Chris Mortika's page

Modules are not scenarios. Players should expect significant play differences between tables for sanctioned modules. It is the nature of the beast.

Kyle Baird wrote:

For this specific scenario, if raise dead isn't an ability the party possesses, is it assumed that the PC has to travel back to the material plane to get raised? Does that force them to lose out on the boon since they must purchase spell casting services?

A PC could buy a scroll of raise dead just in case before departing on this mission (which is reasonable by 7th level) or just buy a 5,000 gp diamond to keep on-hand if you are playing with a cleric of 9th level or higher. In any case, a PC who needs to be raised and who can't have such an effect be taken care of by the party on hand must return to Absalom to get it done and would sacrifice the boon in the process (which seems a small price to pay to get to play Part II at all considering the alternative).

If a character dies and needs to go back to town to be raised, does that force a choice of: someone else in the party must carry them back, themselves forgoing the chance at the boon vs. the dead person must pay the (additional) 5 PP to have their body recovered?

On a different note, if there are additional restrictions placed on getting the boon beyond just playing them back to back, please note this in the scenario description; I'm talking specifically about being stuck "in scenario" and not being able to purchase spellcasting services, perform day job checks, etc. DMs/coordinators should not have to dig into the scenario to provide the up front info to potential players that you are asking them to do.

Along those same lines, if a player does choose to stay "in scenario" and they then miss the chance to player the subsequent part, can they opt out at that point? If not then there is the real potential of making a character unplayable until the local coordinator decides to reschedule that scenario (if ever).

I think we need to approach Reckless Aim just a tad differently than AoE's.

Most players know AoE's exist. Even if they don't, the wizard still starts by announcing "I'm fireballing this whole area" and gesturing to part of the map. Even a newbie can put two and two together and say "wait a second, I'm standing there too! Isn't that going to blast me?" and then they can talk it out as necessary.

But nobody expects the arrows to go amiss. Additionally, someone who's making attack rolls usually rolls pretty fast after announcing.

So Mr. Reckless says "I shoot this guy" and no one reacts. Why would they? Then he rolls a 1, says "uh-oh", and begins determining if his ally gets hit. By the time anyone at the table thinks to ask what the heck's going on, the attack roll has already been made.

"Hey, wait! If I'd known he could accidentally shoot me, I'd have 5ft stepped away on my turn/asked him not to shoot/etc!"

Do we let the archer take back the attack, even though the roll has already been made? Do we tell the victim that maybe next time they should ask what feats every single other player has before the game starts? What do we do?

These responces are all fine but I have another perspective for you. You dont heal me , I dont try to stop those big bad monster from tearing your head off , and when they do I have a nice new wand to use.

This would be a valid argument... if you had to pay 15gp each time you swung your sword.

"Some faiths, however, are forbidden under pain of torture and execution. These include the worship of any god of chaos..."

That one's easy. Calistria is a goddess and is thus exempt. :)

More seriously, a cleric of Calistria in Egorian is asking for trouble from some chaos detecting and smiting Hellknights. Honestly, guaranteed conflict like that sounds like fun.

A cleric of Calistria in Westcrown is likely ignored unless they create a disturbance. Also, no one would dare bother with them since the temple priestesses, if they're savvy (and you can bet that they would be), have enough blackmail material on any number of influential nobles so as to make their continued existence tolerated. Hell hath no fury like a Calistrian scorned.

Another thing about Westcrown is that it has laws that forbid secular groups from harming temples. Bureaucracy is a wonderful thing. That's sufficient to keep the dottari and Hellknights away as they have easier, lower hanging fruit to fry.

Nice idea, but how does it handle people with more than 8 PCs?

If only there were a way to print two copies of the booklet. Then you could keep track of up to 16 PCs....

:-)

"It's the most efficient method of healing, and available on the mass market for even the lowliest Pathfinder agents!"

Somewhere in a dark tavern, a Chelaxian merchant and a Hellknight signifier share a chuckle and clink mugs.

I don't mean to be rude toward others, nor to the players, but nowhere by RAW of the Pathfinder Society Guide, I mean NOWHERE does it say that conditions clear themselves alone.

"all conditions not resolved within the module carry beyond the end of the module."

