Review of 2-1: More proxies, please


Pathfinder Adventure Card Society


I played through Season of the Shackles and Season of the Righteous at a game store that ran three tables, and I never heard any complaints about proxies. Still, I know some people did complain, because Tanis said that in response to feedback there would be fewer proxies in Season of the Runelords.

The solution used in 2-1 is a poor one. Using the same henchmen twice, or no henchmen twice, is boring. (Let alone that many of us have played RotR more than once, and know its henchmen well.) I'd much prefer proxies.

Also: why is it too much hassle to refer to the PDF when you encounter a henchman, but not too much hassle to refer to the PDF when you encounter a goblin, which happens more often (when the henchmen are goblins)?

Silver Crusade 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As one of the proponents of fewer proxies, I really, really liked 2-1. I like how it made banes more difficult without adding proxies.

The problem I found with proxies had to do with space at the table and things to remember. If there is one sheet with scenario rules, I can fit that on the table without a problem. If I have to fit a proxy sheet too, it becomes a problem. Also, I always have to read "During this scenario." If I have to also consult a proxy sheet, that's two things instead of one. In my experience, the more things there are to juggle, the more likely one is likely to get lost. YMMV.


Eliandra Giltessan wrote:

As one of the proponents of fewer proxies, I really, really liked 2-1. I like how it made banes more difficult without adding proxies.

The problem I found with proxies had to do with space at the table and things to remember. If there is one sheet with scenario rules, I can fit that on the table without a problem. If I have to fit a proxy sheet too, it becomes a problem. Also, I always have to read "During this scenario." If I have to also consult a proxy sheet, that's two things instead of one. In my experience, the more things there are to juggle, the more likely one is likely to get lost. YMMV.

So if the proxy was on the scenario sheet, it wouldn't be an issue for you?

Silver Crusade 5/5

If there were one proxy on the scenario sheet, if would be less of an issue for me. I did find proxies in SotS less cumbersome for this reason.

Pathfinder ACG Developer

Do you feel that the goblin table did not bring new life and uncertainty to ye olde goblin henchman? I felt like it was, if anything, a feature to use them multiple times since we had the crazy table to go with them.

We'd have done one or two scenarios without henchmen regardless of proxying. It's not that we couldn't put proxies in Small Town Politics or Good with Ketchup. They were purposeful mirroring of an old and familiar scenario in the first case and a new experiment in the second . I'd certainly like feedback on Good with Ketchup and how it went, though. Putting in a barrier henchman that evoked a strafing run by a dragon was certainly a possibility, but I tend to think of OP as a great place to experiment with wackier options.

Grand Lodge Venture-Lieutenant, Pennsylvania—Lancaster aka Theryon Stormrune

I think the goblin table definitely brings new life to the RotR set. As far as proxies, I like having proxies. I prefer to be playing something different than the AP. And the use of proxies allows the OP to have different henchmen and villains.

I personally print them out and sleeve the proxies. That way they become part of the game play and we don't have to look up what the powers are or the difficulty to defeat. What I don't like is when we have to proxy for existing cards that haven't been included in the scenario (like Fiendish Trees in SotRi early on).

I'm liking the way SotRu is going. So far I wouldn't change a thing.


Much like Theryon, I print out the proxy on a sheet, use a role card to add the weight/strength to the print that is also sleeved. I use printed character sheets so the role cards just sit in the box. I found running any of these scenarios (only completed 2-1A-C) quite a joy. My group hated the new goblin d6 roll, for the increase in random "screw you this way, this time bwhahaha" way. They all loved the new skin on the old bones that is RotR. Keep em coming, we all had a blast! I wouldn't find any issue with either more or less proxies. So long as if it's fun!


Eliandra Giltessan wrote:

As one of the proponents of fewer proxies, I really, really liked 2-1. I like how it made banes more difficult without adding proxies.

The problem I found with proxies had to do with space at the table and things to remember. If there is one sheet with scenario rules, I can fit that on the table without a problem. If I have to fit a proxy sheet too, it becomes a problem. Also, I always have to read "During this scenario." If I have to also consult a proxy sheet, that's two things instead of one. In my experience, the more things there are to juggle, the more likely one is likely to get lost. YMMV.

Alternatively, you could print the scenario on one side of the page and print the proxies on the other side of the page, and just flip to the side you need.

Silver Crusade 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are workarounds, it is true. I nonetheless find proxies cumbersome and would prefer to have fewer of them. I think the number in 2-1 is about right. I know some people prefer more of them.

Silver Crusade 5/5 ⦵⦵

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Keith Richmond wrote:
I'd certainly like feedback on Good with Ketchup and how it went, though. Putting in a barrier henchman that evoked a strafing run by a dragon was certainly a possibility, but I tend to think of OP as a great place to experiment with wackier options.

I was part of a convention this last weekend that had one table go through "Good with Ketchup". I noted that, in the case of 2, 3 or 6 players, you're always going to have the same person encounter the dragon. My poor Meliski was the designated dragon fodder.

You will also be granted additional turns, over and above the 30 turns normally associated with the Blessings deck.

Spoiler:

RAW, once you encounter Black Fang, you place him five spaces down. I question whether the intent was that you then flip the next Blessing from the pile (which wasn't indicated in the scenario rules)- hence the following sequences occurring:

2 players:
1..2..1..2..1..(dragon)..1..2..1..2..1..(dragon)

3 players:
1..2..3..1..2..(dragon)..1..2..3..1..2..(dragon)

4 players:
1..2..3..4..1..(dragon)..3..4..1..2..3..(dragon)

5 players:
1..2..3..4..5..(dragon)..2..3..4..5..1..(dragon)

6 players:
1..2..3..4..5..(dragon)..1..2..3..4..5..(dragon)

-- S.

Adventure Card Game Designer

No, it's designed so you can strategize who gets the dragon, and plan turn order accordingly.

Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Adventure Card Society / Review of 2-1: More proxies, please All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Adventure Card Society