James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
I've got a group of players after playing 2 sessions, that hate PFS and want to switch to an AP. But I don't want to run an AP, so either they find a new DM or I find a progression of scenarios that makes them feel like it is more like an Adventure Path.
Their complaint is each session is "4 hours and done" and "not interconnected" plus they "don't seem like anything they did in previous adventures make a difference for future."
Is there any hope? I've played a lot of PFS, but I can't immediately think of anything other than the various 3 part adventures.
Netopalis Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston |
Dhjika |
Is there any hope? I've played a lot of PFS, but I can't immediately think of anything other than the various 3 part adventures.
There is a two parter that feels very cohesive - Before the dawn - 02-01 & 02-02 - indeed the 2nd one begins right after the first and if they are played 1 2 the conditions on the 1st can pass along
Bloodcove Disguise and Rescue at Azlant Ridge I think are the names.
Also the Rats of Round Mountain combo is like that - and since you won't Kyle Baird running them for you, things should be fine ;P
Plus there is always Thornkeep - 5 levels (or is it 6?) of dungeons and advancement.
Plus you could tie Modules together into a cohesive story.
Howie23 |
The episodic nature of PFS is its strength and weakness. It fits well into adult lifestyles, but the linear plots and lack of much depth is kinda like eating fast food. If they want a fuller feel, they probably aren't gonna find it in PFS.
Modules might be the best compromise, else get one if them to run the AP instead of you; be a player maybe?
Mattastrophic |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Modules might be the best compromise, else get one if them to run the AP instead of you; be a player maybe?
Honestly, many (not all) of the modules are even worse at interconnection and storyline. I'm preparing The Moonscar right now, and it has no plot to speak of, just an epic adventure seed.
Over time, I have come to the understanding that Paizo's scenarios and modules are, by and large, very generic, largely made up of stat blocks and maps. The trick, as a GM, is to take what's there and fill in the gaps with a story and with interconnection that you and your players will find interesting.
Paizo, by and large, doesn't provide the storyline and the interconnection your players are really searching for; they provide the setting, stat blocks, and maps, but it's really on you guys to forge the rest for yourselves. With a relaxed setting and a regular group, it's very possible to do that. So, encourage your players to immerse themselves in Golarion and generate roleplaying prompts for each other, meanwhile you can go out of your way as a GM to present the canon and the cultures, because the products, by and large, really don't provide the sorts of interconnection and roleplaying prompts your players are likely looking for.
-Matt
Ghost1776 |
Yes there are scenarios that can give you interconnected campaign feel, but you are goint to have to look for them. There is in fact another thread on the message boards which goes into detail about this. In general you are going to have to play up the connections.
Edited to remove spoiler because it seems I don't know how to tag a spoiler correctly.
There are plenty of scenario with recurring NPC's and locations, particularly in Absalom. There is another thread on the message board somewhere all about this idea.
Big Kyle |
I think what you should really do is sit down with this group and spend a session going over what about PFS they didn't like.
Is it the rules restrictions on character building? Or the way money is earned? How the scenarios are setup as "one shot" adventures?
There is much more detail that needs to be figured out with a group of gamers to figure out what the problem is. A knee jerk reaction of "PFS BAD! AP GOOD!" is a bit too caveman-ish.
Have an honest and open discussion about what type of game they want to play and the best way of going about that. Remember...certain AP's do give PFS credit.
Greasitty |
Look at it the other way, too. What it is about PFS that makes you refuse to run anything else? If it is about credit and leveling your PC's for cons and the like, then that would be hard to compromise. But if it is the low prep nature, not wanting to write your own scenarios, self contained sessions, etc, then consider this:
PFS scenarios do not need to be run in PFS. They could be used in a home game with a persistent group whose plothook is that they work for the Pathfinder Society (the in game group). Then you can note the results of various scenarios and make appropriate changes to future ones. It would only be slightly more prep work than normal PFS, but it would give your players the feeling of continuity.
Examples:
- If they develop an adversarial relationship with a particular VC, play that up (they could actually be sent on one of those punishing scenarios out of pettiness) or have them "transferred" to a different lodge, and they play the normal scenario but under a different VC.
- Keep an eye on chronology, so if in their play chronology a certain NPC should be dead or on the outs with society, replace him/her.