The Guide doesn't need to say that, because they don't clear themselves alone, as such.

Those diseases that deal ability damage that is not life threatening (i.e. non-Con damage) are resolved at the end of the scenario, just like the life-threatening (Con damage) ones. The GM and the PCs take the in-game time to deal with the disease at the end of the scenario.

The only difference is that the characters have some probability to die from the diseases that deal Con damage, so they have to be resolved roll by roll. In contrast, non-life-threatening diseases are cured with certainty, given enough saving throws. It could take many rolls and so a lot of time (a disease might require two consecutive rolls of 20, in which case the average recovery time is 400 days). But eventually, it must happen, and the recovery time has no game mechanical effect, so nothing is lost if the GM and the player just omit those (completely pointless) rolls and declare that the character recovered eventually.

Of course, if there's time to roll a lot of dice, it could be fun RP to find out how long the PC took to recover. Help from a computer dice roller might be useful if a lot of rolls are needed.

The conditions that should remain in the "Conditions gained" box are those that are not potentially fatal, do not cure with time, and that the PC doesn't remove for some reason. For example, it could happen that a killed PC has the gold/PP for raise dead, but not for getting rid of the permanent negative levels. In that case, those negative levels would carry over to the next scenario, where that PC would presumably try to earn the gold needed to remove them.

Quite frankly, I suspect it's because that many of us have already done this at least once unofficially to help out a newbie,or a gaggle of them on their first day at tournament play. Which may have been their first time playing any roleplaying sort of game as well. Maybe Paizo doesn't quite realise this, but we are going to have people show up at these events with absolutely no gaming experience at all, but yet decide to dive in feet first.

I most certainly realize it. I observed new players jumping in feet first at every convention I organized in Atlanta (some with more than 120 tables). I also observed it even more at monthly game days in stores where we ran more than 50 tables each month at local game days across 9 stores.

It is why I scheduled four tables every slot at Gen Con of the Beginner Box Demos where each player will receive a printed copy of the PFS character creation guide using the Beginner Box after they play all four demos and have an hour for questions and answers built into the slot. They will then be advised by their GM of how to become involved in PFS and First Steps (all three parts are scheduled with multiple tables each slot), and be issued a PFS card.

We are very cognizant of new players jumping in feet first and I'm trying to make it as easy as possible for these new players.

If we did change it, we run into the problem of everyone who has played it wanting to go back and retcon their character to receive PP.

This is why you should not say why you do things.. ;)

IMO, this is not a very good reason not to.

If the PFS can survive Season 0 Scenarios all of sudden giving more PP then they did before, and GM credit giving more PP then they did at first, then the PFS can handle adding 1 PP for this one module.

I would rather see it retire, then to be different then the other Free RPG day Modules.

I played a stealth-focused rogue in a campaign with a character who had a very low perception. He decided that because his perception was so low, and my stealth was so high, that he didn't actually know I was in the party. I'm not sure that any of the other characters ever actually convinced him that I was "real".

Also, you might consider getting together a group that all needs the same scenarios you do before the con, then you can go into the Classics with a much higher chance of getting what you want.

I've discovered after-the-fact that GMs were softballing enemies, encounters, or faction missions, and it has never felt right to me. I'm okay with my character biting it, but I don't want him to survive because the GM didn't want to hurt my feelings.

It sucks that you had a TPK, and it sucks that those players lost their characters. However, it's the way the game is meant to go, and I'd rather die properly than be handed a win without deserving it.

Thanks for the kind words they are most appreciated.

Top Ten Tips for GMs old and new – nothing new here and not in any particular order:

• MOST IMPORTANT – Have fun! It’s a hobby and is meant to be fun and educational.
  
• Be confident.
  
• Be prepared and organized.
  
• Be ready for the unexpected.
  
• Know the rules or know where to go to find the ones you don’t.
  
• Be prepared to make mistakes and learn from them.
  
• Be prepared to have to ask for help from time to time.
  
• Be able to say a proper thank you or a proper apology and be sincere – one comes in handy for times like this that can be few and far between and the other comes in handy when you just TPKed a party of characters that people spent years building up.
  For those untrained: A proper thank you begins with “thanks”, explains what you are thanking someone for and ends with affection; and a proper apology begins with “sorry”, explains what you are apologizing for and ends with affection. If you don’t mean it – don’t say it!
  
