Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4
|
@Brandon Mann:
First off, I want to say I agree with you. I like faction missions that are story-based too. I like thinking them up and working them into the scenario.
So I'm NOT saying what you want is bad. I think it's great!
There is a flip-side on the Development end that I think is helpful to understand and consider.
First is the time that the game is supposed to last. In writing we have to be careful not to push the scenario past the 4-5 hour threshold (with a preference towards 4 hours). What can happen is that the scenario is starts to run long. I saw it in Frostfur Captives. The more interesting and complicated Faction Missions take more table time to play out.
The other consideration is word count. The story based faction missions require a bit more word count, just because you do have story elements and their own background. And Mark has pointed out that word count isn't just a facet of printing and page count, it also plays a role in Development productivity hours. You see, I can argue for another 1,000 words as an author because "this is just a PDF", but he has to figure that much more time and effort to Develop those 1,000 words. It's a Development Conservation of Matter and Energy- nothing is really free, even if it's a PDF only product.
NOW....
I pointed out some issues. That doesn't mean there aren't things that could be done.
We could trim one combat encounter to make more space. Those are going to be longer in Season 4 anyway, to accommodate 6 players per table.
I could also see joint-faction missions. Those would increase the number of players focused on the same mission. Two factions for 1 mission reduces the table time to complete it, and the word count to set it up.
Would those be concessions that would seem okay to you (and anybody else reading this) towards the goal of having more story-based faction missions?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
More deathless failure. (Idea ripped from a discussion we had in our local PFS group.)
It seems that in a lot of modules, the only way to fail is to TPK. Others, however, have success conditions that don't directly put the PCs' lives in danger (e.g. Frostfur Captives).
I've found that I enjoy the "deathless failure" missions a lot more, as even optimized characters can be greatly challenged by having to protect weak creatures, rescue someone in a certain amount of time, transport an object without it being stolen, negotiate a treaty, etc.
Someone (*cough* local Venture-Captain) even suggested adding other penalties for these failures on Chronicles (Living Greyhawk-style "curses").
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Charged items like wands and scrolls with non-standard caster levels and/or limited charges (for a reduced price) are always going to be well received.
5) Suggest that there are such items that can be bought for 1 PP or 2 PP on the sheet eg:
- First level wands with 10 charges (150gp or 1 PP)- Second level wands with 8 charges (720gp or 2 PP)
- First level spell wand CL 5th 10 charges (750GP or 2 PP)
Are there any suitable non-caster items?
ZomB.
Ammunition would be non-caster. Or some consumable one off items that have limited uses and are then gone.
On an earlier post, I really agree with some player write-ups for the mission background. During large cons, GMs are at such a disadvantage trying to shout over other folks. Most players finally give up and then just wait for the scenario to just start.
And the last is a special boon for anyone that survive's when Kyle GMs. I'm really looking forward to meeting Kyle at Paizocon. I need to put a face with the legend :)
|
|
Ammunition would be non-caster. Or some consumable one off items that have limited uses and are then gone.
I was thinking later that some partially charged wands are also non-caster friendly or party friendly. Like Mage Armor for monks or Endure elements for the party on a specific mission.
On an earlier post, I really agree with some player write-ups for the mission background. During large cons, GMs are at such a disadvantage trying to shout over other folks. Most players finally give up and then just wait for the scenario to just start.
When I am running short slots I end up doing this anyway, to get it moving quickly and avoid back references. An official briefing handout plus key names would certainly save prep time.
And the last is a special boon for anyone that survive's when Kyle GMs. I'm really looking forward to meeting Kyle at Paizocon. I need to put a face with the legend :)
Heh. I could see a specific boon for someone that has died and been raised. It would give bragging rights for spending all that PP.
Hmm, on specific condition boons or chronicle bonuses: maybe a small bonus or boon if you succeed on a 4 person table rather than a 5+ person table.
|
Sometimes a faction mission is based on a single skill in which the player just doesn't have a good bonus, and no chance of making the DC listed. So, I would not have a mission's success hinge on a single skill. The option of two different skills doubles the chance of a player having at least a shot at succeeding
I would like to see this taken further. Rather than declaring what skill to use, just define the solution parameters. The author can give some examples of how to resolve the mission, but they should not be presented in such a way to suggest the only method. All you need to do is give the GM some direction and provide the players with the goal, let them figure out how to best accomplish it.
