players who play multi-part scenarios in order.
3 parts may be a lot but its not unreasonable to expect a player to be present 3 weeks over roughly 3 different calendar months.
I could see objecting if they are run three weeks in a row. Not everyone can make it every single week.
I should add that I am eligible for this boon with one of my PCs so I may be a bit biased.
|
|
While the majority (99.99%) of players wouldn't need the boon as an added incentive to play back to back scenarios, it is a nice bonus.
And if the point was made that if coordinators are told ahead of time that this is a multi-part (perhaps a blurb in the first part) that there is a bonus for playing the scenarios back to back, then there shouldn't be an issue in waiting to play part 1 for a month and playing 1 and 2 together -- supposing that part 2 is released the 2nd month (which is only ideal from a player point of view imo).
Mark .. are we giving you close to what you wanted?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Dragnmoon, I don't understand.
So, to avoid spoiling a current-year module, let's pretend that City of Strangers (a two-scenario adventure from Season 2) was going to have a multi-scenario boon. The Chronicle sheet for The Twofold Demise, the second scenario, would read something like: "If City of Strangers Part 1: The Shadow Gambit is this character's most recent Chronicle sheet, then this character receives a +1 competence bonus on Sense Motive rolls against residents of Kaer Maga."
So, you're saying that this would be all right if Mark was otherwise not planning on putting a boon on the Twofold Demise Chronicle sheet, but if he was planning on including one there, then you'd have a problem with his making it a multi-scenario boon?
--
Mark, if I GM Wonders in the Weave Part I, and assign the Chronicle sheet for it to my PC Damon, whom I then play in part two, does my PC get the boon?
--
Under most circumstances, the multi-scenario boon keeps players from benefitting from playing out of order. For example, there's a boon at the end of Shades of Ice part 3 that would have been pretty helpful in parts 1 and 2. If a PC plays those scenarios in reverse order, she can enjoy an advantage.
|
|
While the majority (99.99%) of players wouldn't need the boon as an added incentive to play back to back scenarios, it is a nice bonus.
Yeah, I do agree here, if it is intended as a bonus Boon for doing back to back, I am cool with that. And I agree with this.
I am just curious if it is a Bonus, or a restriction added to a boon that would have been there anyway.
I think the prior is an awesome idea; I do not like the former.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Dragnmoon, I don't understand.
So, to avoid spoiling a current-year module, let's pretend that City of Strangers (a two-scenario adventure from Season 2) was going to have a multi-scenario boon. The Chronicle sheet for The Twofold Demise, the second scenario, would read something like: "If City of Strangers Part 1: The Shadow Gambit is this character's most recent Chronicle sheet, then this character receives a +1 competence bonus on Sense Motive rolls against residents of Kaer Maga."
This raises an interested question. Would folks prefer the bonus onus (ha! a rhyme!) were put on the GM? By this I mean something not on a Chronicle, but in the second part of a series that said something like "Check each Character's PC records for his most recent Chronicle. If that Chronicle is from [/i]Pathfinder Society Scenario #4-14: The Lightbulb Snake Infestation[/i], that PC receives a +2 bonus to her AC against all lightbulb snakes in this adventure." Would folk prefer bonuses happen behind the screen, or encourage GMs to check PCs' record sheets?
Mark, if I GM Wonders in the Weave Part I, and assign the Chronicle sheet for it to my PC Damon, whom I then play in part two, does my PC get the boon?
I don't see why not. As long as the most recent Chronicle is from the scenario in question, you should be fine to do that. Then again, as a GM you receive no boons for GM credit. I'll need to keep that in mind when crafting the wording on any requirements for previous scenarios should we do this again.
|
|
Dragnmoon, I don't understand.
No one understands me!!! *cries*
Anyway...
Here is where I am coming from...
In the beginning...
In general you don't get much from chronicle sheets, ones that give you access to items you normally can't get or Boons are nice additions for players. Seeing more restrictions put on that does not sit well with me because as it is we don't see enough of them *Much better though then what we used to*.
