|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I much prefer the season 5 way of things to the previous seasons, both as a player and a GM.
As a player, there are few things more tedious than having to stand by while someone else carries out their faction mission.
As a GM, having to keep track of any six out of eight (or ten) side-missions alongside the main mission was a major distraction. I can't imagine trying to do that in some of the more complex season 5 scenarios, like Library of the Lion.
Also, getting rid of most faction missions means that the scenario can focus on the one or two that matter. Playing a Silver Crusade character in 'Weapon in the Rift', or a member of the Osirion faction in 'Sanctum of the Sages' is an experience that can't be matched by anything in seasons 0-4. I'd rather a faction get the whole spotlight for a limited period, rather than only ever getting 1/8th of it.
I roleplayed a ton of my faction missions.
If I could find a way to rolepla the situation I would take advantage of it. To me it was nto a way to earn an extra point, but a place where I could represent how my character represents their faction.
Now I hated grand lodge because I felt they were to generic and bland. But that does not mean I disagreed with having that faction. That is just for other players that enjoy different things.
I would also strongly argue agaisnt the logic below
redward wrote: "I'm a Tiefling, so I'm probably Chelaxian, so I guess my Faction is Cheliax, which means I collect evil artifacts for my sexually predatory leader."
vs.
"I'm a Tiefling. Was I enslaved? Did it make me rankle against slavery (Liberty's Edge)? Or did I not care because it allowed me to gain access to my master's dark reliquary (Dark Archives)? What do I care about more?"
quote]
Because no one should ever be railroaded into anything. You can be from cheliax and be a teifling, but then once you joined the PFS you could have defected to adorian/sczarni/qadira. The idea that you are any specific thing without it being a requirement I find silly.
Paz wrote: Playing a Silver Crusade character in 'Weapon in the Rift', or a member of the Osirion faction in 'Sanctum of the Sages' is an experience that can't be matched by anything in seasons 0-4. I'd rather a faction get the whole spotlight for a limited period, rather than only ever getting 1/8th of it. I agree that these respective scenarios felt very "in character" for their factions and are highlights of the entire season for that.
I still can't remember anything special off the top of my head in those scenarios that those faction members had to do above and beyond members of other factions. I know there were some mechanical things, but they aren't entrenched in my memory as noteworthy.
I find it to be more of an issue for the "long tail" of PFS players... you know who they are, they are the wallflowers during games (and thus likely aren't on these forums with someone representing their voice).
Being able to give each person at the table a little something special to do helps validate them in the midst of an overwhelming Silver Crusade or Osirion scenario. While I realize that if you're the player who has made sure to bring and play his Silver Crusade PC in Weapon in the Rift to have the right vibe, and you've made sure to bring your Osirion PC to the Destiny triology to have the right vibe, you'd view the seemingly odd Cheliax, Sczarni or Taldan mission as detracting from your experience.
If you're the PFS player who only has a single character, and she happens to be Taldan - you might feel a general disconnect with Season 5. You might think back when you used to play in 2013 how you always felt kind of special since you always had something to do. Your crowning moment of the season (depending on your venue) might be when Library of the Lion is offered, and that might just be the very scenario you hate most because your GM disallowed any improvisation in skills, and for the most part you were an Ulfen Guard who never saw combat.
There's fully one set of the player base who prefers the Season 5 way, and my sentiment is that's those of us who are very engaged and we know which characters to play when and have many of them. We actually check out the scenarios and read their blurbs. There's a whole set of players at a different level who simply show up to the game day and hope that the adventure gives them fun things to do. After a few games in the "second tier" (because they are comparing themselves to the folks who are playing an Osirion in Destiny or an Andoran in Hellknight's Feast), they start to think they are maybe different than the players who seem to be really engaged and start to feel a subtle sense of exclusion by the selected adventures. And then just think back to the days when they always used to have a little something special to do when they showed up, and wonder what happened...
Me personally? As a GM, it's nice to not have to deal with faction missions. As a player who matches characters to scenarios, I feel like more interesting things happened than a random slight of hand check to pass a note to someone for reasons I could care less about. But that's the kind of player I am.
For folks who aren't as entrenched as many of us (who because we are entrenched like we are, are here on the forums), the old way felt better to them because it was more inclusive.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Wakedown: Taldor's payoff Golden Moment scenario seems to be 5-24. And that may be a very bad payoff for some players, and an amazing payoff for others.
I love that they made it the way they turned Thursty loose to do; I'm worried that it won't appeal to enough Taldor PC's *players* because of its unusual (unique in PFS) mechanics...
(I've only run it 4 times so far...)
N N 959 wrote: I honestly don't like having to belong to a faction because I don't like my priorities being set by someone I have no influence over. And yet, Season 5 feels hollow because my faction is irrelevant if I'm not in the right scenario. Seems to me that is an area for improvement. I disagree with the idea that one's faction should be relevant in every scenario, because I don't think they should be a defining characteristic. They can (and should) contribute to the overall shape of the character. To paraphrase what Jiggy said, I don't think your alignment or gender or race should be a factor in every scenario, either. Rather, I think it's neat when they do pop up occasionally.
It's fun when I can contribute to the party because my character is a native Hallit speaker. But I don't think every scenario needs a Kellid shout-out. I feel the same way about factions. My character's faction membership is a reflection of her values, and when her actions based on her values align with the goals of that faction, I may receive a token of their appreciation. That seems appropriate to me.
What seems less appropriate is every Pathfinder on every mission having some secret objective to distract them from the task at hand. If I were in the Decemvirate, I'd be putting an end to that post-haste.
I think it's odd that you want every scenario to focus on a choice you felt forced into making. Further, the advantage of Season 5 is that the Factions aren't even setting your priorities. You decide if you want to do something, and if they like it, they reward you with a minor boon. There's no (real or perceived) penalty as in previous seasons where your prestige was tied to your faction.
I like how season 5 has made faction missions a bit more special. I think they could be changed a little bit.
