|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, something has been bugging me since the end of season 4/start of season 5. It relates to the shift in the 'tone' of the campaign. Some of this shift in tone that I see/sense is from messages from this board, but I have also seen it some in play at the table, as well.
Within the first three seasons in particular, the way the faction missions were set up, and their relative emphasis in scenarios, seemed to encourage characters who had (for whatever reason) strong background ties to a particular faction, and happened to work for the Pathfinder Society. The recent changes, both in the relative de-emphasis of faction missions (first, dropping from two faction related missions to one faction related mission + one mission tied to suceeding at the main Pathfinder mission, then to this season's 'sometimes your faction has a mission in the scenario, sometime not'), and the consistent voicing of, "You're supposed to be loyal Pathfinders first! Get out there and explore, cooperate and report, damn your eyes!" have kind of, as the kids these days say, 'harshed my buzz'.
I guess my issue (and it just may be MY ISSUE, sort of why I'm posting this, to see if anyone else gets the same feelings), is that, I already 'get' to roleplay working for faceless masters with potentially questionable/selfish motivations in a large, multi-leveled organization, where having outside agendas (i.e. 'a life') or questioning the 'why' we do what we do is strongly discouraged. I call this exercise, 'my job'. I don't expect PFS to 'fix' the issues I have with 'working for the man', but I also would like it to provide an escape from doing so. In other words, in my experience and opinion, PFS used to encourage interesting, politically-motivated character backgrounds and roleplay. Now it seems to encourage semi-faceless Pathfinder 'agents' who are out to carry out the Decimvirate's wishes in the hopes they will be promoted within the heirarchy. Are we becoming the NPC's?
Comments? Rejoinders? Rotten Fruit?
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
OK, something has been bugging me since the end of season 4/start of season 5. It relates to the shift in the 'tone' of the campaign. Some of this shift in tone that I see/sense is from messages from this board, but I have also seen it some in play at the table, as well.
Within the first three seasons in particular, the way the faction missions were set up, and their relative emphasis in scenarios, seemed to encourage characters who had (for whatever reason) strong background ties to a particular faction, and happened to work for the Pathfinder Society. The recent changes, both in the relative de-emphasis of faction missions (first, dropping from two faction related missions to one faction related mission + one mission tied to suceeding at the main Pathfinder mission, then to this season's 'sometimes your faction has a mission in the scenario, sometime not'), and the consistent voicing of, "You're supposed to be loyal Pathfinders first! Get out there and explore, cooperate and report, damn your eyes!" have kind of, as the kids these days say, 'harshed my buzz'.
Every campaign has to be about something. This campaign used to be about a "shadow war" for control of Absalom, with membership in the Society being used as an excuse for random tables. Now, the campaign is about Society field agents whose backgrounds and affiliations may or may not have a direct impact on the scenario at hand.
Some people prefer the former, others the latter. Some were begging for the change, others would rather go back. Preferences are preferences, eh? :)
|
|
I think you should look at this from a different perspective. Think of the Mid-Season 4 and Season 5 PFS Scenarios as a re-emphasis on the Organization as a Whole rather than the internal elements (i.e. Factions) within. While the scenarios in the past had everything you describe above there were other issues discussed ad nauseum in other threads (i.e semi-omniscient VC's, fetching mission, players solely concerned with their faction mission to the detriment of the actual mission) I prefer the method that season 5 brings to the missions, and yet as I have stated before there is room for refinement.
Roleplaying a character is really a Player's choice. If we looked at the gamers in general I'd say a not so insignificant minority of players play without any RPing, even their PC names leave something to be desired. There is also no roleplaying emphasis other than to roll dice. Another significant minority over-roleplays their characters to the detriment of other players in the same table. However the vast majority of players are in the middle with some moderate RP, no table hogging and some fun is had by all. Season 5 tries to address this somewhat as it makes the meta-story the backbone of the season and occasionally leaves some tangets for factions. This is not a bad thing. We have had only 10 scenarios into the season and I think it's too early to call it. I am sure this next season may bring some refinement - every season after year 2 has had some course correction and new methods introduced to it.
As a player I have always made my characters with this method: concept - , Trying to be one with the celestial host, a 'Thassalonian' wizard that emerged from the Old Light in Sandpoint, - what do I want my character to look like at 12th level - classes - race - and finally faction. I still roleplay my character complete with unique voice (I know not everyone does voices), a always describe my character at the start of the game, and explain to the GM any 'special' characteristics. Sometimes a GM will make an RP note on my Chronicle sheet which is cool, other times not. But that never stops me from roleplaying my character. That also means roleplaying the reasons why my PC joined the Society in the first place (i.e. to help me become a Runelord and revive ancient Thassilon).
I guess the point of all this is the factions should be a part of your character's participation in the Society, what level of involvement they have with your PC is your choice but it will no longer be always a part of every scenario.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always felt that factions were tagged on and took up way too much time. Now faction missions are interesting and special.
Too often faction missions were "go into this room, make skill check "x" with a DC of "y."" It was rare to have an interesting mission.
Worse, the missions often spoilered the scenario and took up half the scenario running time on occasion. Good riddance.
|
|
OK, something has been bugging me since the end of season 4/start of season 5. It relates to the shift in the 'tone' of the campaign. Some of this shift in tone that I see/sense is from messages from this board, but I have also seen it some in play at the table, as well.
Within the first three seasons in particular, the way the faction missions were set up, and their relative emphasis in scenarios, seemed to encourage characters who had (for whatever reason) strong background ties to a particular faction, and happened to work for the Pathfinder Society. The recent changes, both in the relative de-emphasis of faction missions (first, dropping from two faction related missions to one faction related mission + one mission tied to suceeding at the main Pathfinder mission, then to this season's 'sometimes your faction has a mission in the scenario, sometime not'), and the consistent voicing of, "You're supposed to be loyal Pathfinders first! Get out there and explore, cooperate and report, damn your eyes!" have kind of, as the kids these days say, 'harshed my buzz'.Every campaign has to be about something. This campaign used to be about a "shadow war" for control of Absalom, with membership in the Society being used as an excuse for random tables. Now, the campaign is about Society field agents whose backgrounds and affiliations may or may not have a direct impact on the scenario at hand.
Some people prefer the former, others the latter. Some were begging for the change, others would rather go back. Preferences are preferences, eh? :)
Agreed. However, I wish the evolution of the campaign focus were towards something I find as equally 'flavorful' as the shadow war for Absalom. The focus on 'being field agents' just doesn't do much for me as a character motivation.
As far as faction missions, I liked the intermediate 'setting' -- one mission being succeed at your Pathfinder mission, one being faction specific. In my experience, on average, it lead to more PC to PC roleplay interaction at the table -- at least for most of my characters.
|
|
I see the pro's and con's to both side of this issue. As a GM, I am in favor of season 5, as a player I am in favor of missions. When I originally read about this change I was excited. But the implementation of this has made me step to the side on this.
When they put out what your faction goal is, I saw it people are going to have to role-play that in scenarios as a constant. But, then they announce which faction has ties to which scenario. That move basically tells players when to RP and when not to. That to me is a huge mistake. I know they did it cause they know people would speak up (whine) that they would know what character to play.
If the factions were not listed for public consumption would help force (not really the wording I want) people into role-playing for the boons. The boons are not meant to be a given, so if you don't really care about them, you can just show up and roll the dice.