|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't have any questions or feedback at this time.
I made a half-page handout for exploration group activities, with each terrain type from the scenario included. I also included Vantage Point and Subsist DCs for each terrain type where relevant. Finally, I converted the base exploration rules into another half-page handout.
These assets are on PFS Prep.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
Looking for a second opinion on this bit of information.
About an hour after Star is reactivated (see area G), they automatically and unknowingly send out a dampening signal that scrambles the remaining signals, preventing the PCs from locating any unexplored sites to finish the Grand Archive objective
and then
17 to 25 days: Sounrel reached Star first and reactivated them using the second dagger before noticing the PC's approaching the area.
26 or more days: Sounrel has not only activate Star, etc
Does this mean, they have 17 days to complete the Grand Archive mission, 26 days?
I am going the 26 day limit to get it done.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GM’d this last night. A couple thoughts:
Random Choice Can make the Grand Archive Mission Auto-Fail
Once two of the three sources of interference in locations D, E, and F have been disabled or destroyed, the dagger also points towards location G, following the above rules
About an hour after Star is reactivated (see area G), they automatically and unknowingly send out a dampening signal that scrambles the remaining signals, preventing the PCs from locating any unexplored sites to finish the Grand Archive objective.
My group got 2/3 locations then ended up going to Star first. In fact, I believe that most groups will beeline diagonally across the map (it’s the most efficient route, and also we all know these scenarios usually put the objective as far away as possible). By my reading, this prevented them from completing their mission and lost them the bonus faction goal.
They didn’t seem to mind too much, but there was grumbling as they already sank extra days into carefully preserving the artifacts, which also made the final combat a bit more challenging. (If I adjudicated this incorrectly please let me know.)
Length
This one really needs a 5-hour slot. The elemental encounter took an hour and really walloped ‘em. I skipped scorpions altogether, and the quicksand.
We simply did NOT have time.
As with 4-03 I would like to reiterate that some of us have hard stops on weeknights and it would be nice to see some of these scenarios trend back down to the 4-hour mark instead of against the 5-hour mark.
Do we Need the Bookkeeping?
Even with the difficult terrain, etc, it seemed like there were plenty of supplies. (Is there anything in the scenario preventing PCs from using the supplies they already have on their sheets from before the scenario? I noted nothing about that and therefore allowed PCs to use those food/water supplies too.) Also, I assume the most important component of supplies is water, so a leshy for example doesn’t actually help the group spread rations out.
Generally, with PFS scenarios it feels like these mechanical components are unnecessary, as there is almost no realistic chance of the PCs running out of time. On top of this, many parties will have access to create food/water and the like and therefore do not need to even worry much about rations if the player uses the spell.
I didn't mind tracking days as there is terrain to cope with as well as a race to the goal; there is narrative importance there already. The ration minigame just seemed unnecessary and less fun because players couldn't even use their abilities to subsist half the time. Maybe other groups will have a different experience
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ran this game for my group yesterday.
We were at 30 Challenge Points and party comp was 2 fighters, an inventor, a rogue, an alchemist and a warpriest cleric.
Resources-Was a non factor. Cleric prepped Create Water and Create Food.
Hexploration-Slowest party member was 25 and which is one travel activity a day. As all but three hexes were difficult terrain, moving through the desert was very slow going. Luckily the PC's made their checks in the rocky desert terrain to get the discount on the recon activity.
Faction Missions-16 days for Vigilant Seal is no very feasible. You would pretty much have to make a b line for the ruins, destroy them and hope that you pick the right route.
Then for the Grand Archive, you have to hit all three ruins and manage to study or deactivate them with in 27 days, which is when Star sends out a pulse over powering the other signals. More doable than Vigilant Seal.
That being said, my group could not complete either.
Treasure Bundles-ended up getting 9 out of 10 since we did not meet the merchants in the far oasis or the the 3rd ruin.
Combats-Were actually challenging this time. Which was a change of pace from the first couple of scenarios this season.
Time-This one is definitely a 5 hour slot. Even with out meeting the merchants in the second oasis, not hitting one of the variable encounters, not exploring the third ruin, and handwaving 2 combats early, we were still close to 4 hours.
|
|
Can the players buy mounts at the Wellspring to help increase their travel speed? The scenario does not mention what resources are available at camp other than saying that additional water is not available.