I REALLY hated doing a faction mission every scenario because everyone was constantly asking 'What was my faction mission again?'. It got really old.
redward wrote: I disagree with the idea that one's faction should be relevant in every scenario, because I don't think they should be a defining characteristic. There's no right or wrong to what you prefer. The problem is that PFS has decided that factions are still a mechanism to improve one's character and there is no alternative. I can't get boons for being factionless.
Quote: To paraphrase what Jiggy said, I don't think your alignment or gender or race should be a factor in every scenario, either. Rather, I think it's neat when they do pop up occasionally. Total disanalogy.
First, my alignment, race, and gender are not organizations with an agenda. Second, your alignment is a factor in every scenario. There just isn't a robust mechanism for deciding when you've violated your alignment. Third, PFS hasn't decided to reward me based on how well I adhere to some set of arbitrary values based on my alignment, gender, or race. They have done it based on my faction.
Quote: It's fun when I can contribute to the party because my character is a native Hallit speaker. But I don't think every scenario needs a Kellid shout-out. Not even the same ball park. Per PFS, The Factions are openly shaping the PFS world in which the characters play, Hallit speakers are not. So it's nonsensical for you to compare an irrelevant group of individuals to ones that are relevant per PFS. If Hallit speakers were an actual political organization you could join and earn prestige with, Jiggy's point might be relevant.
PFS staff have carved up the PFS world into factions. The posts on these forums indicate there is a large contingency of players who enjoyed that aspect of the game. Season 5 failed to leverage what was good about that for many. You can argue that you don't like factions and that's legit. But Jiggy's attempt to trivialize the dissatisfaction players are expressing as simply calls for a return to status quo is off the mark, and I don't even like the faction paradigm.
Quote: If I were in the Decemvirate, I'd be putting an end to that post-haste. Yeah, I was surprised at the nesting of a loyalties in the PFS paradigm. It's hard for me to say it's more believable or less believable that PFS would tolerate these dual loyalties. From a credibility issue, it seems unlikely that PFS and Faction X would never have conflicting goals. Why would faction X not want to secure the latest whatchamajigger for its own benefit?
Quote: There's no (real or perceived) penalty as in previous seasons where your prestige was tied to your faction. Personally, I agree that the decoupling of Prestige to faction missions is preferable, even though it seems completely contrary to the Prestige Paradigm (isn't Prestige a currency only recognized by my faction?) But saying there is no penalty for failing to do your faction mission is technically accurate and wrong.
The goal of OOC goal of PFS is to improve the player experience. Regardless of how you define it in the English language, offering a reward that is achievable and not achieved, is going to create resentment if players miss out because of things they can't control i.e. what a character they have available for said mission. There is no defending the Season 5 system whereby players are often forced to choose between not playing at all or playing the scenario with a character that has the wrong faction. That is a bad system. It has to be corrected.
Because PFS has gone to faction specific missions, they've created a terrible situation where players feel pressure to not play. Why would you ever want a player to feel any need to forgo playing? And please let's not reduce this to boon greed. Even if there were not mechanical benefits, players would want to play faction specific missions with the appropriate characters. Why in god's name is PFS putting players in a position where they miss out on those because they had to play with the wrong character? It's ill-conceived.
Do I want six different faction missions on every scenario? Not really. But I can't stand the fact that I have to say no to games just so I can have any semblance of actually feeling like a member of a faction. The only way to defend what Season 5 is doing is to take your approach and try and argue factions shouldn't matter. Problem is they do.
N N 959 wrote: Because PFS has gone to faction specific missions, they've created a terrible situation where players feel pressure to not play. Having played or GMed 15 sessions of season 5 scenarios, I've yet to meet anyone who feels the pressure that you do. Most people are quite happy to play the PC they want to; if that aligns with a faction that has an opportunity to do something specific, then it's an added bonus.
Paz wrote: N N 959 wrote: Because PFS has gone to faction specific missions, they've created a terrible situation where players feel pressure to not play. Having played or GMed 15 sessions of season 5 scenarios, I've yet to meet anyone who feels the pressure that you do. Most people are quite happy to play the PC they want to; if that aligns with a faction that has an opportunity to do something specific, then it's an added bonus. I don't know what "most people" means in your post other than it might be greater than 50%.
What % knew that the scenarios was for a specific faction? What % actually had a character that was in the faction they were playing? Did you actually ask everyone how they felt or just assumed they were happy to play because they said nothing? The problem with your observations is that you have no way of knowing who elected not to play. In my area, the games are organized before hand and posted on-line If I don't want to play the scenario listed how are you going to know why if I simply don't sign-up? Its tantamount to thinking everyone loves vanilla because all the people who come to the store and buy it...love it.
What's ironic about your statement, is that to the extent it's accurate, you are doing just what I said, claiming factions don't matter. This reinforces how factions have been essentially ignored in Season 5. If nobody you GM'd cared whether the mission is part of their faction storyline, then PFS has undermined something that people clearly cared about. I hardly see player indifference to their faction as an improvement to the game and an intended goal of the change to faction missions, do you?
And as a player, I've definitely seen players choose PCs based on the appropriate faction for Season 5.
N N 959 wrote: you are doing just what I said, claiming factions don't matter. I'm doing no such thing. People like the factions, are interested in their storylines, and think it's cool when they get to contribute (and might let that influence their choice of PC for a particular mission).
However, you're the only person I've encountered who would turn down the chance to play, rather than play a scenario with what you consider to be the wrong faction.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I think the old style factions had the potential to help establish a narrative for a player that did not have a distinct idea of what his or her PC was like.
Having some form of interaction with a faction leader, if only through handout, allowed one's pc to form some history with in world npcs without needing to necessarily role play.
The factions leaders were something a little more unique that each pc could have a history with, aside from the venture captains that everyone knows.
Additionally, while I understand the impetus to evolve from the old style faction system, what I did appreciate about it was it's ability to provide hooks into lore that otherwise would not be available. Information garnered from factions and resources like campaign settings and player companions allowed both a gm and a player to more intimately involve themselves in Golarion.
