Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
Interesting read thus far. Thanks for all the feedback.
What is unequivocal is that factions have goals set by faction leaders and that goals are accomplished by performing tasks. PFS has somehow decided that it's more fun for players to be constantly confused and uncertain about what the actual task is, even thought it's success conditions are clearly defined in the scenario.
Interesting point you bring up. People have been asking for years to allow GMs to have a more creative role in running their games. We've been pretty stringent on sticking by our guns that GMs are to run as written. Maybe I'm confused in what I'm reading in the replies here so let me ask a question.
The first trial of allowing a GM to be more creative in the way they run their table is to allow PCs to complete their faction missions in whatever way best fits the table dynamic and the GMs imagination, and with the success conditions clearly defined by the scenario. Are you saying that players would rather just be given a piece of paper telling them what to do, and the GM not being given any creative license or leeway with how to incorporate success of faction missions, and only being able to let the faction mission be completed by what is written in the scenario?
If the success conditions are clearly defined, and we leave it to the GMs to creatively provide this info to players and allow players to complete their missions creatively, and it isn't happening, how are we ever supposed to allow GMs to be more creative in altering other things written in the scenario, such as difficulty of combats and the like?
|
Jiggy,
I would be more inclined to agree with your comparison, if it weren't for two things. First, we as players are cued into exactly where we should send our characters, to further those faction goals,
Which is an out-of-character thing. The fact that we (the players/GMs) are told which PCs will have a good opportunity to advance their factions' goals does not imply that—in character—those opportunities were put in place by the factions and assigned to the appropriate PCs. In-character, those opportunities are happenstance that individuals can be rewarded for taking advantage of if they have the wherewithal to do so.
and second, with some exceptions, once we are there, the methods for advancing those goals is plain.I'm not sure what point you're making here, sorry.
I understand your metagame lament Chris. But don't think of it as the character choosing to go on the mission because the player new it would be a faction thing.
Its a gift to the players, that they vocally demanded, from the campaign leadership.
Its a nice thing they've given us. If we complain too hard, it might be taken away.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Things I like about Season 5
No faction handouts -- These things were a burden on GMs. Both to print, distribute, and accommodate into a game that's designed to run in a 4 hour time slot. They were also often jarring, pulling players out of immersion to go do some off-tempo task.
Things I don't like about Season 5
No faction handouts -- While they were a pain in practice, they did keep every character engaged on a roleplaying level each game. For example, In previous seasons, an Andoran character would act Andoran every game because he had secret missions to carry out. In Season 5, most of the time there's no incentive to play him that way*. Effectively, at least for me, characters now only have factions for flavor only, be it titles, background, or vanities. They don't mean as much as they used to.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the success conditions are clearly defined, and we leave it to the GMs to creatively provide this info to players and allow players to complete their missions creatively, and it isn't happening, how are we ever supposed to allow GMs to be more creative in altering other things written in the scenario, such as difficulty of combats and the like?
Do DMs know they're supposed to be providing that information creatively? If you look upthread there's the opinion that its now the players' responsibility to have that information when they sit down at the table.
|
|
actions do not assign individual tasks like they used to.That is incorrect. In Glass River Rescue, my Grand Lodge character is specifically tasked with making sure the mission is a success while avoiding an international scandal.
That is incorrect.
But they were given no specific instructions beyond those given to the entire party.
What is unequivocal is that factions have goals set by faction leaders and that goals are accomplished by performing tasks. PFS has somehow decided that it's more fun for players to be constantly confused and uncertain about what the actual task is, even thought it's success conditions are clearly defined in the scenario.
I think this is the problem. The "actual task" is the mission for the scenario. That should be unambiguous.
For the secondary success condition, you have to complete that mission especially well. It's extra credit, and you shouldn't assume that you'll get it.
For faction-specific boons, you need to follow up on leads that would be of interest to your faction, as outlined in the faction letters. This is also extra credit, and it will require you to be tuned into your faction to know what to look for. And you should know when to be looking, because as a player you know when there is faction-specific material to find.
