Cactus-Jack's page

If the board shut down, I'd like to think we'd still be playing. If the tables shut down... I'm sure I wouldn't be here on the boards.

Not gonna lie: I'd be pretty okay with the internet not being the impossible to control influence it is, now.

[In my best old codger voice]:

I miss the days of yore, when the DM (yep, the DM) owned all the books and the players merely played. And when rules questions came up, the DM made a judgment and the game went on. Not that questions really came up, by the way. 'Cuz the players just played...

[/old codger voice]

An interesting excerpt from a letter written by Gygax in a fanzine called 'Alarums and Excursions' in 1975:

"Dave and I disagree on how to handle any number of things, and both of our campaigns differ from the "rules" found in DandD. If the time ever comes when all aspects of fantasy are covered and the vast majority of its players agree on how the game should be played, DandD will have become staid and boring indeed. Sorry, but I don't believe that there is anything desirable in having various campaigns playing similarly to one another. DandD is supposed to offer a challenge to the imagination and to do so in many ways. Perhaps the most important is in regard to what the probabilities of a given situation are. If players know what all of the monster parameters are, what can be expected in a given situation, exactly what will happen to them if they perform thus and so, most of the charm of the game is gone. Frankly, the reason I enjoy playing in Dave Arneson's campaign is that I do not know his treatments of monsters and suchlike, so I must keep thinking and reasoning in order to "survive". Now, for example, if I made a proclamation from on high which suited Mr. Johnstone, it would certainly be quite unacceptable to hundreds or even thousands of other players. My answer is, and has always been, if you don't like the way I do it, change the bloody rules to suit yourself and your players. DandD enthusiasts are far too individualistic and imaginative a bunch to be in agreement, and I certainly refuse to play god for them -- except as a referee in my own campaign where they jolly well better toe the mark."

*emphasis mine...not that we can do this in PFS, I suppose...

But the last bit we sure can agree with, right? (-:

If the board shut down, I'd like to think we'd still be playing. If the tables shut down... I'm sure I wouldn't be here on the boards.

Not gonna lie: I'd be pretty okay with the internet not being the impossible to control influence it is, now.

[In my best old codger voice]:

I miss the days of yore, when the DM (yep, the DM) owned all the books and the players merely played. And when rules questions came up, the DM made a judgment and the game went on. Not that questions really came up, by the way. 'Cuz the players just played...

[/old codger voice]

An interesting excerpt from a letter written by Gygax in a fanzine called 'Alarums and Excursions' in 1975:

"Dave and I disagree on how to handle any number of things, and both of our campaigns differ from the "rules" found in DandD. If the time ever comes when all aspects of fantasy are covered and the vast majority of its players agree on how the game should be played, DandD will have become staid and boring indeed. Sorry, but I don't believe that there is anything desirable in having various campaigns playing similarly to one another. DandD is supposed to offer a challenge to the imagination and to do so in many ways. Perhaps the most important is in regard to what the probabilities of a given situation are. If players know what all of the monster parameters are, what can be expected in a given situation, exactly what will happen to them if they perform thus and so, most of the charm of the game is gone. Frankly, the reason I enjoy playing in Dave Arneson's campaign is that I do not know his treatments of monsters and suchlike, so I must keep thinking and reasoning in order to "survive". Now, for example, if I made a proclamation from on high which suited Mr. Johnstone, it would certainly be quite unacceptable to hundreds or even thousands of other players. My answer is, and has always been, if you don't like the way I do it, change the bloody rules to suit yourself and your players. DandD enthusiasts are far too individualistic and imaginative a bunch to be in agreement, and I certainly refuse to play god for them -- except as a referee in my own campaign where they jolly well better toe the mark."

*emphasis mine...not that we can do this in PFS, I suppose...

But the last bit we sure can agree with, right? (-:

Going back to topic, this is the best post ever for PFS play, and it isn't even written purely for PFS.

It's Gygax telling us 20 years ago what we've been telling ourselves again and again and again and again over the last 18 months:

Gary Gygax's 17 Steps to Role Playing Mastery: Mastery?

Gary Gygax took role-playing very seriously. This should not be a surprise since we’re talking about the man who co-created Dungeons and Dragons and what is now a billion dollar industry (there’s no World of Warcraft without D&D). He differentiates Role Playing Games (RPGs) from other games played to pass the time:

Many games are mere pastime activities, but RPGs are enjoyable pursuits of a sought-after nature and are hobby-like, rather than pastime creations aimed at filling an otherwise empty period of leisure. While some games are aimed at rainy afternoons or social gatherings that might bring boredom, role-playing games are designed for and should be played under far different circumstances. Participants engage in the play of such games because they have an active desire to do so. This is because the games of this nature provide them with fun, excitement, challenge, social interaction, and much more on an ongoing basis.