I personally have purchased several supplements in an attempt to evolve my pc's history, even if it had minimal chance of entering actual PFS play.
I see this type of lore interest (that for me results in my purchasing products) to be less influenced by the manner in which the new faction system establishes more mission statement type agendas.
Paz wrote: N N 959 wrote: you are doing just what I said, claiming factions don't matter. I'm doing no such thing. People like the factions, are interested in their storylines, and think it's cool when they get to contribute (and might let that influence their choice of PC for a particular mission).
However, you're the only person I've encountered who would turn down the chance to play, rather than play a scenario with what you consider to be the wrong faction. If you are claiming that people are just as happy to play with whatever character they have, then you are claiming that people don't care about their faction missions. You cannot care about your faction and be just as happy to not do a scenario all season long to assist it.
Unless you are a mind reader, there is no way for you to know if you've met such a person. I'll bet dollars to donuts you have met someone who chose not to play a scenario and decided to wait. They just didn't tell you because it's irrelevant.
What I do believe is that you haven't seen someone who was about to play a game, suddenly changed their mind based on the faction aspect. What's so stupid about Season 5 is that there is suddenly a stigma associated with not playing a scenario because it's not faction appropriate. Amazingly people are associating that with meta-gaming. In fact, someone may have done that in this very thread.
N N 959 wrote: You cannot care about your faction and be just as happy to not do a scenario all season long to assist it. You are equating a player caring about a faction to their character caring about their faction. Not the same thing. I have a character who is heavily invested in the work of the Silver Crusade. I am not.
I am happy to play a scenario regardless of whether my character's faction is featured. If I want to get the boon on a different character I'll just GM the scenario later. Better yet, that character will then be guaranteed to receive it.
redward wrote:
I am happy to play a scenario regardless of whether my character's faction is featured. If I want to get the boon on a different character I'll just GM the scenario later. Better yet, that character will then be guaranteed to receive it.
That is if your character is not leveled past the scenarios.
NN959: You're entitled to your opinion, and it's clear nobody is going to change it, however much they might disagree with it.
However, please stop using wild extrapolation to say what I am claiming, or make statements that imply you know more about my friends and gaming acquaintances than I do.
I've generally liked the new faction mission execution, and I REALLY wouldn't want to go back to the days of "Grab me the macguffin that the runelord hides in his ancient sanctum's sock drawer." At their worst, I've found the new missions to be similar to the run-of-the-mill old-style missions. At their best, they've been significantly more engaging.
N N 959 wrote: The problem is that PFS has decided that factions are still a mechanism to improve one's character and there is no alternative. I can't get boons for being factionless. You bet you can, that's what Grand Lodge is. It's the faction of Pathfinders in the Pathfinder Society.
I don't know about the faction "missions" themselves in season 5. Some of them I've enjoyed, others have been only ok. Others have been less missions and more simply that this particular scenario is important to your faction. That last variety is the one I like best. I don't always play a character in one of the factions that is featured, but I've managed to mostly accomplish that.
What I do really appreciate are the scenarios where the faction leaders are more involved in the story. That happened in Way of the Kirin (for obvious reasons) to great success, and in Rivalry's End for similar reasons, and in a set of Cheliax focused missions as well in season 4.
In Season 5, that's come through in various ways in
Having characters in the faction featured meant a small boon in those scenarios, but it also meant getting to see and interact with the faction heads in a way the faction letters never allowed. That, at least, was a very positive direction for the scenarios/factions. It relies a little on the players engaging the faction heads or the GMs having the faction heads engage the PCs, but the potential is definitely there for those who care about their factions.
Finlanderboy wrote: redward wrote:
I am happy to play a scenario regardless of whether my character's faction is featured. If I want to get the boon on a different character I'll just GM the scenario later. Better yet, that character will then be guaranteed to receive it.
That is if your character is not leveled past the scenarios. Sure. But that's a concern for any scenario you want to play with a specific character (like the Destiny of the Sands series). None of the Factions boons I have seen are anything I'd lose sleep over missing.
N N 959 wrote: And please let's not reduce this to boon greed. Even if there were not mechanical benefits, players would want to play faction specific missions with the appropriate characters. Why in god's name is PFS putting players in a position where they miss out on those because they had to play with the wrong character? It's ill-conceived. This seems like a matter of setting expectations. I don't see it as missing out, because it was never available to that character to begin with. If you come to the table with the expectation that you should be able to get everything on the chronicle sheet, regardless of character, yes, you're going to be disappointed sometimes.
And I don't see it as the wrong character, just the character I happened to bring. But we've had this discussion before in a different context. You'd rather play a pregen if your group doesn't have healing while I'd prefer to play my character and make do with wands.
Paz wrote: NN959: You're entitled to your opinion, and it's clear nobody is going to change it, however much they might disagree with it.
However, please stop using wild extrapolation to say what I am claiming, or make statements that imply you know more about my friends and gaming acquaintances than I do.
When I use a wild extrapolation, it will be the first. You don't know every decision everyone you've played with has made regarding what scenario they have chosen to play and which ones they don't so I reject your assertions as such.
You claimed people are just as happy to play the scenario with whatever character they have handy? The's proof of indifference toward factions.
redward wrote: N N 959 wrote: And please let's not reduce this to boon greed. Even if there were not mechanical benefits, players would want to play faction specific missions with the appropriate characters. Why in god's name is PFS putting players in a position where they miss out on those because they had to play with the wrong character? It's ill-conceived. This seems like a matter of setting expectations. I don't see it as missing out, because it was never available to that character to begin with. If you come to the table with the expectation that you should be able to get everything on the chronicle sheet, regardless of character, yes, you're going to be disappointed sometimes.