And if we want the missions to be more difficult, don't leave easily exploitable loopholes. If you are expected to make a copy of something for the society to study, don't make it so all you need to do is take the entire item back. That's a pretty easy solution and requires no skill. Unless there is a direct danger to recovering said item, why would anyone consider you "famous" for having recovered it. The missions should always represent something heroic, or dangerous, etc. otherwise, anyone could do it. Where's the notoriety in that?
|
|
Sometimes a faction mission is based on a single skill in which the player just doesn't have a good bonus, and no chance of making the DC listed. So, I would not have a mission's success hinge on a single skill. The option of two different skills doubles the chance of a player having at least a shot at succeedingI would like to see this taken further. Rather than declaring what skill to use, just define the solution parameters. The author can give some examples of how to resolve the mission, but they should not be presented in such a way to suggest the only method. All you need to do is give the GM some direction and provide the players with the goal, let them figure out how to best accomplish it.
And if we want the missions to be more difficult, don't leave easily exploitable loopholes. If you are expected to make a copy of something for the society to study, don't make it so all you need to do is take the entire item back. That's a pretty easy solution and requires no skill. Unless there is a direct danger to recovering said item, why would anyone consider you "famous" for having recovered it. The missions should always represent something heroic, or dangerous, etc. otherwise, anyone could do it. Where's the notoriety in that?
I actually agree with this Bob. And there is some precedent in multiple ways to solve a mission. If you look at the Andoran mission for Murder on the Silken Caravan from season 0, it tells you what you gotta do, gives several options on how to do it, and leaves it open for player creativity.
If this were how faction missions were mandated to be created, I think it would make a lot more people happier than they are currently with the static untrained skill with a high static DC.
|
|
Have to agree with bob and andrew -- too often I think we see missions to the effect of "bring page x of book y back to your faction leader".. book is ancient, so when it's described as falling apart, player A decides to just bring the while thing back. While this is great in ingenuity; it defeats the the mission in my book.
working to the effect of: we need page x from book y, only the page as we don't want anyone else to know that we have looked at this book or taken the page (and we need the actual page). And if you can make it so the book doesn't look disturbed please do so
Avoids the "whole book" loophole
|
|
Have to agree with bob and andrew -- too often I think we see missions to the effect of "bring page x of book y back to your faction leader".. book is ancient, so when it's described as falling apart, player A decides to just bring the while thing back. While this is great in ingenuity; it defeats the the mission in my book.
working to the effect of: we need page x from book y, only the page as we don't want anyone else to know that we have looked at this book or taken the page (and we need the actual page). And if you can make it so the book doesn't look disturbed please do so
Avoids the "whole book" loophole
I've recently run into this before. I indicated that the faction heads wanted them to prove they were capable of careful retrieval of fragile items or information from fragile items, and as such would only give them the faction fame if they do it the "hard way."
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4
|
If this were how faction missions were mandated to be created, I think it would make a lot more people happier than they are currently with the static untrained skill with a high static DC.
This is not a contradiction, but just a clarification. Currently there is no mandate on how a faction mission must be designed- but with a caveat!
If that faction mission is skill based, how that skill based challenge is set-up is outlined by Develoment. (I.e. an average PC in the middle of a 5 level spread within a tier should have a 50% chance of success, and there must be multiple skill based solutions if the skill(s) are trained or class based.) SIDE NOTE: So how easy or how hard that static DC is really dependent on your character level, and what the author determines constitutes an average PC.
Just to rephrase that for clarity: *if* you're going to write a skill based faction mission, there is a specific methodology for doing so. However not all faction missions must be skill based at all.
The only implied rules for non-skill based faction missions (other than non-PVP of course), is:
A.) You have 10 missions to provide so don't blow your word count.
B.) GMs have to be able to wrap things up in 4-5 hours, with a preference towards 4 hours.
