My Request For More Multi-Part Scenarios

[Dragon Prime]

I am posting this hear as more or less to figure out if I am in the minority on this particular subject and if my idea might draw a bigger interest in PFS play.

In the past few months my interest in playing in PFS has severely waned, but not on the issue of content or scenarios being to difficult. There have been times in past seasons were building towards the core goal for that year but to me it felt like I was playing a game of darts, I'm hitting the board(hopefully) but not really getting any bulls-eyes. However this was not the case when I played in multi-part scenarios, which there were consequences and rewards given depending on what your character did in the previous parts that gave me a sense of accomplishment once the multi-parter reach its end.

Its because of this I would like to see more multi-part scenarios that become the "spine" of the season's core goal and then you have the other scenarios to be something that is attached to the main story to add some minor benefit to the season's last scenarios, like gathering the different groups to add to army for Year of the Demon.

Now I am not saying it needs to be like "Search for the Thingy" Parts 1-10 but more like treating each separate multi-parter like it is a chapter in an adventure path but on a smaller scale and the other scenarios are the side quests that add a little bit here and there as the season progresses.

[Yiroep]

I like multi-parters as well, and I imagine a lot of others do. In scheduling, I actually find that 2-part scenarios often fit very well and are well-liked by the community. I like 3-part scenarios as well although they are not always the easiest to schedule, but by no means am I an opponent of it. I like playing those as much as anyone else.

4-part scenarios I sometimes feel can be a stretch on scheduling because it is hard to get people to commit to that many games, but my player-side salivates for huge multi-parters.

TDLR; +1.

[Anonymous Visitor 163 576]

I'd rather keep them separate. Games are difficult to schedule in my region, and playing part two anywhere from six months to two years after part one is sometimes less fun.

For this type of feel, I'd suggest playing though the sanctioned modules, of which there are quite a few.

[pH unbalanced]

My experience has been that 3-part scenarios are almost always among my favorites.

A downside to them is that I like to play and GM in alternate sessions, and so multi-part scenarios often lock me into doing one or the other for a few sessions. (Not because PFS rules force that, more from local table dynamics.)

[TetsujinOni]

One or two multi-part stories per season seems to be good at the rate production currently supports.

I would NOT support the notion that a full season's adventures should be structured as a sequential arc - that's not the kind of model of play that PFS should focus on. AP-like content streams should be, well, APs.

Hopefully Drogon has some commentary.

[Zach Klopfleisch]

From a coordinator's perspective: Multi-parters range from nifty to nightmare.

• Before the Dawn I and II are about as good a it gets: There isn't anything special for playing them both, and they both do a fine job as standalone scenarios.
  
• Quest for Perfection is a nightmare: You've signed yourself up for a good two months of catch up games and players bugging you as soon as you run the first scenario.
  
• Shades of Ice is in between: It tells a cool story, but that means you want to run them in order, but that means when you're just looking for a scenario to fill out a day, at least two of them basically aren't available.
  

Telling a story in more than one four hour slot is really cool, but it gives up one of PFS's biggest strengths: You're now playing something like a home game where it's important who is sitting at a certain table at a certain time, rather than just being able to walk in, sit down, and start rolling dice. The retirement arc is the ultimate example of this.

The other problem is that, as a player, they're only extra cool if you can manage to play all the parts. I played Shades of Ice II when I was passing through town once. That PC has since leveled out of the series, so now I'll never get the full experience of playing them all in order on the same character. That is a net loss, it will be a detriment to my enjoyment if I ever play the other parts because I will be thinking of might have beens.

I'd love more multi parters like Among the Living, Among the Dead and Among the Gods where each is its own self contained story but you revisit thematically similar places and people. So, I'm not a fan of them as a coordinator, and only slightly more excited about them as a player.

[John Compton]

Multi-scenario adventure arcs are certainly fun from a cohesive story perspective, even though they're a little harder to outline and develop. I certainly enjoy the three-part arc "traditionally" written by the finalists of the previous year's RPG Superstar contest, particularly given the very productive collaboration that has accompanied the process and made each adventure stronger and integrated in clever ways.

In addition, I enjoy the clear message that multi-scenario arcs send with the "Part X" labels, letting players know that even though a scenario can stand on its own, it's best experienced in order and in its entirety. That said, I see the other side; every multi-scenario arc is subtle barrier to those whose schedules don't facilitate regular play, and that's contrary to one of the Pathfinder Society's goals.

I have not locked in the schedule for all of Season 7, but I do anticipate there being another three-part arc. I also have a two-part adventure—originally a single scenario that Mark Moreland and I realized would be so much stronger as a two-parter—that takes place early in the season. Finally, there's a multi-part arc that I have brewing on the back burner, but I'm not sure whether it might happen this season or the next.

