Scenarios that should be retired


GM Discussion

Silver Crusade

The Dasaline Affair should have been retired after season 2 as its events concentrate on something that effect the society and it does not make sence to run it after the end of season 2.{The Dasaline Affair is a great senario but is just time senisitive] This also effects the Eyes of the Ten IMO. What say the rest of the PFS GM's?

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Agent, United Kingdom—England—Chester aka Paz

There's nothing forcing groups to keep up with the storyline from the latest scenarios, nor should there be. If a group wants to play a 'Year of the Shadow Lodge'-themed set of scenarios, then that's their business.

If you wanted to exclude any old scenarios that had continuity issues (however small) if they were run straight after a brand new scenario, you'd probably have to eliminate most of them.

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Belafon

Lou, you could make the same argument about a lot of the scenarios at the end of season 3 - season 4 assumes those events took place. So unless we want about half of the scenarios to be playable for one month only...I don't think any should be eliminated for that reason.

Overall I don't really think any more need to be retired. Those that are no longer playable were generally removed because of some combination of: a)had encounters that converted very poorly to Pathfinder rules, b)were found to be unacceptably deadly, c)used lore that did not fit in Golarion, or d)had a fatal flaw that making it unplayable/unfun that was not found until after release.

A and c are no longer issues and the playtest and editing has gotten much more stringent, cutting down on the chances of b or d occuring.

Now there are some scenarios (like the aforementioned Dalsine Affair) that I think should come with a warning: "Do Not Play with a brand new character or level 1 pregen" due to the high difficulty level making a character with only 150gp of gear very likely to die. And of course we'd all like to see all the season 0s published with PF rules but until Mark gets (a lot) more resources it's not going to happen (see: increased playtesting and editing).

Dark Archive

Admit it, you want to retire the Dalsine Affair because of

Spoiler:
EXPLOSIVE SHOCKING GRASP RUNES

Shadow Lodge

I've heard arguments before about mixing old and new scenarios with regard to certain faction leaders, but they all forget to take one thing into account.

Spoiler:
Raise Dead. :P

But seriously, you can easily wave away many of the continuity issues, or just use a little care in picking the order you run scenarios.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I strongly suspect that we have yet to see the last of the ramifications of the Dalsine Affair. Keeping it in active play will help put some up-and-coming bad guys in perspective.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yup, I've been seeing a few names floating around this season which are blasts from the past.

Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

I honestly hope nothing else gets retired, in general. Adept coordinators know which scenarios to avoid, be it for story reasons or for "too dangerous to play" reasons. And the more scenarios there are that are removed from play, the fewer play opportunities there are, leading to more outcries for replay.

Plus, you can string many of the older scenarios together to make full campaigns and run brand new PFS players through them in this way. I am doing so with a group of 5, playing them through the entire Year of the Shadow Lodge arc (with some tweaks to the story to keep it contiguous to level instead of the time any scenario was released). It's working out very well, and without Dalsine and EotT, wouldn't be nearly as cool.

Grand Lodge

Belafon wrote:
c)used lore that did not fit in Golarion

Which scenarios were retired because they used the wrong lore?

Shadow Lodge

Drogon wrote:
I honestly hope nothing else gets retired, in general. Adept coordinators know which scenarios to avoid, be it for story reasons or for "too dangerous to play" reasons.

Yes, but not everyone is an adept coordinator and those people will run those scenarios willy-nilly.

Drogon wrote:

...and run brand new PFS players through them in this way.

And that's exactly why we need to retire them - the ones we're talking are usually 1-5's. Playing them at level 1 is a great way to turn away newbie players.

Add Darkest Vengeance to the list.

Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hm. I guess I'm not a fan of punishing those who are good at their jobs to compensate for the few who aren't.

And, for the record, I have played three different groups through Darkest Vengeance, all at either the low tier (due to being new players) or as a just-barely-qualified high tier; all survived, and loved the scenario. Several of those players went on to GM the scenario themselves, and it is a favorite, locally.

Shadow Lodge

I wouldn't at all mind if Severing Ties was retired now, or at least wither lost PFS status or altered to the higher tier only. In my opinion, it is exactly what a scenario should not be on practically all levels.

Other than that, there are some issues with a few of the scenario's where the Shadow Lodge are the villians now that the Shadow Lodge is open to players. It is somewhat easy to change it to a single renegade shadow lodge cell or something, but it still can lead to weird issues. Frostfur Captives comes to mind,

Spoiler:
when why would a Shadow Lodge player basically help the Decem. gather stuff against the Shadow Lodge, even renegades. That defeats the entire point of the current Shadow Lodge.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Seattle aka The Great Rinaldo!

