Season 5 Faction "missions"

[TOZ]

DM Beckett wrote:

Scott Young wrote:

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?

:)

Preach it brother!

[Alexander_Damocles]

I may have missed that faction objective, but there are certainly *far* worse faction objectives in previous scenarios/seasons for causing interparty conflict.

[Andrew R]

You should get the mission before choosing your character to make sure you pick the one that actually fits the mission

[BigNorseWolf]

Andrew R wrote:

You should get the mission before choosing your character to make sure you pick the one that actually fits the mission

I think that's part of the point of the blurb.

[N N 959]

Does anyone in either of those scenarios tell the characters how many NPCs have to be saved to earn the boon?

Is anyone here arguing they want to be told how many NPCs have to be saved to "earn the boon?"

If this is part of someone's faction mission, then it should be unambiguous to the player that they should endeavor to save the NPC's as part of progressing their factions objectives. There's no reason why a member of a faction that wants this category of NPCs saved shouldn't be clear on that fact.

[Sitri]

So in your arguments to be told what you needed to do, you had also built in an implied "change what you needed to do?"

[N N 959]

Sitri wrote:

So in your arguments to be told what you needed to do, you had also built in an implied "change what you needed to do?"

?

I added to my post above. Maybe I answered your question?

[N N 959]

redward wrote:

I don't want to know what's going to be on the test.

Whether we are talking about SSC's or Faction missions, there's also other problems with this approach,

For one, it essentially enables cheating and metagaming and penalizes those who don't. You may not want to know what's on the test, but it's pretty easy for people to find out. So you're creating an environment where metagaming gives people an advantage. Is that worth the trade-off?

Second, you also put GMs who don't want to metagame in a bind. You've put them in a position of having to justify whether their character would have taken actions to secure "secret" mission had they not known what it was before hand. As a GM, I am now prone to being conflicted about whether I was metagaming when I had my Chaotic Good character risk his life to save the hostages. If you simple make it clear that I need to save the hostages, then there is no conflict. I've read posts from GMs who are so conscientious about not crossing that meta-game line, they'll screw themselves over to say clear of it. I'd rather not make their life harder.

I can empathize with not wanting the task to earn a reward be explicit. I also understand that concept of wanting players to make a character/morality judgment without the lure of some reward. But I think one has to be mindful about the way this is approached. However, when it comes to factions, there should be a clear and certain set of objectives that factions are able to communicate to its operatives.

[redward]

N N 959 wrote:

Does anyone in either of those scenarios tell the characters how many NPCs have to be saved to earn the boon?

Is anyone here arguing they want to be told how many NPCs have to be saved to "earn the boon?"

N N 959 wrote:

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 was taking that statement at face value.

N N 959 wrote:

As you can see by my questions, I'm discussing this from the perspective that one's "Faction" mission has nothing to do with the SSC.

Fair enough. Please edit my absurd straw-man argument to read as follows:

corrected redward wrote:

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 some extra credit at 1st National Favor Bank of Absalom."

N N 959 wrote:

So here, at worse you're being hypocritical and at best your being self contradictory. You argue that the primary mission should be clear but not the secondary mission? Why? Why should either mission be any clearer than the other? If what you claim about the uncertainty of the SSC is true, then it should be true for the primary as well.

Because in-game, only one of these things is a mission. The other, the 2nd PP, the SSC, is a post-mortem of how you carried out said mission.

In-game there is no secondary mission. Out of game there are conditions for earning a second PP; in game it's a performance review.
---
I believe what you want is a return to the old system where there are two missions: a primary and a secondary, faction-specific, with both missions goals clearly defined. You have suggested alternatives mechanics for how that second mission is given/completed, but I believe in broad strokes that is what you're after.

I am saying I don't want that, because I want the entire group to be focused and cooperating on a single mission. And I like the idea that if the group is able to further cooperate in their execution of the mission and best follow the ideals of the Society, they will receive some additional recognition. And then sometimes, if there happens to be something of interest to someone's faction, and if they successfully follow that lead, they will get some form of recognition from their faction.