• Be creative and if you can make a few funny voices it doesn’t hurt.
  
• Remember you are not a referee or a narrator you’re a story creator – if you’re a good guide the players will create a wonderful journey for their characters to participate in and take you along with them for a few hours.
  

May your dice always roll in your favor!

I don't know why it seems to have become fashionable to make fun of the Paizo staff so much lately, but I'd appreciate it if it would stop.

We're not perfect, we've never claimed to be. If you have criticism, by all means, share. But just piling on to provoke a reaction or accusations of generalized incompetence are not fair or funny.

Oh, now this I like. I think I'm going to have to get more involved in PFS again. Players, actually affecting metaplot? Mr Jenos Idanian just got brought out of retirement, after a two year hiatus. Excellent news!

PS: Are we there *now*?

If this announcement gets you to dust off an old character and pick up your dice at a Pathfinder Society table, then yes. We are there yet.

You'd like to see an official ruling to state whether or not remove disease works as printed in the Core Rulebook?

Dear Paizo,

I would purchase both Doom Comes to Dustpawn AND Scarlet God.

Just sayin'.

Congrats Mike! Well deserved! Now get to work!! You are behind schedule already!!

:)

-Lisa

I made up a cool little chart once for rolls like this with six columns. The first column has 1-20 in totally random order, the last column has numbers 1-20 in 1-20 order, and the middle columns start mostly random and get more in order as you move toward the end. When a player makes a skill check where I don't want him/her to know the success based on the die roll, I translate his/her roll using my little chart and add his/her skill modifier to the translated number. I decide which column to use based on his/her Wis modifier, basically low Wis, you don't really have a sense if your attempt was good or not, high Wis, you can at least get a sense based on the die if it was decent or not. I figure it's fair because the probabilities are still the same, it just masks the result of the roll from the players.

I think it's not a very optimized choice, but it is his choice. Let him play his own character and learn from his mistakes. It is unlikely that this particular option will prove fatal. If it proves to be unfun, then he can talk to the GM about fixing the problem.

I've never seen so many people misunderstand each other so fast.

You have some great elements in this submission. The most interesting villain you have here to my mind is the graveknight and the story (or a variation thereof) hinted at between him and the nereid. I would have loved to see an undersea adventure with that underlying hook - make me hate that cavalier and yearn for his destruction. That's an attainable goal for a 9th level PC, unlike going after the kraken. (I also like the idea of the graveknight returning to haunt the PCs until they find a way to destroy him permanently, but tying his ultimate defeat to the sphere of annihilation is perhaps a bit much.)

The flaws in your submission have been raked over the coals enough, and the judges covered them thoroughly. Heed the advice. I love aquatic adventure elements, and you have some great ideas here, but this submission looks a bit rough overall.

Also, speaking as a copy editor, some of your writing quirks raise flags as I read this. I know you are very busy right now, and I can't imagine the pressure you were under writing this and balancing everything else you have going on, but the presentation lacks polish in parts. Best rule of thumb: Write everything as if your copy is the first thing someone reads before they've had a proper cup of coffee in the morning. =]

Also, don't feel bad about asking questions - answering helps us keep our egos nice and fluffy!

Yes, masterwork weapons (and armor) are always available. This includes special materials (except dragonhide).

Instead of a new rule, I prefer to have the two players and GM handle it like adults and work it out among themselves. It is, after all, a game that everyone wants to enjoy.

I've opened up 12 moreTier 1 GM and volunteer positions. If you are interested, please send me an email.

I've always been leery about the Oath Against ______ options, for some of the same reasons I dislike the Wild Rager: It's a hardline approach to a certain mode of play that forces some ugly issues onto the game and the group.

I love (well-played) paladins, but the Oath Againsts encourage such a absolutist attitude that it becomes nigh-impossible to make certain stories work unless that paladin takes care to carefully keep the oath worded within reason. The "redeeming a fiend" character concept mentioned upthread is one example.

I'm all for protecting paladin players rights to have fun with the group, but it's hard to keep that level of sympathy for options that present a hard "lock-out" for other players(as opposed to the vanilla paladin's softer restrictions), especially in public scene where you'll likely be playing with very varied strangers with very varied characters.

