I haven't posted a lot on these forums so I hope this is the right place.
So I'm an old-time table top guy (I'm sure like many of us) that really enjoys how the PACG integrates elements of card games and RPGs. I think there are several ways PACG could add more depth to the game and the idea I wanted to present today centers around story telling.
Visualizing the action and following the story behind the scenarios is something my group and I really enjoy. Often times we will look at the actual table-top modules to get a better understanding of the adventure setting, villains, stories, etc...
I think an idea that would enhance the story aspect of PACG would be to alter future scenarios based on the success or failure of the current scenario. So let's say your group fails a scenario...rather than just replay it, there could be rules/mechanics to alter a future scenario(s) based on that failure. Merely replaying a scenario could definitely be an option, but having your enemies change, or your path from A to B change could add another layer of depth to PACG.
I know you can add in your own role play reasons for replaying a scenario, but it would be a ton of fun if you failed a scenario and had to take a different path to complete the adventure deck.
From a cost/production perspective, Paizo wouldn't have to create extra Scenario cards. They could just add sections to existing Scenarios that have different rewards / effects / etc...if the previous scenario had been failed.
Thoughts?
Ok, so how about an example?
Take Skull & Shackles, Adventure Deck 6, Scenario #2: "The Armada"
So the premise of this scenario is that your pirate fleet goes toe-to-toe against one of the most powerful and feared fleets around, the Chelish Navy.
Using a system like I mentioned above, let's say you failed this Scenario. In a movie, book or table top RPG you couldn't just run and get another fleet to fight again (at least not before the bad guy wins).
So why not have a condition on Scenario #3 Storming For Hazard say something like:
- If you failed The Armada, players must play the following scenario before proceeding to Storming Fort Hazard.
The description text can be something like:
Your Pirate fleet fought hard and dirty but did not manage to break the lines of the mighty Chelish Navy; however this does not mean they are not wounded! The time seems ripe to run a blockade; load one ship with your best warriors and sneak past the damaged Armada.
- The Ship Abrogail's Fury is no longer available for players to select.
Scenario Details
The actual scenario could be one where the players need to evade encountered ships (instead of fighting them).
- If the player's ship remains damaged for 2 advances of the blessing deck, they fail the scenario.
- At the end of the scenario the players could be rewarded based on the number of ships they successfully evade. This could give the players a chance to earn some of the rewards they missed from failing the Scenario The Armada....OR it could be something completely different (although probably not quite as good).
So a natural follow-up question would be, what happens if the players fail both the Scenario and the new conditional Scenario? The answer: The development team at Paizo is smarter than me ...they can figure it out ;)
Some of the best gaming and writing is centered on coping with and recovering from loss.
Perhaps it'd even encourage certain players to govern their games a bit more honestly and enjoy the ride. Imagine a sword only attainable from a recovery scenario. A kind of prestige in that, as well as a material and constant reminder of a past flub-up. Cool.
If there was a practical way to balance/manage/print an idea like this, it could be electric. At a glance, it's a big undertaking, though.
Then again, I remember when the adventure card game was first coming out. Many people doubted that the PACG people could deliver a fun, well balanced, table-toppish co-op card game. So I guess these would be the people to make something like that fly.
One issue with scenarios is the size of the card they're printed on - and the amount of text that always has to be on there already.
In the pilot Season of Organised play they experimented a bit with this - you kept a record of how many henchmen you defeated in one scenario, and could use them for a bonus in a later one.
I believe there was also an earlier scenario where you were penalised if some players hadn't completed all the previous ones in that deck - i also seem to recall it produced quite a few complaints from people who felt that they were being punished for not being able to attend earlier events.
I certainly think this is an interesting idea, and would like to try it out, but logistically, i wonder whether this is something that would need to stay in the realms of OP / Homebrew, rather than the main game?