It's the difference between one or two party members occasionally saying "hold up, I need to look into this for a minute" and up to six (or seven) party members shooting off in different directions.

Again, this mostly amounts to verisimilitude for me. With 8 factions, it's unrealistic to expect that every mission will have something of special interest to each of them. It is more likely that there might be something of interest to one or two of them every other mission or so. Sometimes there just aren't any slaves to be freed, deals to be made, or sick to be healed.

I am also on the same page as Scott, as I would prefer the compulsory aspect of Factions fade into the background, allowing players to decide for themselves how much it should influence their characters. I have a Taldan character who is all about Taldor. I don't need missions to drive that. I also have a Druid who would rather not have a faction at all. I like that his indifference is currently reflected by the loss of some minor boons than much-needed Prestige.

[N N 959]

redward wrote:

Because in-game, only one of these things is a mission. The other, the 2nd PP, the SSC, is a post-mortem of how you carried out said mission.

In-game there is no secondary mission. Out of game there are conditions for earning a second PP; in game it's a performance review.

That's fine. I actually don't have a problem with that paradigm for the 2nd PP.

As I've stated earlier, I'm not concerned with SSC and the 2nd PP. I actually like the Season 5 mechanic of separating the 2nd PP from the factions missions. And I also prefer having the 2nd PP be a group succeed/fail.

Quote:

---
I believe what you want is a return to the old system where there are two missions: a primary and a secondary, faction-specific, with both missions goals clearly defined.

Not quite (except for clearly defined faction missions). Read above.

Quote:

You have suggested alternatives mechanics for how that second mission is given/completed, but I believe in broad strokes that is what you're after.

Nope. I'm only talking about "faction" missions. Everything I've posted except with the most recent response is about what's going on with our factions. Some don't think we even need factions, and that's certainly a valid opinion. But if we are going to have them, then let's operate them with some plausibility, like actually telling your operatives what they need to do, not how they need to do it, but what they need to do.

EDIT:
The only problem I have with the the Season 5 paradigm as you describe it is that if our faction is the source from which the PP resources are spent, then it's illogical that doing things specifically for our factions don't earn us more PP. However, I can live with that as long as I'm not fumbling in the dark about what my faction expects of me from scenario to scenario.

[DM Beckett]

I haven't played the one I think you are referring to, but that's kind of what I mean when I say something I would want to do anyway. I would not want to know how many, or that that is what grants a boon.

[Bbauzh ap Aghauzh]

DM Beckett wrote:

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".

I don't see how you can interpret season 5 faction missions as "just following orders" and previous seasons as "showing initiative".

Season 5, you are going about your pathfinder duties, and then mayhap across something you think will further society goals, and all on your own do something above and beyond. That isn't just following orders.

Getting a faction mission that's in a nice tidy bundle, doing it, and moving on. That's just following orders.

[N N 959]

So let's talk opinion here,

redward wrote:

I am saying I don't want that, because I want the entire group to be focused and cooperating on a single mission. And I like the idea that if the group is able to further cooperate in their execution of the mission and best follow the ideals of the Society, they will receive some additional recognition.

Completely agree.

Quote:

And then sometimes, if there happens to be something of interest to someone's faction, and if they successfully follow that lead, they will get some form of recognition from their faction.

Again, completely agree.

Quote:

It's the difference between one or two party members occasionally saying "hold up, I need to look into this for a minute" and up to six (or seven) party members shooting off in different directions.

Yup, not a fan of the pre-Season 5 where everyone was more concerned about their Faction missions than the overall mission. Whether or not the fractured nature of pre-S5 scenarios was by design, I enjoy a cohesive team atmosphere much more.

Quote:

Again, this mostly amounts to verisimilitude for me. With 8 factions, it's unrealistic to expect that every mission will have something of special interest to each of them. It is more likely that there might be something of interest to one or two of them every other mission or so. Sometimes there just aren't any slaves to be freed, deals to be made, or sick to be healed.

