| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've run 2 specials as totally non-PFS events as my birthday party, and 2 times for other's birthday parties. Maybe it's just because I was the overseer each time, or that there was 4-2 tables each time, or that I was good friends with everyone there, maybe it's because everything is better with cake, or maybe it's just that I'm a young whippersnapper, but they (especially siege of the diamond city) have been some of the most epic, awesome, and fun RPG experiences I've ever done, and I think basically everyone at those parties would agree with me on that.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've played one special (Siege of Serpents) and GMed 4 of them at local events
Overall what I've noticed is that they tend to be run long to fit into the time allotted to them.
Year of the Shadowlodge This special generally worked out quite well, and we finished encounters in all of the phases of the scenario. Not sure if we lucked out but the table I was at had just finished defeating the end boss when enough successes were reported to end the scenario.
Race for the Runecarved Key Most parts towards the beginning went pretty well. It might be that too much time was given to early parts of this special, or that locally we took too much time doing the actual auction (which was fun, but we might have been better served by a quick tally and summation of the results) but the end was really rushed for the table that I was running. We got done a fair number of the early objectives and the players seemed to have fun with deciding what missions to pursue, but after the fight following the auction there was barely time for the chase and the start of the fight with the key thief before the event was called as being over. (That was probably good because I think the party was about to be murdered by the key-thief in that one)
Siege of Serpents When I played this one, everything at the end was a blur of fights that we started and then got called done for the story to move on, and I don't think we actually even encountered the final fight with the Aspis agents at my table. Our GM tried to give us some explanations, but there were a couple of disruptive and annoying players at our table who would argue with him and generally made the experience pretty bad. My worst table at Paizocon 2015.
When I GMed it, I used what I knew about pacing issues and really didn't let them waste time in the area with the puzzle you need to solve to advance so that at least they could fight the Aspis agents.
Skykey Solution This went pretty well for the table I GMed, but I know lots of people I talked to had issues with pacing things and getting the story conveyed to the players. I did have a couple fights that I wanted more time on get cut off, but overall it went well. My one biggest annoyance with this special was the number of large scale custom maps that I had to draw out and that I will never use again because of how specific they are to this scenario.
So I like that there are a variety of fights that can happen in most parts of the specials. Perhaps if GMs could select what encounters they will be running ahead of time it would ease up on the burden of creating so many custom maps for one of these events. I realize that this takes away a bit of player agency so some folks won't like that but I tend to spend a ton (several hours each) of time making my custom maps.
The specials tend to have a general time budget built into them, but I find that every time, the early parts go towards the long end of what time is allotted and the end parts get squeezed because all of the discretionary time got used up in the early parts. If we could tighten up on the time limits for the early stages of the scenarios and give a bit more time for the climax and finale to play out I think everyone would get better enjoyment of the scenario and a more full understanding of what just happened.
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Newport News
|
To follow up on the thought of cross-table buffing/healing mentioned upthread, could this be worked into the 'aid token' mechanic we've seen in some previous scenarios?
After an encounter, a table could choose to expend healing resources (channels/wand charges/potions) to pass out a healing token, spell slots or magic item charges to pass out a buff token, or leave behind X GP worth of consumables to generate a supply token. The power of a given token would be abstracted between tiers.
Say a 10-11 table must give up 5000Ggp in consumables to generate a supply token, which then becomes 3 potions of cure light wounds when opened by a tier 1-2 table. Conversely, a tier 3-4 table spends 500GP to make a supply token, which the tier 10-11 table opens and gets a scroll of raise dead.
For healing tokens, you could have a 7th-level cleric spend a channel, which becomes a 1st-level cleric's channel when a tier 1-2 table receives it, or a level 3 paladin spends 2 lay on hands, which becomes an 11th-level cleric's channel at the 10-11 table.
For buff tokens, likewise a blessing of fervor might turn into a haste, or bless depending on who activates the token.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2. Cross-table buffing
It sounds cool and interactive, but it can seriously unbalance things at the low tiers. When we played 10-11 at GenCon heroes feast was on the low end of the scale when it came to group buffs we were throwing around. I can picture turning to the 3-4 table beside us and saying "OK, so +2 morale to attacks, damage, skills, and saving throws, +3 competence to attack and damage, and we're about to cast prayer so go ahead and factor that in as well. There will probably be more next round.". . ."Oh yeah, forgot to ask. Does anyone over there worship Sarenrae? If so you've got more buffs to calculate."Deciding where to draw the line is the tough part. There's no way to put every possible situation in the scenario, so some locales would end up having a much easier time than others. I think the aid tokens that high tier tables have given to lower tier tables in past years worked pretty well. But I do think that there was just too much going on in Cosmic Captive to try to work them in as well.