Of course that applies equally to "dark and edgy" characters run by players looking to cause trouble, but I'd rather not assume the worst about players regardless of whether they're bringing a paladin or an undead lord to the table.

In an open campaign such as this, it just seems like it's bad pool to not put a bit of effort into making sure your character is reasonably flexible enough to get along with a wide range of PCs. Paladins are reasonably flexible. Oath Against X types, not so much.

Naturally.

How else could Qadira be able to afford to pay its tithes and tributes to Cheliax?

Two things to keep in mind here.

1: The “Inner Sea World Guide” and other Golarion specific material is not considered core assumption, so we should temper any judgment or derision with that fact.

2: If you have legal material that supports your character build and/or background concept, and you have the hard copy or watermarked PDF printout of said material available, then a GM would be wrong to refuse you.

And a GM would also be wrong to change things to fit their view of the world. Ambiguous things, or things they don’t have information on (see item #1 above) are fair game for him to try and come up with reasonable information based on the scenario or any player questions.

many people do it right (surely every one here - as I hurry to check my PCs), but often people forget. And just as often they are beginers and were never taught.

I can still remember my sisters first character. She was the very strong not so bright 1/2 orc and had saved enough money to by a Comp. Long Bow, for her high strength. We had told her how to cost in Master Work ...
SO, in the middle of her first game after buying her new bow, combat starts at range and she whips out her bow. Looks like it's going to be a long shooting match and someone asks if she has 2 quivers of arrows. Her expression was priceless..."you have to buy arrows too?!" So she doesn't miss a beat, draws her bastard sword and charges into combat. Now years later that line still brings smiles around her table...

There is no reason to define "home" vs. "public" and have different rules for each. A GM will always the right to allow whoever, or whatever, to play at his/her table. Period. And we, as players, have the right to not play at said table. Again period.

By making this a private vs public game issue, we are creating an unnecessary loop hole to justify, in our own minds, when a GM is "allowed" to be a douche. Who cares? We can treat the GM as a douche either way. Just because the game takes place in a private venue, whatever that means, does not suddenly change the circumstances of inclusion. If the players are accepting of the restrictions, they play. If not, they don't. If you force a GM to have to accept the unwanted class, feat, whatever, they will just not GM. We cannot dictate play styles or what players will/won't like about the rules.

I will always support a GM's right to choose who gets to play at their table, regardless of the venue. I also completely support the player's ability to consider the GM a jerk and not play at said table, or the organizer to ban the GM for not being inclusive.

I've been in this job for almost 6 months. I started out where many of you are right now: as a local coordinator about 3 years ago.

I started with a playerbase of 5 in Atlanta. When I left for Paizo, it was 174. We ran 56 game days in 48 weeks in my year as VC. I also spent more than $3000 to print scenarios, maps, buy con prize support, set up GM rewards program, and the like. I've been in those ranks where I was just a GM for the love and promotion of the game and nothing more. That love of the game is why I took a paycut, left a secure career for one up in the air, and moved my family from our large house across country to a small, two bedroom apartment.

Just know that I love PFS with all my heart and soul. In the future, I'll be sharing with you my vision for the future of PFS in a sort of state of the region blog post.

However, before I can get there, I'd like to re-address an issue. I know my please don't cheat post caused a lot of discussion and dialogue and not quite in the way I had hoped. I realize that my post and tone did not achieve what I really wanted: to encourage the Community to work with me on making the PFS campaign as good as it can be.
This post isn't about those issues necessarily, but a call for you to join me in creating campaign cohesion.

I want this Society to grow and be successful.

I want you all to be working with me on addressing the issues that we face in common.

I want you to know that I read these boards every day and am trying to make the Pathfinder Society better each day.

The kicker - I want everyone working with me, working with each other, as we do this.
The 'Please Do Not Cheat' post was meant to address a few issues...but with this post I want to address *why* they are issues.

First instance: We know that some local coordinators have allowed 8 player tables (and choose to report them as one 8 player table or two 4 player tables).