Here's where we have some disagreement. There should always be an opportunity to take actions that benefit your faction on any mission, it's a question of initiative on the players' part and creativity on the players and GMs' part. From an OOC game-play perspective, I completely agree that the game might run more smoothly if only a couple of characters had opportunities.

However, as a player, if I am going to be in a faction, I would appreciate the opportunity to be able to earn recognition for my faction in every mission. Even if it was the smallest iota. As Sitri nails it, the existence of any concrete benefit validates my RP efforts in the eyes of the other players. So the balancing act is is the amount of RP vs a fixed amount of time. I'm not an RPer by nature, but there are times when I wanted to do something which I thought was consistent with my faction, but chose not to because of the possible imposition on other players and the risk to the overall mission. Without a basis for taking that action other than my own need to RP, it tends to look like a selfish act.

I'm optimistic that my idea of a separate list of faction goals can walk a line between giving players hope that they might do something for their faction, without bogging down the game like the old system. Players who have to look for opportunities to carry out an objective, imo, will be more engaged. Again, the key is in how this is implemented.

Quote:

I am also on the same page as Scott, as I would prefer the compulsory aspect of Factions fade into the background,

I think that's a topic for another thread. Atm, I don't feel strongly one way or the other.

[N N 959]

Redward wrote:

I have a Taldan character who is all about Taldor. I don't need missions to drive that.

I think the caveat with this attitude is that while you may not need it, others might. I can imagine a lot of players, particularly younger or inexperienced, are benefited by a nudge from the game on moments to RP.

Personally, I have mixed emotions. I like it when people RP, I don't like parties where players are consumed with RPing to the detriment of the mission.

[Avatar-1]

I think that maybe the solution is somewhere in between what we've got now and what we had before.

My experience: Honestly, I don't understand what I'm meant to do in the season 5 scenarios to get that second prestige point. I haven't had a good look at it yet (except for The Confirmation, which doesn't have a faction mission), but the impression I get it is that it's quite similar to the season 4 overall faction goals, but on a per-scenario basis. I don't know anyone personally who completed those during season 4, certainly not any casual players. I'm pretty sure few felt it was up to GMs to always take the time to explain it out to newbies unless they remembered to ask about it.

On season 5: Having said that, I understand why everyone would want the "go above and beyond" approach, to read the emails from faction heads (I read them, don't understand them, and forget to look back at them when the relevant scenario approaches, which requires me to find the Paizo blog post). It's supposed to be intuitive when all of that comes together, and it is rewarding if it all works out.

On old season 0-4: The alternative is the old system, which we still have issues with, most notably the randomness of skill checks and that they're sometimes a little nonsensical (get me the tea cups/can you guess how I knew you'd find those there?). We also know that some of these were fantastic, but were few and far between. Citadel of Flame had one of my favourites, but even that was affected by those pesky skill checks.

On new season 0-4: Secondary missions for seasons 0-4 seem like they're somewhere in the middle of this as an interesting alternative. Players not knowing what to actually do, or what they did, until the end of the scenario is making these fall flat as well.

So we need to accomplish:

Allowing creativity on the GM's and the player's part

Reducing (but not removing?) the requirement for skill checks and focusing more on the player's actions

Goals that are communicated very clearly to players at the table (even if it's mid-way through a scenario)

Proposal:
Keep what we have going in season 5, as far as metaplot-based faction goals go. Add to this:

Bring back faction-specific tasks for non-metaplot factions, but only if they're cool/fun (these are hard to write for, I appreciate that). Make the PFS guide much clearer on how much GMs can communicate to players (don't leave this to being hopeful they'll do the right thing; spell out levels of leniency to us - The Confirmation did this for GMs excellently). If they aren't add to the game, it may be better to leave it out (think of it like an "Optional Faction Mission" that gets you the prestige point). Sidetracking for something cool is generally worth it.

