Developer
|
I appreciate the specific recommendations.
-Don't have the scenario authors speak for the faction heads. This was a very big problem in the past, as many different authors all had their own take on NPCs who were unestablished before the campaign began. Reduce the number of people who write Zarta, or Aaqir, or Amenopheus. That way, the campaign will avoid falling into its previous stereotypes, such as the oft-mentioned tea-set-craving Baron Dalsine.
Although it's a little difficult to see it in action just yet (we've interacted most directly with Maldris and Morilla so far), this is something I'm pursuing. As it is, I wrote all of the faction head updates for August, and Mark and I split the ones for April (?) 2013.
-Reduce the number of factions. Four is a good number. Four would have the advantage of giving the players a good number of choices, yet would not overcrowd the field. With four factions, under the Season 5 model, each faction could have a role in at least every other scenario, and a skilled author could include all four in a scenario, which would yield a better experience for everyone. And be quick about it; choose your number and reach it as soon as possible. Don't get there slowly.
Reducing the number of factions is reasonable. Reducing them quickly is not something that's quite as tenable, as I want to ensure that any factions that do disappear have the opportunity to a) see it coming, b) do something to avert it, and c) enjoy a spectacular finale that grants some sense of closure. If you'll entertain a tongue-in-cheek example, I'm not just going to have Lady Morilla show dead in front of the Grand Lodge with a dagger pinning the message "And now scenarios are easier to write" to her back.
Although that—with different words in the message—sounds like a compelling start to a story arc...
-Do something with the undeveloped faction boards. I was very excited when, at PaizoCon 2012, Painlord showed the new faction boards to me minutes after they went up. I can even claim credit for the very first faction-specific post. There is a great opportunity here for a unique and interesting online roleplaying experience. It would also do a lot to draw in players who might not feel so immersed in their local PFS environment. Paizo.com also has a lot of really solid tools, used for play-by-posts, which can enhance the online experience. And there's a really easy way to really embrace this underutilized aspect of the campaign...
Find eight solid volunteers. Have them roleplay the faction heads, and give them a large amount of freedom to interact with members of their factions. Give them plot points to start threads with, and let the volunteers' creativity shine. The reason why the faction boards don't have...
This is intriguing. I foresee a few hurdles of varying heights to leap in getting there, but I'm intrigued. One concern I have is comparing your first and third suggestions. Granted that I don't have enough time to manage all of the faction head personalities on the messageboards, is handing over control of that character's voice to another person contradicting your suggestion that I limit who can speak as a faction leader?
|
There's plenty of ways to avoid taking damage from a trap without having someone who can disarm magical traps, or even necessarily Disable Device at all.Really? Do tell. Im looking at the trap section of the core rule book and don't see how.
stone shape your way around the traps
set the trap off with a summoned critter
unseen servant + hot dog cart
dominated monster into the trap
monk mine detector: evasion baby!
telekinesis
bull rushed monsters...
jump over the panel
dispel magic
adamantite weapon mining crew
flying party
invisibility
Insult the monsters in the next room into running into the hall
11 foot pole
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One concern I have is comparing your first and third suggestions. Granted that I don't have enough time to manage all of the faction head personalities on the messageboards, is handing over control of that character's voice to another person contradicting your suggestion that I limit who can speak as a faction leader?
Actually, I believe that having eight volunteers play the eight faction heads would actually help the matter of giving consistent voices to the NPCs. The volunteers would have a chance to really develop the voices and personalities of their faction heads, meaning that each one would becoming naturally unique.
Right now, we have one person (you) playing each faction head for, what, two paragraphs a year? I received more exposure to their personalities, as interpreted by my GM, in The Immortal Conundrum alone. You alone just don't generate enough material often enough to show us their personalities and voices.
Either roleplayers playing them often, here on the boards? That would create a much better opportunity to let them be developed. There would be eight different roleplayers each generating material all the time for the eight faction heads.
lso, when a scenario author is looking for inspiration, or needs to include a faction head in a scenario, the author will know who to turn to for advice...
"Hi, Volunteer Jane, what would Ollysta think if some Pathfinders asked her about her brother?"
"Hey, Volunteer Jeff, could you translate this idea for a speech into Guarilese?"