Fair enough Jim,
Truth be told, if something like this were ever part of the official game...a separate card for "conditional scenarios" would be awesome. I'd pay an extra $1 for sure ;)
Micronian,
From a narrative point of view, I love this idea. From a gameplay point of view, it makes me nervous. If you give rewards for success that make the players more powerful and give then penalties for failure, you risk a situation where strong groups win-more, and more casual groups could go into a spiral of losing.
As the Weasel said "If there was a practical way to balance/manage/print an idea like this, it could be electric. At a glance, it's a big undertaking, though."
Well, maybe even just alternate scenarios depending on previous outcomes, keeping the power/reward differentials negligible. This could also allow players to progress rather than repeat.
When we lost a character to a falling bell in RotRL AD2, to catch our player's new character up we created an alternate little AD1 adventure called 'Gang Related' that revolved around first working for, and then breaking ties with Jubrayl Vhiski's gang. There was also a sixth scenario that the player could opt to play instead of repeating one of the failed others if that became necessary. The scenario basically involved escaping from the thieve's prison, as you must've been taken prisoner or sumthin'. We laughed when later, somewhere in AD5 or 6, our characters had to escape from being imprisoned with a hand size of 1 to start with, or something like that. Our scenario had some similarities.
Moreover, Micronian's idea could be used for 'alternate approach scenarios'. Imagine that every so often you get to choose if you crash the evil guy's castle with an army, or rather attend his villainous ball in disguises. Even just having that choice would surely be a thrill for the charismazoids. ...Now, only if they could convince their barbarian little brother to go along.
Sorry, developers. I know us player types dream big sometimes...as if it ain't no thing to slap it on a card and ship it to outer space or wher ever. But, you know, it's fun. Probably how you made this game in the first place...
Micronian,
From a narrative point of view, I love this idea. From a gameplay point of view, it makes me nervous. If you give rewards for success that make the players more powerful and give then penalties for failure, you risk a situation where strong groups win-more, and more casual groups could go into a spiral of losing.
As the Weasel said "If there was a practical way to balance/manage/print an idea like this, it could be electric. At a glance, it's a big undertaking, though."
Actually, I can think of a way to make it work. And it plays into the ideas we have been discussing all around the forums about different ideal challenge levels. You can make it so that if a certain bar is hit (maybe it's not success or failure, but maybe a certain number of cards in the blessing deck e.g.) then a group might activate 'hard mode' or 'easy mode' on the next scenario. This would allow different types of groups to play at their level and pace, without feeling like they have to change the game to fit their style. It also allows groups that like higher challenge early and those that like higher challenge late to swap between modes as time went on.
Is it was too much work to be feasible? Of Course! But it's still a cool thought.
...Imagine that every so often you get to choose if you crash the evil guy's castle with an army, or rather attend his villainous ball in disguises.
This would be such a blast, even getting the adventure party to AGREE which path to take would be an epic debate for some groups!
...then a group might activate 'hard mode' or 'easy mode' on the next scenario. This would allow different types of groups to play at their level and pace.
This made me LoL for two reasons...one, it's a great idea and calling it hard mode made me chuckle. Second, the group I play in has a similar homemade rule for when we fail a scenario, which I think we shall now call hard mode :D
IF Scenario = FAILED, THEN:
1) any boons acquired during a failed scenario are returned
2) the blessings deck for the second attempt gets reduced 1d4-1 (added pressure / focus ...helps get some chronic shoppers out of the market and helping to find the bad guy :P )
Great comments all around, nice to have this chat with you guys.
Micronian,
From a narrative point of view, I love this idea. From a gameplay point of view, it makes me nervous. If you give rewards for success that make the players more powerful and give then penalties for failure, you risk a situation where strong groups win-more, and more casual groups could go into a spiral of losing.
As the Weasel said "If there was a practical way to balance/manage/print an idea like this, it could be electric. At a glance, it's a big undertaking, though."
Good point, you definitely don't want people failing on purpose. I think that "MOST" of the time, the reward for a conditional scenario would be the chance to make up the reward you would have gotten for success. This would help mitigate intentional sandbagging. Maybe every so often the reward might be different ...of course passing the "balance" test by the dev team.