We know this is a problem. However, our response (both from me and the community) should not just be "Don't do that. Period." The response from all of us should be: "Running 8 player tables really cheats your players of the best experience they can have of the scenario. We want all PFS players to have a chance to shine, contribute, and enjoy every scenario. How can we help you get more judges, play space, or XYZ, so that this doesn't happen again? How can we help you deliver a better play experience for your players?" I don't want our players playing at an 8 person table. It's a disservice to their experience of the campaign.

Second instance: We had reports of playing out of tier and applying a Chronicle incorrectly (i.e. Playing a 6th level PC in a Tier 7-11 game and applying a Chronicle to that 6th level PC).

We know this is a problem as well. Again, our response should be more than "Don't do that." We should explain that PFS is better when there are clear rewards for play. We want our players to understand that their characters matter and that, through their experiences, they get trusted for more and more dangerous work. We want rewards for continuous play to matter. We want our players to see the value in that and, in turn, value their PFS experiences. In a way, the players themselves are being cheated when allowed to skip tiers. We should all want our players to have chances to earn their rewards properly. This is what makes PFS special: our higher level players have earned where they are.

Third instance: We have even had cases where a group would play pre-gens, not take credit, and then turn around a month or so later and play the same scenario with their real characters so they know what risks they faced.

Like the above, this is a problem. We want all our players to have the best possible experience with all PFS play opportunities and that involves having a vested interest in the game: I want choices to matter. I want character decisions to matter. In allowing re-playing (via pregens or otherwise), we are cheating that experience and we are allowing those re-players to cheapen the scenario for others. Our response (both from me and the community) should reflect that focus. Our goal should be making sure that each run of every scenario is a new, exciting experience where a player doesn't feel like he or she has wasted their time.

Fourth instance: GMs adjusting scenarios on the fly...adding to the difficulty or challenge of a scenario.

This is a different kind of problem, but one that we need to address as a community. When GMs change scenarios, Mark and I have no metric to look at, to see where we need to make changes for future scenarios. If GMs add creatures or stats to scenarios, or any other mechanical changes, the players all say it was a great experience, and no one is the wiser for it. I feel this may have been one of the problem in the past, especially with Seasons 0 and 1 scenarios presenting little to no challenge. People changed scenarios, added to the scenarios, or otherwise altered them mechanically, and the campaign staff was unaware there were some serious problems with the scenarios.

Campaign cohesion requires that we need accurate reporting in order to properly evaluate our scenarios going forward. I want you to join me in helping us rate the difficulty in our scenarios so we can address the problem on a larger scale. Scenarios have a rating system in place. It was put there so campaign staff can evaluate scenarios and make changes in accordance to what the playerbase wants or expects. Thus far, it has been a very under utilized tool, and I encourage each of you to take a few minutes after playing each scenario to give current campaign staff feedback on scenarios, let us know where you see problems, let us know how we can make future scenarios better for all of you, and what we did wrong and right in each scenario. Only with your help can we make future scenarios a better experience that don't feel like a waste of time for you.

As a GM before, I know what challenges all of you PFS GMs face because I have been there and done that. I have the 14th most games GMed in PFS worldwide. It is why I worked with Mark for the start of season 4, for having scenarios written with six players in mind instead of four, and to have guidelines included in the scenario to run the scenario for a table of four. We're making these changes because of your direct feedback.

I truly understand there are a lot of mixed feelings about the rules, our player base, and the negativity that has been present on these very message boards. I want passion and I want your thoughts, but I want all of you to join me in creating a friendly, cohesive community, one that is a great, fun, inclusive Pathfinder Society.

Add a table of contents and/or an index to the guide. I know its only 36 pages, but there are a lot of rules crammed in there and it can be a pain to find something specific sometimes.

I'd be cool with limited retraining in PFS myself. The ability to pay a set amount of prestige for re-training a feat or a class ability for example would be nice. I definitely don't want to see it wide open though.

The thing that drives me nuts (in the case of the changes of heart on intelligent animal companions and weapon-using monks) is when people say "it's always worked that way" even when there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Sigh...

Rule 0 is the DM changing an existing rule to make the game flow easier at his campaign.

This is different though that *the rules* specifically saying that things are open go the DM discretion.