Authors would have experts to turn to when writing faction heads into their scenarios, because the volunteers would really get to know their assigned NPCs.
Handing over the reins to volunteers doesn't contradict my first point at all. Actually, it helps deal with the undeveloped-personality problem.
I'm glad you're intrigued. Let me know if you have any more questions about implementation. If I can't answer them, I can certainly connect you with people who have the relevant experience.
-Matt
|
|
...cool idea...
This is a really cool idea. Interestingly, if the volunteers were VOs, it would probably require some sort of tech solution to allow them to post under those aliases on the in-character boards (but I wouldn't mind what would probably be the simplest solution to that, which would be to have VOs show up as their characters/aliases all the time on the in-character boards by toggling the always show VO name switch off). I know things like my thread about the Varisian aristocracy that were meant to drum up faction RP would have probably been vastly more successful with Lady Gloriana Morilla (or the appropriate faction leader) participating.
|
...cool idea...This is a really cool idea. Interestingly, if the volunteers were VOs, it would probably require some sort of tech solution to allow them to post under those aliases on the in-character boards (but I wouldn't mind what would probably be the simplest solution to that, which would be to have VOs show up as their characters/aliases all the time on the in-character boards by toggling the always show VO name switch off). I know things like my thread about the Varisian aristocracy that were meant to drum up faction RP would have probably been vastly more successful with Lady Gloriana Morilla (or the appropriate faction leader) participating.
It might add a layer of complexity, but perhaps posts could go through John or Mike who would actually put them up on the boards? This would allow editing, if needed, and a chance to converse with the VO's associated with the Faction Heads.
|
|
It might add a layer of complexity, but perhaps posts could go through John or Mike who would actually put them up on the boards? This would allow editing, if needed, and a chance to converse with the VO's associated with the Faction Heads.
That would be extra work for the coordinators. That level of oversight (and the work associated with it) really isn't necessary when the NPCs are in the hands of trustworthy volunteers.
-Matt
|
Mattastrophic's idea is gold (doubly so as I thought of the same). Logging through specific accounts to speak as the faction leader should not be very hard to enable, technically speaking.
I think it would be a great boon to the factions and help reintegrate them in actual PFS play (something I look forward to).
Honestly, the factions are almost the only thing I find of value in PFS those days because I do not have the opportunity to actually play scenarios anymore.
|
|
I just want to chime in to say that I think we are at a good number of Factions. Where we are at we have room for decent variety. I would agree that some factions overlap in general theme a lot. Taldor and Cheliax, for example, I struggle to truly define the difference between these two.
Meanwhile some concepts just aren't supported by any of the current factions. As an example, one that I have seen crop up on the boards numerous times, strongly nature-focused characters do not have a faction that really resonates with them. While I realize that the Grand Lodge is the default answer, and not every concept can have a perfectly fitting faction it attaches to, I don't feel that reducing the number of Factions further serves the best interests of PFSOP. I would be fine with other factions ending as long as new factions rose to join the ranks.
Now on to the topic, I have only run one session since season 5 began, However, I have several that my players want, and I have looked through the list at the scenarios I have already played, and honestly I thought that the secondary success conditions as outlined work really well in general.
I liked that certain scenarios were automatic, to me this just represents that some tasks you get assigned simply resonate more strongly with the Society and its larger goals and therefore success at those tasks simply earns oneself more notoriety within the organization.
I do not have a problem with "meaningless" choices that have some effect.
Early in the adventure the players have to choose between stopping in port to get their "papers" or bypassing port and continuing on, hoping not to get caught. Either choice leads to an encounter and there is little functional difference between the encounters, though there is some. The true purpose in this choice though is to help establish idea of which of 2 NPCs the PCs support more. Therefore this choice is not truly meaningless, yet many people on the boards have complained that the choice is meaningless.
I do have one issue with that section, in that PCs not of the Qadiran faction can screw PCs from the Qadiran faction out of their faction boon with no consequences to themselves.
An example of a, in my opinion, bad "meaningless" choice would be when the PCs are told to decide which side of the island they want to go around. The encounter occurs no matter what the PCs choose, and their choice has no impact ever. Instead the section could have simply had the Captain of the vessel choose one side of the island or other, unless the PCs tell him otherwise. Yes you would still have the PCs choice not mattering as no matter which side they choose they will have the encounter but at least you are not shoving a truly meaningless choice down their throats.