As sort of a sidebar, I would imagine for many groups travel speed is going to be much more important than the resource management since at this level anyone with a cleric or druid in the party can create food and water everyday.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can’t we get more supplies/we can carry more supplies?
“Even with your capability to carry more supplies, this is all we have. While the Wellspring has more than enough water, the oasis does not provide enough food for our people here, and we are loathe to strip it of plant life. All our food is imported from Aspenthar. Should you run low on supplies, we expect the next big food delivery in ten days. You can restock then.”
I have my own mount/beast of burden to carry the supplies.
“Excellent! Saves one more resource for the camp. I’ll ask for someone to transfer the supplies.”
It seems supplies are scarce out there. I inferred that there would be no extra animals (pack or otherwise) at the base camp.
|
Hi all,
How did you interpret this one, since the editing in the scenario seems to be slightly disappointing.
Encounter D:
To disable the signal, the crystals can simply be smashed
Disabling the signal without damaging it requires a successful DC 18 Crafting, Thievery or Perception check (DC 20 for levels 5–6) to remove the correct wires without damaging them and to make the panel go dormant without burning through the remaining wires
The PCs achieve Zarta’s mission for this location if they either successfully study or disable the signal
I'm assuming the first entry should say "destroy" instead of "disable", and only the latter helps to fulfill Zarta's mission, right?
Edit: Same question applies for encounters E and F, I see.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
Correct on your assumption.
I personally like, and used, "to disrupt the signal"
When explaining it to my players, I gave them tWo options to stop the signal. Either destroy the thing causing it or finding a gentle way of disabling it.
It didn't happen at my table, but would also grant them credit if they studied it and then decided to break it, if they couldn't disable. Mainly because of the "or" hidden in there.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, here's my post-mortem: All in all I enjoyed running this, and my players had fun.
Experience:
- My party quickly understood how to triangulate; That was nice
- There was some grumbling with regards to the foraging system. Only halfway through did it become clear that you forage either for food or for water; It doesn't seem to be possible to do both at the same time. Understandable, but it makes the foraging feel useless since you need both to account for a ration. Additionally it makes tracking the resources tedious
- Somehow my party decided on the 'disable' approach in the first location they came across, but at the second they changed to 'destroy' because they were afraid due to being low on rations. This meant they could complete neither the GA nor the VS faction goal. Somehow it has to be clear to the party that they need to do either one or the other
- There was some disappointment as to the somewhat low treasure the party got. They didn't go to the oasis or location D (-1). In addition they went for E, F and G, accidentally avoiding all Arid Desert hexes after having had their first fixed location, which made them miss out on encounter B (-2). This totaled for 7 treasure bundles
Confusion on my side:
- It's mentioned on page 10 that an hour after reactivation, Star sends a pulse that scrambles all remaining signals. By that logic, if the PC's have not completed their goal on day 16, they wouldn't be able to locate the remaining ruins anymore because on day 17 has activated Star. It feels like this is not intended; Am I missing something? Or is this simply an abstraction to have team PC and team NPC arrive nearly at the same time counting only the time the party took to get there?
- The reporting screen displayed that this scenario was re-playable, but I didn't see that tag anywhere. Bug?
General feedback:
- I did enjoy the flavor of the scenario. The locations came across scary and unique, and I got the impressions my players seemed to agree
- I loved the additional pieces of lore included in the scenario (setting up a tent, the weird locations in the desert, etc.)
- I enjoyed running the combats, although fighting earth elementals in sand can take forever. Secondly, the mooks in the final battle were utterly useless: Credit to my players, because tactically they did it right, but at 14 CP the automatons needed to roll a 15+ to hit the lower AC PC's with their first attack (lvl4-5 party)
- I'm a fan of haunts, because the players can experience the story of what happened. I would have enjoyed a little bit more description about what happened. It was a bit bare bones for that
- As commented by others: Create Water and Create Food simply break the supplies mini-game. This kind of survival journey really only works for level 1-4 scenario's, because that is the only level range where a party will feel the cost in spell slots. As soon as you have a level 5 spell caster in the party, this is not really an issue anymore
- Either the map is too big, or the speed vs activities per day ratio is way too steep. Higher level characters are slightly more likely to have reliable access to a level 2 Longstrider or a similar benefit, resulting in a higher chance to have a speed of 30+. But for level 3-4 characters this very unlikely, since 25ft seems to be the norm. You need to know almost exactly where you're going and to have the right party composition to achieve the VS goal
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
Confusion on my side:
- It's mentioned on page 10 that an hour after reactivation, Star sends a pulse that scrambles all remaining signals. By that logic, if the PC's have not completed their goal on day 16, they wouldn't be able to locate the remaining ruins anymore because on day 17 has activated Star. It feels like this is not intended; Am I missing something? Or is this simply an abstraction to have team PC and team NPC arrive nearly at the same time counting only the time the party took to get there?