I am definitely in the camp of giving GMs creative license on faction missions. But players should not be battling confusion. How can you do both? Decouple the faction missions from the specific scenarios. Provide the players with a specific lists of goals and what must be done. I've already written about this earlier. Allow the X faction goals each character must achieve to be attempted whenever the opportunity presents itself. This gives a ton of creative license to the GM. Players know what they need to do, but now must take the initiative on looking for opportunities to accomplish it in any given scenario. The GM can decide whether any specific goal can be accomplished given the current circumstances. Win-win.
Let's try to be precise here. There are no more faction missions. There are secondary success conditions, and there are faction-specific boons.
Aside from that, as far as I can tell, what you have described is the Season 5 system verbatim.
Provide the players with a specific lists of goals and what must be done.
Faction letters.
Allow the X faction goals each character must achieve to be attempted whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Faction-specific boons. The opportunity presents itself in a handful of scenarios, and this is published so people know when to look for it.
The only difference you're asking for is tasks instead of goals. But that means PCs doing the same task for every scenario. It sounds like you want something like this:
Taldor: Tell everyone how great Taldor is.
PC: "I hand out 100 brochures on the greatness of Taldor. 1 PP, please."
Andoran: Free slaves.
PC: "I free any slaves we encounter."
GM: "There are no slaves in this scenario."PC: "I buy a slave and free him. 1 PP, please."
That sounds...really tedious.
If you aren't asking for specific tasks, and you instead want something more generalized, some kind of organizational philosophy that the faction member can follow, then I guess you're looking for something like a faction...goal, enumerated in a mission statement. Or letter.
EDIT:
Separated posts for clarity and length
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
If the success conditions are clearly defined, and we leave it to the GMs to creatively provide this info to players and allow players to complete their missions creatively, and it isn't happening, how are we ever supposed to allow GMs to be more creative in altering other things written in the scenario, such as difficulty of combats and the like?Do DMs know they're supposed to be providing that information creatively? If you look upthread there's the opinion that its now the players' responsibility to have that information when they sit down at the table.
I would think a quality GM would provide information creatively without having to be told. I can't remember if we included this in the guide under GM creativity, and if we didn't, we will remedy that in the next version of the guide.
|
|
The Reason I Like Season 5's Approach to Factions
The old faction missions were a distraction. Sometimes they were a fun, flavorful distraction, but they nearly always took focus away from the actual mission at hand. This led to players constantly asking GMs if there was a rare flower in view every 5 minutes. Or having to literally ask other party members to turn their backs so they could complete a mission unseen.
The new faction missions are meant to tie into the mission. They don't always succeed, but because there are only a couple per mission, they don't dominate the narrative:
- I'm on a boat, waiting to get somewhere. A guy mentions something of specific interest to my faction. Maybe I should ask him more about the subject.
- I find a note mentioning your Faction leader. Maybe I should follow up on that.
- We're looking for evidence on a traitor to the Society. I am all about the Society! Maybe I should work extra hard on finding that evidence!
They also work towards keeping character choices within parameters appropriate to the RP setting of PFS:
Want to play a murder hobo who never negotiates? Fine, but don't expect to get 2PP, and realize that more "cooperative" parties may no longer welcome you on their missions.
Want to play a barbarian who hates the written word and burns every document he encounters? Don't expect an illustrious career in the Society.
|
|
From a DM's perspective, I do see the new system as generally a little easier. I wouldn't say it makes things any smoother, it just sort of mixes it up somewhere else. And there have been a few issues with not having the Faction Missions when running Season 0-4. Namely that either there is treasure (or just an item) they find that is only there for the faction mission, but also a few times there have been encounters or obstacles there related to a Faction Mission, and the Faction mission gives an important clue as to how to solve it. I don't really mind printing out the extra mission slips, and no more than I do still needing to print out extra copies of Player Handouts, and sometimes maps and stat blocks. Off topic, but they are nothing compared to the massive waste of ink that all Season 5 scenarios require or even the PFS Guide. I did make it a point that for almost all the of the games I have run since Season 5 to not issue out the old Faction Missions to give the new method an honest try. My first game I asked if players wanted them, and then after that there have been a small handful of games where the players asked for them on their own, but otherwise if they don't mention them, (for now) I don't either except to explain the oddities that come up in play.
