|
i feel the title of this post explains the premise.
i am pretty sure i am not alone in showing up to play a mod, and finding the short description did not do it justice. i am not a big fan of hack and slash, and i know others who prefer dungeon delves, and im really glad to see the society is putting out mods for all types of players. it might be nice if the players could find out the style of the mod beforehand.
i know of mods that have content that people would not run, and if they had known beforehand that things like drugs, suicide, or slavery were involved they would have prepped something different. i think that simple tags would help deal with these problems, and it could be done in a way that was not too spoily.
we could mark certain adventures as happening in the blakros museum, or the mwangi expanse, or in osirion. and then people that had characters whose backstory was tied to such locations could be better informed on who to bring.
This is something the event organizer should be doing, in my opinion. I know when I post an event for signup I'll note if it's roleplay heavy, combat-heavy, etc. I'll typically also suggest if it might be of interest to particular factions, particularly if it's a Season 5+ scenario (haven't run any S6 stuff yet, but I presume they kept doing the same thing where each scenario has 2-3 factions it's particularly relevant for?)
|
|
This is something the event organizer should be doing, in my opinion. I know when I post an event for signup I'll note if it's roleplay heavy, combat-heavy, etc. I'll typically also suggest if it might be of interest to particular factions, particularly if it's a Season 5+ scenario (haven't run any S6 stuff yet, but I presume they kept doing the same thing where each scenario has 2-3 factions it's particularly relevant for?)
true true, but if the event organizer hasn't run the scenario, it would be helpful if the ones here on the site had something more to go on.
|
|
just tryin to find ways to make society more appealing for the massesThis is already part of the point of the scenario blurb, which should be giving you the same information.
it isn't. the scenario blurb is no indication if the adventure is going to be heavy roleplay, a dungeon delve, subetrfuge, a murder mystery or what.
|
it isn't. the scenario blurb is no indication if the adventure is going to be heavy roleplay, a dungeon delve, subetrfuge, a murder mystery or what.just tryin to find ways to make society more appealing for the massesThis is already part of the point of the scenario blurb, which should be giving you the same information.
ok, what scenario can't you tell that in the blurb?
|
|
it isn't. the scenario blurb is no indication if the adventure is going to be heavy roleplay, a dungeon delve, subetrfuge, a murder mystery or what.just tryin to find ways to make society more appealing for the massesThis is already part of the point of the scenario blurb, which should be giving you the same information.ok, what scenario can't you tell that in the blurb?
assault on the wound
temple of empyreal enlightementscars of the third crusade
these are a few that people could misinterpret the blurb and not know what kind of adventure they are getting into.
|
|
i just pmed this to someone, but i think i should say it here too
yeh i would like the scenario blurbs to actually talk about the game mechanics that might be present, and to be searchable by location, relevant faction, difficulty, hell maybe even by which VC is giving you orders. wouldn't you like to be able to have a character that only works for the master of scrolls? or the master of arms?
|
|
Isn't the scenario blurb supposed to be something to get you excited about what you're going to play, not necessarily spoil what you'll need to succeed?
you can tag the mods without spoiling them. making mods searchable by location would also help make all those regional "when you are in such and such" boons more relevant.
tagging them by who is giving you the mod introduces interesting roleplay opportunities.tagging them by dungeon delve or social will help people avoid adventures that thy dislike, and avoid situations where someone brings their smashy barbarian to a murder investigation, or their smooth-talking bard on a mission to just kill some oozes/constructs/undead.
|
|
Because sane people don't like hashtags. #IseeenoughbadenglisheverywhereelsethatIdontwanttoseeitheretoo.
so your argument against making it so that people can make more informed choices on how to spend their time ("hey scars of the third crusade is tagged as heavy-roleplay, mebbe i won't bring my character with all dumped mental stats") is that people sometimes spell poorly and we don't want to provide them more opportunities to do so?
|
|
#bringaface #allenemiesevil #traps #escortmission #TPKcentral
Is this the type you are looking for? I'm not opposed but it would take away some of the randomess when you get extra hints on to what the mission is about. I've seen adventures become pretty lackluster because of the blurb (I cannot remember exact instances). So for individual stores or games for people to personally do it, sure, but for it to be a mandate or simply what is expected, I'd rather not.
i think the community could agree on some that could be added to missions without spoiling them. bonekeep has a tag stating that it is a deadly dungeon crawl, and i've never heard people complaining about that
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If people made characters who were Pathfinders, they wouldn't need such tags since they wouldn't *have* dumped mental stats (for example).
Bonekeep is a special event with special rules, so it needs additional info. Everything else falls into the job description of "be a Pathfinder". There are already too many ways to cherry-pick scenarios to formalize one.
|
Because sane people don't like hashtags. #IseeenoughbadenglisheverywhereelsethatIdontwanttoseeitheretoo.so your argument against making it so that people can make more informed choices on how to spend their time ("hey scars of the third crusade is tagged as heavy-roleplay, mebbe i won't bring my character with all dumped mental stats") is that people sometimes spell poorly and we don't want to provide them more opportunities to do so?