- Make the NPC's somewhat less one-shots. If the scenario calls for them to meet a centaur, and they forged a good relationship with a centaur in this area previously, plug in the friendly centaur. If an Aspis member escaped their grasp, plug him in where a slighly higher level aspis one shot NPC is in their next meeting - boom, recurring villain!
- Keep any effect they have on an area. If they go back into the same big Andoran forest, describe how it is a better or worse place than before, depending on their actions. Anywhere they adventure frequently they should have "their" inn, where they are greeted with room keys and asked if they want their usual beverage order.
You don't need to change stat blocks, encounter orders, etc any more than you want to. If continuity is all they really need, you just need the world to be a more solid and real place, and those little touches are all it takes. The rest will be made up in their minds. "Oh no you don't curse OUR forest! We have worked very hard over several scenarios to keep it safe from cults, bandits, and evil fey!"
Of course, if what they really hate is how PFS does loot/xp/etc or what you require out of the situation is GM credits, then this won't be effective.
Bigrin da Troll |
If you lack the time or inclination to run an Adventure path, then you most likely also lack the time or inclination to amke a series of PFS scenarios or modules feel like an AP.
So yes, absolutely do as Big Kyle says and talk to your players about what specifically they don't like about PFS and why they'd rather play an AP, but I'm afraid the answer might be "it isn't possible to do that at this time."
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
Crypt of the Everflame/Masks of the Living God/City of Golden Death.
I started them on Crypt of the Everflame and we nearly didn't even start, as they didn't want to take the adventure hook in the first session. It wasn't until they realized I wasn't going to ad hoc something else that they took the bait and agreed to help the city.
Before the dawn - 02-01 & 02-02 Bloodcove Disguise and Rescue at Azlant Ridge
Rats of Round Mountain combo
Thornkeep
I'll add these to the list.
Try quest for perfection 123.
Added to list.
There's the Devil We Know series from Season 1.
Great series, but two of them have played this before.
else get one if them to run the AP instead of you; be a player maybe?
Yea I was a player until we lost the last DM, and no one else wanted to step up ;-) The problem is this is a group I have previously ran a home brew from level 1 to 14 (which was "I can't challenge you without killing her" fest; so I quit running because of the time to design challenging encounters for the party.)
what about PFS they didn't like.
character building ... money ... "one shot" adventures?
I've talked with them a bit, and it isn't char building or money. I'm not even sure it is the "one shotness" like they say. I think it might be "rails" and the fact a home brew doesn't have rails. This group loves going off the rails. They spent months believing the Lawful Good person asking them to do something to help people was somehow evil and refused to help him until they asked a god 13 questions in a communion all about trying to prove he was evil.
makes you refuse to run anything else?
low prep nature, not wanting to write your own scenario
Mostly those and I'd prefer credit for running over doing an AP which is far more of my time invested. I'm not a fan of running the PFS modules outside PFS tho, so I don't think I want to do that. But I may be able to pick only scenarios that have the same VC and play that up. That is a good idea.
they'd rather play an AP, but I'm afraid the answer might be "it isn't possible to do that at this time."
The funny thing is I fear they will have the same complaints about an AP.
-----
Anyway thanks all, good thoughts. When they finish CotEF I may try to do Masks of the Living God next or come up with some string of the above mentioned scenarios using the same VC.
Drogon Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds |
I've got a group of players after playing 2 sessions, that hate PFS and want to switch to an AP. But I don't want to run an AP, so either they find a new DM or I find a progression of scenarios that makes them feel like it is more like an Adventure Path.Their complaint is each session is "4 hours and done" and "not interconnected" plus they "don't seem like anything they did in previous adventures make a difference for future."
Is there any hope? I've played a lot of PFS, but I can't immediately think of anything other than the various 3 part adventures.
May I suggest this thread?
The story line is older, and you'll have to replace two of the Intro series, but if your group hasn't played them already, it might be the best of both worlds. If you think it would work, I'd suggest starting with Master of the Fallen Fortress, then going to Intro Part 1, then maybe Night March of Kalkamedes (though I admit total ignorance with that scenario, as I have never played or run it - but what I do know of it seems to me to be a very good "errand" type mission that would get the group its 3rd xp).
Also, you'll want to work some of the faction missions into the scenario objectives; otherwise there will be some scenarios that are just...well, lame, as they will lose their cohesiveness to the overall story.