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Frostfur Captives comes to mind, ** spoiler omitted **

Regarding Frostfur Captives:
As I understand it, the conceit is that Torch is having his agents work to quell the renegades so as to prove to the Decemvirate that the "real" Shadow Lodge is working within the system, not against it. This ensures that he and his agents have maximum capability to fulfill their mission of being watchdogs.

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
I wouldn't at all mind if Severing Ties was retired now, or at least wither lost PFS status or altered to the higher tier only. In my opinion, it is exactly what a scenario should not be on practically all levels.

?! Severing Ties was fantastic! That was by far my favorite scenario so far this season.

Shadow Lodge

Drogon wrote:
And, for the record, I have played three different groups through Darkest Vengeance, all at either the low tier (due to being new players) or as a just-barely-qualified high tier; all survived, and loved the scenario. Several of those players went on to GM the scenario themselves, and it is a favorite, locally.

I'd be very interested to be a fly on the wall and see how you run it to make it enjoyable for the newbies.

Sovereign Court 5/5 Venture-Captain, West Virginia—Charleston aka Netopalis

Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
I wouldn't at all mind if Severing Ties was retired now, or at least wither lost PFS status or altered to the higher tier only. In my opinion, it is exactly what a scenario should not be on practically all levels.
?! Severing Ties was fantastic! That was by far my favorite scenario so far this season.

Agreed. Severing Ties is by far one of my favorite PFS scenarios, and while I feel that it is a bit rough on newer players (I would never want to run it for a party of all level 1 or for a borderline party playing up), I think it's a great time for those looking for a slightly advanced challenge.

I do wish that the last little bit on the boss' ability at 4-5 was removed, though. It's rather brutal. Just one little sentence.

2/5

I'd prefer that no scenarios be retired at this point, especially one that is as good as Dalsine Affair. Every player knows what's going on when they play in old seasons, and if they don't the GM makes them aware. Good GMs will actually change some of the fluff so it still makes sense.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

In general I think it is a bad idea to retire scenarios. I remember in 2010 when a bunch of season "0" scenarios were retired there was a drop in available materiel to play and run.

This problem was pretty much solved by writing both "high level" and low level scenarios each month.

I for one think the more available materiel the better. I was happy when they added modules...I'm hoping they add the 3.5 modules.

and I'm happy they have added two adventure paths.

So in short I think retiring scenarios isn't a good idea.

Sovereign Court

I don't think anyone in the Paizo HQ lair has even considered retiring any scenarios. Those that have been are 0-season scenarios, some which proved to be bad or worse.

That said, Drow of the Darklands Pyramid would deserve the mark of retirement. But that's just me.

Shadow Lodge

there were some murmurs about Retiring Eyes of the Ten a while back due to all the confusion surrounding the 33 XP start point

I hope all that has been resolved tho

Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Avatar-1 wrote:
Drogon wrote:
And, for the record, I have played three different groups through Darkest Vengeance, all at either the low tier (due to being new players) or as a just-barely-qualified high tier; all survived, and loved the scenario. Several of those players went on to GM the scenario themselves, and it is a favorite, locally.
I'd be very interested to be a fly on the wall and see how you run it to make it enjoyable for the newbies.

Simple: I made sure they found and discussed all the clues so that they understood what was going on with the experiments, and how the fact that the upstairs machine was merely a prototype for the downstairs machine. Moreover, the clues made them aware of the bad guy, who they speculated was connected to the guys in the library. So, they went into that last fight with a plan, every time.

From there, if the GM follows the tactics as written, it is an enjoyable and challenging fight with a lot of tension. It only gets deadly if the GM ignores the tactics and doesn't present the story properly to the players.


Wraith235 wrote:

there were some murmurs about Retiring Eyes of the Ten a while back due to all the confusion surrounding the 33 XP start point

I hope all that has been resolved tho

There are other reasons for the... proposal to retire eyes.

Silver Crusade

CRobledo wrote:
Wraith235 wrote:

there were some murmurs about Retiring Eyes of the Ten a while back due to all the confusion surrounding the 33 XP start point

I hope all that has been resolved tho

There are other reasons for the... proposal to retire eyes.

Story reasons? I've played it, and now you've got me curious. Mind sending me a PM to avoid putting spoilers for that one here?


CRobledo wrote:
Wraith235 wrote:

there were some murmurs about Retiring Eyes of the Ten a while back due to all the confusion surrounding the 33 XP start point

I hope all that has been resolved tho

There are other reasons for the... proposal to retire eyes.

Such a vague sentence.....Mind explaining a tad bit more without giving anything way, if there is anything to give away?

Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathan King 788 wrote:
CRobledo wrote:
Wraith235 wrote:

there were some murmurs about Retiring Eyes of the Ten a while back due to all the confusion surrounding the 33 XP start point

I hope all that has been resolved tho

There are other reasons for the... proposal to retire eyes.
Such a vague sentence.....Mind explaining a tad bit more without giving anything way, if there is anything to give away?