That said...
I am confused for the reason on why to add this restriction if it is considered a restriction. If it is coming from the developers with the idea that it will encourage people to play the multi parts consecutively I have an issue with that. Why? Because it does not actually address why people don't play them consecutively.
I am sure the majority of players would if they could play them consecutively, they don't purposely choose not to because of maliciousness. Things get in the way, things stop them from attending a game and missing out on a sequel until later on. These boons won't stop that from happening, so if the idea is coming from that it does not fix anything.
So adding a restriction to any boon on a multi part just punishes the player when normally they would not have been prior to this.
Now if on the other hand, this was an "Extra boon", "Bonus Boon" or a boon that would have not been there otherwise, then I am ok with that. because it is adding an extra reward not a restriction on a reward.
Edit: I just realized I have been making way to many assumptions in my posts. I have not even seen the boon yet! I have to buy the scenario anyway so I will tonight and take a look at it, to see how it fits and eather I see it as a restriction or bonus.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Now if on the other hand, this was an "Extra boon", "Bonus Boon" or a boon that would have not been there otherwise, then I am ok with that. because it is adding an extra reward not a restriction on a reward.
That's the case. All boons are bonuses, as far as I'm concerned, as they are never tied directly to the wealth gained in the scenario and are always story-based.
|
|
Normally GMs do not receive boons for scenarios that they run. Is the boon listed in The Quest for Perfection, Part III:
Defenders of Nesting Swallow an exception? If a GM ran all three parts and applied credit to the same character, would they get the benefit or is this consider just another boon?
If not allowed for running it, could the GM run parts 1 and 2 and play part 3 to get the boon?
|
|
For the record, I mostly GM for our home group but I occassionally get to play when we have a special session or I attend a convention.
I do not dislike the idea of boons based upon playing through a story- arch. I think it is a neat extra to get for playing through a storyline. Playing scenarios in order with the same character might prove problematic.
For example, I signed up to play Shadow's Last Stand Parts 1 and 2 at Gen Con. I played part 1 with a different character than I was planning. I did so to set the table sub-tier at a balanced level.
When it came time to play part 2, I ended up playing a different character, again to fit the sub-tier for the other character the players had available.
There was no boon associated with these adventures but I would have been a little bummed to find out I missed out on something because I was being a "team player" within the PFS community.
|
Get writing, Bob. You're scheduled to write this one. And you aren't allowed to use any verbs. Have fun!Pathfinder Society Scenario #4-14: The Lightbulb Snake Infestation:woot: season four teaser ;-)
Now there's a challenge. I have a hard time just thinking up the first sentence of a verbless synopsis.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Now there's a challenge. I have a hard time just thinking up the first sentence of a verbless synopsis.Get writing, Bob. You're scheduled to write this one. And you aren't allowed to use any verbs. Have fun!Pathfinder Society Scenario #4-14: The Lightbulb Snake Infestation:woot: season four teaser ;-)
Hence the year to work on it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like feedback from the community (organizers, GMs, and players) about which of the two methods you prefer, how you think rewards along these lines could be improved, or if you think trying to reward people for playing arcs in order or consecutively is stupid and shouldn't ever be done again.
I like the idea of a boon if ALL scenarios in the arc are played, however I do not think they should be required to be played in sequence or order.
The reason is that I think this causes more organizational dilemas at cons and store games, where people don't want to jump into the middle of an arc etc. It certainly puts constraints on the slots you put scenarios into. It's not worth it imo.
As a GM it doesn't affect me, I GM my home game in sequence. As a player, it only somewhat affects me, I probably would have skipped 1-2 scenarios by now, so it means I play less.
I consider myself an equal parts GM and player.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Get writing, Bob. You're scheduled to write this one. And you aren't allowed to use any verbs. Have fun!Sounds like ample use of passive voice is in order.