- The reporting screen displayed that this scenario was re-playable, but I didn't see that tag anywhere. Bug?
Hmm? I actually like how you are thinking about this. I originally thought that if they took more than 26 days, they would have missed out.
But maybe both teams arrive around the same time...may have to run it this way of I were to run it again.
When I ran this, I assumed the group would need to reconnoiter hexes D, E, F, and G to find the place of interest. Is this correct, or did I missing something?
That is how I understood it.
Venture-Agent, Michigan—Detroit
|
When I ran this, I assumed the group would need to reconnoiter hexes D, E, F, and G to find the place of interest. Is this correct, or did I missing something?That is how I understood it.
Thanks, that really makes the Vigilant Seal faction mission harder -- at least 6 days of your 16 spent reconnoitering.
|
Is it possible to complete *both* Zarta and Eando Cline's missions?
With the right spells or with a high enough speed, one could have 3 exploration activities a day, and could reach and reconnoiter all the relevant hexes in ~13 days (assuming you could make the relevant rolls successfully.) You would need to disable the signaling devices.
It would be hard mode for sure. But theoretically it could be done?
|
Venture-Agent, Ohio—Columbus
|
I've seen mention of encouraging the PCs to purchase mounts for this...but seeing how the Society doesn't even have spare food to sell the PCs and if you mention that you have your own mount they foist the supplies onto it and take back the dromedary they're providing, seems pretty unlikely they'd have mounts to sell them. Both of these things I'm pulling from the question and answer portion of the briefing.
Have other GMs been allowing the purchase of mounts? As written, it doesn't make sense to me they would be available. But as written, this scenario is already quite punishing, especially for low tier where most PCs will still have a speed of 25.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree: the scenario seems explicitly set up to not have spare horses of food resources to purchase after the briefing/once the PCs know what's going on.
Which is my biggest problem with this scenario: it's main mechanical 'gimmick' is a 'Gotcha' for the PCs, and gives them no method to take steps to improve their ability to use the hexploration mechanic once they're 'locked in' to playing it. When playing I had a party where 5 characters all had 30+ feet of movement. Doesn't matter: none of our resources or options could speed up the 25-footer (we even had a longstrider wand on hand! But that 'slow' PC couldn't activate it...)
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is my biggest problem with this scenario: it's main mechanical 'gimmick' is a 'Gotcha' for the PCs, and gives them no method to take steps to improve their ability to use the hexploration mechanic once they're 'locked in' to playing it. When playing I had a party where 5 characters all had 30+ feet of movement. Doesn't matter: none of our resources or options could speed up the 25-footer (we even had a longstrider wand on hand! But that 'slow' PC couldn't activate it...)
I do not see this as a "gotcha" moment.
Is it difficult? yes.
Is it frustrating? yes.
I do not think it was the intention to "get" anyone.
Sometimes supplies are scarce and you do not know what you are getting into. ie. lack of horses and supplies. The blurb does say you are sent to explore a desert and find a something at an unknown location. IMO expect a harsh environment and pick one of your agents that is best suited for desert travel if you have one. If not suited, you're gonna have a rough time.
|
Venture-Agent, Ohio—Columbus
|
I have not allowed it; I mentioned my reasoning above.
Wow, completely missed that post.
Anyway, before they left Absalom I had some veteran Pathfinders recommend the slower party members get mounts in Aspenthar.As anticipated I had a low tier party, and two of the four had 25’ movement. As it was they found Star on day 15 without visiting a third ruin site or the western oasis (which cost them a treasure bundle). I was not going to spring this “gotcha” on my players without giving them the chance to buy a mount.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As anticipated I had a low tier party, and two of the four had 25’ movement. As it was they found Star on day 15 without visiting a third ruin site or the western oasis (which cost them a treasure bundle). I was not going to spring this “gotcha” on my players without giving them the chance to buy a mount.