From a Players side, (where I think most of the focus should be on more than from the DM's), I really like the old Faction missions a lot more than how it works now. Not for the Boons, (which I have not yet gotten a single one due to not ever having an appropriate Factioned character at the right level, but I have many Holiday and Novel Boons which I have never even used), but the sense of personalized achievement of figuring it out, or getting other players to help if needed, and working towards something where there is a general idea, but not a step-by-step criteria. They also seem more challenging, (so far I gotten 2PP in every Season 5 Scenario I've played, but it seems like I failed a little more often in other Seasons). Season 5, and again this is just my opinion, seems much more random, but worse sterile and kind of boring. Many times we achieve 2PP without any real idea what we where supposed to do by doing what we where going to do anyway. Does feel rewarding or like we did a great job. Between the two, as a Player I highly favor the Season 0-4 way of doing it. As a DM I'm fairly neutral, slightly favoring the Season 5 for making it a tiny bit easier, but generally at the expense of the player's understanding of the story or events leading to it, as well as just general enjoyment. All in all, Season 0-4 Faction Mission style I think is superior.
|
|
I really like the old Faction missions a lot more than how it works now... the sense of personalized achievement of figuring it out, or getting other players to help if needed, and working towards something where there is a general idea, but not a step-by-step criteria. They also seem more challenging.
I rarely felt a sense of achievement for the old faction missions. The vast majority came down to "find the person or thing described, make a skill check." And because that was the norm, the missions that did require more thought became frustrating in comparison.
Season 5, and again this is just my opinion, seems much more random, but worse sterile and kind of boring. Many times we achieve 2PP without any real idea what we where supposed to do by doing what we where going to do anyway. Does feel rewarding or like we did a great job. Between the two, as a Player I highly favor the Season 0-4 way of doing it.
Not sure if there's a "not" missing from the second to last sentence. I do feel a sense of accomplishment when we get the 2nd PP. "Guess we are good Pathfinders!" And it doesn't feel random to me. As I've said before, in retrospect the Secondary Success Conditions have always seemed fairly intuitive to me: try to find items and information that would be of interest the Society, try not to hurt its reputation, try to work with the various NPCs you meet.
Moreover, it feels like the entire party needs to be on the same page to succeed, and I like that. And maybe that's where we differ. I think a lot of people miss the competitive and exclusionary aspect of the old faction missions: "We're Andoran, and we're going to free these slaves. Deal with it, you Chelish dogs!"
But when they started, weren't Factions supposed to be secret? People seem to be yearning for the good ol' days when everyone wore their faction on their sleeves, but that was never the intent to begin with. The "secret war" turned every mission into a fragmented scavenger hunt. I really don't miss it at all.
|
|
That is incorrect.We are given individual tasks, we are not always given unique tasks. The fact that my individual mission is the same as the groups mission does not invalidate that as an individual mission. So no, I'm not incorrect.
The first word in the letter from Ambrus is
That is not individual. He has not given you an individual task. He has given the group a task. If you, as a group, do the job especially well, he rewards you with a boon.
This is also the least interesting thing for us to be arguing.
It's extra credit, and you shouldn't assume that you'll get it.Throughout this thread and others like it, I've noticed some sort of war wage against people who expect or assume they'll succeed at getting 2 PP every mission. That seems to be some sort of personal issue and has really nothing to do with what is being discussed here.
It's not personal. Campaign management has indicated that players are not expected to earn their second PP every time. If your problem with the current SSCs is that they make it harder to earn PP, then they're functioning as intended whether you like it or not.
If that is your primary concern, I suggest you start a different thread arguing why players are entitled to 2PP for every scenario. You are certainly not alone in that opinion.
I don't know what you are trying to accomplish by saying faction missions don't exist. If there are factions, they have goals and these goals are achieved through tasks/missions/objectives. The issue that myself and others have identified revolves around how these tasks are presented to the player.