The way they handled this in Grand Convocation was actually pretty simple:
They designated a few area effect buffs (I remember bardic performance and channel to heal), and when a table launched one, the GM (or player) would call out "Channel!" or "Bardic Performance--Inspire courage!" All adjacent tables then took the effect for one round only, adjusted to the appropriate tier. So when the cleric at the 10-11 channeled, the 1-2 table adjacent to them healed 1d6, the 3-4 healed 2d6, etc.I haven't seen the rules for the Grand Convocation, so I don't know which buffs they designated as "shareable" or how that decision was made. As a player, I just remember it being very, very cool.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had a crazy idea this weekend. I was chatting with Boomer and a few others during SkalCon and the reception was...exciting. After chatting with folks about it, then experiencing Cosmic Captive's...drudgery, I feel like it's worth sharing broadly.
Make a special where the theme is "Your Venture-Captains stand with you."
All for Immortality touched on the importance of Seekers taking a position of leadership within the Society. There are literally hundreds of PC Venture-Captains out in the world. After you get your title, you frequently...retire. As far as PFS is concerned, once you've done Eyes and AFI, there's very little to continue doing (notably 2 older specials and that's it) other than moving to sanctioned-but-not-really-Society content.
What I'm proposing here is that a special be written where there are a number of PC Venture-Captain tables (i.e. you must have the boon or have purchased the Pathfinder Lodge vanity) that delegate tasks, coordinate efforts, and occasionally aid tables. I am well aware that this would be a chaotic mess sometimes. Just hear me out a bit longer.
Because of the delegation portion, one item I see that needs to be addressed is providing a rough "ranking" system for the tiers from an in-world perspective - something that the PCVC is going to be able to yell out and have recognized by players. General proposal:
T 1-2: Neophytes
T 3-4: Initiates
T 5-6: Agents
T 7-8: Senior Agents
T 10-11: Aspirants
T 12+: Seekers
This is important because it allows table groupings to be addressed without feeling meta-gamey. Table commands sound more reasonable - i.e. "Initiates! The neophytes have been overrun and require your aid! Go assist them or our line is broken!" or "Aspirants! Provide covering fire for the Seekers as they face this overwhelming threat!" Additional categories may be required based on the tiers covered by the special. For example, if there's a 15+ subtier, that group should be called something else.
Second, in order to facilitate the format, some of the GM roles and mustering should be a bit more...formalized to accommodate the PCVC role. Ideally, GMs would each prepare a specific "path" (such as the water vs earth vs fire line-up of Cosmic Captive) within a specific subtier, reducing overall preparation required. During mustering, players would be encouraged to begin discussing their character selection before getting to the briefing. This allows the players to understand their table's capabilities.
While the tables are mustering, but before they've sat down with a GM, the PCVCs would be briefed on the overall situation. As the mustered groups enter by their "rank" above, a PCVC would discuss their mission and the role they will play overall, present the different options, and have the tables volunteer for a specific path. At this point, they sit down with their table GM and begin. This retains player agency overall (you still pick your path, after all) while bringing PCVC leadership into a spotlight.
Essentially, this table is an in-game Overseer role. While there can (and probably should) be large-scale announcements and NPC statements/actions, the PCVCs would receive reports from the other tables, monitor progress, and occasionally act as "interference" to the situations.
What is "interference," you might ask? The ability for tables to call upon their Venture-Captains, of course! Some limited number of times, a table in trouble can request aid from the Venture-Captains. When this happens, the Venture-Captain can do something to help the table, such as cast a single Standard Action spell, immediately dispatch a single enemy, or remind the team of their training to loan a feat for some period, for example. If a table has completed a section and another table requests aid, sending that team to reinforce and provide some group benefit (i.e. the neophytes distract the foes of the initiates, imparting a -2 penalty on all d20 rolls for the rest of the combat).