Venture Captain: We don't know what's going on in the desert, Pathfinders, but go find out and fix it.

Pathfinder Bob <raises hand>: Um, drow, perhaps? Somewhere in an underground pyramid?

Golarion Lore Warden: Drow? Drow don't exist except in your worst nightmares! Why in Desna's good name would you think it's drow?!

Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

Drogon wrote:
Nathan King 788 wrote:
CRobledo wrote:
Wraith235 wrote:

there were some murmurs about Retiring Eyes of the Ten a while back due to all the confusion surrounding the 33 XP start point

I hope all that has been resolved tho

There are other reasons for the... proposal to retire eyes.
Such a vague sentence.....Mind explaining a tad bit more without giving anything way, if there is anything to give away?

Venture Captain: We don't know what's going on in the desert, Pathfinders, but go find out and fix it.

Pathfinder Bob <raises hand>: Um, drow, perhaps? Somewhere in an underground pyramid?

Golarion Lore Warden: Drow? Drow don't exist except in your worst nightmares! Why in Desna's good name would you think it's drow?!

Hm. Five and a half hours later and I'm reading through the thread again, and I realize I've responded to the wrong post. Don't I look silly. The above is in reference to Drow of the Darklands Pyramids (not that it wasn't obvious, I hope).

Seeing as I have a misquote to deal with, I would speculate that people want to retire EotT due to the relevance of its story getting further and further away from current scenarios. It is not a generic story in any way, and people who come up through the PFS ranks starting, say, in the third season and end up retiring in the next six months are going to give EotT the hairy eyeball when they play it and likely ask, "Do I even care about this story?"

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Guys, there is absolutely no reason to retire any more scenarios. If *YOU* don't like them and don't want to offer or GM them in your local, then don't. That should have no impact on the other regions that have no problem offering them. Even if your GMs are not comfortable with the out-dated meta-plot, there are plenty of others that embrace it. And, for the most part, newer players who were not around for season two don't know the difference anyway.

I just run the entire Shades of Ice series this past weekend at Winter War. The players enjoyed it despite there being some meta-plot inconsistencies with the current season (which they are also playing). Much of that can be mitigated by the GM either adjusting the perspective of the Shadow Lodge from a wholly antagonistic organization to one with a rift. Most have rejoined the society, but there are a few outlying cells that are still working against the society.

Another option is to just downplay the meta-plot aspect and just run/play the basics of the scenarios with little to no emphasis on the involvement of the Shadow Lodge. Or if you are really industrious, change the antagonists to Aspis and, boom, you have a relevant season four substitute.

Sovereign Court

The scenarios hold so many flashbacks that an older scenario could easily go for a flashback itself! ;)

Liberty's Edge 4/5

Myles Crocker wrote:

In general I think it is a bad idea to retire scenarios. I remember in 2010 when a bunch of season "0" scenarios were retired there was a drop in available materiel to play and run.

This problem was pretty much solved by writing both "high level" and low level scenarios each month.

I for one think the more available materiel the better. I was happy when they added modules...I'm hoping they add the 3.5 modules.

and I'm happy they have added two adventure paths.

So in short I think retiring scenarios isn't a good idea.

I am in total agreement with you Myles. I want them to revise and re-release the 3.5 OGL modules, too. There aren't enough modules and scenarios now, especially low level ones, for those players out there(like me) who try to match up a certain character to a particular scenario or module because of the theme, the character concept, and/or story arc--such as The Price of Immortality series or Quest for Perfection series.

I do admit that I've contributed to the dilemma by having created many, many characters (15 of them so far); I have a character for each faction and replacement ones for those soon to "retire". Yep, you can call me crazy, but, it's so fun to just create the characters. I come up with very detailed background stories for each of them, too, which makes playing them that much more fun.
However, my own gaming style aside, we do need more available material. And, by adding the old 3.5 OGL stuff, including the old Adventure Paths, along with all the other Adventure Paths, that would be the best.
Although, I was alittle disappointed when they listed the starting levels of 3-5 for the sanctioned portions of the APs Shattered Star and Rise of the Runelords. It would have been so much better if they allowed 1st and 2nd level characters.
I'll try to suffer through it...

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

I suppose the OP wants The Blakros Matrimony retired as well considering the events of The Disappeared.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
raggedyavatar1116 wrote:

Although, I was alittle disappointed when they listed the starting levels of 3-5 for the sanctioned portions of the APs Shattered Star and Rise of the Runelords. It would have been so much better if they allowed 1st and 2nd level characters.

I'll try to suffer through it...