I apologize for being unclear. What I mean to say is that faction missions are no longer tied to prestige. So for these conversations, it would help everyone understand each other to be clear whether they are talking about Secondary Success Conditions (SSCs), Faction Missions (the old kind), or Faction-Specific Boons (FSBs). I'm just trying to get everyone on the same page so we know what we're arguing about.
A goal cannot be completed without some associated tasks/mission/effort. I'm not sure why that seems to be a point of contention. The idea that faction leaders can't define and communicate specific tasks for members to execute is, to belabor the point, nonsensical.
It sure can:
Employer "Your goal is to increase our sales by 10%."Employee: "Okay, how do I do that?"
Employer: "It's your job to figure that out."
It seems that in Season 5, the Faction leaders have decided to stop micro-managing.
And no, I'm not asking for your example. A player would cross off a faction objective once accomplished and move on to others that have not been completed. Complete enough tasks and you get the associated boon. Perhaps there might be a standing order, "for every 5 slaves freed, get +1 on breaking bonds." But the idea is that it would be a set of specific tasks that your faction needed you to accomplish. These would be on one sheet per season that you kept with your character.
This means that campaign management would need to come up with 26(?) tasks for all eight factions that could be completed in any of the scenarios, across all of the different tiers, in whatever location/plane they happen to take place. And you'd be back to the old distractions of each player running off to complete their individual tasks instead of focusing on the mission at hand.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
NN 959, let me suggest something, and you tell me if it's the sort of thing you have in mind.
You know, Season 4 came up with some great boons, flavorful, active, and neither too powerful nor not worth the effort. One of those was the "Missing Mentor" boon. the player takes it around to different GMs during play, and if he succeeds on a skill check, he gets the GM's signature and maybe a little blurb the GM makes up, with some details. When it's filled up, the PC gets some minor situational advantage.
What if there were eight seasonal boons like that, one for each faction? The sheet would have the letter from the Faction Leader, and then some specific tasks that need to be performed. They have a space for a GM's signature and date. That way, the player can keep track of what needs to be accomplished, but the character doesn't keep nosing around every urn or flowerpot, looking to complete a faction mission every session.
Collect the requirements, earn a boon.
|
|
I liked the distraction of the faction missions.
The idea is to roleplay my character. Faction missions gave me another chance to do that with the added benefit of developing my character further.
The Dm should work with the PC searching under every flower pot. I never had a player stop the game searching everything, but I am sure they exsist. If I did I would work with the PC and give them hints to push them in the direction so I could continue the game.
I honestly can sat I never encountered a faction mission in the pre season 5 I felt that took something away from the game, or did something I did not enjoy. There were a few I was neutral about, but that is it.
In season 5 I voiced my very negative opinion already and was told to wait before I continue. I feel the journey is more important then the destination, but I am waiting for the finale.
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
I won't make any observation about what that suggests when Mike states that a "quality" GM should have done a better job of communicating this info to players.
There was nothing negative meant by that. Someone had mentioned the success conditions were in the conclusion of the scenario with how PCs of a relevant faction were supposed to obtain their second PP. My point was a quality GM should be taking that info in the conclusion and relaying it to the relevant PCs playing the adventure through whatever GM fiat they wish to convey that info. My apologies if it wasn't clear. Time to clear my head of medicine before I post further.
|
I would not want to have such a checksheet to handle as a GM. Then I have 6 players asking me if they can do one of 8 different things (or more) per scenario. And then I have to look it up, see if it makes sense, and it all bogs down the scenario. This doesn't simplify things, it means I have to handle 8 faction missions per character now.
|
|
I'm not the one who keeps harping on this. You are. You keep bringing it up as if it matters. It is irrelevant to this discussion what people expect with regards to the amount of PP. I haven't seen one poster complain that they didn't get the 2 PP they are "entitle to." Why do you keep talking about it?
That's part of why I wanted to make sure we're all using the same terminology. Are people disappointed because they're not getting their 2nd PP? Because they're not getting their Faction Boon? Because they don't feel the success conditions for one or the other are made explicit at the beginning of the scenario? Because they're not clear once they arise within the scenario? Because players are no longer getting a guaranteed faction spotlight in each scenario?
