|
Hi,
today my group ran into a problem I was unsure how to handle.
We defeated the encounter and the scenario said:
"If the group fails to defeat the encounter, reduce their gold by x gp"
(Or something along those lines).
However, we did not find the treasure the monster had hidden in his cave.
This was a season 4 scenario.
I'm unsure how to handle it - in another scenario (season 5) it explicitly states "If the PCs fail to fend off [the monster] and recover its treasure, reduce their gold by x gp".
So we were pretty sure we should get the gold as that's what the text said ("Defeat the encounter", not "defeat the encounter and find the loot"), but we're unsure whether the items should be crossed off the chronicle sheet or not.
We did not find them, but the scenario does not have the instruction to cross it off the sheet.
The Confirmation explicitly states at one point to cross of unfound treasure off the chronicle sheet - though the treasure in question is determined by random, so this might have something to do with it.
So basically it boils down to this question:
Does the GM has to cross of loot the group did not find if the scenario does not explicitly tell him to do so?
|
|
Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play 6.0, Chapter 6 (p. 36):
"Step 7: Cross out any treasure items the party didn’t find
in the scenario and mark any special boons the players
did or did not earn (U); additionally, if you’re running the
lower subtier, always cross out all of the items listed for the
higher subtier...."
Based on your description, the party would get the gold but did not unlock any items contained in the monster's treasure on their chronicle sheet. If you can provide the name of the scenario so people can look at the exact language used, that would help.
|
|
That narrowed it down to two combats... I'm going to assume you are talking about the
As written, the gold is for defeating the monster, so would be granted.
There is no Perception DC to locate the treasure. My personal rule of thumb is that if a perception check is not required the party finds the loot if they move nearby. I think when I ran this one I wanted someone within 10 ft of the treasure zone. Your interpretation may differ.
See the Boards for an in-depth discussion.
As there is no language in the scenario about the treasure, the Guide's rule (didn't find it in the scenario - don't get it on the chronicle) applies.
|
|
I found the thread you suggested, but that devolves pretty quickly into a "Is it a waste of time to tell the players what loot the found"-discussion.
And yes, that's the scary thing I'm talking about.
Okay, so I have to cross off things they don't find even if it's not explicitly mentioned. I just remembered something from The Frostfur Captives:
The scenario does not tell me to cross off the snowbloom boon if the PCs do not retrieve it, but logically they should not get it if they fail to pick the flowers.
So that really suggests your interpretation is the correct one.
Ah well. One more thing to look out for.
(Fun fact: The chronicle sheet for the scenario in question contains a cure moderate wounds potion which you never find during the scenario. You only find a cure serious wounds potion.)
|
I only reduce treasure if something extraordinary happens in a scenario, such as the characters being forced to flee and fail the scenario - in which case the options are there for me to deduct gold. I believe that's what that "Step 7" rule refers to.
It's not worth bogging the game down and leaving players sour over something some of them may think is straightforward, such as an extra bit of loot. I assume they grabbed it by the time they end the adventure, whether they ask or not.
It's not fun for me to be deducted rewards due to not nitpicking for them; it's already my loss that I didn't find them to use them for the remainder of the scenario (like finding a ring of feather falling in the first encounter with a big bad fall in the second half).
The PFS guide backs up this idea:
If, for example, your players manage to roleplay their way through a combat and successfully accomplish the goal of that encounter without killing the antagonist, give the PCs the same reward they would have gained had they defeated their opponent in combat. If that scene specifically calls for the PCs to receive gold piece rewards based on the gear collected from the defeated combatants, instead allow the PCs to find a chest of gold (or something similar) that gives them the same rewards.
Additionally, if the PCs roleplayed past an NPC who carries a specific potion or scroll that the PCs might be granted access to on the scenario’s Chronicle sheet, don’t cross that item off the sheet—instead, allow the PCs to find the item elsewhere as a reward for creatively resolving the encounter without resorting to combat. Pathfinder Society Organized Play never wants to give the impression that the only way to solve a problem is to kill it—rewarding the creative use of skills and roleplaying not only make Society games more fun for the players, but it also gives the GM a level of flexibility in ensuring players receive the rewards they are due.
It's not perfect reasoning, but the idea is that Paizo intends to keep the wording fast and loose to give GMs some leeway in giving PCs the rewards they think they should be getting.
What you should be taking away from this section is the gist of "did they somehow complete the encounter? If so, reward them."
Venture-Agent, New York—Queensbury
|
99% of items on chronicle sheets are a [censored] waste of ink as you can buy them anyway. For flavor reasons it's neat to see the items you found written out but for mechanical PFS reasons they are useless the vast majority of the time.
In any situation where the items/boons are sometime unique I would say you should always err on the side of players if in doubt since scenarios can only ever be played once. This doesn;t mean always give them everythign all the time. In Z...D...'s example above where it is specifically calling for a check to find X. Failing that check should defiantly not give whatever it is.
This is my take on it. So for the specific season 4 scenario in question here short of them fleeing from that room I see absolutely no reason they wouldn't find the items. No perception check means even a blind character would trip over it.
|
|
This section calls out "Avoiding combat", not "Completly missing some treasure but gaining the gold anyways". Though logically they should get the gear because the assumption is that they get the gold by selling the gear afterwards, right?
With table variation, some GMs will read out what the treasure is after an encounter anyway, just for the sake of time management. Of course the characters are going to check for loot. The players might not ask for it, but who cares?
It does nobody any good to cross off any items just because they didn't specifically ask.
Getting through the encounter merits the reward - at least by the end of the scenario, if they didn't actively look immediately.