Gygax establishes RPGs at a ‘higher level’ than games such as Monopoly or Sorry. They are not something you do to pass the time. They are voluntary activities that players participate in for a continuing sense of fulfillment.

He also makes a point that I feel is important: the cooperative nature of role-playing:

Role-playing games are contests in which the players usually cooperate as a group to achieve a common goal rather than compete to eliminate one another from play. Chess, board games, cards, and miniatures games all pit individuals or teams against each other. Role games, in contrast, bring players together in a mutual effort to have their characters succeed or at least survive against the hostile “world” environment.

Roleplaying games foster creativity, imagination and cooperation. If the party doesn’t work together, they usually don’t last long. I played “around a table” from middle school into grad school. After a long break from that type of RPGing (replaced with Pc games), I now play via via message board (known as ‘Play By Post’) due to real life constraints. But it is still rewarding to work together to solve problems and vanquish foes. RPGs deliver that in excess.

Regarding Mastery, he says:

As it is with other kinds of mature amusements and diversions, so it is with role-playing games: The higher the level of play, the more enjoyable the game. Simply put, mastery of role-playing is not so much an effort toward individual excellence as it is a broadening of personal knowledge, contributing to social group activity, and increasing the fun and excitement that stem from superior participation. This is when role-playing becomes captivating. When you master role-playing, you become immersed in an activity that is peerless among leisure-time pursuits.

Mastery is achieved by understanding the game system, using it fully and correctly, excelling in operation within the system, and assuring that the experience is enjoyable for all the individuals concerned.

In other words, it’s not about you. It’s excelling at the game to increase the enjoyment of those playing with you. Back to cooperation. When you have a butthead in your group, it ruins the fun for nearly everyone because they are focused on their experience, not the group’s. Mastery should not make you a ‘Rules Lawyer’ who challenges the GM and other players on every point to show how much you know. Mastery should lead to a better played game. I like that focus.

Factions work for me by giving me a personal stake in the session.

Without a faction mission I can go on autopilot until the next combat - leaving the society mission to my tablemates. But, with a faction mission, that no one else at the table is looking out for I have a motivation to pay attention. When I pay attention I am a contributing and interacting player at the table.

So, I think faction missions tend to improve player engagement and thus the play environment overall for PFS.

In my recent experience my fellow players with different factions have been willing to help each other out. I don't have to pay attention to your mission, but when you need a wing man to cover a gap in your skills then I'm happy to help - and contribute to the fun.

I think a zero sum faction war dampens the cooperative instinct at the table - and as a consequence dampens the fun.

This is an excellent observation, and one I see a lot as a GM: faction missions keep people engaged in the game.

I've been asking the players in my store what they think, and so far everyone has said that they like the factions and the identity the factions give to their characters.

One of my players commented that everyone in the United Nations can be considered as part of a faction. There are plenty of things that they are at odds about. But at no point do they walk into that chamber intending to shank the guy from the other country. More often than not, they are working on a common goal; they just approach it differently. I think that's an excellent way to state how factions work for PFS.

I will reiterate what I think: without the factions, PFS is just another organized play system without an identity. Please keep them.

When I am running tables and see a player that is outclassed by others at the table it bothers me. Simply because a player wants to enjoy a well rounded character or because he does not have the time to devote to maxing his numbers he feels like a side kick. Always afraid that player isn't long for PFS if he doesn't find a group that shares his play pattern.

"If you don't want to follow the rules we have established for Organized Play, then don't play our campaign."

- Michael Brock

I've seen this quoted a number of times across a few threads and I want to comment, hopefully without further fanning the flames. Could it have been presented with less "bite"? Perhaps, but please understand what was happening. Over the past 8 months, Mike has been open and receptive to our ideas concerning what changes might benefit the community. He has asked numerous times that we follow the guidelines and rules that exist, until such time as they are changed. What he has continued to hear is players not only intentionally breaking the rules, but encouraging others to follow suit. He is responsible for the health of OP and the rules would not exist, if he did not feel they were in our best interests. At some point, repeated friendly requests to cease and desist lose impact, and something more has to done. His post likely includes a certain level of frustration.

As I said, he is responsible for our campaign and there are rules in place for a reason. What would you have him do? Discussion about the rules is encouraged. Solutions are requested. Often this leads to change. But in the end, by participating, we have agreed to follow the rules of the campaign. By not doing so, even after repeated request, seems to say "Screw you, I'm going to do whatever I want." While I understand most of us feel we know what is best for our players, it is disrespectful to Mike and his efforts to make this the best campaign it can be.

I hope we can all read his comments for what they are worth and not infer that he is trying to push players out. IMO, he was just responding from a level of frustration.