Wait, is that the collective sound of all the design/development team's heads exploding? muahahahaha
Not just Paizo staff, all English teachers everywhere.
|
|
I am a fan of either multi-part "boon model" as contrasted to none at all.
As between the two, I prefer a boon that rewards consecutive play order. Anything which encourages regular and consistent attendance is a good thing. In a related design concern, the three part "Heaven" cycle encouraging the scenarios to be run in order is a strength as well.
In terms of the so-called difficulty in running a trilogy in order because of the release schedule, that has not been a problem for us. We chose to wait until the entire trilogy was released before any scenario was run. Three in a row at that point is not a problem.
With respect to the in order boon, it is useful to remember these ARE boons. Nobody is saying you cannot get XP, gold , PA or an item on a Chronicle sheet if they are out of order. Encouraging consistent play and attendance is A Good Thing™.
|
|
This is how we do it in our NYC group. The Organizer will list the scenarios in order to ensure game play. She also 'strongly' encourages playing the scenarios back to back. Not for the bonuses but for the sake of story continuity.
Most of us that can play them in order.
That being said the bonus boons awarded if you play the sequence should be substantial enough that they can have some impact on a pc's in future adventures. A boon like "You get a +2 Diplomacy with the Booboo kobold tribe" isnt worth squat if we're never going to see the Booboo's again. If the boon is more akin to the ones given out in the year of the shadow lodge interactive where you can use it whenever is much better
|
|
As between the two, I prefer a boon that rewards consecutive play order.
Quick question to those that keep saying this...
How does it encourage consecutive play?
Assuming Coordinators schedule back to back multi parters *If they don't that is another issue* How does adding this restriction change the reasons player miss games?
My point is that, the opportunity for consecutive play is there with proper coordination, but adding this restriction does not change the fact that a player can't make it to a game.
Players don't miss games because they want to or because they will miss out of a boon, they miss games because real life happens, so really it encourages nothing IMO, since it does not change that people will still be missing the same amount of games because this does not fix the reason why they do miss the games.
My two cents:
I don't really care one way or another...as long as the boons are relatively minor things. You know, stuff like "you get +1 to Sleight of Hand checks when you're on the planet Akiton". I couldn't care less about that stuff.
I would be disappointed if there was a really awesome boon that I missed out on because I couldn't make it to the game one week.
I also don't like the (hypothetical) scenario where people who read spoilers get all kinds of awesome boons (because they know it's important to play the scenarios back-to-back or whatever other nuance is required) and that people who avoid spoilers get jack squat.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What about if Paizo had the boon not-so-much for actual sequels, but for spiritual sequels. You get the boon as long as you've played the other(s) scenario(s) with the same character?
Get rid of "If City of Strangers 2 was the most recent chronicle this character has played through..." idea, and replace it with (For Penumbral Accords)"If this character has played through both Mists of Mwangi and Voice in the Void, he gets a +4 bonus on Knowledge History rolls regarding Blackros museum in this scenario. if he has only played through one of the two, he gets +2, instead."
May not encourage sequential play, but definitely encourages playing the same character through the scenarios that are all thematically linked together.
|
|
I also don't like the (hypothetical) scenario where people who read spoilers get all kinds of awesome boons (because they know it's important to play the scenarios back-to-back or whatever other nuance is required) and that people who avoid spoilers get jack squat.
Don't know if you've seen it already, but just in case you don't know, the Chronicle for Wonders in the Weave Pt. 1 has a note at the top that tells you if the next scenario you play is Pt. 2, you get a special boon (Though it doesn't tell you what that Boon is). So, FWIW, you don't have to read spoilers to know that you should play both in order.