My group also didn't secure that TB.
I did remind them that scenarios are designed to award 8 treasure bundles. The other 2 are bonuses.
So they still came out ahead with 9/10.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is my biggest problem with this scenario: it's main mechanical 'gimmick' is a 'Gotcha' for the PCs, and gives them no method to take steps to improve their ability to use the hexploration mechanic once they're 'locked in' to playing it. When playing I had a party where 5 characters all had 30+ feet of movement. Doesn't matter: none of our resources or options could speed up the 25-footer (we even had a longstrider wand on hand! But that 'slow' PC couldn't activate it...)I do not see this as a "gotcha" moment.
Is it difficult? yes.
Is it frustrating? yes.
I do not think it was the intention to "get" anyone.
Sometimes supplies are scarce and you do not know what you are getting into. ie. lack of horses and supplies. The blurb does say you are sent to explore a desert and find a something at an unknown location. IMO expect a harsh environment and pick one of your agents that is best suited for desert travel if you have one. If not suited, you're gonna have a rough time.
Fair, perhaps I should have clarified a bit more.
I don't think hexploration is 'gotcha' by itself. My criticism about its use in this scenario is that once you learn what your mission is, almost all of the ways a party could try to improve themselves to better interact with that mechanic are cut off. You have to not only know going into the mission that it's hexploration*, but also that you won't be able to purchase anything once you've started the scenario and actually learned what you're doing.
The scenario did not have to be this way - it literally begins "They [the PCs] recently traveled to the Thuvian city-state of Aspenthar" and there is no reason that when summoning these specific 4-6 agents Eando Kline could not have mentioned there'd be long travel involved and horses/camels are scarce at the camp and should be picked up in the capital if wanted.
* While the blurb does mention exploring a desert, I know a lot of players often try to avoid reading scenario blurbs prior to playing, since those blurbs can often give significant spoilers for plot things within the scenario. And here, even if they did there's no 'hexploration' tag on it like its previous appearance (2-14) had.
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Length
This one really needs a 5-hour slot. The elemental encounter took an hour and really walloped ‘em. I skipped scorpions altogether, and the quicksand.
We simply did NOT have time.
As with 4-03 I would like to reiterate that some of us have hard stops on weeknights and it would be nice to see some of these scenarios trend back down to the 4-hour mark instead of against the 5-hour mark.
Thanks for noting this. It meant that I skipped it for Dreamers, where because the venue closes at 10pm, we have a 3.5 hour slot. I can usually run fairly quickly and finish on time for most four hour scenarios, but have to skip anything that runs long like this one.
Hmm
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is a gotcha. If players read the blurb and catch that speed is of essence, they can purchase mounts before scenario begins.
It is also a gotcha because a relatively small difference in speed (25vs30) results in outrageously big penalty/bonus: just 5ft more gives DOUBLE actions.
It's also a gotcha because it penalises new players. If you've already played a hexploration before (year 2 for example had one) you'd know how critical that 25vs30 is.
It's also a gotcha because society KNOWS they are sending you to a time sensitive mission and the player might know it too if they read the blurb but if not, it's sprung on the players at a moment when they can no longer make purchases. The scenario COULD just as well begin in the city, with GM asking for final purchases before you begin a travel to the base camp, warning that there might not be a chance to make further purchases.
Indeed, a player might have thought about purchasing a horse but might wait until briefing because usually you get to say what you want to purchase at that point, only to get "oh, adventure begins with you already in the desert".
As a GM, at minimum I'd tell the blurb to players and ask them to make purchases, starting the scenario when they are ready.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whats being described is a great deal of disconnect between the game as seen from in character and the game as seen from out of character. It's more than a little immersion breaking if the reason you can't buy horses is because the game started in an area where you can't get horses but your characters started in an area where you could.
Venture-Lieutenant, Ohio—Toledo
|
This is definitely a gotcha, for all of the reasons described above. As a GM, would you pull something like this on your players in a home game or AP? Of course not, and you shouldn't do it here either.
The best GMs do all they can to facilitate fun for everyone else at the table. Removing player agency to all but ensure that they miss out on loot isn't fun for anyone.
|
|
This is definitely a gotcha, for all of the reasons described above. As a GM, would you pull something like this on your players in a home game or AP? Of course not, and you shouldn't do it here either.