It's one thing if there are no actual mission i.e. uphold our values as you go about your business, but if there is a specific expectation of an operative in a given scenario, I don't understand the mentality that the character is having to guess at what that is.
There is no specific expectation of the operative beyond the mission itself. OOC, the conditions and rewards are pre-determined. In-game, the items/information you find and/or the actions you take are a surprise to you and your superiors. This was one of the complaints against the old faction missions: "you are going to enter this pocket dimension we know nothing about. There should be book on penguins there. Bring it to me."
Now, your whole party has a mission. An opportunity may pop up to aid your faction in the execution of this mission. Neither you (the PC) nor your faction leaders have any prior knowledge of this. It is the GM's job to help you identify these opportunities, but you (the player) should also have some idea, since you (the player) know it's in the scenario before you start, and because you (the player AND PC) know what is driving your faction.
What is your goal here Redward? Mike has essentially stated that a goal of Season 5 was to empower the GM with more creativity. I'm trying to an offer a way that does both. Players aren't left in the dark about what their faction expects of them and GMs can decide if any given situation is an opportunity to solve the given objective.
My goal is one, throw my vote in for the current system over a return to the old one. And two, to avoid putting an extra burden on GMs with any future changes.
I've been really, really impressed with the overall improvement in quality of the Scenarios in Season 4 and Season 5. I think they've had interesting stories, fun, challenging NPCs, and plenty of opportunities for parties to approach each challenge on their own terms. But they have come at the cost of a big increase in GM prep time. I think it's worth it, but I'd rather it not get worse.
I understand that many don't like the new system. I just want the reasons to be clear so campaign management can find a good compromise for those of us that do.
|
|
I would not want to have such a checksheet to handle as a GM. Then I have 6 players asking me if they can do one of 8 different things (or more) per scenario. And then I have to look it up, see if it makes sense, and it all bogs down the scenario. This doesn't simplify things, it means I have to handle 8 faction missions per character now.yeah, I can see your point of view. Perhaps there's a way to stream line it or simplify it. Or limit characters to one attempt to per scenario, they can pick which one they'll attempt.
As you can see by my example, a character wouldn't be able to attempt all the tasks every scenario.
EDIT: Perhaps limit the list of objectives to five for the season, or just three with one repeatable?
They won't be able to complete all the tasks every scenario, but that won't stop them from trying.
My personal stance is that I don't need a mechanical benefit to act in accordance with my faction. My now retired Osirion factioned Pathfinder would preserve every scroll, book, or bit of lore he found and send it back to his bosses, when possible. My silver crusaders have paid to rescue a family from a foreign country, raised parents from the dead to reunite them with their children (NO ORPHANS!), acted as a therapist to a soldier with PTSD, and turned a goblin to the forces of good. No mechanical benefit was expected for any of those.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would think a quality GM would provide information creatively without having to be told. I can't remember if we included this in the guide under GM creativity, and if we didn't, we will remedy that in the next version of the guide.If the success conditions are clearly defined, and we leave it to the GMs to creatively provide this info to players and allow players to complete their missions creatively, and it isn't happening, how are we ever supposed to allow GMs to be more creative in altering other things written in the scenario, such as difficulty of combats and the like?Do DMs know they're supposed to be providing that information creatively? If you look upthread there's the opinion that its now the players' responsibility to have that information when they sit down at the table.
Mike, keeping this in mind, would it be acceptable for us as GMs to write up 3-5 sentence player handouts that provide hints that direct players towards their faction missions and faction goals? Perhaps, these notes could even be written from the perspective of the faction leader and use language specific to that leader's background; these notes could even include a portrait and signature. This would allow for players to feel more immersed in the world of Golarion and have a stronger personal connection to their faction leaders.
The above paragraph is tongue-in-cheek, but illustrates the major problems with not having faction missions in Season 5. When running games for new players, it is almost impossible to explain the faction system and give the players an idea of who they are working for and why.
|
Throwing my 2 copper in...