I'm hoping Mark won't be angry for me explaining this to you guys, but I think it helps if you understand the logic behind some of the design choices.
As always, I'm not saying what you want is wrong or bad. I actually agree with you. I just want to share the big picture to inform the conversation and exchange of ideas.
*********
@Bob, Andrew, and Purple Fluffy -
You folks have mentioned posing a faction mission and leaving the solution open-ended so that the GM can determine if a solution has been satisfied. I want to pose a hypothetical situation and bounce it off of you for feedback:
Say the faction mission is to persuade an NPC to do something. Instead of calling out a Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate check, we just left it open for the GM to interpret. That is going to put the onus of determining whether that has been accomplished on to the GM. In other words, there could be some subjectivity on the part of the GM. Some are going to require a Skill check, and others might be satisfied by really good role-playing (and yes, it's possible a GM might be satisified with mediocre role-playing).
Is that going to be okay? I'm not trying to slant the question one way or another, other than to provide the range of possibilities. Is that something you'd feel comfortable with overall?
|
|
If this were how faction missions were mandated to be created, I think it would make a lot more people happier than they are currently with the static untrained skill with a high static DC.This is not a contradiction, but just a clarification. Currently there is no mandate on how a faction mission must be designed- but with a caveat!
If that faction mission is skill based, how that skill based challenge is set-up is outlined by Develoment. (I.e. an average PC in the middle of a 5 level spread within a tier should have a 50% chance of success, and there must be multiple skill based solutions if the skill(s) are trained or class based.) SIDE NOTE: So how easy or how hard that static DC is really dependent on your character level, and what the author determines constitutes an average PC.
Just to rephrase that for clarity: *if* you're going to write a skill based faction mission, there is a specific methodology for doing so. However not all faction missions must be skill based at all.
The only implied rules for non-skill based faction missions (other than non-PVP of course), is:
A.) You have 10 missions to provide so don't blow your word count.
B.) GMs have to be able to wrap things up in 4-5 hours, with a preference towards 4 hours.I'm hoping Mark won't be angry for me explaining this to you guys, but I think it helps if you understand the logic behind some of the design choices.
As always, I'm not saying what you want is wrong or bad. I actually agree with you. I just want to share the big picture to inform the conversation and exchange of ideas.
*********
@Bob, Andrew, and Purple Fluffy -You folks have mentioned posing a faction mission and leaving the solution open-ended so that the GM can determine if a solution has been satisfied. I want to pose a hypothetical situation and bounce it off of you for feedback:
Say the faction mission is to persuade an NPC to do something. Instead of calling out a Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate check, we just...
Well as an author you still have to help the GM with some sort of guideline. So you might say, they start as indifferent (or hostile) and must be made helpful to succeed. Those DC’s are static for how to accomplish this with both Intimidate or Diplomacy. As an author you could indicate that creative bluffing or extreme knowledge (nobility) or (local) might also work with a similar DC. You can also indicate that exceptional roleplaying could grant a +2 circumstance bonus.
That was all said in 82 words.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More INTERESTING faction missions.
I don't care if factions cooperate or don't, if it reveals story or doesn't or if it has multiple skill solutions or just one super-tough one, or whatever (OK, I do care about these, but they are not my current point.)
Too many missions currently follow this template: 'While you're out in this exotic locale saving the Pathfinder Society from certain doom, please be on the lookout for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and bring it to me.' Or, if you are Andoran: 'Free any slaves you find.'
Multi-step faction missions are cool. One of my favorites ever: the Cheliax faction mission in Citadel of Flame. It has flavor, it has steps, it forces the character to interact with the world, it has consequences and rewards in-game.
|
|
More boons, consequences and interesting plot-related treasure on scenario sheets
Tier 1-2:
Potion of Owl's Wisdom (which I can get anyway unless my character is brand-spanking new)
Scroll of Remove Disease *yawn*
Wand of CLW with seven charges (ok, kind of useful when my character is new and poor, but not exactly flavorful)
VS
Failure: Your party didn't keep the Big NPC from being killed (or you made bad choices) even though you accomplished the overall mission, you now have a -1 penalty in the nation of Ustalav - deal with it.