Of course not. There comes a time when the Venture-Captains must stand up and have their own battles. If the special is planned for 5 hours, this should take no more than 1.5-2 hours of that time. Still, the purpose here is to make sure that PCs who have ascended to positions of authority have ample opportunity to show off and feel impactful. I would think that the beginning of the special is the best place for this.
This was a crazy car-thought idea while I was returning home to pick something up that I had forgotten to bring with me. It's not fully fleshed out by any standard, but I thought this could be a really interesting way to make a special.
|
ok, a suggestion on "Inter-Table Interaction" (a term I think I just coined).
How about a "puzzle" challenge that you only get 3 of the required 4 parts for, and you get "an extra piece" that actually belongs to the table beside you. Now you arrange the 3 parts to your "mcguffen" and find you are a piece short - and you have a extra bit... how long does it take you to figure out that someone else has your missing piece? How much longer does it take for you to figure you have someone else's? (and here's the kicker) How long does it take you to realize that you need to take your extra piece to another table. NOT just get your "mcguffen" put together, but "Cooperate".
Explore! - Find your cache of broken mcguffen pieces.
Report! - "Hay, we found most of a Blue McGuffen! and this extra Red piece "
Cooperate! - "Hay, who needs a Red McGuffen piece?"
While a nice thought to spur inter-table cooperation, this is NOT viable given the current load-out of Specials.
Aside from the potential 'PvP-Lite' option of "Okay, we're done, now we wait for everyone else to be done and see how long we can drag it out" there's also the prospect of such a Special being run on say, a Saturday night or Sunday morning at GenCon.
At that point, NOBODY is really firing on 'all cylinders'.
Things will get missed, and then everyone will be grumbling because it seemed impossible to accomplish.
"Hey, thanks for thinking it over though."Both WeiJi and I played Serpent's Ire together at PaizoCon and experienced some feeling of cross-purposes between PCs. It was not fun. It did not add to the experience. It actively detracted from it. I felt the same way in the early seasons with faction missions. We threw out the shadow war for Absalom for a reason.
You mean different PCs sitting at the same table? Old shadow war factions at the same table causing friction? If so, you didn't even read my suggestion in the first place.
|
If so, you didn't even read my suggestion in the first place.
I did not. Wei Ji did, and has reason to be against your proposal. The similarities between our table and your proposal are not so far off as you might think, and in any event there is also Race for the Runecarved Key as evidence that your suggestion is ill advised. See Chris' response immediately after.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Hey, thanks for thinking it over though."
You mean different PCs sitting at the same table? Old shadow war factions at the same table causing friction? If so, you didn't even read my suggestion in the first place.
Setting the factions AGAINST each other, even in a passive-aggressive 'make things inconvenient for the other factions' sort of fashion flies directly and painfully opposite the core tenets of the Pathfinder Society, namely Explore, Report, COOPERATE.
In addition, such a scenario might also be very much in violation of current campaign rules, and as such would not be a viable scenario, special or not.
This is based on my experiences from PFS play.
I wasn't around for the apparent pants-on-head time when factions were allowed to 'screw over other characters' on the same mission to 'get their mission done', so I cannot speak to that.
Setting player characters against other player characters in a large format is a recipe for disunity and a breaking of community spirit instead of fostering a greater sense of said community.
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm amazed to hear how many people have a high option of Legacy of the Stonelords. My table was so disgusted with the bait-and-switch nature of it that it really diminished our opinion of Season 5 as a whole, which is quite sad. I guess that really isn't related to how well it ran as an interactive, just the choice of encounters we experienced...
Bait and switch? Can you be more specific? I didn't think the twist was really a "switch," since it doesn't really change too much of how the scenario operates.
The problem I ran into when playing it was a GM with the playtest version of the scenario who didn't realize there was a second half.
Answer is a spoiler:
** spoiler omitted **
Reply in a spoiler:
Thats weird. Its been a while that I played it, but as far as I remember, the first half has some diverse encounters (abandoned complex, duergar interlopers). Only the door to the throne room has constructs. The second half (the get the *bleep* out part), is filled to the brim with demons.
|
|
I'm amazed to hear how many people have a high option of Legacy of the Stonelords. My table was so disgusted with the bait-and-switch nature of it that it really diminished our opinion of Season 5 as a whole, which is quite sad. I guess that really isn't related to how well it ran as an interactive, just the choice of encounters we experienced...
Bait and switch? Can you be more specific? I didn't think the twist was really a "switch," since it doesn't really change too much of how the scenario operates.