Always have a secondary mission point that the table can achieve if they can't complete their plan A. Be specific in the scenario about how much the GM can/should tell the players when they come across it. Be specific in the PFS guide if there's overarching rules about how much they can say.

[Jessica Price]

Removed a post and response. Please revisit the messageboard rules.

[redward]

N N 959 wrote:

As I've stated earlier, I'm not concerned with SSC and the 2nd PP. I actually like the Season 5 mechanic of separating the 2nd PP from the factions missions. And I also prefer having the 2nd PP be a group succeed/fail.

Okay, I think you've finally penetrated my thick skull. You're fine with the SSCs; you just want some form of mechanical bonus (such as a boon, or cumulative points towards a boon) tied to faction performance for each scenario and you want them to be rewards for assigned tasks.

I think I've got that right now.

What I'd like to avoid is a scenario where a player arrives with his list of faction tasks, and immediately begins asking the GM if he can perform one of them now.

I feel like the current Season 5 system isn't that far off from what you're after, it's just a little short on execution. Would it help if, in addition to better distribution of the faction letters (such as including them in the Guide), there was also an OOC bullet point list of things to look for (and actions to then take) in service of the faction?

Example:

Faction Letter:

Determined Delver,

In the coming months, we will need to acquire as many outside resources as possible to ensure success. Representatives of the Decemvirate have already approached the dwarves of the Five Kings Mountains for aid, and they have agreed to assist us in reaching the citadel so long as they can reclaim it once we have explored it to our satisfaction. The details are still being worked out, and negotiators are on their way to Nerosyan to finalize the details. Your mission is, as always, the Pathfinders’ mission. Ensure that you are doing everything you can to make this expedition a success, and in the event that complications should arise, I will need trustworthy Pathfinders on hand to send in and resolve the problem without causing an international debacle.

Good luck,

Venture Captain Ambrus Valsin

Faction Mission:

• Ensure that the reputation of the Grand Lodge remains undamaged
  
• Find evidence uncovering any traitors to the lodge's goals
  
• ...

Now you've got a letter telling you what the faction wants, a list telling you specifically what to look for, and scenarios that tell you when something from that list will be present for you to find and do. Is that sufficient, or does there need to be something for every faction every time?

[Blackbot]

Sorry if I go a little OT, but...

Where exactly can I find these ominous list where Paizo "went out of their way" to provide us with information which faction plays a role in which scenario? I can't find anything in the blog or any of the scenario descriptions.

[Paz]

Blackbot wrote:

Where exactly can I find these ominous list where Paizo "went out of their way" to provide us with information which faction plays a role in which scenario? I can't find anything in the blog or any of the scenario descriptions.

For scenarios #5-01 to #5-07, see this blog entry.

for scenarios #5-07 onwards, see the scenario descriptions, and look out for text like 'Content in XXXXX also contributes directly to the ongoing storylines of the YYYYY, ZZZZZ, and AAAAA factions.'

[N N 959]

redward wrote:

Okay, I think you've finally penetrated my thick skull.

I never lost faith that I would complete the mission. Is that worth a 2nd PP?

Quote:

...you just want some form of mechanical bonus (such as a boon, or cumulative points towards a boon) tied to faction performance for each scenario and you want them to be rewards for assigned tasks.

Not exactly.

1. The nature of the game is that you have to give players something when they complete tasks. Whether it is some sort of mechanical benefit or a cosmetic one may not matter. But there has to be some sort of reward tied towards furthering your faction's goals. Partly because I think that is fun and partly because of what Sitri said: give players a universally acceptable reason to RP.

2. I don't know that they need to be tied to each scenario. I think it would be fun if I always had an opportunity to do something in the name of my faction. Again, I am talking about both the achievement aspect and the basis for RP. But I did not like the pre-S5 of everyone getting some special mission in every scenario. Players shouldn't feel compelled to take faction actions in every scenario, but I think the game would benefit if players could if they wanted to.