From a continuity perspective, you are far better off playing the entire AP and then applying that level 3 credit to a PFS character. In that case, you would be starting from level 1.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I suppose the OP wants The Blakros Matrimony retired as well considering the events of The Disappeared.

^^^Spoiler^^^

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Off in the Shower wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I suppose the OP wants The Blakros Matrimony retired as well considering the events of The Disappeared.
^^^Spoiler^^^

...you have a funny idea about what spoils a story.

Edit: Also.

Pathfinder Society GM Discussion wrote:
This forum is for Pathfinder Society GMs to discuss game play experience and seek clarification on scenarios. Threads in this forum may contain spoilers for players.

Liberty's Edge 4/5

Will Johnson wrote:
raggedyavatar1116 wrote:

Although, I was alittle disappointed when they listed the starting levels of 3-5 for the sanctioned portions of the APs Shattered Star and Rise of the Runelords. It would have been so much better if they allowed 1st and 2nd level characters.

I'll try to suffer through it...
From a continuity perspective, you are far better off playing the entire AP and then applying that level 3 credit to a PFS character. In that case, you would be starting from level 1.

Now there's an idea. I never thought of that. I could create a clone character just like the PFS one and get the whole story that way and apply the chronicle sheets when appropriate.

Thanks

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

It's such a great story that I really do feel that chopping it up and only playing the portions approved for PFS does a disservice to the great story arc and to the players who will probably not want to replay it after the spoilers.

Liberty's Edge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Card Game, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

With the incredible CR change for spiders, Perils of the Pirate Pact becomes a potential TPK. Run with caution, friends! It's top on my list of rules rewrite.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas aka kinevon

Sliska Zafir wrote:
With the incredible CR change for spiders, Perils of the Pirate Pact becomes a potential TPK. Run with caution, friends! It's top on my list of rules rewrite.

No, the prioper thing to do, what the rules for running an untranslated Season 0 scenario say to do, is to use the original monster, with the only translation being done is to add CMB/CMD for it.

Especially since there are no Large or Medium Monstrous Spiders in PFRPG.

Remember to add in the bonus against Trip for all the extra legs.

Spoiler:
Medium Monstrous Spider, CMB +4 (+1 BAB, +3 Dex), CMD 14 (+0 Str), 26 against Trips (+12 for 6 extra legs)

Large Monstrous Spider, CMB +6 (+3 BAB, +2 Str, +1 size), CMD 19 (+3 Dex), 31 against Trips (+12 for 6 extra legs)

Any Trip specialist is in trouble, but he would know that on sight, anyhow. "8 legs?! I hate spiders!"

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

While taken on it's own, it's a fun scenario to play, honestly I wouldn't mind seeing The Many Fortunes of Grandmaster Torch be retired. I know the Pathfinder Society can sometimes be morally ambiguous, but some of the stuff you have to do in here is just evil.

Spoiler:
I mean, you're basically sent to shake down four people and steal their artifacts from them. As far as the players are aware, these four people have come by these items through perfectly legitimate means, and you're told to take them by any means necessary -- and then the scenario railroads you into taking several of them by force. I don't know how a paladin could make it through this scenario without falling.

The faction missions are pretty bad, too. The Qadiran faction mission explicitly tells you to murder somebody using a particularly painful poison.

Then the Taldor faction mission tells you do "deal as much death and destruction necessary", which involves blowing up a refinery, dealing a huge amount of property damage and possibly killing several innocent workers and guards inside. Even my morally-questionable Chaotic Neutral Sczarni sorceress had some qualms about doing this one, but I at least waited until I was pretty sure nobody was inside...

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I loved the Taldor Faction mission, Phillip. My Sczarni was happy to carry it out as loudly as possible for good ol' Taldor. It doesn't help that the mission doesn't specify a location, so I played it safe and hit everywhere we went.

I also tried to expand the Sczarni protection racket down south.

Sczarni

Will Johnson wrote:

I loved the Taldor Faction mission, Phillip. My Sczarni was happy to carry it out as loudly as possible for good ol' Taldor. It doesn't help that the mission doesn't specify a location, so I played it safe and hit everywhere we went.

I also tried to expand the Sczarni protection racket down south.

Oh, it was definitely a fun mission. Out-of-character I thought it was hilarious and awesome. But in character?

Spoiler:
You're doing tens of thousands of GP of property damage and potentially murdering dozens of innocent people.

That's not even close to being neutral, that's just evil.

I have mixed feelings about this scenario because I think with a bit more fleshing out, it'd be a great module for a morally-ambiguous party, but I don't think it's appropriate for a group of PCs who are supposed to be the good guys.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure about retiring it, but that scenario really made me question the "No Evil" stance in PFS. You can't be evil, but armed robbery and murder for self enrichment are cool... huh?

Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / Scenarios that should be retired All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.