Redward,
Please re-read what I posted. If PFS is going to have factions and faction specific missions, it is illogical to set up impediments for players to do those scenarios with characters in those factions. That sentiment is completely independent of the chronicle. It's tantamount to creating martial characters and then only having combat in a handful of scenarios. Oops, you played the combat heavy scenario with your bard...maybe you'll get to swing your sword before the end of the summer.
Quote: And I don't see it as the wrong character, just the character I happened to bring. Right, because a player, you don't place much value on factions. Based on every thread that has been started on this topic, lots of other people do care about their factions. Which means PFS needs to examine the paradigm and look for a way to improve it.
N N 959 wrote: Paz wrote: NN959: You're entitled to your opinion, and it's clear nobody is going to change it, however much they might disagree with it.
However, please stop using wild extrapolation to say what I am claiming, or make statements that imply you know more about my friends and gaming acquaintances than I do.
When I use a wild extrapolation, it will be the first. You don't know every decision everyone you've played with has made regarding what scenario they have chosen to play and which ones they don't so I reject your assertions as such.
You claimed people are just as happy to play the scenario with whatever character they have handy? The's proof of indifference toward factions. It could just as easily be proof that Paz's players don't feel that they need their factions directly represented in a scenario in order to feel connected.
In other words it doesn't actually tell us anything beyond the fact that he has players that apparently don't mind not getting the faction boons if it means to play. Without directly asking the players in question, taking anything more is simply extrapolation from incomplete data.
redward wrote: N N 959 wrote: You cannot care about your faction and be just as happy to not do a scenario all season long to assist it. You are equating a player caring about a faction to their character caring about their faction. Not the same thing. I have a character who is heavily invested in the work of the Silver Crusade. I am not.
I am happy to play a scenario regardless of whether my character's faction is featured. If I want to get the boon on a different character I'll just GM the scenario later. Better yet, that character will then be guaranteed to receive it. We are not talking about characters, we are talking about the players. This is a discussion about player dissatisfaction. Nobody's talking about character dissatisfaction. Players who have a vested interest the faction system care about playing their characters in the appropriate scenarios.
N N 959 wrote: redward wrote: N N 959 wrote: You cannot care about your faction and be just as happy to not do a scenario all season long to assist it. You are equating a player caring about a faction to their character caring about their faction. Not the same thing. I have a character who is heavily invested in the work of the Silver Crusade. I am not.
I am happy to play a scenario regardless of whether my character's faction is featured. If I want to get the boon on a different character I'll just GM the scenario later. Better yet, that character will then be guaranteed to receive it. We are not talking about characters, we are talking about the players. This is a discussion about player dissatisfaction. Nobody's talking about character dissatisfaction. Players who have a vested interest the faction system care about playing their characters in the appropriate scenarios.
Really? Because I care about the factions my characters have, and their interactions with such, but I'm not going to lose any sleep if I end up playing a scenario with the "wrong" character.
Jeff Merola wrote: It could just as easily be proof that Paz's players don't feel that they need their factions directly represented in a scenario in order to feel connected. That's not what he said nor suggested.
Quote: In other words it doesn't actually tell us anything beyond the fact that he has players that apparently don't mind not getting the faction boons if it means to play. Nobody said anything about boons. Neither he nor I brought up boons in our exchange.
What he did insist is that he's never met anyone who has felt any pressure not to play a scenario on account the faction association. Why is he asserting something that he cannot know without reading someone's mind? Because he's trying to discredit the notion that Season 5 creates this dynamic.
Quote: Without directly asking the players in question, taking anything more is simply extrapolation from incomplete data. That's exactly right. It's an unscientific assertion dressed in the garb of pseudo-statistics.
Most game nights give players a choice of 1-3 scenarios. If we have people who are willing to play the same scenario for no credit just to play, they obviously aren't going to prioritize faction advancement. But anyone who says a sizable group of players aren't turned off when they miss out on getting to align the scenario is in denial.
Jeff Merola wrote: Really? Because I care about the factions my characters have, and their interactions with such, but I'm not going to lose any sleep if I end up playing a scenario with the "wrong" character. Because losing sleep is a litmus test for what now? Or are you claiming that because you can publicly shrug it off that there is no need to improve the system?
N N 959 wrote: Jeff Merola wrote: Really? Because I care about the factions my characters have, and their interactions with such, but I'm not going to lose any sleep if I end up playing a scenario with the "wrong" character. Because losing sleep is a litmus test for what now? Or are you claiming that because you can publicly shrug it off that there is no need to improve the system? I'm saying that your statement, which I replied to, is inaccurate at best. Just because someone doesn't care what scenarios they're playing characters in doesn't mean that they're not invested in their factions.
Edit: Changed some wording to better fit what I was trying to say. And for the record, I do think the system can be improved, but I do feel that Season 5 was a step in a better direction than the previous version.
Jeff Merola wrote: I'm saying that your statement, which I replied to, is inaccurate at best. Just because someone doesn't care what scenarios they're playing characters in doesn't mean that they're not invested in their factions. Then explain how one is indifferent to an outcome and has an emotional investment in it at the same time?
Quote: Edit: Changed some wording to better fit what I was trying to say. And for the record, I do think the system can be improved, but I do feel that Season 5 was a step in a better direction than the previous version. I generally couldn't stand the old system. Mainly because the faction missions seemed arbitrary. I'd probably agree with every negative thing that's been said about the old system. If the new system is better, it's largely because they've taken them out of the equation on average. But if I had to choose, I'd rather they just abolish them than publish scenarios that I can't play or am compelled to burn on non-appropriate characters.
N N 959 wrote: Jeff Merola wrote: I'm saying that your statement, which I replied to, is inaccurate at best. Just because someone doesn't care what scenarios they're playing characters in doesn't mean that they're not invested in their factions. Then explain how one is indifferent to an outcome and has an emotional investment in it at the same time? Because caring about a faction and caring about minor boons you can get from playing specific scenarios are two completely separate things? Just because I have a Chelish nationalist Hellknight that's looking to correct the issues in the current legal system, and who attempts to do so at every opportunity, while also attempting to make sure Zarta doesn't get herself blown up due to massively overzealous plans doesn't mean I absolutely have to play them in every scenario that is apparently connected with the Cheliax faction in order to be invested in that character and their faction.