3. Yes, there has to be some point to doing things for your faction other than the strict RP of it. I've explained that above.

Quote:

What I'd like to avoid is a scenario where a player arrives with his list of faction tasks, and immediately begins asking the GM if he can perform one of them now.

100% agree. The hurdle for any good idea is the implementation. If this is done incorrectly, it could certainly be worse than what we had before.

Quote:

I feel like the current Season 5 system isn't that far off from what you're after, it's just a little short on execution.

This isn't really about what I "want." My issue is that IF PFS wants to have factions and faction missions, then PFS needs to have it make sense and not be a source angst.

Quote:

Would it help if...?

The faction letter is IC backdrop, I am not going to critique how or what it says if the actual missions are clear.

Let's look at your mission examples:

Quote:

1. Ensure that the reputation of the Grand Lodge remains undamaged
2...Find evidence uncovering any traitors to the lodge's goals

Not to get hung up on your choices, but #1 is exactly what should not be done. #1 isn't a mission, it's a policy/directive. A mission is:

1. We know Senator X is planning to give several public speeches against the Fifth Crusade in Nerosyan, disrupt at least one of her speeches.

#2 is way to open ended and vague.

2. We believe there is a traitor operating out of the Puddles district of Absalom. Confirm and then neutralize.

Those are faction mission. They don't tell me how to do the mission, but I am given a way to know exactly who I am looking for and at the same times leaves a ton of leeway for the GM to determine whether I've disrupted the speech (.e.g. hired a performer to distract, started fight, stopped the speech altogether), or neutralized the threat (e.g. bribed, killed, negotiated, or driven out of town). If your mission doesn't take you to the Absalom or Nerosyan, then you're obviously not going to attempt it.

What's more, none of those need to be tied to one scenario. You can have the senator in #1 give that speech in more than one scenario. But you only need to stop the senator once.

With all ideas, the hard part is the implementation. There are logical and reasonable ways to do this such that it may work like gangbusters. If people want to assume some outlandish implementations, then obviously it looks silly.

[Blackbot]

Paz wrote:

For scenarios #5-01 to #5-07, see this blog entry.

for scenarios #5-07 onwards, see the scenario descriptions, and look out for text like 'Content in XXXXX also contributes directly to the ongoing storylines of the YYYYY, ZZZZZ, and AAAAA factions.'

Great, thank you. I found one of the "Contributes directly to..."-lines, but completly missed the blogpost. Guess I did not go back in time far enough.

[N N 959]

redward wrote:

You're fine with the SSCs;

The only thing I'm going to say about SSC's is that if you are grading people on how well they performed the mission, then players should not be in the dark on what they are being graded on. For example, if the the SSC is to save 10 captives, then the players should at least know that saving the captives is important to the Society.

Where PFS is going to get into trouble is expecting the players to attempt some task without anybody in the scenario reinforcing that such a task is of value to the Society. New or inexperienced players aren't going to automatically understand what is important to the Society. Players who've read the scenario should not have any particular advantage on knowing what the SSC grading points are. It should be obvious that saving the captives is going to look good for the Society (but not whether that act alone is sufficient for any reward).

The question you want the players to wrestle with is whether the chance at increased notoriety is worth the risk, not whether the Society values the saved lives.

[Sammy T]

Just want to chime in with my experience last night with Tide of Morning.

Just before we started the GM offered to let us look at and choose to do a faction mission if we wished for "fun"--success or failure would not have any mechanical benefit, it was for flavor. One player (out of six) took him up on the offer.

What happened?

During the first two encounters the player kept asking about his Faction MacGuffin. It was especially irksome when the second encounter was an ambush and I had just eaten an axe in the back and the player was asking DURING the combat ("What kind of weapon is he using?" "Can I tell if it's the one I'm looking for?" etc.)

I, for one, do not miss the bad old days of six players spam searching every location or questioning every NPC for their faction stuff. I do agree we've made headway in the right direction, even if the execution is lacking at this time.