[TetsujinOni]

John Compton wrote:

In addition, I enjoy the clear message that multi-scenario arcs send with the "Part X" labels, letting players know that even though a scenario can stand on its own, it's best experienced in order and in its entirety. That said, I see the other side; every multi-scenario arc is subtle barrier to those whose schedules don't facilitate regular play, and that's contrary to one of the Pathfinder Society's goals.

I'm very happy with how Destiny of the Sands worked last season, and Scions has been impressive so far.

The tight linking of the tier 7-11 arc in Season 4 was awesome but consumed a huge amount of the schedule, being effectively a 5 part arc with consequences for decisions... Is the feedback as I would expect, that it was enough less rewarding to players splitting it up across multiple characters that the linkage being quite that tight-but-not-explicit isn't likely to happen again?

[Matt Savage - Texas]

I prefer two-parters, myself.

I wonder, this, though - there are typically two adventure paths a year. If the idea is to do a trilogy that is a nod to an adventure path, shouldn't there be two trilogies per season?

[Netopalis]

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of multiparts. They are extremely difficult to schedule, and we often find that there is little consistency amongst the tables. This is somewhat improved with 2-part scenarios over 3 or 4 part scenarios. I do feel that there are some 3-part scenarios which feature a wholly superfluous part to them.

[John Compton]

Matt Savage wrote:

I prefer two-parters, myself.

I wonder, this, though - there are typically two adventure paths a year. If the idea is to do a trilogy that is a nod to an adventure path, shouldn't there be two trilogies per season?

I don't plan to do a multi-scenario arc to represent every Adventure Path, but sometimes it's a good fit for the ongoing stories that the season tells. For example, Destiny of the Sands lined up very nicely with the Scarab Sages story and the Mummy's Mask Adventure Path. On the other hand, the Scions of the Sky Key trilogy takes place in the Mwangi Expanse, where the story works but does not integrate with the Giantslayer Adventure Path in any way.

I already have some plans for how the upcoming Adventure Paths might inspire some scenarios released around the same time, but those plans do not necessarily involve a multi-part arc—at least not at this point in the planning process.

[Drogon]

I like multi-part adventures. I like them in all ways (player, GM, coordinator).

As a player I enjoy having a story that one of my PCs can follow for a bit of time. Getting a few NPCs that are memorable involved in his tale going forward is a huge bonus. Having good times to share with other characters who were there with him is another big plus. My PCs' favorite moments all stem from multi-part adventures.

As a GM, I love being able to sit down with a group of players who move from one part to another (in part or intact). Again, having some memorable NPCs that I can carry forward for them is awesome. Or having some indelible moment that becomes legend for the locals as player characters wander around town; that's even better. I had one PC play Before the Dawn I and II with me, then play Bloodcove Disguise at my table a few months later. The stories locals told of that PC's prior experiences made the player crack a smile that didn't go away for the entire session. I loved that.

As a coordinator, I have noticed that players like jumping on two-part scenarios. I tend to offer one early in the month, and the second later in the month, or run them back-to-back on a Saturday. Groups really like that. Especially when they are low level or have some rumor of massive danger involved (like Rats of Round Mountain). If they come as a 3-parter, I schedule them in such a way that players who sign up for Part 1 get priority for whenever I offer Parts 2 & 3. Players really like this attention to their scheduling, and I like seeing them come back into the store, of course, so it's a win-win even with longer series.

Four part series, while long gone, are also awesome to coordinate. I set up two of them one month (on successive Mondays) and two the following month (also on Mondays). I do my utmost to ensure the same six players see the series all the way through, and the stories that result are always fun to hear through the grapevine of our local player base.

The only time I have an issue with multi-part scenarios is when someone jumps in part way through and doesn't "connect." Like I said, I work pretty hard to keep this from happening, but it does happen. I feel bad for the players who might miss Part 1 but really want to play, so end up at Part 2's table because that was all they could get into. And, of course, there are those players who won't touch Part 2 or 3 without first playing the prior parts. That is, unfortunately, hard to deal with, as sometimes I just can't put Part 1 back on the schedule, no matter how much that guy wants it.

I think the best setup for multi-part scenarios I've seen is The Devil We Know series and the Glories of the Past series. The story was a story that could be followed, but it did not have to happen back-to-back-to-back(-to-back). It could get sprinkled throughout a playing career pretty easily, or played consecutively, and was just as fun either way (notwithstanding the individual adventures' worthiness, of course). I really enjoyed running the Quest for Perfection series (and playing it) but those really felt like they had to be done consecutively or the story suffered, so players didn't appreciate them as much unless I really pushed the scheduling for them.

TL;DR: Series are good for the game. Handled properly they really involve the player base in a way they enjoy. But, no, you shouldn't see more than a couple series per season (say, six total adventures getting tied up in 2 or 3 series).

PS - I love "flavor" series, like the Blakros adventures, or the Fiend trio. Keeping those kinds of adventures happening with regularity is a good thing (at least a couple "throwbacks" per season would be good).

[Dragon Prime]

I like hearing that I am not alone as a player that enjoys the in depth story building these multi-parters can bring to a season.