Jeff Merola wrote: Because caring about a faction and caring about minor boons you can get from playing specific scenarios are two completely separate things? Who said anything about getting a boon?
PFS staff have put a lot of energy into creating the factions and managing their goals and conveying that to the players. I see that as an asset. I experience that asset by playing the scenario with a character that unlocks that content.
How can I not be disappointed if I'm continually having to forgo that content when I can't align the character?
Quote: Just because I have a Chelish nationalist Hellknight that's looking to correct the issues in the current legal system, and who attempts to do so at every opportunity, while also attempting to make sure Zarta doesn't get herself blown up due to massively overzealous plans doesn't mean I absolutely have to play them in every scenario that is apparently connected with the Cheliax faction in order to be invested in that character and their faction. Okay, I see where you are getting tripped up. Let's take a closer look at our disconnect. First, let me quote something form Saltyone
Saltyone wrote: Having some form of interaction with a faction leader, if only through handout, allowed one's pc to form some history with in world npcs without needing to necessarily role play. I only took a partial quote, but Salty touches on an important concept. That for many players, our sense of a faction comes from what we've done in the scenarios. Based on your response, it is clear that there are a lot of players who have created their own sense of faction, largely independent of what is going on in any specific season. So yes, from your perspective you don't need to do faction mission to feel connected because you've created your own faction bubble. You'll have to tell me if there's any accuracy to this.
Second, you're exaggerating the dilemma. Nobody said anything about "absolutely 'have' to play them in every scenario." If you have enough characters, you can't play every character in every relevant scenario. The point is that I shouldn't miss out on faction missions because I didn't play the right character.
Why is PFS advertising the associated faction if not to allow players to align?
Okay, now we're getting somewhere. My problem with what you were saying was the very broad "players do this" and "players do that." You weren't saying "For me, and some others" (and that some others might well be a majority, I have no way of knowing), you were saying everybody, whether you intended to or not. Quite honestly, so were some others in the thread who were arguing against you, you just happened to be the only one online to have a discussion with.
N N 959 wrote: Second, you're exaggerating the dilemma. Nobody said anything about "absolutely 'have' to play them in every scenario." If you have enough characters, you can't play every character in every relevant scenario. The point is that I shouldn't miss out on faction missions because I didn't play the right character. Okay, you've lost me again. You feel that you shouldn't miss out on faction missions because you didn't play the right character, but you don't feel that you absolutely have to play a character of the right faction whenever possible? Now I'm the one being confused by what I feel are mutually exclusive terms. Little help?
N N 959 wrote: Why is PFS advertising the associated faction if not to allow players to align? They totally can align! Or they can choose to not worry about it. Neither option on their own means that said player is more or less invested in the factions of their character.
I dislike the year of the Demon style faction missions for 2 reasons:
1- I loved my getters from The Paracountess. She is the only fictional character I have ever fell in love with.
2- I really feel the faction missions encourage players to say "The heck with what character level or class would be good for the table, I want my faction mission." I am even guilty if it myself. I eagerly played a level 7 PC at a table and they did not want to take on the optional fight against a litch for fear that it would kill the 2 level 7 PCs and without my higher level PCs, the table did not think we could win the fight at all, even if willing to deal with 2,3 or more casualties in the process.
N N 959 wrote: If PFS is going to have factions and faction specific missions, it is illogical to set up impediments for players to do those scenarios with characters in those factions. That sentiment is completely independent of the chronicle. It's tantamount to creating martial characters and then only having combat in a handful of scenarios. Oops, you played the combat heavy scenario with your bard...maybe you'll get to swing your sword before the end of the summer. It's funny you should mention that, because I was just thinking the same thing from the opposite side. If I know that a scenario is RP-heavy, I'm not going to skip it just because my only character in tier is my combat beast (nor will I switch to Kyra or some other pregen with Diplomacy).
One, I like to play, and I want to play with my own characters. If they're not well-suited for the task at hand, then I'll have to adapt. And I like adapting. Problem-solving is the greatest joy for me in this game. More than succeeding.
Two, and this gets at what I was saying earlier, I try to make my characters be able to contribute at roles outside of their specialty. So even if I'm a combat-heavy character, I'll try to max Intimidate, or maybe even carry a scroll of Comprehend Languages to hand to someone who could use it. And in the same vein, I don't want my characters to be so tied up in their faction, their identity so specialized, if you will, that they won't be invested in something that doesn't involve it:
"We need you to rescue this kidnapped kid."
"What's in it for Qadira?"
"Um...nothing?"
"Pass."
If your character relies on his faction for RP, you will be disappointed sometimes under the current paradigm. If your character's faction is just one aspect of their background, then those times when your opportunities align with their goals will be fun flavor moments.
Even disregarding the Boons themselves, you seem to be looking at these faction-specific scenarios with a "Gotta Catch 'Em All" mentality. I don't think that is the intent.
N N 959 wrote: it is illogical to set up impediments for players to do those scenarios with characters in those factions And here I don't really see the impediment. Going with your example, a game night with three choices, we're looking at one of the following:
1) There's an X-specific Scenario and your X character is too low
option a) Play one of the other scenarios on tap with a different character (if you have one)
option b) Skip it and pout
option c) Play it with a different character and GM it later (assigning the credit to your X character)
option c) Volunteer to GM that night (assigning the credit elsewhere and play it when your character levels up)
2) There's an X-specific Scenario and your X character is the right level, but bad for party make-up
option a) Play it with a different character and GM it later (assigning the credit to your X character)
option b) Volunteer to GM that night (assigning the credit to your X character, or to someone else if you want to play it later)
3) There's an X-specific Scenario and your X character is too high
option a) realize that characters will level out of stuff sometimes
option b) there aren't really any other options here
And remember that playing online is an option for anyone with a computer and internet access. So even if you can't align with the game at your game night, and are unwilling to GM, there are countless opportunities to play it elsewhere.