My wife, Janet, doesn't have any of those characters......

She does have a human cleric that Kyle couldn't kill.

I'm going to go outside my normal position of letting the player base police itself and say this. This post is directed at any person who wants to encourage cheating and breaking the rules. If you don't want to follow the rules we have established for Organized Play, then don't play our campaign. I have seen posts and advice that continuously encourage people to break the rules and this will stop. Are there some rules that can change to make the campaign better? Of course and we are working to fix those. Should people blatantly break the rules because they don't like them? Absolutely not. If you feel this is what you need to do, then leave the campaign. Encouraging people to intentionally break the rules is the same as encouraging cheating, especially playing outside of their tier, and it is not welcome and will stop.

This is not said in an angry or irritated tone. It is a matter of fact statement. Enough is enough.

played up...6 out of 8 sessions at Gencon

Playing up was never intended to occur anywhere near that often and can lead to unreliable data/experiences. Constantly playing up can net a character upwards of triple the normal wealth which perpetuates their survivability in playing up. Then, when playing in scenarios where they would ordinarily be outmatched, their excessive wealth, over the average, gives them the edge to overcome CR's typically beyond the skill of a character at their level. And they get rewarded, again, with wealth beyond the average, and the process continues to break.

There is something extremely unusual about your circumstances. Perhaps it is a combination of weak GM'ing and uber-optimized characters. Honestly, I do not know. But in the overall scheme, I have experienced 200+ tables of PFS as well as watched dozens more as an organizer/spectator. While I agree there are a few scenarios that tend to be "light" on the danger, more often than not, a competent GM can challenge a group playing out of their sub-tier and frequently it leads to PC death if not a TPK.

My advice to anyone playing this game is that if none of the group's PC's are actually in the level range of the higher sub-tier, but the APL would allow them to play up, don't do it. I do not recall a single table with that arrangement fail to lose a PC or get TPK'd. And if your group is succeeding with this arrangement more than an extreme rarity, there is something wrong.

I've never seen an instance where four level 3 PCs couldn't do a subtier 4-5 scenario

Again, this concerns me. If the "norm" is playing up, then there is something wrong. Most of the games in my region and those of neighboring regions are not playing up all that frequently because death seems to follow.

IMO, the single biggest impact on successfully playing up is the number of players at the table. When you outnumber the BBEG 6 or 7 to one, economy of actions can largely overcome most any situation.

In the end, the problem is the scenarios are static and the players are dynamic. Basically what were are doing with the "run as written" rule is providing the GM with roughly 20 pages of content to use, while allowing the PC's thousands of pages over the course of every legal HC/SC book from which they can draw. The inability of the author to tailor a scenario to fit the strengths and weaknesses of all character types/group mixes will continue to lead to, at least, some level of dissatisfaction for nearly every player except the "average" one.

Uh...

So much of the discussions that have been ongoing make me wish that people would develop a sense of not wanting to ruin other people's good times with a need to have some false sense of order imposed from on-high.

*sigh*
To those of you who are focusing on my examples, you are missing the point. I should have followed my gut when I thought it would be better to leave them out. Every time someone tries to use an example as a generality people focus on the specifics of what was written and ignore that it's intended to be a part, and in support of, the discussion and they start to pick it apart. I do not have a vendetta against fighters or any other class, race, feat, etc.

I have not encountered a single specific rule or game mechanic that is broken. The problems arise when a player puts sooo much effort into a single game mechanic that the efforts of the scenario to provide a challenge are eliminated. That goes for roll or role playing encounters. Most people do not want to play from a pre-determined script. Without a chance of failure, there is not challenge. Without a challenge, we are just acting out the parts of the pre-written fantasy novel.

Being creative is also an essential part of the game. Creative solutions to the challenges you face. If you can just do the same thing over and over again and always "win," what's the point?

No one is saying you cannot play the stereotype or archetype fantasy character you want to play, or that you have to gimp your characters, but that does not mean you have to build the mechanics of the character beyond the scope of the scenarios they will play. As I said, I welcome extreme builds in my home game. I can adapt the challenges. In PFS, we (read:GM) don't have that power.

I have never been bothered by players that make characters that do well in combat, and I have never understood why people care to tell the truth.

Careful, for some people, the combat is at least part of, if not the primary part of their fun. I was not suggesting that you cannot be "good" at something. Every character should be good at some tasks, but that does not mean you should be significantly better than your companions at many things. If you end nearly every combat because your average damage is more than the hit points most enemies of appropriate challenge have, then "you might be a redneck." ;-) Look at the average damage done by monsters of your CR. If you are consistently doing more than double/triple that, "you might be a redneck."

The same can be said of non-combat as well. If you're Diplomacy/Intimidate is so high that just by entering the room, everyone falls at your feet to worship, "you might be a redneck."