So far, I haven't had any issues with figuring out the faction missions/goals in season 5. I didn't even think the Cheliax mission in Wardstone Patrol was that difficult to figure out. I do make it a point, if I know I'm going into a scenario and my faction is supposed to have a mission to go back and reread the faction head letter. A couple of times the GM has had the letters printed and handed them out to the appropriate people, which helps as well.
In general, I like the current system much more than the old system, because it has left more time for the actual scenario to develop, and the faction "missions" are more closely tied into the scenario.
There are a few things that have been disappointing about the new system as well, though. I do think, with this more freeform approach, it does separate the casual PFS player from their faction a little. I know at our game days, we often have to remind everyone (or tell them for the first time) that a scenario might feature something for their faction, and I know our more casual players aren't going to go back and read the faction letters on their own. I can also completely believe a new player who has never experienced the old faction missions might not really understand what their faction is all about for quite some time, even if they've read through the guide once.
It's also been disappointing that only some of the faction goals appear to be tracked in the scenarios. I know at least a couple of scenarios where none of the successes or failures at the faction specific goals are tracked on the reporting sheets. There are others where all of them are. In one case, the scenario makes a point at saying that a choice between A or B will affect future interactions the pathfinders might have, but that choice isn't tracked. It says that the Gm should note which choice the group makes, but not where it should be noted. The faction boon tied to it is also non-specific, applying as long as either A or B is accomplished. I'm hoping that things like this are just part of working out the new system, and the more recent scenario I've looked at does use the condition boxes on the reporting sheet to track whether or not the faction boons were accomplished (though an unfortunate typo means one of the boons might be reported incorrectly).
Really, though, what I'd like to see improved is how these faction goals/missions/whatever tie into the season plot. I was really hoping that we would get more story threads like the Cheliax thread from season 4. So far some of the factions seem to be working towards a payoff for achieving or failing at their goals (Osirion and Sczarni come to mind), while others feel more random (Cheliax and Qadira from what I've seen). To be fair, that may again be because it's still early in the season and most factions have only had one or two scenarios that feature a goal for them.
I think one way I see to improve on the current system is to have the occasional scenario that features a faction or two, not just offers an opportunity for a small boon. The way that Way of the Kirin and Rivalry's End featured Lantern Lodge and Shadow Lodge, but without the relevant faction having to retire. The Disappeared and Fortress of the Nail are good examples. Characters of the correct faction felt invested in those scenarios (at least mine did), because they dealt with events within their faction. If, occasionally, PCs were actually approached within a scenario because of the faction they belong to, that would help keep the factions relevant and make newer players/characters feel like members of a faction. Right now, all of the burden is on the players, unless GMs start stepping up in more creative ways. I think it's great that Mike is encouraging that, but I also think the occasional faction focused plot line provided within a scenario would also be a good thing. And yes, I do realize this may be coming for at least one faction later in the season based on the announced scenarios. I'm looking forward to seeing how that turns out.
|
|
In-game, the items/information you find and/or the actions you take are a surprise to you and your superiors. This was one of the complaints against the old faction missions: "you are going to enter this pocket dimension we know nothing about. There should be book on penguins there. Bring it to me."
One I generally find illogical.
minion walks up to Zarta doing her normal thing "Paracountess chick, our sources tell us that those Pathfinders you like to tease all the time are starting to look interested as <this pocket dimension>. I took the liberty of having the lorekeepers read up on the area, and it turns out that ________ was once there. Might still be, since no one's really been around a while. Thought you might like to pass it on, as I'm sure the Society will send someone friendly to Cheliax's goals."
boom, suddenly not so far fetched and impossible, and well kind of makes it all make a lot more sense
|
|
NN 959, let me suggest something, and you tell me if it's the sort of thing you have in mind.
You know, Season 4 came up with some great boons, flavorful, active, and neither too powerful nor not worth the effort. One of those was the "Missing Mentor" boon. the player takes it around to different GMs during play, and if he succeeds on a skill check, he gets the GM's signature and maybe a little blurb the GM makes up, with some details. When it's filled up, the PC gets some minor situational advantage.
What if there were eight seasonal boons like that, one for each faction? The sheet would have the letter from the Faction Leader, and then some specific tasks that need to be performed. They have a space for a GM's signature and date. That way, the player can keep track of what needs to be accomplished, but the character doesn't keep nosing around every urn or flowerpot, looking to complete a faction mission every session.