The best GMs do all they can to facilitate fun for everyone else at the table. Removing player agency to all but ensure that they miss out on loot isn't fun for anyone.
Interesting. I didn’t read the mounts issue as a “gotcha” at all; in a desert, there are scarce resources; even traveling there was probably challenging, and bringing more mounts to water and feed even more so. The scenario says there is not even enough food at the oasis for the people who are there now.
I straight-up asked my players to accept the scenario as written, framing it more like a challenge of limited resources to cope with. I think it helped set the tone. In the end, my table was fine missing a few bundles.
PFS is railroady. It scratches a different itch than a home game and sometimes there are conceits we need to accept as players / GMs. I don't think it's the end of the world. As a player, missing bundles isn’t the end of the world for me either. The expectation is 10 (and yeah the official byline is 8 but we all know that's bullshit, everyone expects 10), but once in a while its fine to get 7 or 8.
|
|
Removing player agency in order to keep people on the railroad is something I have to preach is NOT part if PFS, because that is a fun sponge to gamers and also NOT a requirement to be PFS.
I agree with this statement in general. But the scenario is what it is.
A limitation like "no mounts available for purchase out in the remote desert" does not necessarily equal "removing player agency." It's part of the setting where food and water is scarce. (Again, the scenario literally says there are not enough resources for the creatures who're already at the oasis.)
Sometimes cooler more creative things happen when one's options are limited (and in my humble opinion, "My PC buys a mount because I read the blurb ahead of time" is not a cool or creative solution — as I read it, PCs do not seem to know why are going to the oasis which is also an archaeological site and ruin.)
Personally, I think resource scarcity like lack of mounts could have made for a more interesting problem to solve, but unfortunately, the scenario just doesn't really offer any way to do that. So in the end we're left with bad feelings.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A limitation like "no mounts available for purchase out in the remote desert" does not necessarily equal "removing player agency."
But starting in medias res does, because your character was given a mission in absolom, walked down the dock passed the worlds largest market, got on a boat, got off the boat somewhere that probably had a market, then walked out into the desert. That *insert tape recorder fast forwarding noise here* skipping those parts narratively prevents your character from acting, which IS removing agency. It's also doing so in such a way that makes your character seem outright incompetent, which rankles even worse. Or the old "the boss didn't tell you what your job was before you got there" bit.
There are ways to set this up that don't do that. We're teleporting you in now and we're not paying a high enough level wizard to take your purchased mounts. The first fight involves a lizard spitting a nasty aoe sandblast and the horse is more calories than you are etc.
If you can expect creativity from players dealing with a situation you can expect creativity to get characters into that situation in the first place.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On that I agree: limiting options could lead to interesting choices, but as written the hexploration mechanic they chose to use here is extremely binary: you either have mounts (or at as low as 3rd level an entire party with speeds 5-10ft faster than the norm) or you have half the exploration action of those who do.
My big issue is that it makes the in-world Society leadership look listless and bad at their jobs. Eando Kline's on the ground there, he knows exactly how strained the camp's resources, he's also the very person telling you "you need to find this as fast as possible". Him not mentioning this (via message or letter - the PCs were explicitly traveling there based on a mission summons anyway) before the PCs got to a remote place there was nothing to purchase may not remove player agency, but it certainly removes Society Competence.
--
To try and move to a different topic/discussion, I appreciated how the three 'disruptive signal' transmitters were each a different sort of station, with their own challenges. The 2-3 days of moniotring each for Zarta's goal seems a bit much though.
Quicksand keeps being used as a hazard, but I have yet to find it ever an interesting one and not just something that wastes time and rolls with no real danger.
Ran this on low tier but then played on high. high tier an enemy with invisibility and a gun is quite the terrifying combo! We never seemed close to catastrophe in retrospect, but it certainly felt very dangerous the whole time.
This is now the second hexploration scenario where every single hex was difficult terrain, requiring two actions to move through. I know its tricky because the areas remote enough to be undetailed and need hexploration are the ones in world most likely to be rugged, but if every possible hex is slow to go through then it makes it seem more dull than it could be the choices of which direction to head in feel less important.
|
|
These are valid complaints about the scenario. Also valid for a gm to rule that players cannot buy a mount if they don’t show up with one.
If you are looking for realism (eg squaring the circle on traveling there but also starting media res), then I hate to break it to you but Pathfinder isn’t a super realistic game. We all have to suspend disbelief.