Jeff Merola wrote: Okay, now we're getting somewhere. My problem with what you were saying was the very broad "players do this" and "players do that." There are no absolutes when it comes to people, so when if I say everybody I assume people understand that there are always outliers.
Quote: Okay, you've lost me again. You feel that you shouldn't miss out on faction missions because you didn't play the right character, but you don't feel that you absolutely have to play a character of the right faction whenever possible? Now I'm the one being confused by what I feel are mutually exclusive terms. Little help? Perhaps that is confusing, I'll have to try and straighten that out later in a way that is clear.
Quote: They totally can align! Or they can choose to not worry about it. Neither option on their own means that said player is more or less invested in the factions of their character. Actually it does. The key to difference of opinion is a subtle one and tricky to illuminate.
1. When I talk about your investment in being able to contribute to what your faction is doing now, I am talking about the faction's goals in the here and now of the current season.
2. I believe you are talking about a general notion of your character's faction and how it is part of the character background.
1 =/= 2.
As I posit above, it would seem your sense of being involved in your faction does not depend on what PFS is doing with the faction in any specific scenario. As I stated above, this is like creating your own sense of faction as a separate entity, a copy. You are invested in a faction concept, but not in the goals and efforts in Season 5. The Cheliax faction your character is consumed with is one of your own creation and largely ignoring the faction specific agenda PFS is setting in the current season.
You literally can't care about something and be indifferent to it's fate. It's not humanly possible.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
N N 959 wrote: There are no absolutes when it comes to people, so when if I say everybody I assume people understand that there are always outliers. Over many years on the internet I've learned that assuming things like that is a really bad idea. I've run into too many people who use all encompassing language that actually mean to use all encompassing language.
Also, using such language in a discussion with people who are arguing against your point really, really doesn't make it seem like you're actually reading your opponent's arguments.
N N 959 wrote: Actually it does. The key to difference of opinion is a subtle one and tricky to illuminate.
1. When I talk about your investment in being able to contribute to what your faction is doing now, I am talking about the faction's goals in the here and now of the current season.
2. I believe you are talking about a general notion of your character's faction and how it is part of the character background.
1 =/= 2.
As I posit above, it would seem your sense of being involved in your faction does not depend on what PFS is doing with the faction in any specific scenario. As I stated above, this is like creating your own sense of faction as a separate entity, a copy. You are invested in a faction concept, but not in the goals and efforts in Season 5. The Cheliax faction your character is consumed with is one of your own creation and largely ignoring the faction specific agenda PFS is setting in the current season.
I'm guessing you either missed me saying the bit about "trying to keep Zarta from blowing herself up" bit, or misunderstood it. If it's the latter, I'll try to be more clear in the future.
Otherwise you're claiming that because I'm not always being tracked on it, I'm not paying attention to what's actually going on with the faction I'm playing in? I find that a little bit insulting.
N N 959 wrote: You literally can't care about something and be indifferent to it's fate. It's not humanly possible. Correct. However, I refute your claim that the only way to care about factions is to make sure your characters always play the exact right scenarios.
Edit: Also, I find your insistence that there is only complete indifference and complete investment with no middle ground rather strange. People can be invested only partway, you know. Someone can want to play as many faction scenarios as they can with the right character, but not really care if they can't manage all of them.
N N 959 wrote: I've yet to see a GM in Season 5 drop any unsolicited in-game clue for the players about fulfilling their faction mission. 100% of the time the players have to ask OOC or it doesn't even get mentioned. You need to play a few more of the Season 5 scenarios, then. There's one in particular where exactly that happens. It's still by no means a slam dunk - it's quite easy to fail the mission - but the relevant PCs do get a very strong hint that there is something specific that they can do for their faction.
I don't think a hint should always be provided, though. I can think of another case where a particular faction can further their faction goals by appropriate behaviour, but they are expected to know this. There's a pretty obvious decision point where there are two things they could do to progress towards the objective of the scenario, but only one of those choices is consistent with the avowed goals of their faction.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
John Francis wrote: N N 959 wrote: I've yet to see a GM in Season 5 drop any unsolicited in-game clue for the players about fulfilling their faction mission. 100% of the time the players have to ask OOC or it doesn't even get mentioned. You need to play a few more of the Season 5 scenarios, then. There's one in particular where exactly that happens. It's still not a slam dunk - it's quite easy to fail the mission - but the relevant PCs do get a very strong hint that there is something specific that they can do for their faction. Heck, now that I think about it there's even a scenario that hands you an old style faction mission.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Jeff Merola wrote:
Also, using such language in a discussion with people who are arguing against your point really, really doesn't make it seem like you're actually reading your opponent's arguments.
I've learned that people who are open to discussion focus on what is being said and those who want to win look for anything to argue against.
Quote: I'm guessing you either missed me saying the bit about "trying to keep Zarta from blowing herself up" bit, or misunderstood it. If it's the latter, I'll try to be more clear in the future. I don't know what is going on with the Cheliax faction.
Quote: Otherwise you're claiming that because I'm not always being tracked on it, I'm not paying attention to what's actually going on with the faction I'm playing in? I find that a little bit insulting. I made no such claim, nor was i suggesting as such.
Quote: Correct. However, I refute your claim that the only way to care about factions is to make sure your characters always play the exact right scenarios. I made no such assertion.
Quote: Edit: Also, I find your insistence that there is only complete indifference and complete investment with no middle ground rather strange. I made no such assertion.
Quote: Someone can want to play as many faction scenarios as they can with the right character, but not really care if they can't manage all of them. Someone cannot want to play with an aligned character and be just as happy if they don't. You can't "want to do something" and be just as happy if it didn't happen unless your values change between the wanting and the doing.