Or if your perception is so high that you can spot a fly on a bovines arse from three miles away, in a sandstorm, at night, "you might be a redneck."

I guess the moral of the story is, don't be a redneck. :-)

I have never been bothered by players that make characters that do well in combat, and I have never understood why people care to tell the truth.

Careful, for some people, the combat is at least part of, if not the primary part of their fun. I was not suggesting that you cannot be "good" at something. Every character should be good at some tasks, but that does not mean you should be significantly better than your companions at many things. If you end nearly every combat because your average damage is more than the hit points most enemies of appropriate challenge have, then "you might be a redneck." ;-) Look at the average damage done by monsters of your CR. If you are consistently doing more than double/triple that, "you might be a redneck."

The same can be said of non-combat as well. If you're Diplomacy/Intimidate is so high that just by entering the room, everyone falls at your feet to worship, "you might be a redneck."

Or if your perception is so high that you can spot a fly on a bovines arse from three miles away, in a sandstorm, at night, "you might be a redneck."

I guess the moral of the story is, don't be a redneck. :-)

The VO's and M&M are deep in discussion how the Puppy/Hat rules will be applied and we should have it ready sometime in the near future. Until then, just continue to default to your table GM's decision and be prepared for table variation. If you are not prepared for different GM's to rule differently, then you should avoid building characters that depend on the Puppy/Hat rules as part of their schtick.

;-)

Dude! Wait! Can't we discuss this hat policy with the community before implementation?

I mean, I'm concerned with the power level these hats will add to the game...and completely unbalance the game in favor of those with two heads! Let alone those people with big heads.

::Glances sideways at DMoon::

In addition, I'm just not looking forward to long debates of about the alignments of said hats (crooked vs. straight, atilt vs. flat aligned?).

Maybe I should set up a survey so we can vote about the hat policy?

And what about the donkeys who play PFS? Is there a policy for asshattery?

I think we should move carefully on the hat issue.

-Pain

Maybe I'm unrealistic, but I prefer my GM's to do it because they want to, not because they are farming for chronicles/rewards.

We are also nearly doubling the number of tables this year so that would bump that number to 3000-3600.

It depends on what the players are used to and what they will get used to doing.

Generally players want to show up and play there character of awesome and they don't want to have to do anything extra.

Some areas muster at the spot while others pre-muster. It's mainly what custom is there as to what players expect.

Most places do a semi-premuster, however, it's hard to fully premuster before the con as things change up to the moment before the con

You might just be used to spot mustering, which if I recall you're Michigan right? Most of the LG (et al) that I recall from there was mustered on the spot.

Other areas of the country varied this.

close, he's in Illinois, you got the right half of the country good job.

There are advantage to both. For premustered you don't have the situation where you show up ready to play your 1st level PC only to find that the rest of the table is 5th level, etc. For on the spot mustering you can be more flexible (though honestly it can also be more chaotic).

From all the "on the spot mustering" I've seen and participated in it hasn't been that chaotic and has been fairly easy. We haven't needed to worry about any kind of pre mustering and had we had to deal with that then it really would have been chaotic.

But I don't think that you are saying, for example, that you think that warhorn is too much of a chore to ask players to sign up beforehand? Depending on your players (and what they can get away with not doing) it very well could be mind you.

But for many warhorn is a godsend, right?

For mustering GMs for a convention it's definately a nice tool to have, other than that I've seen it used more as a reference than a hard and fast tool

When prepping a scenario would it be nice to know what factions you had? If you will have a paladin or the like at the table? etc.

Personally I don't care what factions there are until they are sitting at my table. What factions are going to be present places no bearing on how I prep a scenario (have you read through society scenarios to know how the factions play into them?)

If you went with something like this, then you quickly avoid easy mistakes people make on characters by having it filtered through a set system where there are no mistakes on what's legal and what's not.

Bob Jonquet wrote:

That being said, I would be happy to be proven wrong. Go ahead and implement your plan and organize a local convention. It probably should offer at least 15 sessions since that is the level Mike seems to have set for an event to be an official convention for PFS purposes. Afterwards, provide feedback on what worked and what didn't. I would also like to hear from the player-base on their opinions as well. Good luck.

We don't see many 15 session cons in my neck of the woods. Most were done over weekends and would thus be in the range of 9 slots. Is that level acceptable? Otherwise I'd just have to talk about cons I've been to. Some are premustered with or without walkins. It really just varies with the locale and gaming circles.

Perhaps you should organize one, make sure it's large enuf (whatever Mike would deem the number to be) to be consider a large convention implement all your suggestions. Until you've contributed to the society i.e. rolled your sleeves up and gotten dirty with the rest of us, I hold little sway to your opinion given from on high.