I’m probably more permissive / cooperative than most; I let players know ahead when its an all underwater scenario for example. In this case it wasn’t that big of a deal to me or the players and everyone bought in on the conceit of the challenge. The crunch I saw was the lost sites due to search patterns and the signals getting shut down, which is a bigger problem.
If a player was going to have their whole night ruined and wanted to retcon a mount its not the hill I’d die on as a GM. And if new, for sure. Some other groups are willing to accept that they might not be perfectly equipped and still have fun even if they don’t win every time. Context matters.
But perhaps on the flip side, slow PCs played by experienced players could think of ways to show up prepared and able solve common problems instead of expecting GMs to let them retcon purchases.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another option is to always have the VC give players mounts and balance for that move speed. Make everyone the same across the board (except monks). I mean if you let the 20’ move pcs retcon mounts everyone else gets to anyway. Developers can balance around that assumption instead.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These are valid complaints about the scenario. Also valid for a gm to rule that players cannot buy a mount if they don’t show up with one.
Put those together and you have removed player agency. Make an argument for removing player agency if you must, but don't pretend you haven't removed player agency because you think you have good reasons to remove player agency.
It is not a ret con unless the DM spins the hourglass forward on the players. If you can spin it forward you can wind it back or pause it.
If you are looking for realism (eg squaring the circle on traveling there but also starting media res), then I hate to break it to you but Pathfinder isn’t a super realistic game. We all have to suspend disbelief.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the game. The pathfinder rules and setting would not change one wit if the scenario started in an office "Good mid morning. Here's some brunch. i need you to head down to..." and the adventure started there.
That's whats annoying people. They're being shafted by narrative focus that they can't react to rather than anything in game that they can.
As to the larger picture, yes we have to suspend our disbelief when it comes to the fact that someone can chuck a fireball from their fingertips or tell the laws of conservation of energy to take a hike by turning into a 14 pound fox. That does NOT mean that we have to suspend our disbelief and make the entire world into a static one dimensional backdrop to keep the characters from engaging in the universe where they reside.
That is many players impression of pfs, and that is why a lot of them will not try pfs. It is not how pfs has to be played, its not the pfs I've experienced * and its not the pfs I love.
*usually.
|
|
Norse,
Have you read / run / played this scenario? Just wondering.
I'm usually permissive but as mentioned above there is specific language that leads me (and others) to believe there are no mounts available in this particular scenario. Overall, this situation with mounts is more of an exception than the rule.
Sometimes a PC is going to have a more difficult time with certain challenges. That's ok… right? Sometimes you aren't the best team for the mission. Other times you’re the perfect team. That's part of what makes PFS memorable to me.
Different people like different things, of course. At some point, you just have agree to disagree. And by the way I am not telling you this scenario has to be played one way or the other.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Another option is to always have the VC give players mounts and balance for that move speed. Make everyone the same across the board (except monks). I mean if you let the 20’ move pcs retcon mounts everyone else gets to anyway. Developers can balance around that assumption instead.
Is anyone here actually saying that or encouraging retconning though? At most I see two people mention they did/would strongly advise PCs of the blurb and that slow PCs might want mounts
When I ran it I didn't let the PCs buy mounts, nor did I expect that option when I played it. The scenario is clearly designed around every PC having the movement speed they have when they sit down at the table. Many of us in the thread are not disputing that fact (a few earlier asked to clarify if that was the case, but it seems definitively ansewered) - we are just pointed out that that design choice seems deliberately frustrating for players both in- and out-of world.
|
|
Another option is to always have the VC give players mounts and balance for that move speed. Make everyone the same across the board (except monks). I mean if you let the 20’ move pcs retcon mounts everyone else gets to anyway. Developers can balance around that assumption instead.Is anyone here actually saying that or encouraging retconning though? At most I see two people mention they did/would strongly advise PCs of the blurb and that slow PCs might want mounts
When I ran it I didn't let the PCs buy mounts, nor did I expect that option when I played it. The scenario is clearly designed around every PC having the movement speed they have when they sit down at the table. Many of us in the thread are not disputing that fact (a few earlier asked to clarify if that was the case, but it seems definitively ansewered) - we are just pointed out that that design choice seems deliberately frustrating for players both in- and out-of world.