[redward]

N N 959 wrote:

Not to get hung up on your choices, but #1 is exactly what should not be done. #1 isn't a mission, it's a policy/directive. A mission is:

1. We know Senator X is planning to give several public speeches against the Fifth Crusade in Nerosyan, disrupt at least one of her speeches.

#2 is way to open ended and vague.

2. We believe there is a traitor operating out of the Puddles district of Absalom. Confirm and then neutralize.

That is a faction mission. It doesn't tell me how to do the mission, but it gives me a way to know exactly who I am looking for and at the same times leaves a ton of leeway for the GM to determine whether I've neutralized the threat (e.g. bribed, killed, negotiated, or driven out of town). If your mission doesn't take you to the Absalom, then you're obviously not going to attempt it.

What's more, none of those need to be tied to one scenario. You can have the senator in #1 give that speech in more than one scenario. But you only need to stop the senator once.

I thought you might take issue with that level of non-specificity.

How would your system work with pre-season 5 scenarios? Would the GM need to look at the factions of his current roster of players, pick one mission for each of the factions, and then insert it into the scenario? Or would that be the players' responsibility?

Example:
GM: Okay. I'm running Echoes of the Overwatched, which takes place in Absalom. So I can use the Puddles traitor mission for Grand Lodge. Now for the Andorans...

or

Player: "We're in Absalom right? I need to stop by the Puddles district to take care of something."

Does the player only get to do each of those tasks once? If so, what happens if they run a string of scenarios that don't support the tasks they still have available?

Finally, I don't have great insight into how the scenarios are storyboarded and written, but how specific can these missions be at the top of the season when the scenarios are still being written throughout the year? Does that create limitations for the writers when they now must find a way for their scenario set in Nerosyan to allow for the Senator's speech to fit into it?

I know these are nitpicky questions, but I want to think through the implementation. Something like [Season 4 Scenario] where you start the mission in a remote cabin with literally minutes before you're off and running doesn't provide much support for extracurricular activities.

[DM Beckett]

This reminded me a bit of the 4.3 Guides take on 2 PP.

"Earning Prestige
Each scenario provides the opportunity for you to earn 2 PP over the course of the adventure. One of these is tied to the completion of the overall mission for all Pathfinders, and is outlined in the Success Conditions section of the adventure. The second Prestige Point is gained when a Pathfinder completes his faction specific mission, as outlined in the Faction Missions section of the adventure.

Alternatively, beginning with Season 4, each faction has a specific goal it hopes to achieve by the end of the season. A PC who undertakes a creative approach to forward this goal outside of the prescribed faction mission may earn 1 Prestige Point for doing so in place of the Prestige Point gained for the assigned faction mission, at the GM’s discretion. See page 19 for details on all 10 faction goals for Season 4."

Season 4 Faction Goals:

Each faction has specific goals it hopes to achieve during Season 4. Below is a brief overview of their motivations.
Andoran: Establish an embassy in Magnimar, and increase the city’s influence in Varisia at the expense of Korvosa’s.
Cheliax: Help Zarta Dralneen improve her reputation to combat an enemy in Egorian, and support Korvosa in its struggle for dominance in Varisia.
Grand Lodge: Ensure the success of the Heidmarchs’ lodge in Magnimar, and continue the war against the Aspis Consortium and any rogue Shadow Lodge agents.
Lantern Lodge: Fight the Aspis Consortium, ensure the route through the Hao Jin Tapestry is safe for Pathfinders, and restore honor to the faction.
Osirion: Find a cure for the Ruby Prince by researching Thassilonian magic and Lissalan curses.
Qadira: Claim new Varisian markets, exploit the shortcut to Varisia through the Hao Jin Tapestry, and establish trade with Janderhoff.
Sczarni: Unify disparate Sczarni families across Varisia under Guaril Karela’s leadership, and boost Riddleport’s influence in the region.
True Pathfinder Lodge: Infiltrate the Aspis Consortium, and expand Grandmaster Torch’s spy network into Varisia.
Silver Crusade: Learn about Thassilon and prepare the unsuspecting populace for a coming war with evil.
Taldor: Establish a new aristocracy in Varisia with loyalties to Taldor.