Going off what people posted and allowing my mind to wander while at work, overnight shift allows for such a thing, that for building the storyline for a season I'd would personally go with 3-2-3 format, a three parter near the start of the season to intro the season's main goal, a two parter midway through as update on the season's progress aswell as introduce the villian(s), and the final three part leading to the end of the season. Outside of the Devil We May Know series I agree a story arc going over more than 3 scenarios can place a strain on gamers, coordinators, and gms alike.

[TetsujinOni]

As an aside, Drogon, I hope you don't mind that I use you as my proxy for large regions more "normal" than Upstate NY or Boston ;)

[DM Beckett]

I prefer 2 parters, as 3 parters just have too much chance of not catching people with the overall theme. Otherwise, I'd rather have thematic sequels, like the Blakros Museum series (minus Silver Mount Collection).

Every 3 or 4 parter I've dealt with, always run back to back, (though not always at one sitting), either left some of the players loosing interest, or tried too hard to make sure each could fit as an individual scenario, and left out some kind of obvious things for a game that takes place right after the last one. (why is this NPC indifferent or worse to me when we just saved their child and rescued them from a life of slavery like yesterday?)

We've also found the non-thematically related successors less interesting as well, like Blakros Matrimony, or Valley of the Veiled Flame, (which was fantastic on its own), that basically had nothing to do do with it's predecessor.

One thing that I'd really like is if PFS altered the way they did Season scenarios, and if the Season "Finale" was the final part of a multi-parter, released at GenCon, and reserved for maybe 1 week before it opened to everyone. (That's in addition to the Exclusive, which wouldn't have anything to do with the ending Season, but might hint at/lead i to the next Season).

[BretI]

I've felt compelled to skip several gaming sessions recently because of multi-part scenarios. If I can not commit to making all of the series, I don't want to start it. The reason is either you risk never finishing it with that character or you put the character on hold until the series is run again.

The reason I do Organized Play is it fits in my schedule. Multi-part scenarios are much harder to make fit.

That said, I love connecting stories. If you could do something more like Confirmation / Wounded Wisp that works for me. Something where I don't feel a strong need to complete the arc.

[claudekennilol]

I enjoy how the multipart scenarios have more unique rewards (from the more recent seasons). What I don't like is how some of those rewards are useless to a large majority of PCs that receive them.

Quest for Perfection's reward is a good example of this--both awesome and, for a large majority of PCs, useless.

[TriOmegaZero]

I love multipart arcs, but I really don't have much to add to what has already been said better by others. I had to schedule Rats of Round Mountain with a month between them to accommodate a player, and that caused consternation with the other players. I missed out on part three of Heresy of Man and had to play it online months later with a group of strangers. But I got to rock my dwarven cleric of Abadar through all three parts of Glories of the Past and loved every minute of it. I'm running my Tien inquisitor of Keltheald through Scions of the Sky Key after giving him GM credit of Legacy of the Stonelords, and managing to play with mostly the same players. It's more complicated, but like most things that are more difficult, they are worth doing.

[Deussu]

There's a fine line between being too tied up together and too separated. The Devil We Know (four parter) had little proper structure, and it felt disconnected despite having the same locale in each scenario. Then again it was one of the first multipart adventures, and it had its flaws.

What I think matters in multipart adventures is tier. In game stores low-tier games call out for newer players to play, and most likely fill up quickly. Trying to arrange the same team to play them in a row is tough. But what if the series is Tier 7-11? By then you've hopefully get accustomed to your fellow gamers somewhat, and can arrange gamedays for your own "private" gaming sessions. You couldn't imagine running Eyes of the Ten ad hoc, could you?

I personally like multiparters, but only if the team stays the same, so I tend to wait out for the entire series to be published before I join any games. Depending on region, it might become hard to get players to such games. Many have already played them, or it becomes hard to schedule with the rest of the player base.

Regardless, I mostly enjoy bilogies. Trilogies so far have fallen short in at least one of the scenarios, which makes the one scenario feel like unnecessary filler. Like Quest for Perfection, Part 2, it didn't really mean anything to the plot itself.

What you expect from a multipart adventure is cliffhangers. You know there's another part coming, and you want to have the cliffhanger to make you anticipate the next part. Not giving out spoilers, but Slave Ships of Absalom presents a cliffhanger that leads to The Slave Master's Mirror. For reasons that elude me these two scenarios have not been put together as a bilogy, but they are a showcase for how the transition should be made. Scenario 1: present premise, adventure, end in cliffhanger; Scenario 2: recap, adventure, resolution.

Loosely connected scenarios, like all those millions of Blakros (it's Blakros, not Blackrose, grr) museum delves, Among the Taldans, and Tide of Sun's Positions. References to older scenarios always put a smile on my face.

Wounded Wisp:

"Ah, hello Yargos Gill, it was quite a long time... what, 7 years?"