I could see it working to have 8 volunteers man the Faction Heads. I do worry about the dangers of handing these important people off to non-staffers.
I think that anything less than a full seasons worth of data on these issues is not truly representative. I think we should wait to pass judgement until this season is over. Yes that means that we would not be able to enact any changes until after Season 6, but I think any less time is a disservice to ourselves and the organization.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
1) Faction missions were better in several ways. The best of them highlighted new aspects of the scenarios and made them richer. Without faction missions, things seem ... flatter now. The secondary success conditions don't do the same job.
I'd venture a guess that out of 5 years of scenarios, the number of "the best of them" (i.e., the ones that actually made the scenarios richer) was a frighteningly small percentage. Small enough, in my estimation, that (also given how few S5's we've seen so far) even if only ONE Season 5 SSC enriches the scenario it's in, it'll have a better percentage than Faction Missions had.
In short, I think remembering the handful of gems from among hundreds of pieces of chaff, and comparing them to the absolutely miniscule sample of Season 5 scenarios we've got so far, can't really tell us anything about which method more frequently/successfully enriches the experience. We've got what, 7 scenarios so far? If even one of them (14%) is enriched by the new model, that may well be a better success rate than the old model (would you say that 14+% of Season 0-4 scenarios were enriched by Faction Missions?), so we can't really make meaningful comparisons on that point yet.
1b) There is now a stronger incentive to avoid the resource-draining side encounters and get to the identifiable threat. There's much less incentive to open side rooms on the way there.
Is this a thing in Season 5 scenarios, or are you talking about the retro-fitted older scenarios? Personally, I've not yet played a Season 5 scenario where there was any opportunity/inclination to "skip the side rooms". Similarly, does this come up anywhere other than the Blackros Museum?
1c) So, there is a rules issue leaking in: if a party completes the scenario, quickly and efficiently, but avoids all the other encounters -- going straight for the back room in the Blakros Museum if you will -- then do they get full gold and full access to items? (My answer is no: if you didn't even notice the undead in the path you didn't take, then you miss out on the gold they had, and you don't get access to the magic items they were guarding. I'm in the minority here: most GMs bestow full Chronicle rewards for a complete mission success.)
Yeah, good question. But again, anywhere besides the museum?
Also, is the friction generated by retrofitting a new system onto an older chassis really an indication of a problem with the new system?
2) I have had new players at my table who don't know what faction their character is. (Answer: then you're Grand Lodge) Factions are now much, much less a part of the game.
I'd encountered that when handing out faction missions, so I'm not sure I see your point.
2b) And sorry, but virtually nobody remembers what their faction's current Season 5 goals are. I've had Taldor players just breeze over their boon condition in a recent scenario, because they had no idea what Lady Morilla's current plans were.
Fair point. On the other hand, I've only twice played a Season 5 with the "right" faction of character; once I had no idea what was going on because the GM was an old-school dungeon-crawler who called for series of checks and that was that; the other time, I succeeded by simply roleplaying my alignment. But that's a really small sample size, so I won't say I've got any idea how this plays out.
3) Pathfinder Society has a history of discouraging "farming," choosing which characters to send on which missions based on gold or unique treasure. ("Which scenario can I go on, to find a wand of lightning?" "Sorry, we don't encourage that.") With the new faction boon system, that's changed. Picking a character for a mission based on the boon is expected, at least around here.
I honestly don't know how much it goes on here. I suspect that our local players are in two camps: the "casuals" who only even have a couple of characters, so they couldn't "farm" if they tried (but might not want to anyway); and the "hardcores" who have enough PCs that it's not even an issue. But that's all just me spitballing.
3b) At all three conventions I've attended this month, I've seen players turn down the opportunity to play in a scenario, because they had a different character who could receive one of the faction boons, and needed to level that character into Tier first. Let me repeat: the faction boons are creating situations which discourage players from sitting at a table with a perfectly good, suitable PC, in lieu of eventually playing the scenario with a faction-appropriate character.
Yeah, that doesn't sound good. But might that be a byproduct of any form of trying to give players nice things? I seem to recall people choosing their PCs' factions based on what they thought would be easiest for their PCs' skill sets to get them all possible Prestige.