To me that is ideal for both points of view, though obviously the DM's preference didn't matter too much on which.

[N N 959]

redward wrote:

How would your system work with pre-season 5 scenarios?

You don't. You leave pre-S5 alone. The faction missions are about what is going on in the here and now and are only applicable from the this (or next) season on. I don't want to try and sort out what happens in missions that supposedly happened in the past with what's happening now.

More importantly, if you're going to switch to a decoupled model, then you're going to (de)integrate scenarios and faction missions. You can't retroactively do that.

Quote:

Does the player only get to do each of those tasks once?

I'd personally like to see at least one thing I could do every mission e.g. Use Sleight of Hand to give a random NPC a pamphlet that says "For a good time, contact Zarta at xxxx. There's nothing she won't do!"

Quote:

If so, what happens if they run a string of scenarios that don't support the tasks they still have available?

As I said, you integrate the scenarios. The tasks are written in a way that they don't need special setup and every author looks at the standing list and incorporates an opportunity to do something. That may be simple as having that "random NPC" character show up at one or more points. Also, if your scenario is based in city/setting X, then you have a small list of things that are always part of that setting to support Y missions. e.g. Random NPC, political speech in town square, Named NPC bad mouth some faction leader, altercation with some street-gang, captured slaves on a boat, etc.

Scenarios could still focus on some factions more than others.

Quote:

Finally, I don't have great insight into how the scenarios are storyboarded and written, but how specific can these missions be at the top of the season when the scenarios are still being written...

It takes some pre-planning each season, but probably no more than what PFS is doing now. Plus, once you figure out a scheme for the tasks it will become easier for PFS to repeat this concept from season to season. And As I mentioned before, you can always have a "Wait for further instruction" which allows you to dial-up some scenario specific missions if you really want to go that route.

That's my take anyway. I'm sure there's lots of room for refinement.

[redward]

N N 959 wrote:

redward wrote:

You're fine with the SSCs;

The only thing I'm going to say about SSC's is that if you are grading people on how well they performed the mission, then players should not be in the dark on what they are being graded on. For example, if the the SSC is to save 10 captives, then the players should at least know that saving the captives is important to the Society.

Missed this post earlier.

Season 5 Scenario Spoilers:

In the scenario where captives are to be rescued, the point of the mission is to rescue the captives. The SSC is for rescuing more of them. If the players don't know they should be trying to save them then they don't know what they're doing there in the first place.

In most of the Season 5 scenarios I've played, the SSCs have been quite intuitive. On the level of:
"Your mission is to take these books out of these boxes and put them in that bookshelf."
PCs: we put the books in the bookshelf
GM: Just randomly as they come out of the box?
PCs: No, let's alphabetize them.
GM: Okay, because you shelved the books, you get 1PP. Because you organized them, you get a second PP.

N N 959 wrote:

Players who've read the scenario should not have any particular advantage on knowing what the SSC grading points are.

This is of zero concern to me. By that logic, no scenarios should contain any kind of puzzle. Players who've read the scenario should be telling the GM up front, should be getting her permission to play, and should have no impact on any decisions made throughout the session.

[Sitri]

N N 959 wrote:

redward wrote:

You're fine with the SSCs;

The only thing I'm going to say about SSC's is that if you are grading people on how well they performed the mission, then players should not be in the dark on what they are being graded on. For example, if the the SSC is to save 10 captives, then the players should at least know that saving the captives is important to the Society.

Where PFS is going to get into trouble is expecting the players to attempt some task without anybody in the scenario reinforcing that such a task is of value to the Society. New or inexperienced players aren't going to automatically understand what is important to the Society. Players who've read the scenario should not have any particular advantage on knowing what the SSC grading points are. It should be obvious that saving the captives is going to look good for the Society (but not whether that act alone is sufficient for any reward).