Special success: Your party managed to actually defeat the unique undead monster at the end of the adventure that was supposed to get away and now you can claim a special favor from the Church of Sarenrae one time only.
Nifty unique item: its not an epic item, but you can't purchase one like this anywhere unless you have successfully completed this mission.
|
|
Why cant we have an online PFS chat meeting similar to the authors chat?
We can always subvert the PaizoChat. Or we could always request a specific time window. There is a general Paizo chat on Tuesday nights where James Jacobs and free-lance authors pop in to discuss Golarion. And there has been times when Monday evening was set aside for tales author chats. I don't see any reason why we couldn't take a few hours during the week and call it "PFS Chat"
|
|
- More handouts. Notes, maps, etc.
- ... which gives the players more mystery. (Take a hint from Trail of Cthulhu here. Heck, get Ken Hite to write a PFS module for you. I bet he'll explode the formula.)
- ... which gives the players more story.
- Recently I was talking to someone that expressed getting bored with PFS. When asked why, he said: "[T]he story, or lack of it." I know that the editors and authors have put a lot of effort into making season 3 much more like a good tv show (mini-story arcs, larger story arcs, fun 1-off episodes, more interesting characters), and I'd like to see this effort continue. On a micro level, like someone said this earlier in the thread, the first 3 pages of most scenarios contain a ton of interesting backstory, most of which the players never see.
- Less human(oid) opponents, more unusual monsters from Bestiary II, III. I'm tired of fighting Aspis agents. I'm tired of fighting human(oid) BBEGs.
- Less swarms.
- Chronicle sheets with items that I care about. Here's a survey of my last to chron sheets: amulet of natural armor +1, cloak of resistance +1, pring of protection +1, potion of cure moderate wounds, potion of invisibility. Yawn. So +1 on many of the comments above.
- (Veering into the more debatable). More direct tie in into the adventure paths. I love how "We Be Goblins" tied right into the first Jade Regent AP. If Season 4 plot line weaved directly into the Skull and Shackles plotline, I'd be thrilled.
- Make AP's worth PFS credits, if at least only for the hardworking AP GMs out there. Better/more AP GMs -> better/more PFS GMs. Especially if the plotlines to the APs and PFS lines are weaved.
- Reward your PFS GMs with free WhizKids/Paizo miniatures. This is what they want - give it to them. My VC shouldn't have to drop $100 out of his own pocket on miniatures which he gives out at conventions to his hard working GMs.
- Faction missions that aren't entirely dependent on making/failing a skill check. (Again, see Trail of Cthulhu.)
- Allow more flexibility to the GMs to modify scenarios. I will almost always change around the NPC spell and feat lists, because the spells and feats chosen are often times ... poor. Why does my BBEG have identify memorized? Why is my party getting bogged down fighting yet another pair or trio of Aspis Agents, resulting in 30+ minutes of boring combat? (How about letting us 1+ star GMs playtest some of these combats prior to publication? Crowdsource us!).
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4
|
Why cant we have an online PFS chat meeting similar to the authors chat?We can always subvert the PaizoChat. Or we could always request a specific time window. There is a general Paizo chat on Tuesday nights where James Jacobs and free-lance authors pop in to discuss Golarion. And there has been times when Monday evening was set aside for tales author chats. I don't see any reason why we couldn't take a few hours during the week and call it "PFS Chat"
Liz Courts owns it. I'm sure if she were asked nicely she'd make it available.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4
|
- Less human(oid) opponents, more unusual monsters from Bestiary II, III. I'm tired of fighting Aspis agents. I'm tired of fighting human(oid) BBEGs.
Good post Sozin.
I agree with your comment above, but as I have with some other posts in this thread, I want to share a bit about the process. Not to say no, but to open up the conversation and look for alternatives.