The problem I ran into when playing it was a GM with the playtest version of the scenario who didn't realize there was a second half.
Answer is a spoiler:
** spoiler omitted **Reply in a spoiler:
** spoiler omitted **
Expanding on Tineke's reply-
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Well, some of the specials were intended to close off a season. Some were meant to kickstart the next one. And some both.
Start
Year of the Shadow Lodge
Blood Under Absalom
Race for the Runecarved Key
Siege of the Diamond City
Siege of Serpents
The Cosmic Captive
End
The Sky Key Solution
Both
Legacy of the Stonelords
|
|
Well, some of the specials were intended to close off a season. Some were meant to kickstart the next one. And some both.
|
Venture-Agent, Minnesota
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that I noticed is that I'm enjoying running Sky Key Solution via Play-by-Post far more than I have any other special. Part of it is that everyone can understand the overseer announcements, which are printed clearly for all to see. Part of it is that Sky Key Solution contains a mix of combat and RP opportunities. But part of it is surely that I feel less pressed for time in PbP, because my group is mostly keeping to the pace I set, so we've been able to complete all the regular encounters.
Maybe having more time -- or conversely, having less events so that we're not getting frustrated by not finishing -- would be the key to making these specials more special. If we have time to understand, learn, and process, it seems that the story would have far more impact.
Hmm
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe having more time -- or conversely, having less events so that we're not getting frustrated by not finishing -- would be the key to making these specials more special. If we have time to understand, learn, and process, it seems that the story would have far more impact.Hmm
I think that there's a need to reduce combat counts to open up some RP opportunities. With Cosmic Captive, I felt like I was almost constantly rolling dice, except for a brief chummy moment with an efreet. It felt like the worst possible version of the Dwarven Door Game. Exposition -> Combat -> Exposition -> Combat is wearying.
Thinking back to Sky Key Solution, the GM happily backtracked us to the RP section after time had been called for that portion of the adventure because we very quickly addressed the next section and had time to sit while other tables did their thing. I didn't feel quite so crunched for time with Siege of Serpents. Diamond City was very well-paced and, most importantly, the RP parts of the scenario were interspersed nicely - combat seemed to flow more naturally from the situations.
|
|
One thing I would add is high level combat takes more time than low level combat and specials should not be written that you need to get to a certain point to get the story.
Also they shouldn’t be written that combats should end when areas are cleared. This ends up hurting high level tables much more than low level tables. During some specials high level encounters have combat after combat that does not see completion due to areas being cleared
Another thing to make them better is avoid repetitive combats with same types of creatures over and over.
Year of the Shadow Lodge – I have played and run this. The difficulty is too easy with all the current rule adds and you fight the same types of creatures over and over. But this actually works pretty well for a story line. I would add the final encounter should get tougher I had a high level table 1 round the big bad guy 6 straight times.
Blood Under Absalom – I have only played this, and it was when I first started playingbPFS. Not enough info to provide feedback.
Race for the Runecarved Key – Nice job with extra role playing encounters. But too long - runs 7 hours.
Siege of the Diamond City – I have played this twice and really enjoyed it both times. A really different experience depending on the distinct and the tier being played.
Legacy of the Stonelords – I have played, run, and been overseer for this one. Great Special I love the time twist.
Siege of Serpents – I have played and run this, I really think this was also well done.
The Sky Key Solution – I’ve played this one and I have run it twice. This one loses allot of story that doesn’t make it to the players. I’ve heard it from many players they had no idea what was going on. This one suffers at high level tables- and not being able to get through encounters quick enough which adds to the confusion from players about what is going on they simply don’t even get a chance to get to the encounters to find out the information.
Cosmic Captive – Played and run this one. I enjoyed playing it, but knew almost nothing about the story and what was going on. Lots of high level combats got called part way through which was frustrating. When I ran this I was blown away. This was by far and away the toughest scenario I have ever had to prep, many encounters are never reachable, and certain wishes which makes you have to be prepped to move up or down tiers. Way too many complex maps. I know a couple who both purchased all the maps needed for this scenario and it ran them over $250. Other GM’s didn’t want to spend that much and instead spent many hours drawing out the maps. (most never got used). This one also suffers from too complex of a story that often gets lost on many players.