The question you want the players to wrestle with is whether the chance at increased notoriety is worth the risk, not whether the Society values the saved lives.

I know one of them in particular will really piss you off then. There is at least one scenario where obeying the opening instructions will lose you one of the things you need to do to get the SSC. There are two other options available and you only need to get two out of three, but even I thought that was pretty messed up.

[DM Beckett]

Sitri wrote:

I know one of them in particular will really piss you off then.

Sitri:

I can think of two. Are you referring to The Glass River Rescue (need 2 out of 3, with one even being part of the optional encounter) or The Stolen Heir?

[GM Lamplighter]

There will always be folks who like the new way and folks who like the old way. Keep in mind, though: not having to write and develop 8-10 individual faction missions per scenario saves word count which can be spent on awesome that EVERYONE in the party can experience. This is a good thing in my opinion.

[Ferious Thune]

Scott Young wrote:

There will always be folks who like the new way and folks who like the old way. Keep in mind, though: not having to write and develop 8-10 individual faction missions per scenario saves word count which can be spent on awesome that EVERYONE in the party can experience. This is a good thing in my opinion.

This has been the biggest advantage I've seen from the new system. Scenarios have felt better as a whole, and there's space to include encounter options based on the choices the PCs make. Not optional encounters, but encounter options. If the PCs do A, they get encounter 1, if they do B, they get encounter 2.

Wardstone Patrol:

Learned that one the hard way in this scenario, but it's one of the best NPC story elements I've seen in PFS yet. Our Sorcerer decided to us Intimidate to convince an important NPC to do what we wanted, and it worked in the short term, but really turned against is later. The great thing? That possibility is built into the scenario, and it's still possible to complete the mission, though it didn't feel like much if a victory, and we missed our SSC because of another over zealous choice.

So if fewer faction missions means better base scenarios, I'm fine with that.

[N N 959]

redward wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Players who've read the scenario should not have any particular advantage on knowing what the SSC grading points are.

This is of zero concern to me. By that logic, no scenarios should contain any kind of puzzle. Players who've read the scenario should be telling the GM up front, should be getting her permission to play, and should have no impact on any decisions made throughout the session.

I think you're reading into my response. It's unavoidable that someone who reads a scenario will have some advantage on some level. My point is that for SSC's, reading the scenario shouldn't be the difference between my having enough knowledge to being able to even attempt the SSC's and not.

For example, if the primary mission is to medal in the 100m dash and the scenario says I get 1 PP for it.

A - VC: "Your mission is to medal in the 100m dash."

That's straight forward. Knowing that I get 1 PP does not change my knowing what is expected of me.

If the SSC is that I'm supposed to keep the Soviets from finishing getting a medal, that's easily communicated.

B - VC: "Your mission is to medal in the 100m dash. However, if the Soviets medal, that looks bad for us."

What PFS should not do is is expect B, while only communicating A in the scenario. Character/Players need to know what outcomes are valued. Then the player can decide whether the risk is worth a possible reward and if so, how to accomplish the task. But when the players don't know that anyone cares about where the Soviets finish except for hints or clues in some vague faction letter, you're just setting the players up for failure.

I think we mostly understand each other. My goal is give PFS feedback on where I think they can improve the player experience.

[Chris Mortika]

Scott Young wrote:

...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.

Scott, could I ask you to be less vague? I'm assuming you're talking about Cheliax as the treasonous faction?

[Sitri]

DM Beckett wrote:

Sitri wrote:

I know one of them in particular will really piss you off then.

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:

Glass River was what I was thinking of. That one kind of pissed me off for a few reasons. It was the first of the type so no one knew what to expect, they ask you not to leave extra bodies but letting the one chick go loses you a point, and there was a search check that our GM suggested we "just take 10 to save time" for that we missed. The third one had something to do with roleplay or trickery of some kind that I got.

I have played the Stolen Heir and did get the SSC but I can't remember what was required to do so.