I also don't like the (hypothetical) scenario where people who read spoilers get all kinds of awesome boons (because they know it's important to play the scenarios back-to-back or whatever other nuance is required) and that people who avoid spoilers get jack squat.Don't know if you've seen it already, but just in case you don't know, the Chronicle for Wonders in the Weave Pt. 1 has a note at the top that tells you if the next scenario you play is Pt. 2, you get a special boon (Though it doesn't tell you what that Boon is). So, FWIW, you don't have to read spoilers to know that you should play both in order.
Huh? You just told me that you need to look at the chronicle for #1 in order to know you're missing out on something if you don't play #2 right afterwards. So if I schedule myself beforehand to play Part 1 and some unrelated scenario immediately afterwards, I'm out of luck.
In what way is looking at the chronicle for a scenario before you play it not a spoiler?
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
What about if Paizo had the boon not-so-much for actual sequels, but for spiritual sequels. You get the boon as long as you've played the other(s) scenario(s) with the same character?
Get rid of "If City of Strangers 2 was the most recent chronicle this character has played through..." idea, and replace it with (For Penumbral Accords)"If this character has played through both Mists of Mwangi and Voice in the Void, he gets a +4 bonus on Knowledge History rolls regarding Blackros museum in this scenario. if he has only played through one of the two, he gets +2, instead."
May not encourage sequential play, but definitely encourages playing the same character through the scenarios that are all thematically linked together.
+1 to this kind of thinking about multipart boons.
EDIT: Where I differ is that I would like the general "if you have played scenario X before scenario Y, you get boon Z" to apply to the sequential (pt 1, 2, etc) scenarios as well.|
|
I also don't like the (hypothetical) scenario where people who read spoilers get all kinds of awesome boons (because they know it's important to play the scenarios back-to-back or whatever other nuance is required) and that people who avoid spoilers get jack squat.Don't know if you've seen it already, but just in case you don't know, the Chronicle for Wonders in the Weave Pt. 1 has a note at the top that tells you if the next scenario you play is Pt. 2, you get a special boon (Though it doesn't tell you what that Boon is). So, FWIW, you don't have to read spoilers to know that you should play both in order.Huh? You just told me that you need to look at the chronicle for #1 in order to know you're missing out on something if you don't play #2 right afterwards. So if I schedule myself beforehand to play Part 1 and some unrelated scenario immediately afterwards, I'm out of luck.
In what way is looking at the chronicle for a scenario before you play it not a spoiler?
That's fair, I suppose. I tend to think only of weekly play, not of game day or convention play where you might schedule yourself for two-plus scenarios at once. From my perspective, I'd play WW#1 and see the boon for playing WW#2 directly after. Then, I'd bring a different character to the next week if I couldn't make that happen right away.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I also don't like the (hypothetical) scenario where people who read spoilers get all kinds of awesome boons (because they know it's important to play the scenarios back-to-back or whatever other nuance is required) and that people who avoid spoilers get jack squat.Don't know if you've seen it already, but just in case you don't know, the Chronicle for Wonders in the Weave Pt. 1 has a note at the top that tells you if the next scenario you play is Pt. 2, you get a special boon (Though it doesn't tell you what that Boon is). So, FWIW, you don't have to read spoilers to know that you should play both in order.Huh? You just told me that you need to look at the chronicle for #1 in order to know you're missing out on something if you don't play #2 right afterwards. So if I schedule myself beforehand to play Part 1 and some unrelated scenario immediately afterwards, I'm out of luck.
In what way is looking at the chronicle for a scenario before you play it not a spoiler?
This is exactly the downfall I see with the current multipart boon system. It punishes people who play too frequently and those that don't have the ability to schedule to play them back to back.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I like the idea of what Mr. Jonquet suggested. If the boon(s) for the first parts of a multi-parter were directly useful in the later parts of the arc, that would encourage people to play them in order without causing people to miss out on things if they have to skip a week.
I do worry that in some cases, the later parts of an adventure will never get run because no one wants to play through the last one until they have already done the earlier ones. While I like the idea of these, I foresee them causing problems scheduling games for later parts in the series, particularly in areas without a large player base.