The stories that seem to work best are the simple ones - City attacked by demons, grand lodge attacked, etc.
|
|
I'm amazed to hear how many people have a high opinion of Legacy of the Stonelords. My table was so disgusted with the bait-and-switch nature of it that it really diminished our opinion of Season 5 as a whole, which is quite sad. I guess that really isn't related to how well it ran as an interactive, just the choice of encounters we experienced...
Bait and switch? Can you be more specific? I didn't think the twist was really a "switch," since it doesn't really change too much of how the scenario operates.
The problem I ran into when playing it was a GM with the playtest version of the scenario who didn't realize there was a second half.
Answer is a spoiler:
** spoiler omitted **Reply in a spoiler:
** spoiler omitted **
Expanding on Tineke's reply-
** spoiler omitted **
Answer:
I think it was mostly a matter of context. I'm sure if I played it today I would have a very different reaction to it. But at the time, it was not sold as the beginning of the new season, it was sold as the big epic frontal assault on the demons that we had been working up to all year. Remember that at Gen Con, 5-24 and 5-25 had just debuted, so very few people had any sense of closure to the season yet. (I finally got to play 5-25 just earlier this year.) I think in subsequent years they have done a better job of separating the final adventures of the seasons from the specials so the plot doesn't feel so disjointed.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
Actually, I think TwoWolves may actually be onto something. Not conflict between the tables, (bleh) but more like Paths We Choose. Have people muster by faction, and the 'route' taken plays to the strengths / goals of the factions. Each of the faction routes contributes to some larger goal. Liberty's edge is rescuing people while Exchange ensures the right goods / money happens and Sovereign Court plays distraction to the nobility. Scarab Sages and Dark Archive team up for the same research / artifact goal (since their factions are basically the same anyways) while the Grand Lodge has to coordinate everything and Silver Crusade, idk.
Yes, the prep would probably be large, like with Cosmic Captive, unless the GM knew ahead of time what factions would be at table. But different factions might have more or less fighting in their paths.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem with that idea is you're asking for four to seven different routes. GMs were already complaining about three routes that didn't even run through the whole scenario. Let alone the development cost that preparing four to seven separate scenario tracks in one would be.
|
|
I could see James'idea working potentially, if the "paths" were relatively short. Like, expect to accomplish 3 of 7 in the scenario, also like Paths We Choose. Even doing that as the "middle chunk" of the special.
There are definitely some downsides though. Paths We Choose really was a huge pain to prep. It's a giant scenario, and specials are already huge too. And mustering at smaller conventions would be a nightmare.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could see James'idea working potentially, if the "paths" were relatively short. Like, expect to accomplish 3 of 7 in the scenario, also like Paths We Choose. Even doing that as the "middle chunk" of the special.
There are definitely some downsides though. Paths We Choose really was a huge pain to prep. It's a giant scenario, and specials are already huge too. And mustering at smaller conventions would be a nightmare.
Not to mention the very large potential looming issue if one is the *only person* who plays a given faction for a given area.
Suddenly it goes from 'inclusive' to 'significantly exclusive and possibly discriminatory'.
We're trying to make things 'better', but much like Hilary mentioned further up-thread we should also be looking at the ways we can make GM prep *easier* for a Special while still maintaining the 'sense of amazing' that a 'Special' should have.
Crucial points:
1. LESS MAPS
2. LESS COMBAT
3. MORE NIFTY STUFF
4. MORE MEANING
5. MORE TIME AT HIGH TIER
Can the Specials be written for 3.5 or even 2.5 hours and then the 'remaining time' be filtered in with nifty things, rather than running RIGHT UP against the 4-5 hour point?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I said I'd cover my experiences as a GM and player separately. That was a few days back, let me continue now. This one'll be shorter.
- Siege of Serpents This was the first special I'd run and I was so psyched. Afterwards I felt rather disappointed. There were significant flaws:
- Most enemies were just plain feeble. Sure, I had a table of powergamers, but really, at no point did the monsters even stand a chance of making things scary. The only reason some of them survived to the second round of combat was because they started relatively far off from the party.
- The amount of encounters needed to "win" an area was higher than the number of encounters actually assigned to those areas. There were a couple of "floating" encounters which you could pull, but that means a given party can clear only a single area before you have to start recycling floating encounters. Also, the floating encounters weren't very well-written (seriously, a fight with a gargantuan bird on a 8 x 10 square map?). While being pretty much mandatory encounters, they contributed rather little to the story.