No, my argument is there's got to be an intelligent useful way to do it rather than one that is simply not.
|
|
If people made characters who were Pathfinders, they wouldn't need such tags since they wouldn't *have* dumped mental stats (for example).
Bonekeep is a special event with special rules, so it needs additional info. Everything else falls into the job description of "be a Pathfinder". There are already too many ways to cherry-pick scenarios to formalize one.
Well, I never knew that being a dungeon delving tomb raider more often required the use of the correct fork at dinner than the shovel...
|
|
If people made characters who were Pathfinders, they wouldn't need such tags since they wouldn't *have* dumped mental stats (for example).
Bonekeep is a special event with special rules, so it needs additional info. Everything else falls into the job description of "be a Pathfinder". There are already too many ways to cherry-pick scenarios to formalize one.
the reality of the situation is that people make the characters they want to, and it seems that sometimes those characters are better at dungeon delving than social situations and vice versa. as it is right now, we cannot tell other people how to make their characters or write their backstory.
that being said, i do not know of the ways to cherry-pick scenarios that you speak of. i'm pretty sure most newer society members wouldn't either.
and if there are a lot of ways to cherry pick, i do not see how formalizing them hurts the society. if anything it leads to more roleplaying opportunities.
|
|
Well, I think the major reason why the scenarios aren't tagged also has to do with the resources that Paizo has available to PFS. Even if they were to start with the next set of scenarios to tag, there's a backlog of 100+ ones that are already in existence and not tagged. Considering the other backlogs with sanctioning, it's clear that there isn't a magical cache of manpower sitting around. Even if there were users who could tag them for the official site, that doesn't mean that it would be feasible to tag the pages themselves. I mean, nothing is stopping people from creating their own pages or wikis and organizing them via a tagging method, but it just doesn't seem like something Paizo has the resources to implement.
Just my two cents.
|
|
Such a character does not seem like someone who's mastered the "cooperate" part of the Pathfinder oath. As a Pathfinder you're supposed to serve ANY VC that calls upon your services, not snub them for the Masters who don't want you hanging around them, they've got other things to do, and will call upon you when they need you.i just pmed this to someone, but i think i should say it here too
yeh i would like the scenario blurbs to actually talk about the game mechanics that might be present, and to be searchable by location, relevant faction, difficulty, hell maybe even by which VC is giving you orders. wouldn't you like to be able to have a character that only works for the master of scrolls? or the master of arms?
dude, why do you insist on just being contrary? if you have the gm boon that says you work for the master of scrolls, whats wrong with trying to work for the master of scrolls as much as possible? is it making the society worse in any way if people get to choose how they spend their time?
|
|
Well, I think the major reason why the scenarios aren't tagged also has to do with the resources that Paizo has available to PFS. Even if they were to start with the next set of scenarios to tag, there's a backlog of 100+ ones that are already in existence and not tagged. Considering the other backlogs with sanctioning, it's clear that there isn't a magical cache of manpower sitting around. Even if there were users who could tag them for the official site, that doesn't mean that it would be feasible to tag the pages themselves. I mean, nothing is stopping people from creating their own pages or wikis and organizing them via a tagging method, but it just doesn't seem like something Paizo has the resources to implement.
Just my two cents.
this seems like the best argument against it
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's do some more:
Scars of the Third Crusade -
Voice in the Void -
The Confirmation -
Cairn of Shadows -
Waking Rune -
|
|
Do you foresee problems arising when people elect to not use a character that fits with the mission type description? Seems like this is just asking for another reason to grief other players.
im glad you can find something wrong with every idea i have. so in regards to paladins we should just hope players and gms are reasonable people, but we shouldn't tag scenarios because people are gonna be bad anyways. i think you might just be trolling me
|
|
dude, why do you insist on just being contrary?
It is rude and dismissive to assert that someone does not genuinely hold their position, and imply that their position is so vacuous that thats the only reason they can hold it is so that they can argue with you.
Lamplighters been a looooong time proponent of pathfinders being well rounded individuals that all work together. His objections are the same ones he's had .. forever. Its not about you.
|
|
dude, why do you insist on just being contrary?
It is rude and dismissive to assert that someone does not genuinely hold their position, and imply that their position is so vacuous that thats the only reason they can hold it is so that they can argue with you.
Lamplighters been a looooong time proponent of pathfinders being well rounded individuals that all work together. His objections are the same ones he's had .. forever. Its not about you.
is lamplighters lazarx?
i think i answered gm lamplighter in a very reasoned manner, because his argument is very reasonable.i don't think lazarx has posted reasonable things, including
"Because we old fogies may be willing to adapt to running our games on Roll20, we draw the line on Twitter!