For example:

"Fighters don't get proficieny with the Greatsword."
This is a houserule. it is plain ole rule 0 at work.
This is a clear alteration of RAW.

The creation of Magical Items however *specifically* calls for Dm discretion. It does this because there is no mechanism by which any designer can prohibit some Abusive item without also removing all items.
Therefore, they call on the DM to be rational with what they allow.
i.e. what spells are allowed on staves. (and for that matter- any magical item not specifically laid out in the books).

This isn't Rule 0. This is -DM, if the player wants to create an item not listed here, check the item for abuse and if otherwise appropriate compare it to existing items for pricing.
There is no rule being changed. They are just asking the DM to use his brain.

If the DM has the brain engaged and is willing to use it (along with a great big spoon full of the word NO) then there is no iseue with not having XP costs for creating magical items.

The Staff of Wish isn't in the core books. Its created by a player and therefore has to pass muster by the DM to be approved. If the DM approves it, he gets what he deserved. The DM can just say no. (and should, for that particular item).

The same is true for *any* custom magical item. Its as it should be.

-S

For me, a fraction of an outsider's high Challenge Rating comes from its intelligence (including years of experience observing its betters perform amazing feats). Especially in higher levels, an outsider can pack as much intelligence as the party's wizard, as much wisdom as the party's cleric, and as much charisma as the party's bard, giving the creature immense reasoning skills.

In your situation, I would have let the player get away with being revived and attacking once, only clawing the alchemist once for his - as that devil might see it - arrogance. On the second instance of prone hubris, the devil would have torn him up and given his corpse devil chills. Most of the players I've judged for understand that logic, and few tend to tease evil outsiders. In higher level scenarios, the outsider might be less forgiving, even electing to kill the presumptuous cleric(s) immediately afterwords.

Although I may chuckle inwardly with chagrin when a player performs a particularly outrageous action that should lead to the character's death, I almost never think of a character as "deserving to die." One of my strategies as a GM is to show the player how tough, dangerous, and/or malicious a creature is through its actions. As the alchemist wakes up, the barbazu's foot-claw might smash a flagstone in half, narrowly missing the fallen character's head in an attempt not to trip over the presumed corpse; this demonstrates how the character's present position leaves him extremely vulnerable, but not so vulnerable that he feels the need to move to avoid collateral damage. After seeing the alchemist wake up for the first time, the barbazu's eyes might bulge in amazement that one of the fallen might rise again. Once the clerics dish out more healing, the barbazu might narrow its eyes and glare at the fallen alchemist as if daring him to move again.

All of these are narrative signals that telegraph how the GM/barbazu might act, giving the players a fair opportunity to play it safe. Even then, some might be reckless, and some might act out of necessity (the alchemist might be the only one capable of ending the encounter). I feel that when GMing a Pathfinder Society scenario for strangers, it is only fair to drop these cues - particularly for lower Tier tables.

Orcs are Celts.

Hobgoblins are Romans.

I have this private theory that goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears are really the same species... normally there are only goblins, but every once in a while one of them sneaks off into the woods, and grows Really Big and Mean into a lone hunter type: a bugbear is born.

And if there are enough goblins in an area, someone takes charge and begins to order them, and (surprisingly enough if you don't know the paramagical genetics) they fall right into line.

At any rate, that's how I'd run it if I were doing a big goblinoid campaign.

The bigger issue this is bringing up is one of stewardship of the campaign setting, which, when I've run/played in PFS (not alot, paizocon, some local stuff) has never been the attitude of the GM's. It's not your job to make sure a character makes sense, it's your job to ensure that he's legal mechanically, and to run the game. You're not really an auditor even unless something jumps out that seems unbalanced.

I understand table variance in running style, but I don't think it's right, fair, or even intended for you to enforce campaign fluff as rules. Characters built with the rules, by the rules, should be valid at any table. If there needs to be a rule that supports or restricts something, it needs to be brought into the game in an official manner before armchair campaign managers start dictating things.

Spells ending at the end of the scenario needs clarifying.

I had a notecard for each task in the village, and each day, the players placed tokens that each represented 5 villages on the cards how they liked. I formatted them something like this:

TASK

MINIMUM VILLAGERS

PC INVOLVEMENT (yes/no)

DEFENSE POINTS EARNED

WAYS TO EARN BONUS DEFENSE

I didn't list DCs of checks at all, but I did write down which skills would be used. It made the whole process much clearer for my table, and we blew through the village preparation in about 20 minutes or so.