Arutema Venture-Agent, Texas—Houston |
For interconnected scenarios, I still feel like you can't beat the Shadow Lodge's arc.
If you're doing just the low-level stuff, try:
City of Strangers 1 and 2
Year of the Shadow Lodge, if you can meet the 3-table minimum.
Shades of Ice 1, 2, and 3
Dalsine Affair
Shadow's Last Stand 1 and 2
Frostfur Captives
in that order.
Yeebin |
As a new player to PFS (I've played about 7 scenarios so far), its not so much the episodic feel to the scenarios that's the problem, its the predictability. Every 4 hours session is going to have some VC dispense some quest to help someone somewhere. Every encounter is designed to end with battle as the main option. Sure there are some gimmicky chase scenes and some optional choices that don't really mean that much but every bad guy that looks at you is supposed to be attackable.
What if there is an encounter where running is the designed outcome, or talking your way out of something is the expected choice. What if combat is an option but a big mistake?
For instance, in our level 1 scenario, you are walking down an alleyway on route to some place when bad guy X comes out of the shadows. Now most of the time its have a few words until one of the players gets antsy and starts combat. Ok we kill guy x and move on. But what if we didn't know how strong this guy was going to be? Maybe he's a level 7 and can go around 1 shotting our party? Maybe that trigger happy player now is a bit more cautious and wants more info to see if we can take him? Maybe bad guy X really wants to turn from his bad ways and join us and that's what we are supposed to do.
The idea here is that roleplaying in PFS would be a lot more fun if combat wasn't always the default option for every encounter by the scenario maker.
kinevon |
As a new player to PFS (I've played about 7 scenarios so far), its not so much the episodic feel to the scenarios that's the problem, its the predictability. Every 4 hours session is going to have some VC dispense some quest to help someone somewhere. Every encounter is designed to end with battle as the main option. Sure there are some gimmicky chase scenes and some optional choices that don't really mean that much but every bad guy that looks at you is supposed to be attackable.
What if there is an encounter where running is the designed outcome, or talking your way out of something is the expected choice. What if combat is an option but a big mistake?
For instance, in our level 1 scenario, you are walking down an alleyway on route to some place when bad guy X comes out of the shadows. Now most of the time its have a few words until one of the players gets antsy and starts combat. Ok we kill guy x and move on. But what if we didn't know how strong this guy was going to be? Maybe he's a level 7 and can go around 1 shotting our party? Maybe that trigger happy player now is a bit more cautious and wants more info to see if we can take him? Maybe bad guy X really wants to turn from his bad ways and join us and that's what we are supposed to do.
The idea here is that roleplaying in PFS would be a lot more fun if combat wasn't always the default option for every encounter by the scenario maker.
As you experience more scenarios, you will find that, in many cases, there are other options besides attaching the big bad.
Indeed, there is one scenario that easily comes to mind where your task is to trya nd convince the big bad to mend his ways and rejoin the Pathfinder Society.
There was an assumption by the higher ups that more groups succeeded at this than failed, and they published a sequel scenario, with a later encounter setup based off of this fellow having rejoined the Society. And the results thereof.
Yeebin |
My inexperience shows here I'll admit but it sounds that this may be the exception and not the rule. I would really like to have to ask the question on every encounter, "is combat a good idea here?" So many tables I've been at people metagame cause they know the scenario is always written for combat. sort of drives me nuts.
kinevon |
My inexperience shows here I'll admit but it sounds that this may be the exception and not the rule. I would really like to have to ask the question on every encounter, "is combat a good idea here?" So many tables I've been at people metagame cause they know the scenario is always written for combat. sort of drives me nuts.
Actually, I have played at least one scenario, written for combats, that turned into mainly RP because our party had the right make-up to be able to talk our way around most of the combats.
Note that one of the rules for PFS GMs is to reward creative solutions. If the party is heavy on the side of talkers, let them see if they can talk their way around combats. Per the rules, you will, if successful, still receive the full rewards for the encounter, and have a different viewpoint of the scenario to share with other people.
There are some scenarios where most of it is RP heavy, and others that are combat heavy. Sometimes, party make-up can change a scenario from one type to another. Heck, I know of at least one scenario where PC actions can change how the scenario ends.