"I take you 5 billion years into the future to witness the death of your planet, and all you can do is update your... Twitter!""
i do not believe this is a genuine position, and it hurt his later arguments.
|
im glad you can find something wrong with every idea i have. so in regards to paladins we should just hope players and gms are reasonable people, but we shouldn't tag scenarios because people are gonna be bad anyways. i think you might just be trolling me
If I was trolling you, I'd tell you that we already had a similar system, and it's called the scenario description.
Please don't act like I'm the only one here who disagrees with your suggestion, and let's not drag the other 200 post monstrosity over here.
|
|
im glad you can find something wrong with every idea i have. so in regards to paladins we should just hope players and gms are reasonable people, but we shouldn't tag scenarios because people are gonna be bad anyways. i think you might just be trolling meIf I was trolling you, I'd tell you that we already had a similar system, and it's called the scenario description.
Please don't act like I'm the only one here who disagrees with your suggestion, and let's not drag the other 200 post monstrosity over here.
i find it hard to believe that you honestly think this is a terrible idea. you've never changed who you are bringing to an adventure based on certain npcs you heard were involved? you've never brought a character to a scenario because you knew it went to a location that wasn't in the blurb, because someone told you? experienced groups have the resources and the players to know which scenarios involve certain factions and npcs, but for newer groups with less people they have to blindly stumble through them. sure, they can ask more experienced players for advice, but for fresh people, i dont think giving them a tad bit more basic information would hurt things more than help.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
i don't think lazarx has posted reasonable things, including
"Because we old fogies may be willing to adapt to running our games on Roll20, we draw the line on Twitter!"I take you 5 billion years into the future to witness the death of your planet, and all you can do is update your... Twitter!""
i do not believe this is a genuine position, and it hurt his later arguments.
Alright, real talk.
I believe he's against the idea for the same reasons I am.
1. It encourages players to build characters specifically to play a given type of scenario, which goes against the overall 'idea' of PFS. Your characters are all experienced, and trained field agents, they should be able to handle themselves in any situation, whether it be clearing a crypt, infiltrating an enemy base, a night of research in the library, or a fancy dinner party.
2. Clearly labeling 'RP' and 'Combat' scenarios further strengthens the idea that there are 'RP' characters and 'Combat' characters, and that the two can never overlap.
3. Hashtags are silly. They're really, really silly. Twitter will eventually stop being a thing, hashtags will eventually stop being a thing, and when that happens, we'd all look silly.
|
|
I have yet to find a description that hasn't adequately prepared me for a game, in fact a lot of them are too spoilery. The only reason I would have to adjust which character I play, is to fit in tier better or adjust the party makeup for a more balanced group. I've sat down at a table with 4 wizards, it went very very badly...
Also, I build Pathfinders and not one trick munchkins, so I am always ready for whatever situation presents itself even if I'm not the best at it.
|
|
i find it hard to believe that you honestly think this is a terrible idea.
So, I don't really care what you find hard to believe. You don't need to be crappy.
you've never changed who you are bringing to an adventure based on certain npcs you heard were involved? you've never brought a character to a scenario because you knew it went to a location that wasn't in the blurb, because someone told you? experienced groups have the resources and the players to know which scenarios involve certain factions and npcs, but for newer groups with less people they have to blindly stumble through them.
No, I usually bring what I have on hand, that I enjoy playing, and what compliments the party composition. I don't read too much into the scenario unless it's a season 5 and I happen to have a PC in tier to meet a faction objective. It's often difficult for me to do that and I haven't had much luck, because I tend to play characters until they hit 12 and then I get a new one. I don't know where you get information about the NPCs you're going to encounter in the mission, but typically that's not readily available without meta gaming about the mission. So no. I don't pick and choose PCs based on the contents of the mission. If I can play it, I pick a character that I feel like playing.
I've played all but 6 missions in seasons 0-4, and a good amount of season 5. I don't exactly have the luxury of picking and choosing what scenarios I play and with what character anymore.
sure, they can ask more experienced players for advice, but for fresh people, i dont think giving them a tad bit more basic information would hurt things more than help.
What kind of basic information are we talking about here? In your original post, you list stuff about drugs, slavery, suicide, etc that would be difficult to include without revealing the plot.
In a post above you listed a couple of scenarios that had what you felt were misleading plot descriptions.
What do you do for a scenario where the VC doesn't know what to expect?
But yes, I do think that inevitably, someone is going to ask "Why did you bring your Barbarian to an [infiltration] mission?"
EDIT: To the hashtag point in Disk Elemental's post above, I don't know if the OP is suggesting hashtags specifically or just a simple subject labeling system (called tags) akin to what is in StackOverflow.
|
|
it isn't. the scenario blurb is no indication if the adventure is going to be heavy roleplay, a dungeon delve, subetrfuge, a murder mystery or what.just tryin to find ways to make society more appealing for the massesThis is already part of the point of the scenario blurb, which should be giving you the same information.
Which scenario blurb do you think doesn't tell you that?