Anybody who beats the Spellcraft DC on a priest of Razmir might note that it's a little bizarre that the magic is typically arcane. Many might have their own hunches that Razmir is unconventionally divine, but he has always claimed to be different from those other gods, being the only one who walks among his people. That his priests are typically goons is no grand tip-off, as almost any evil god's worshipers tend to come off as jerks anyway. Even the use of magical items in demonstrations of healing can be explained as being holy relics that are integral to channeling Razmir's will (and the clandestine training in First Step may impress this upon the faithful as being actual, "no need to bluff" truth).

I typically associate the check as DC [unbeatable], as there are almost no mortals that actually know the truth for certain; I recall a reference that stated only a handful of the Visions actually know the truth. Those who blaspheme Razmir tend to end up dead, and even worse would happen to those who actually have solid evidence. A DC 30 Knowledge (Religion, Local, or Arcana) check might turn up some bizarre inconsistencies, but they would be more fuel for conspiracy theories than actual proof. Again, Razmir claims to have taken the Test of the Starstone. Who is your character to doubt that?

It would be like making a Knowledge (Religion) check to suddenly know what happened to Aroden or a Knowledge (Dungeoneering) check to understand what the aboleths have really been up to all of these years. The Inner Sea World Guide drops a few hints as to how Razmir might be uncovered or undermined in the future, but I feel that he is most compelling as a political and quasi-divine figure if his non-divinity is not easily known. Until it is revealed in the campaign setting, it is best left as an in-character mystery.

Most of the issues described above are based on the 4th and 7th level versions of the pregens. IMO, the 1st level versions are balanced and offer an excellent foundation to teach new players. Valeros is probably the most complicated, but after a couple of combat encounters, the player should have a handle on the differences between fighting with one vs. two weapons.

The Beginner Box is the way to go if you have the opportunity. Not only are some of the more complicated rules (combat maneuvers, attacks of opportunity) stripped away, but the character sheets have notes in the margin with tips for new players. Don't worry about chronicles, rewards, etc. for this first session. Your focus is teaching them the basics of game-play. Don't forget the web enhancements because it adds barbarian to the four base classes. This would be important if you have more than four players.

Once they have completed an entire session, they should understand the basics of combat, movement, skills, etc. Move on to the First Steps series. It has a good mix of combat and role-playing and it will serve as a good introduction to both the more advanced tactics (above) as well as the nuances of PFS (factions, missions, chronicles, etc). If they want to move on to a different character class, they can do so after First Steps I.

My advice would be not to worry about all the optimization talk. That can come later. Focus on the game-play so they know what do do. They can learn better ways to do it as time goes on.

Now there's a challenge. I have a hard time just thinking up the first sentence of a verbless synopsis.

It's just Darmok on Tenagra speak. If you work with iconic Golarion imagery, it could even work.

Personally I prefer the tokens, because I can make my own. I might be able to fab the pawns, but I'd have to find a source for the plastic bases.

Here's how I'm making my own cardboard figures very similar to what is in the Beginner Box.

Buy some white 3mm craft foam from Hobby Lobby or a similar craft store (I bought a 12" x 18" 3mm sheet of craft foam, called ‘Funky Foam’ from Hobby Lobby; it costs $0.99). It seems like it will be floppy, but don’t worry, it will be stiff like cardboard or balsa wood by the end after you glue on the paper.

Then, find monsters of your choosing (either online, or you can do a printscreen from a PDF and edit out any stray text or colors) and resize to fit the pawn / figure flat size you want. Make two copies of the image. Image tip: Make it 200 or 300 DPI (dots per inch); this is important if you are doing a screenshot which by default is 72 DPI and may look pixelated when you print).

Finally, print out the monster and cut it out to the size pawn you want. Glue (I use rubber cement, but any kind should do) one monster piece of paper to one size of the craft foam. Cut out the craft foam using the paper pawn as a guide. Then flip it over and paste the other monster paper to the reverse.