I'm going to use spoiler tags, not because it's a spoiler, but I go into Spicer-Mode with this post. It's definitely not 82 words. ;)
Bestiary 2 and B3 creatures pose a challenge for authors because they're not part of the Core Assumption rule books. So we need to provide the full stat block for the creature, which counts against the word count of the adventure. We're completely free to use B2 and B3 creatures (if appropriate), but we have to deduct the words required for the full stat block (with all the special abilities) out of our "word budget". Whereas with a B1 creature we can use a short stat-block and a page number reference, and it requires far fewer words.
This does not account for the humanoids with class or NPC levels. Those require a full stat-block no matter what Bestiary they came out of; so If those are too common, then that is a parallel but unrelated issue.
Recently I wrote an adventure, and Mark approved the use of really appropriate B3 creatures (because he cares dang it!), but we had a tacit agreement. No templates, class levels, or deviations from the Bestiary stat-block, so that he would not have to spend any development time on them. That was a one-time deal to jazz up the adventure, for which I was grateful.
What can be done? We could expand the Core Assumption rulebooks. However, you the community are going to be the deal maker and the deal breakers regarding that. People complain if they have to buy and bring too many rule-books. I don't judge or condemn their concern, it's as legitimate as any other concern.
But.. if B2 is added to the Core Assumptions, BAM! You're gonna see more B2 creatures. There is a cause and effect relationship between what Core Assumption monster books and what kind of creatures you see in scenarios.
Whether a Bestiary is added to the Core Assumptions might come down to how many people object to it or not. (again, no judgment intended)
@ - Everybody: would you support Mark and Mike if they added B2 (or B3) or would you be upset?
Again, I support the idea but I also know there is a dynamic tension inherent in all these decisions. I think it's helpful if you folks see behind the curtain a little bit.
Edit: Ah.. I see Bestiary's are not mentioned in the Core Assumptions described in the Guide. My mistake. Nevertheless what I've said is correct, even if it 's not been explicitly stated to the player base. B1 creatures are easier to use than B2 & B3 due to what we can expect a gm to own and bring to the table.
|
|
For GMs:
3)Better Fonts and better break out of different types of content. My eyes aren't getting any younger and I find the thin, light, italicised font of the descriptive text hard to read.
The different types of content within the scenario should all be clearly delineated in some way: plot, descriptive text, creatures, mission criteria, rewards, skill checks. I find it very easy to overlook detail in the current format as it all runs together. I find myself, inserting boxes, highlighting and marking up to achieve this manually when I get lots of prep time.
I've found myself doing the same thing with highlighters -- and I'm betting I'm younger than you... but I have a simple easy to remember way of it
Green -- equals skill checks
purple -- faction missions
pink/red -- scenario information that needs to be remembered to addlib in
Day made. Thanks for this. Excellent idea.
|
|
So we need to provide the full stat block for the creature, which counts against the word count of the adventure.
I thought I saw Moreland say this elsewhere, but maybe I dreamed it. Regardless: remove the word count limitation. Or, remove stat blocks from the WC. Or, offer tons of wiggle room here. Or, add Bestiary 2 and 3 to the Core Assumptions.
Forgot to add a controversial one, and I know this has been debated ad nauseum, and that this will never happen, but: make 6 player tables the max legal table size. If you decide that 7 or 8 player tables are fine, then your punishment for this decision is to go play or GM a weekend full of 7 and 8 player games, at crowded tables, with stinky gamers, 1/3 of whom are summoners or druids. Do that 3 times. Then when you come back and say, "Ok, you were right, 7 and 8 player tables is idiotic", I promise not to say "I told you so."
|
|
So we need to provide the full stat block for the creature, which counts against the word count of the adventure.I thought I saw Moreland say this elsewhere, but maybe I dreamed it. Regardless: remove the word count limitation. Or, remove stat blocks from the WC. Or, offer tons of wiggle room here. Or, add Bestiary 2 and 3 to the Core Assumptions.
Forgot to add a controversial one, and I know this has been debated ad nauseum, and that this will never happen, but: make 6 player tables the max legal table size. If you decide that 7 or 8 player tables are fine, then your punishment for this decision is to go play or GM a weekend full of 7 and 8 player games, at crowded tables, with stinky gamers, 1/3 of whom are summoners or druids. Do that 3 times. Then when you come back and say, "Ok, you were right, 7 and 8 player tables is idiotic", I promise not to say "I told you so."