- The amount of encounters needed to score sufficient overall successes was insanely high. Although the encounters themselves were easy, it'll still take a long time and therefore make it hard to actually achieve a good score for the house. That doesn't feel fair.
- Many of the encounters had stupid tactics. Like Flyby monsters in small rooms. Or monsters with lots of battlefield control (which just makes things take longer) but little ability to actually do much to the PCs besides slowing them down.
There were a few nice touches though. Many of the "localized" encounters told part of the story of what was going on. And it's certainly nice to have a special on the grounds of the Grand Lodge itself, meaning you actually get to explore your home base for probably the first time.
Lessons Make sure the math on required successes actually checks out. I can get sooo mad about this when it doesn't, it's just stupid when achieving a good/perfect score on a scenario is impossible due to writer error.
Make sure floating encounters are really meaningful.
Make sure enemies are up to the task of opposing the PCs, but don't indulge in tactics/abilities that slow things down too much. Pick enemies that don't control and are hard to control. And please just forget about that pathetic NPC codex.
- Cosmic Captive This one was a lot more fun to GM. I had a highly optimized group of five players and they took on the high tier Earth path with gusto. Although they could handle it, they did feel properly challenged. I got to use one of the optional encounters too, and that was a really nice finale.
I really dig the story of this special, but the problem is that there's no plan on how to communicate it to the players. Specials aren't like regular adventures where the GM can easily intervene to make sure the story makes it to the players; there's the outside influence of central timing to contend with and all kinds of other disruptions.
In our case I prepared an inaugural speech for Sorrina, both to introduce her to people who haven't played the scenario from whence she came, and as a way to do some name-dropping and put in some teasers for the Cosmic Captive story so that players have a clue about what's going on. I also wrote handouts with in-character statements from various NPCs the players can talk with during the scenario, so that the unfolding of the story through the scenario is enabled a bit more.
There were SO MANY encounters to prepare. Some were lackluster. Some were great. What I do like was that although players could take different routes and those choices were meaningful, at the same time quite a bunch of monsters got "recycled" by using them as part of encounters in multiple areas the players aren't likely to both visit. That way, the GM has to learn fewer monsters, while the players don't get to see many repeat monsters.
I thought the floating encounters were theoretically interesting, and many with cool critters, but rather disconnected from the story.
I did like that the monsters were relatively tough, these combats weren't too easy this time. Although my players did pick the heaviest path, they were also heavy hitters. This opportunity to guide the players to a difficulty setting they enjoy was quite an asset of the scenario.
There were few mass synchronizing moments where PCs might be pulled out of an encounter before they were done. That's good. Cross-table influence was asynchronous but still noticeable.
Lessons Do provide the GM with tools to scale difficulty to the party. Do cleverly re-use monsters in areas the players aren't likely to both visit.
Multiple paths are nice because they provide the players choices, but seek a balance. It's okay for only half of the encounters to be "local" while "roaming" encounters make up the other half. That can help to drastically reduce the number of encounters a GM needs to prepare. But to make sure the roaming encounters are really cool, not filler content. They should advance the main storyline. They're a good way to make sure crucial plot points make it to all the tables, regardless of direction chosen.
A Special needs a Message Plan for how to communicate its story to the players. In many specials this is easy, but Cosmic Captive is grounded on a piece of Golarion lore that's just plain obscure.
Cutting the scenario into only a few "Acts" at the beginning of which tables have to synchronize is a good thing; leave them mostly to do Scenes one after another. There were far fewer people cut off prematurely during Cosmic Captive than during Sky Key Solution or (Aroden forbid) Blood Under Absalom.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, now that I've done all that post-mortem, how would I construct a Special? Without diving too deep into story, here are structural components:
- Three Acts - a short opening (20%), big middle part (50%) and a climactic finale (30%). Everyone has to pause just before Act 1 (VC briefing), at the end of Act 2, and after Act 3 there'll be celebratory speeches.
When Act 2 ends, the overseer signals table GMs to wrap up. At that point they have 5-10 minutes to wrap up the current encounter. Monster HP are suddenly set to single digits, interference "from the other pathfinders" ends various debilitating status effects and battlefield control, and the PCs should be able to win in short order. Taking these extra minutes is far more satisfying than the GM cutting you off. GMs will have a small sidebar in their scenario with some suggestions for flavoring just why Team Monster suddenly got weaker.