Let's step back an ask why we are debating this? What I see in this thread is a group of Season 5 apologists who refuse to accept any downside to the changes. People who expect alignment are being lableled as meta-gamers, oddities, or people who can't accept change. I'm being fed a line of horse manure that all these players who don't care what character they play any scenario with are just as invested in factions as everyone else. They're not.
The harder PFS makes it to actually do something meaningful for one's faction the more detached people will be from factions as a whole. And that truth should concern PFS.
John Francis wrote:
You need to play a few more of the Season 5 scenarios, then.
I've played ten or eleven to date and GM'd two. I'm thinking I've played more season 5 than any other, but I'd have to double check that. How many season 5 scenarios are currently out?
John Francis wrote: I don't think a hint should always be provided, though. I'm thinking this post from Mike Brock says otherwise:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qi2z&page=3?Season-5-Faction-missions#111
N N 959 wrote: Quote: I'm guessing you either missed me saying the bit about "trying to keep Zarta from blowing herself up" bit, or misunderstood it. If it's the latter, I'll try to be more clear in the future. I don't know what is going on with the Cheliax faction.
Ah, well, that explains misunderstanding that statement. Zarta's been playing with things she probably shouldn't be. Again.
N N 959 wrote: Quote: Otherwise you're claiming that because I'm not always being tracked on it, I'm not paying attention to what's actually going on with the faction I'm playing in? I find that a little bit insulting. I made no such claim, nor was i suggesting as such.
Quote: Correct. However, I refute your claim that the only way to care about factions is to make sure your characters always play the exact right scenarios. I made no such assertion.
N N 959 wrote: As I posit above, it would seem your sense of being involved in your faction does not depend on what PFS is doing with the faction in any specific scenario. As I stated above, this is like creating your own sense of faction as a separate entity, a copy. You are invested in a faction concept, but not in the goals and efforts in Season 5. Whether you intended to or not, you DID make those assertions. You claimed that I wasn't invested in the actual faction, but rather my own creation that was only based on the faction.
N N 959 wrote: Quote: Edit: Also, I find your insistence that there is only complete indifference and complete investment with no middle ground rather strange. I made no such assertion.
N N 959 wrote: You literally can't care about something and be indifferent to it's fate. It's not humanly possible. Again, you might not have intended it to come across the way it did.
N N 959 wrote: Quote: Someone can want to play as many faction scenarios as they can with the right character, but not really care if they can't manage all of them. Someone cannot want to play with an aligned character and be just as happy if they don't. You can't "want to do something" and be just as happy if it didn't happen unless your values change between the wanting and the doing.
I never said they would be just as happy. But if you've never been in a situation where you would've preferred one option, but also been fine with another option you've either lead a charmed life or a cursed one.
In a perfect world I'd play all of the scenarios with faction appropriate characters. But it's not a perfect world, so I'm fine with accepting that I won't be able to do that without making sacrifices I'd rather not make (namely having to skip out on playing games with my friends).
Quote: Let's step back an ask why we are debating this? What I see in this thread is a group of Season 5 apologists who refuse to accept any downside to the changes. People who expect alignment are meta-gamers, oddities, or can't accept change. I'm being fed a line of horse manure that all these players who don't care what character they play any scenario with are just as invested in... We're debating this because I'm seeing you being just as inflexible as these so called "apologists".
N N 959 wrote: John Francis wrote:
You need to play a few more of the Season 5 scenarios, then.
I've played ten or eleven to date and GM'd two. I'm thinking I've played more season 5 than any other, but I'd have to double check that. How many season 5 scenarios are currently out? 25 normals, plus the special Siege of the Diamond City.
N N 959 wrote: John Francis wrote:
You need to play a few more of the Season 5 scenarios, then.
I've played ten or eleven to date and GM'd two. I'm thinking I've played more season 5 than any other, but I'd have to double check that. How many season 5 scenarios are currently out? 26, including the season-opening special and the PaizoCon releases.
(although 5-14 is also 4-EX, Day of the Demon)
I've played all but four of them (and GMed one of those four).
There's still one more to come at GenCon.
N N 959 wrote: John Francis wrote: I don't think a hint should always be provided, though. I'm thinking this post from Mike Brock says otherwise:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qi2z&page=3?Season-5-Faction-missions#111 I don't see a contradiction.
If you're playing an Andoran PC, and you come across a stockade full of slaves, with no guards, and nobody observing you, do you really need to be told whether you should just walk on by, or strike the shackles from their ankles?
If you're playing a Qadiran, and you have a chance to land a highly profitable deal, does the GM have to pressure you into taking it up?
If there's a useful piece of information in the background or introductory material, and it's not readily apparent to the PCs, I'll try to find some way of letting them find this out. But some things are so much part of the faction goals that the players shouldn't need to be reminded of this.
John Francis wrote:
If you're playing an Andoran PC, and you come across a stockade full of slaves, with no guards, and nobody observing you, do you really need to be told whether you should just walk on by, or strike the shackles from their ankles? Quite possibly. You could very much wind up derailing./slowing down the adventure if its NOT something the scenario author planned on. Some players are shy and need the poke poke green light to let them know its their turn in the spot light.
Quote: If you're playing a Qadiran, and you have a chance to land a highly profitable deal, does the GM have to pressure you into taking it up? This one is a very definite yes. You can run across dozens of of NPCS in any given scenario that would make an excellent business contact.
Jeff Merola wrote: .... It's too tedious to pick out quote for quote. But in each case you're misrepresenting my statement. I'll show you one example,
Quote: As I posit above, it would seem your sense of being involved in your faction does not depend on what PFS is doing with the faction in any specific scenario. As I stated above, this is like creating your own sense of faction as a separate entity, a copy. You are invested in a faction concept, but not in the goals and efforts in Season 5. No where do I claim you aren't "paying attention." My statement is an examination of where you get your sense of faction involvement.
Nor did I say in order to be invested in the faction, you have to do every faction mission. What I have consistently stated is that person can't claim to be invested and yet not care if they do any of the faction missions. You keep trying to insert the word all. I don't use the word "all" anywhere.