In summary, the current situation isn't as much fun, doesn't get players as hooked on their characters, and acts as an impediment to play. I would advocate returning to the status of Season 4: one fame for mission success, one for faction success.
I find it's more fun, gives more incentive for players to think of their PCs (and vulnerable NPCs) as actual people, and removes half a dozen distractions from playing the scenario. YMMV. ("YMDV"?)
|
I just want to chime in to say that I think we are at a good number of Factions. Where we are at we have room for decent variety. I would agree that some factions overlap in general theme a lot. Taldor and Cheliax, for example, I struggle to truly define the difference between these two.
Meanwhile some concepts just aren't supported by any of the current factions. As an example, one that I have seen crop up on the boards numerous times, strongly nature-focused characters do not have a faction that really resonates with them. While I realize that the Grand Lodge is the default answer, and not every concept can have a perfectly fitting faction it attaches to, I don't feel that reducing the number of Factions further serves the best interests of PFSOP. I would be fine with other factions ending as long as new factions rose to join the ranks.
Nailed it. I've been re-writing a post for this thread for about an hour now, and you said it better than I could. This, 100x this. Four factions does *not* provide sufficient choice for players (though, grab me at Con of the North and I can walk you through, in-character or out, the difference between Cheliax and that crumbling relic to our east). I think you could swing it with seven (the original five plus Grand Lodge and Silver Crusade, though my wizard would be sad to lose his "family"), any fewer and new ones should step in to replace the old.
On the topic of volunteers running the faction heads, I too would like to see some more attempts at breathing life into the faction boards. I agree that there are hurdles but I'd be interested in seeing it happen. The biggest hurdle I can see is losing the volunteers. What happens when Ollysta Zadrian suddenly has to move to across the country to Baltimore for a lateral promotion and disappears for six months to get her new out of game life in order? The volunteer can step down, but then the voice of the NPC changes. Or the NPC can disappear for six months, then the faction board suffers. My only thought for a proposed solution: intern? They're basically slave labor. Maybe one even gets a gig at the end, or discovers latent acting talent.
|
|
I just want to chime in to say that I think we are at a good number of Factions. Where we are at we have room for decent variety. I would agree that some factions overlap in general theme a lot. Taldor and Cheliax, for example, I struggle to truly define the difference between these two.
Meanwhile some concepts just aren't supported by any of the current factions. As an example, one that I have seen crop up on the boards numerous times, strongly nature-focused characters do not have a faction that really resonates with them. While I realize that the Grand Lodge is the default answer, and not every concept can have a perfectly fitting faction it attaches to, I don't feel that reducing the number of Factions further serves the best interests of PFSOP. I would be fine with other factions ending as long as new factions rose to join the ranks.
Nailed it. I've been re-writing a post for this thread for about an hour now, and you said it better than I could. This, 100x this. Four factions does *not* provide sufficient choice for players (though, grab me at Con of the North and I can walk you through, in-character or out, the difference between Cheliax and that crumbling relic to our east). I think you could swing it with seven (the original five plus Grand Lodge and Silver Crusade, though my wizard would be sad to lose his "family"), any fewer and new ones should step in to replace the old.
On the topic of volunteers running the faction heads, I too would like to see some more attempts at breathing life into the faction boards. I agree that there are hurdles but I'd be interested in seeing it happen. The biggest hurdle I can see is losing the volunteers. What happens when Ollysta Zadrian suddenly has to move to across the country to Baltimore for a lateral promotion and disappears for six months to get her new out of game life in order? The volunteer can step down, but then the voice of the NPC changes. Or the NPC can disappear for six months, then the faction board...
That is twice in one day that my ideas have been seconded... :)
happydance
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
One thing I noticed last night when running a Season 0 game is that the secondary success condition added another layer of replay-ability to previous games.
I was surprised when I read what the condition was, not because it was bad, but because it actually brought the game more to life. It was entirely story related, and completing it gave the PCs a greater sense of accomplishment and understanding of the various NPCs in the scenario. Which was really cool to watch. So I wanted to give a kudos to secondary success conditions for making me excited to run older scenarios again.
It was Murder on the Silken Caravan for anyone that is curious.