- Each act contains a bunch of scenes. Careful attention is paid to the Critical Path of scenes that the PCs need to get through to get from beginning to end of the act. During writing, the scenario writer has to make estimates of how long each scene should last, and the editor will verify that those estimates are realistic. The sum of required scenes should fit in the amount of time allotted for the act, generously. This is all to ensure that players feel that the scenario was actually written to fit inside the slot.
If the PCs receive choices about which direction to take, there should be some clear guideposts. If all that's required is to finish X scenes, fine. If the PCs need to finish either X[1-5] or Y[1-5], then there'll be clear signs that the PCs should keep going in the current direction. (Cosmic Captive is a good example of the latter, Siege of Serpents as well as Siege of the Diamond City were good at the former).
- There is a clear plan of how the story will unfold towards the PCs - when they'll learn what bits of information.
- There'll be a good mix of "local color" and "roaming overall theme" encounters. It takes only about two good encounters to really show off any area at most anyway.
- Altogether, 1 opening encounter, 3-4 encounters in Act 2 and 1-2 in Act 3 is already quite ambitious.
- There'll be nice inter-table things going on, like the way that a table could unlock benefits for all other tables in Cosmic Captive. There'll be handouts explaining to the players what they do.
- Handouts handouts handouts - stuff like the big loot pack of an enemy basically placed there as a resupply point. We don't waste time identifying it, this enemy has thoughtfully placed informative labels on his wands and potions telling which is which, and there's a handout with everything itemized that the GM can just give the players.
When we come to an area where the PCs have to do some puzzle or minigame, handout with the rules. If the rules don't fit nicely on a simple handout, they're probably too convoluted.
- The monster appendix will be even more optimized. It will (as in Cosmic Captive) be sorted by tier; but then it will also be sorted by encounter, so that you don't need to flip back and forth. Statblocks will be fairly verbose, including the text for various unusual abilities so that you really don't need to have any second source next to it to look things up.
Yes, I know that's a lot of work for the editor. But if HE doesn't do it, then EVERYONE ELSE has to do it. Which is silly and error-prone.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It should be noted I have absolutely no respect for page count or ugly chunks of white space on a page. I want every encounter to fit on a single page or on two facing pages, and likewise for statblocks. I hate it when an important paragraph is hiding on the next page.
|
Venture-Agent, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We don't waste time identifying it, this enemy has thoughtfully placed informative labels on his wands and potions telling which is which, and there's a handout with everything itemized that the GM can just give the players.
Quoted so people can favorite this point again!
Really, expediting some of the less interesting things -- like identifying standard items -- could help quite a bit. With something like this, it could have been handled by all those support personnel who were tagging behind the main exploratory forces.
That doesn't mean that you can't have items which are important to the plot which the PCs need to identify. Just make it so the supply drops can be handed out without worrying about such things.
|
|
I do think that the convention special format is not conducive to certain things. I'm running the Sky Key Solution right now via PbP and its a huge difference than when I played in in person. Using the times specified really just forces the group to forget about all of the interesting lore you are exploring because it all shows up at the end of a section... when the announcement is made to stop and move onto part 3! I really think that lore and RP should be frontloaded in these specials if it is as impactful as it usually is.
My rule number 1 for judging a special though is simple. Why are there hundreds of pathfinders here today? If the same story could be told just as effectively with a single table scenario, it really honestly should be. I've played in Blood Under Absalom, Year of the Shadow Lodge, Siege of the Diamond City, Legacy of the Stonelords, the Sky Key Solution, Siege of Serpents, and the Cosmic Captive, and of all of those scenarios, Siege of the Diamond City is the one that I truly felt that my table was a part of something bigger.
Also, page count should be ignored in favor of easing GM prep. Specials are incredibly complex to rummage through as a GM, and from a player perspective, a clunky scenario reflects on the author even if it's due to the GM. The easier the author makes things on the GM, the nicer time the players will have. If that means cutting encounters and monsters, or organizing the appendices differently than they normally would for a scenario, so be it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really, expediting some of the less interesting things -- like identifying standard items -- could help quite a bit. With something like this, it could have been handled by all those support personnel who were tagging behind the main exploratory forces.
That doesn't mean that you can't have items which are important to the plot which the PCs need to identify. Just make it so the supply drops can be handed out without worrying about such things.
Nailed it.
That sounds like a very valid concept.