The rest of your call-outs are of similar ilk. Your rephrasing things to give them a meaning that is not part of the original wording.
Quote: I never said they would be just as happy. Agreed, but others in this thread have suggested as such in order to obfuscate the notation that there might be a legitimate player satisfaction issue.
Quote: But if you've never been in a situation where you would've preferred one option, but also been fine with another option you've either lead a charmed life or a cursed one. Such supposition defies the definition of "preferred." I cannot prefer one outcome and be concurrently happy when it did not occur. What humans do typically do in this situation is rationalize the outcome. We convince ourselves that we are happy with whatever outcome we did get. We convince ourselves that we really didn't want what we didn't get. We focus on the positives. It's a coping mechanism.
Quote: We're debating this because I'm seeing you being just as inflexible as these so called "apologists". II'm not being "inflexible." I am challenging assertions made to try and defend a system that needs improvement.
Quote: But it's not a perfect world, so I'm fine with accepting that I won't be able to do that without making sacrifices I'd rather not make (namely having to skip out on playing games with my friends). And IMO, there's no reason why wanting to play with your friends has to preclude you from enjoying faction content. It never did until Season 5.
BigNorseWolf wrote: John Francis wrote:
If you're playing a Qadiran, and you have a chance to land a highly profitable deal, does the GM have to pressure you into taking it up? This one is a very definite yes. You can run across dozens of of NPCS in any given scenario that would make an excellent business contact. I disagree. It's my job, as a GM, to make you aware of the offer, and to encourage you (maybe even require you) to make a choice between accepting or refusing the deal. But it is not my job to remind you which way your faction leader would want you to decide.
John Francis wrote:
I disagree. It's my job, as a GM, to make you aware of the offer, and to encourage you (maybe even require you) to make a choice between accepting or refusing the deal. But it is not my job to remind you which way your faction leader would want you to decide.
You can disagree all you want. Mike Brock says otherwise. And not to offend you, but your approach is one of the reasons I hate Season 5 faction missions. GMs have misinterpreted the format as a mandate to play hide-the-ball from the players. It should be crystal clear to me if my faction wants a deal with said broker. Then it's up to me to figure out how to make that deal happen.
John Francis wrote:
I disagree. It's my job, as a GM, to make you aware of the offer
If thats what you mean i don't disagree.
Mind you, I haven't seen an actual decision by the PCs for the faction mission really. So far its been see person making a deal, make x dc diplomacy check to seal it.
N N 959:
I don't think the foxy is saying what you think he's saying.
N N 959 wrote: Jeff Merola wrote: .... It's too tedious to pick out quote for quote. But in each case you're misrepresenting my statement. I'll show you one example,
Quote: As I posit above, it would seem your sense of being involved in your faction does not depend on what PFS is doing with the faction in any specific scenario. As I stated above, this is like creating your own sense of faction as a separate entity, a copy. You are invested in a faction concept, but not in the goals and efforts in Season 5. No where do I claim you aren't "paying attention." My statement is an examination of where you get your sense of faction involvement.
Nor did I say in order to be invested in the faction, you have to do every faction mission. What I have consistently stated is that person can't claim to be invested and yet not care if they do any of the faction missions. You keep trying to insert the word all. I don't use the word "all" anywhere.
The rest of your call-outs are of similar ilk. Your rephrasing things to give them a meaning that is not part of the original wording. I took no meaning that wasn't in the original wording. You might not have intended it to be there, but it wasn't exactly like I went through mental gymnastics to try and make your post offensive.
Also, your previous statements lacked the qualifier "any", which made me assume you were referring to all of the faction content (wrongly, apparently) and you responded to my previous posts (which used the word all) without stating that the word was problematic and not indicative of your actual stance.
N N 959 wrote: Quote: But if you've never been in a situation where you would've preferred one option, but also been fine with another option you've either lead a charmed life or a cursed one. Such supposition defies the definition of "preferred." I cannot prefer one outcome and be concurrently happy when it did not occur. What humans do typically do in this situation is rationalize the outcome. We convince ourselves that we are happy with whatever outcome we did get. We convince ourselves that we really didn't want what we didn't get. We focus on the positives. It's a coping mechanism.
Uhh, I don't think you're using the same definition of preferred that I am. Because saying "I'd prefer to get an A on this test, but I'd be okay with a B" is not in any way defying the definition of preferred. You can definitely have multiple preferences, as well as nested preferences. To claim otherwise adds a meaning onto the word preferred that isn't part of the standard definition, or in fact any definition of the word I can find.
For reference, the definition of "prefer" that I've been using is "to like more than the other options."
N N 959 wrote: II'm not being "inflexible." I am challenging assertions made to try and defend a system that needs improvement. I'd call repeated assertions that other people are claiming that factions don't matter despite assurances to the contrary as being inflexible.
N N 959 wrote: And IMO, there's no reason why wanting to play with your friends has to preclude you from enjoying faction content. It never did until Season 5. This I'll agree is a problem that needs fixing. I just don't agree that your methods are the best way of bringing the issue to light.
John Francis wrote: But it is not my job to remind you which way your faction leader would want you to decide. @BNW
I'm not so sure he isn't saying what I think he's saying.
I'd never seen this approach until season 5. I read JF's statement as expecting the player to know whether the Qandira would want a deal with this guy. In all my previous experience, it was never a question of what my character had to do, it was a question of how he would do it.
Suddenly in Season 5, players have to figure out whether something should be done in addition to how to do it. I don't think that was the intent. When I read Mike Brock's responses in that linked thread, I was under the impression that PFS was giving the GMs more discretion on how the information was disseminated to the players, not if the information was disseminated.
I could be wrong, hopefully I am, but I see JF saying that his job is simply to present the NPC and the PC has to figure out if this is something Qadira wants when the scenario clearly expects that the PC is suppose to broker a deal. If I'm wrong, then ignore this.
|