So I get the feeling some here (but not you!) are making this more about GM style than the scenario itself: saying individuals are treating game mechanics as a "gotcha" moment to abuse players, revoke agency, and drive new players away all while giving PFS a bad name. If I took it personally and that wasn't intended, I apologize but it sure feels like people are putting an onus on GMs when the scenario has so many mechanical problems that are — as you say — "designed to frustrate." Everyone participating in this thread is doing their best to run a good game here.
I think we can all agree it's a flawed scenario from several standpoints. Regarding mounts, I see cogent arguments on either side. People have said a ton about that, and I stand by my own thoughts and wouldn't argue with either adjudication were I player at someone else's table. And I would hope others extend their GMs the same courtesy or at least have a respectful convo about it at the table.
The core issue here is with the scenario mechanics, not with individual GMs running games in an environment of diverse play styles. I just want to be really clear about that.
I just played this, and I agree that it is verry unfair to PC with less than 30 feet of movement. When we were done, we figured it would have taken us 19 days minimum to do the mission. So, no matter what we did it took us more than the 15 days. It ended up taking us 29 days and didn't win the last fight so only got the secondary.
I don't mind failing because I did something wrong but it feels like Eando Cline set us up to fail.
|
|
So, I have been seeing mostly the same complaints about not having enough days to complete things, and I must admit I do not really understand why? I mean, with forced march you can easily get the extra turn per day (fatigue is slept away), and thus have at least two turns a day. Isn't that enough?
In the case that players do not know one can do a forced march, shouldn't the GM mention this possibility?
We had someone with a +0 con and didn't know it has a minimum of one day. So we were told about forced march but didn't think it would help.
|
Contributor
|
Does anyone have suggestions for speeding this up for someone running in a 3.5 hour slot? Initially, I was going to bypass this altogether, but it leads into this month's scenario, and I'd really like to run some newer PF2 material at my venue. Is there a better / faster tier to run this adventure on if I limit to 4 players to try to speed things up?
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
High Tier also has a Greater Invisible gunslinger in the last combat, whihc can extend the fight quite a bit just by dragging out being able to find the jerk.
Potential ways to run briskly could include (and keep in mind these aren't necessarily great suggestions):
* Both when playing and running I found the party has spent quite a bit of time at the beginning working out how fast they could possibly move Being direct and up front about the party's speed/activities may be blunt, but can save ~20 minutes parsing through all random options which will likely come to naught anyway.
* The two faction missions are speed v thoroughness. Nudging the party to pick one approach at the start and stick to it could cut time then debating which path to choose again each time they reach a ruin and are faced with a quick smash or spending days monitoring.
* Never having them encounter Quicksand. Scenarios keep adding this hazard, and unless it is paired with another danger to the PCs occuring at the same time it remains a time-sink to resolve with no actual risk of death or serious effect.
* Making sure the Scorpions and Elementals (if encountered) don't all fight to the death. They are aggressive and territoriality protective, but they don't need to be suicidal
|
Contributor
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So four players, low tier, be blunt, and ask them to pick quick or thorough. Avoid or narrate the quicksand, and allow scorpions / elementals to flee.
I'll also hint that I'm ready to run this at 6 if everyone arrives early. Okay, I have a plan now.
Hmm
|
They only need to get to the three sites within the 26 days, which is doable.
Pursuing the Grand Archive goal makes them lose the race, but Eando Kline tells them outright that the two goals are incompatible. I think the study goal is more achievable than the race goal.
And if any adventure justifies "the villain arrives exactly one hour before/after you do, regardless of how long it takes you to get there" it's this one. Sounrel isn't trying to do anything about the false signals (maybe she doesn't know about them, or is worried it would help the Pathfinders) but disabling them is critical to success.
She can't find Star until the PCs do it. She's spinning her wheels until then. If they defeat two she might beat them if they take too long. If they defeat three she'll have a head start and suddenly find that she's able to pinpoint Star, so she'll definitely beat them there.
|
Venture-Agent, Ohio—Columbus
|
They only need to get to the three sites within the 26 days, which is doable.
Except that after day 16 you can't find the secondary sites, as Sounrel activates Star on day 17.
From page 10: "About an hour after Star is reactivated (see area G), they
automatically and unknowingly send out a dampening signal that
scrambles the remaining signals, preventing the PCs from locating
any unexplored sites to finish the Grand Archive objective."