This is changing with Season 4, where scenarios are going to be written for 6 player tables instead of 4
|
|
Discounting difficulty, in what other ways would folks like to see faction missions improved? We had a 3.5 hour meeting yesterday on the topic and have a plan to revamp the system, but I'm curious what changes the community would make if put in our shoes.
They have to be tied into the mission in more than a cursory fashion. I think it is completely silly to send us to the mall to pick up some new new clothes for the venture captain when we are trying to solve a murder mystery. It's kinda like Superman getting a call from Lois Lane to pick up some milk on the way home while he out trying to capture Lex Luthor.
They should further the story and be relivant to the task at hand. Even if you might stumle on a clue while shopping for new clothes (or picking up the milk) neither appear to relevant, so you have to essentially metagame and say let's do this before we go the evil villian's lair, instead of waiting for the primary mission to be completed.
To be perfectly blunt they usually detract from the main story line, divide the party into individuals/small groups while they run off to handle their mini-mission meanwhile the rest of the players check text message, talk amoungst themselves, stare off into space, run for snacks etc.
|
|
They have to be tied into the mission in more than a cursory fashion. I think it is completely silly to send us to the mall to pick up some new new clothes for the venture captain when we are trying to solve a murder mystery
+1. In a game yesterday, two party members derailed a dramatic rescue mission to ... find a candy bowl. To help the Qadiran trade prince get his daughter hitched.
they usually detract from the main story line, divide the party into individuals/small groups while they run off to handle their mini-mission meanwhile the rest of the players check text message, talk amoungst themselves, stare off into space, run for snacks etc.
Yeah. They also completely distract the poor GM - he's just finished a combat, is reading through the next scene's notes, getting everything orchestrated just right to maximize player fun - and suddenly the players are interrupting him, asking them about where they can find that ... special dueling honeybee ... candy dish. I wish we could get a video montage of the faces of all these poor GMs at this very instant of annoyance.
I think that PFS has kind of painted itself into a corner here. With so many factions, it is going to be very hard to give each faction its own distinct mission that ties directly to the main or sub plots of the module. And its too late to ditch to the faction concept entirely, since its become baked into PFS so deeply.
Ideas:
- Get rid entirely of find-the-perfume, sketch-the-statue, nab-the-candy-bowl style faction missions.
- Give each faction a mission for the entire season, not each individual scenario. Only have specific faction missions for scenarios that relate directly to the season story arc. For a scenario like Among the Gods, there is only one faction mission: the Grand Lodge's. Prestige is granted as if all the players were members of the Grand Lodge.
- Have some factions work together to accomplish the same mission (for example, Andoran + Lantern + Silver vs Shadow + Sczarni + Cheliax ). This limits the total number of side missions, and allows the authors to focus on ensuring that every faction mission relates directly to the plot of the scenario.
|
|
Continuing the above:
-don't always give every faction I mission in each scenario. For example, one scenario might only have three faction missions: Cheliax, Andoran, and Grand Lodge. If you're Lantern Lodge, etc, you use the Grand Lodge mission.
For that to fit the "competing factions" back story there would have to be a good story reason for them to work together
- perhaps representing a temporary alliance between factions- perhaps representing "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" type cooperation.
|
|
I think that the cooperative faction goals idea is one that has merit. Functionally, it happens now in a non-story manner on Season 2 and earlier anyway.
Would cooperation happen all the time? No, but strange bedfellows make for interesting times however. Cheliax and Andoran working together? Perhaps the joint mission is to get an audience with some noble npc. Cheliax needs to deliver information about the Paracountesses disappointment about something and Andoran needs to get a message to the noblewoman's lady in waiting surreptitiously. The noble family won't admit Pathfinders of any faction onto their estate - hilarity ensues.
I would rather share a mission with a despised rival than go to an exotic location to find the aforementioned candy dish any day of the week.
|
Because I don't have the resources, equipment or knowledge to set one up.I hope you come to the PFS members meeting at Gen Con.Why cant we have an online PFS chat meeting similar to the authors chat?