Finally, once dry (rubber cement dries in only a few seconds, one reason I like it) you can insert it into these bases from Fantasy Flight:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=1400

I actually bought mine here:

http://www.ccgarmory.com/bogaacplst.html

$2.00 for 10 stands. I spent $10 and got 50 of them. Enough for a small army battle!

With a little bit of time in Gimp or Photoshop, and some cutting and pasting, you can crank out very cheap figure flats / pawns similar to what is in the Beginner Box (better, if you want an image on the rear).

Follow my blog at www.rpghacker.com as I will put up a more detailed tutorial on all this when I have time, including (I hope) some templates for the pawns.

Essentials really pleased nobody and alienated pretty much everybody. The fan base that 4E had was alienated because it took a fairly elegant system that did what they wanted and made it into a poor imitation of a system that didn't do what they wanted. The Pathfinder fanbase was alienated because... well, because they'd already been alienated by 4E in the first place.

When the final chapter in 4E is written, the historians will look at Essentials and say, "DON'T DO THIS."

In short, I put in a ton of work attempting to bring organized PF play to my area.

Awesome, hats off to you sir!

arrived late

Sometimes this is unavoidable, in which case they should have been profusely apologetic. If they weren't then they're just being rude.

left early

A PFS slot is generally run over 4-5 hours and players and GMs may have other engagements outside of that. Did the slot over-run forcing people to leave, or did they fail to provide enough time to play the mod? If it over-ran then it's just something to watch out for when running mods and you can't really blame the players. If they left early because they didn't realise how long the mod was then that's something for the GM to flag up at the beginning of the session, especially for newbies.

insulted the choices of adventures

This is a tricky one as PFS doesn't allow replaying, so choosing adventures in advance for a random group of people is a very hit and miss affair. You could very easily prep a mod to perfection only to find that every player has already played it and the game can't go ahead. I strongly recommend notifying the store which mod you want to run in advance and asking them to get sign-ups. That way everyone knows whether they can play before they turn up.

tried with every opportunity to break the game with ridiculous character ideas

A player's character is his own business and I don't think the GM should ever criticize their choice. Sure, some characters are more munchkinny than others, and some are just plain weird, but that's the way it goes. Organised play allows a huge variety of play and personality styles to mix, and that's part of its charm. Just go with the flow and have fun!

never registered with society

Maybe, but if their characters were unusual and powerful, and they complained about the mod choice, then I suspect they did have PFS #s but didn't give them to you as they were replaying (it was the only thing they could do to get a game but it isn't allowed). If they left early and didn't bother with a chronicle then that may be because they knew they couldn't use it. If you complained about their characters, or their illegal printouts, then they may not have been enjoying themselves either and decided not to stick it out.

used illegally obtained PDF printouts at the table

I don't care about this personally, and certainly don't audit people's characters or references. I just run the game. Every GM is different, but if you're trying to get PFS up and running in a new area then don't worry about this kind of paperwork. If they're new players and get to 5th level but are still using dodgy printouts then tactfully suggest they buy the books. It will keep the store happy as well. :-)

rules-lawyered the game

They definitely sound like existing PFS players! There can only be one set of rules in an organised play game like PFS because changes from table to table can really cause confusion and/or break immersion. When my players flag something up mid game I'll check the rules quickly, or ask them to do it for me if I'm busy. It means you're being fair and it helps the GM and players learn. Sometimes you have to draw the line, but I'm quicker to do that for environmental or NPC questions than with character questions, because the latter deserve a bit more care.

I don't know if they were just a bunch of rude, inconsiderate newbies who didn't know what to expect and failed to plan their time effectively, or if they were existing PFS players who were unable to play the games you prepared and therefore fudged it, coming across as rude or inconsiderate in the process. Chalk it up to bad luck and try again, but I strongly recommend looking at ways to sign people up in advance or else choosing less common scenarios to run. Which games did you prepare out of interest?

Keep in mind that there are plenty of map making programs on the internet. I think some are even free or at least offer a free trial.

While that's true... it's just as easy to make an illegible or ugly or useless map with a map-making tool as it is to do the same with a piece of graph paper and a pencil. In some ways, it's even EASIER to make a useless map with a map-making program, since a lot of those programs make it unfortunately easy to overcomplicate things.