Collect the requirements, earn a boon.
I am quite fond of this suggestion.
|
|
NN 959, let me suggest something, and you tell me if it's the sort of thing you have in mind.
You know, Season 4 came up with some great boons, flavorful, active, and neither too powerful nor not worth the effort. One of those was the "Missing Mentor" boon. the player takes it around to different GMs during play, and if he succeeds on a skill check, he gets the GM's signature and maybe a little blurb the GM makes up, with some details. When it's filled up, the PC gets some minor situational advantage.
What if there were eight seasonal boons like that, one for each faction? The sheet would have the letter from the Faction Leader, and then some specific tasks that need to be performed. They have a space for a GM's signature and date. That way, the player can keep track of what needs to be accomplished, but the character doesn't keep nosing around every urn or flowerpot, looking to complete a faction mission every session.
Collect the requirements, earn a boon.
I can get behind this sort of thing. it needs more refinement to meld with this season mechanics. But it sounds doable.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But as Walter has pointed out, the current system does not provide an incentive for players to RP per their faction when they know a priori that nothing they can do in this scenario will have any impact on their faction.
Perhaps your earlier misinterpretation of my post was based on the fact I didn't make this point clear. The faction missions now do give some good chances for RP, but as stated here it comes up too rarely to have a huge impact (unless you metagame the characters to the scenarios as previously discussed). I too like the idea of faction goals always having some mechanical incentive, even if it is minor, in every game.
As I tried to explain before, I don't want a mechanical bonus to "win", I want this so no one can think I am wasting time by role playing.
To further Chris's idea from earlier about season long tracked goals, it would be fun to have options about which ones to take that would suit different character styles. It might be one Osirians task to collect undead specimens, while another annotates the details of different traps, or another collects and interprets certain ancient writings. It would give a character a repeating schtick that I find fun to work into characters anyway.
|
|
Ironically, last night I ran a game for two newer players and an older one that has been out of it since the beginning of Season 5. It was a bit odd when he kept asking "So what is the point of Factions at all now?" The newer players tried to explain it to him (along with some of the other general changes he had missed) along the lines of how we explained it to them the week or so before hand, that they are still there for RP and occasionally this or that, and he still kind of walked away questioning "So what is the point of Factions anymore?" In the end, it really does just come down to that Factions now allow you to pick from a handful of Traits (generally level 1 only), a tiny handful of Vanity options, and if a one time option for a generally forgettable (in my opinion) Boon if you happen to play the right character at the right time and do the additional right thing that very likely other non-Faction members might have wanted to do anyway. He did comment that on one hand, he would have liked that for his Cheliaxian PC, as he sort of had a even split on success and failure for that character due to lack of skills often and general specification of secrecy for the Faction's missions, but also indicated that it was purely from the optimization point of view, and wasn't sure if they liked that so much.
Just made me think back to this, and figured I would share.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay. My position is obviously I'd like to know what is expected of me and not have guess who I'm supposed to be talking to or what I'm suppose to look for or even know when I've completed what is expected of me.
I think we're going to just have to agree that we have different preferences on this. To clarify my position, though, I will foolishly compare Pathfinder to a video game.
When first playing the recent XCOM reboot, I would get a mission to rescue innocent bystanders, and I would do my best to save as many as I could. At the end of the mission, I would receive a letter grade. At first, I didn't know the game's criteria for that grade. I just kept trying to save them all. Eventually I learned that you could lose a certain number of civilians and still earn an 'A'. Suddenly, the mission wasn't "save all the civilians." It was "make sure no more than X civilians die."
That was disappointing for me, because now I had no reason to try my best. There was no mechanical difference between 100% and 80%. Just me feeling bad for the fake pixel people.
I feel similarly toward the faction missions. I like that the new SSCs are basically "do your best as a Pathfinder." Yes, OOC, there are set conditions for earning the extra recognition ( in the form of a 2nd PP). In-game, it's you going above and beyond the expectations of your mission, finding an unexpected cache of treasure or information or bringing new allies to the Society.