I would be more than happy to set up a chat for you Master Brock if you like. I think it would be awesome to have a monthly or bi-monthly chat. OR even weekly :D Then you get feedback in real time as well as feedback about modules when they come out.
|
|
8 player tables are not currently allowed and never have been.
I see a case being made for 8-player tables. I'm now in a position where interest in Pathfinder Society where I live is growing faster than I can honestly run tables. And I, the only Pathfinder Society GM. This past weekend I ran a table of six and, if he'd had his sheet, another player was present and interested in playing. Rather than draw up a new character, he opted to play board games with other friends. This weekend, only the fifth week in, it will be entirely possible for me to have eight interested players. Being the only GM in the group isn't a simple problem when you have EXACTLY 8 interested players. In order to split the group you would need one of them to be familiar with the rules and willing to GM, and IF you can pull this off this leaves exactly four at one table and three at another, meaning the more experienced GM would have to run a pregen GMPC, too.
All that aside, I don't really think it's a good idea. However helpful allowing 8-player tables could be, even providing for it only under the strictest conditions—a rare, emergency occasion when there isn't a player willing and able to become a second GM—I'm worried that it may tempt less scrupulous GMs to flaunt the rules in yet another way.
|
|
8 player tables are not currently allowed and never have been.I see a case being made for 8-player tables. I'm now in a position where interest in Pathfinder Society where I live is growing faster than I can honestly run tables. And I, the only Pathfinder Society GM. This past weekend I ran a table of six and, if he'd had his sheet, another player was present and interested in playing. Rather than draw up a new character, he opted to play board games with other friends. This weekend, only the fifth week in, it will be entirely possible for me to have eight interested players. Being the only GM in the group isn't a simple problem when you have EXACTLY 8 interested players. In order to split the group you would need one of them to be familiar with the rules and willing to GM, and IF you can pull this off this leaves exactly four at one table and three at another, meaning the more experienced GM would have to run a pregen GMPC, too.
All that aside, I don't really think it's a good idea. However helpful allowing 8-player tables could be, even providing for it only under the strictest conditions—a rare, emergency occasion when there isn't a player willing and able to become a second GM—I'm worried that it may tempt less scrupulous GMs to flaunt the rules in yet another way.
Unfortunately 8 player tables are strictly prohibited, and if you can't manage to get a 2nd GM, you will have to turn the 8th player away.
This is why it is a good idea to have some sort of a sign-up process, whether that be Meetup.com, Warhorn, Facebook Group, or some other method that allows players to tell you they are coming.
|
|
Stuff
If you have the space for a second table, I would suggest you start trying to get another player to GM, your area will never grow without more GMs.
If everyone but yourself refuses to GM, they need to accept the fact that you will be playing 7 player tables and that no new players will be able to join, they may be ok with that.
|
|
8-player tables also don't do anyone any favours in terms of fun. Hell, 6-player tables don't do anyone any favours either, but that's mostly because the scenarios are written for four. We do our best at the event I coordinate to keep tables to four or five players whenever possible; that's meant that I've been aggressively recruiting GMs from among the players.
If your players are not willing to step up and help out GMing, and you have eight players already - or even seven! - might I humbly suggest that you rotate through who doesn't get to play in a given week. That might drive home the point that you need help in the form of more GMs.
Plus, you might get to play from time to time, too. :)
|
|
Switching gears a bit towards writing and story.
One of the things that good tv shows do is have recurring villains that we love to hate. In the season finale of the show, something wonderful and interesting and dramatic occurs involving said villain(s).
Looking at the Year of the Ruby Phoenix, we have a villainous group: the Aspis Society. The show up in multiple scenarios in season 3 (3-03, first steps, 3-14, 3-15, 3-12...), and figure prominently in the Wonders in the Weave scenarios.
If year of the Ruby Phoenix were a tv show, there would be a villain that showed up in episodes throughout the season that the PCs are just itching to fight. A villain like
Sadly,
So, season four thoughts: have a recurring villain. A villain that the PCs love to hate, that shows up in at least two scenarios/episodes.