|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To whom it may concern;
In PF2, we have a chance and a choice to move past binary distinctions in completion of Scenarios.
Could we PLEASE have scenarios that are not hard-coded 'This or That' type solutions to morally grey considerations like:
and actually allow for agency of the characters to address the scenario via Creative Means?
I understand that sometimes to writing up the tough choices that Pathfinders have to make is a neat literary goal, but having such exclusive and mandatory decisions leaves a very rotten feeling in one's gut and makes the game not-fun, especially if a table is divided on the course that MUST happen.
It effectively encourages passive-aggressive PvP -- not with actions, but with words when boiled to the barest of bones.
Thank you very much for your time in advance!
Organized Play Lead Developer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that’s going to vary based on the scenario.
Sometimes it’s possible to write encounters that anticipate 2–5 broad approaches, coach a GM on how to handle a variety of PC strategies (e.g. Choice A, Choice B, proposing an alternative Choice C, or non-Choice D that involves non-violent trickery) and then make a call to adjudicate the way the story evolves based on which of those written outcomes best matches the PCs’ actions. The same can be true for Reporting Conditions. Likewise, there are ways—often fairly involved—to create very open-ended encounters that are very flexible in how they handle creative solutions.
At other times, a this-or-that choice is what best fits the story.
The Stolen Heir is a major example of this type of A-or-B choice. In retrospect, it could have stood to have a stronger release valve for alternative choices, though I still think of the scenario fondly for just how tough the final choice can be. No-win dilemmas might not always be fun, but in some cases (and in moderation) they’re good for narrative.
Red Harvest wasn’t one I developed, but I did find it took pains to provide alternatives to choosing one side or another, including outright theft. This scenario is a good example of where a handful of options is the primary solution because every additional option expands the writing footprint.
For Beacon Below, we’re looking at a very closed system (dungeon) in which only a few NPCs exist in the first place. Needing to work with one of these two flawed individuals mostly fits based on the story and setting, but the scenario could have stood to have a little more wiggle room to head upstairs and harrangue Tahonikepsu’s acolytes for help or somehow power through the sage jewel creation process without assistance (might have accounted for the latter—been a while). The point I’d make here, though, is that flawed characters are sometimes going to be the gatekeepers for what the PCs want, and those situations make for memorable encounters that typically include a “Well, we could just stab everyone” option.
Finally, The Cindersworn Pact’s Exchange missions represented some of the most choice we've built into faction missions, and I’m not sure how much more choice we could have included there without overwhelming the rest of the scenario and its content. This scenario represents one of the difficulties in presenting Exchange content, as faction goals that cleave to Aaqir’s or Guaril’s particular brand of commerce tends to upset the other side. What I really appreciate about this one is how nicely it said “I don’t know, how do you want to accomplish this?” What would you have had us do here to provide more flexibility?
Looking back, I can see ways we might have improved some scenarios, and looking ahead, I know there strategies that we’ve picked up to build in more player choice (rather than simply allowing for it through the Creative Solutions callout). Within that greater understanding of adventure design, morally gray choices (occasionally including clearcut choices) remain one of many options in our narrative toolkit. I don’t anticipate their being removed entirely, but examining how we use them and when is something we can do.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To riff off what John has said...
Another issue is, "how do you ensure that any lasting campaign implications are impacted by 'creative choice'?" One of my favorite instances regarded a choice of 3 discreet options in Where Mammoths Dare Not Tread and later in that same season we got to see what the choice ended up being in Sundered Gate.
But to allow in that situation a "creative solution" how do they A) compile those creative solutions in a timely, easy to manage way? B) which special solution do they actually choose out of potentially tens, hundreds, or thousands of submissions? This is the problem with an organized campaign, in that you can't allow for campaign cannon to include special solutions without some sort of special circumstance (the Sages end game scenario?)
The main thing that I would ask, is make sure that significant choices get realized sooner rather than later. In this case the time difference between Where Mammoths Dare Not Tread and Sundered Gate was about 3 months I think. The scope of season 5, with the building toward war, really made this timing feel like our individual play-through's had real time impact on the campaign. This made the campaign feel like a living campaign. This is what I think should be strived for. But in other situations we don't see resolution until a season or two later (Valais anyone?) In some cases, resolution doesn't happen for several seasons.
So my hope is that significant choices have a planned resolution time-frame that is within a window that characters could actually play in that resolution scenario. I have had several characters that were well into seeker levels not able to play in scenarios that would have been impactful for them, because 3 seasons later the follow up was another 1-5 or 3-7.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main thing that I would ask, is make sure that significant choices get realized sooner rather than later. In this case the time difference between Where Mammoths Dare Not Tread and Sundered Gate was about 3 months I think. The scope of season 5, with the building toward war, really made this timing feel like our individual play-through's had real time impact on the campaign. This made the campaign feel like a living campaign. This is what I think should be strived for. But in other situations we don't see resolution until a season or two later (Valais anyone?) In some cases, resolution doesn't happen for several seasons.