I don't want my Venture captain to tell me, "okay, go in there and save our guys from the Aspis Consortium. Saving 6 of the 10 is an adequate job. If you save 8 I'll give you a coupon redeemable for this special magic sword."
I don't want to know what's going to be on the test. I get that others don't enjoy that uncertainty. But for me, it makes the the world more immersive, more reactive, more than just a laundry list of tasks you set out to complete.
EDIT:
In case this was unclear, I'm referring to SSCs here. The main mission should be clear, at least in terms of what the Society wants done, if not how.
|
I like the way S5 is.
I don't need the old faction mission to play my chelaxian character as a True Chelaxian in all the game I play.
Yes, it's harder to find what to do to get the second PP from the secondary goal but play the good Pathfinder and in almost every time you will have it.
You don't need to know what to do, you only need to *act* like a Pathfinder. It's far far way better than the older way of doing thing.
As a GM I'm happy to don't have faction mission
As a player I'm happy to don't have faction mission (remember having no way to be able to make my mission with my 10 force cleric, because the mission need making a DC strength 25...)
When I GM a S5 scenario I always remind my players their faction's letters and their faction's goal.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think what I'm reading, is the disconnect between personality types.
Some people are naturally wired to show ambition and initiative. They thrive on figuring out how to get ahead all on their own.
Some people are naturally wired to be followers. They like to be told what to do. They like things nice and clean so they don't have to expend energy they don't feel they have being ambitious or innovative.
Neither us right or wrong on a personal real life level.
For 5 seasons PFS has been predicated on taking and following orders. Nice and clean.
Now, the powers that be have indicated that good and famous pathfinders should be the ones that show initiative, not just the ones who are good followers.
That's the dichotomy right now.
I for one like the change. But I understand why the followers wouldn't.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's the other way around, really. Season 5 (in general) is more about following orders and involves less initiative (out of character) while the earlier seasons (again in general) tended much more to the about taking initiative or finding the right time and stepping outside of the main mission a bit to try to figure out how to accomplish something else a little on the side.
My experience so far with the Season 5 SSCs is that thy are largely along the lines of what I would likely do anyway, and can still boil down to a random skill check. But at the same time, I really can't remember any times (outside of a few scenario's that had decoys for possible faction missions) where players asked constantly "is this ______ for my faction mission?". It's kind of an odd concept to me, but now that players are starting to get a feel for the SSC, I do hear a lot more out of character/metagaming rationals thrown around. "Nah, we cant do that, it might be our 2pp, or that NPC doesn't talk too much, I think they will have something for us later and probably the SSC".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Disclaimer: I don't like the factions. Never did. I like the Pathfinder Society background, and I lobbied to allow people to be loyal Pathfinders without a faction, back when there were only five factions. So I generally like anything that keeps factions in the background. This also makes the player work to do it - it's no longer a hand-held point, it's actually *caring* about what your faction cares about, and trying to advance their cause at every turn. Sometimes that crystallizes into a prestige point; other times it doesn't. I think of it as more of a cumulative thing, rather than got it/didn't. [Further disclaimer: I bring the faction letters to games, to help players get used to the new model.]
Having said all that, I think at one downside of Season 5 is that at least 2 of the factions' new goals are completely at odds with the goals of the Pathfinder Society. One borders on criminal, while another faction's goals are literally treasonous (and certainly the definition of a neutral evil alignment). I have encountered one faction mission in Season 5 that, in a non-PFS game, would have caused us to suspect the PC in question was a traitor or a doppleganger or some other bad guy. But for the PvP rule, this faction mission would be prevented from happening by many lawful or good PCs, using lethal force if necessary. This means that in certain scenarios, factions become even more of a disruption than they were before, and make it very difficult to play a loyal Pathfinder character.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the Pathfinder Society background, and I lobbied to allow people to be loyal Pathfinders without a faction, back when there were only five factions.
Just to be clear, when you say Pathfinder Society, are you meaning the True Society (ie Shadow Lodge), or the slaves to the Decemvirate, wanna-bes?
:)