So my hope is that significant choices have a planned resolution time-frame that is within a window that characters could actually play in that resolution scenario. I have had several characters that were well into seeker levels not able to play in scenarios that would have been impactful for them, because 3 seasons later the follow up was another 1-5 or 3-7.
This.
While I like the "comics continuity" take on how events with one cohort of PCs are impacted by events with another cohort of PCs, it's sad to see plot lines my PC may have a serious investment in (Like Valais or 322) not resolve for years and bounce down to a lower tier than it first showed up in.
I know not all plot threads can get planned follow up right away. Sometime, the devs won't realize a particular NPC or event was so cherished until years after the scenario came out. Others (i.e. Torch) are just too big and too long term by design to ever accomodate this. But for some of the examples given here (Valais & 322), these were pretty clearly setup to be ongoing plots that can be resolved in 4-6 scenarios.
|
|
John, thank you for responding so quickly given all the other things on your plate with a detailed message.
You've hit the crux of the matter on the head.
That is part of the nature of the request.
Having a smidgen of experience with a different campaign where things were a *lot* more fluid with player agency, I can safely say that PFS does a much better job of 'managing the outlier'.
When enough of a campaign decides to exercise the 'Sanjaya Malakar' approach it can REALLY disrupt a campaign and cause lasting damage to the extended narrative.
To balance the agency of player characters vs. the extended narrative is an incredibly difficult task, and thanks are in order for the continued refinement of the process as lessons both good and ill are learned from it.
Would like to echo the other sentiment brought up -- could we please have an evaluation of 'follow-up' tales to have them appear in a timely fashion such that a character could follow them as an entire narrative arc, without having to do scenario sudoku to figure out the path to getting it?
|
Organized Play Lead Developer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The timing of follow-up storylines is certainly something we'll be examining in Second Edition. There's more we can learn from Starfinder Society on that front, which has benefited from interconnected plot lines.
The counterpoint is that there's a ton for us to explore in the Inner Sea region alone, to say nothing of the continents and planes beyond. This sets up the often-at-odds dynamic of focusing on a particular handful of storylines in a season or maximizing scenario variety (geographically, thematically, and narratively). Particularly in a new edition, I expect there will be a lot of interest in seeing what's happening in myriad places. The more we do that, though, the less we're likely to follow up on any one storyline within the following couple months.
So nothing's locked in on that front; we're still in the earliest stages of assigning Season 10. It's just a conversation we'll be having to hit that right balance.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Totally understood. I'm just hoping that when you purposefully create an impactful choice, like in some of the examples above, that you write into the season outline the resolution scenario. I'm other words, the choice to follow up such a choice would happen in the planning stages.
Obviously, I get that you can't always guess which NPCs are going to be favorite friends or foils.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Totally understood. I'm just hoping that when you purposefully create an impactful choice, like in some of the examples above, that you write into the season outline the resolution scenario. I'm other words, the choice to follow up such a choice would happen in the planning stages.
Obviously, I get that you can't always guess which NPCs are going to be favorite friends or foils.
If you have the follow-up scenario too soon, only those few people who get to play it soon after release get to have their choices matter for the follow-up.
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Appalachia
|
I agree with John and Michael that there can be very good reasons for delaying resolution or the revelation of certain choices.
Maybe the scenario didn't land, maybe they didn't want to create a rush to play certain scenarios with certain characters (the Scarab Sages crunch from the time Salvation of the Sages was announced was in its own way pretty fun, its not something that should be routine), but I would like to see more of the kind of follow ups to be appropriate for characters that may have played the previous adventure - I am thinking of Black Waters and School of Spirits both being 1-5 and 6 years apart.
A and B morality choices I think are pretty fun - but some players respond really negatively to it.
|
|
When it's hard-written that no matter what you do, you MUST make a choice when you have characters that are very much about finding the 'middle' option, it's beyond frustrating.
On the same token, having some experience with the creative side for a smaller orgplay, I understand why things have to be drawn down to simpler choices.
If the 'rails' are hidden, and one decision or the other *logically* stems from player interaction with the scenario in an A/B sort of choice, that's one thing.
When it's kind of hanging out there and "Neither one of these sides is right (and neither one is wrong), but you have to pick one and eliminate the other to advance the scenario, pick one, even though it's against everything the Society AND your faction would endorse" that's where the issue comes up.
These have not been as prevalent in later seasons, thankfully.