JCServant's page

Amen

Scythia, are you open to online gaming via things like Maptools, Skype, etc? I've run some pretty successful campaigns with players from all over the world using that setup.

Salutations.

Over the last four years, I've GM'd nearly a dozen campaigns and dozens of PFS games. In my home games, like most GMs, I use a list of house rules. My rules include the following...

Variant Spontaneous Casting System

The variant spontaneous casting system I use is designed for spellcasters who normally prepare their spells in advance (including clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, and wizards). A spellcaster using this variant prepares the same number spells per spell level as normal. However, instead of preparing the exact combination of spells that she can cast that day (such as two magic missile spells and one mage armor spell for a 2nd-level wizard with Int 14), the spellcaster prepares a list of spells for each spell level from which she can spontaneously cast as she chooses. For example, that 2nd-level wizard with Int 14 would three different 1st-level spells. During the day, she can cast any combination of those three 1st-level spells a total of three times. In effect, the characters list of prepared spells is treated like a sorcerers' list of spells known.

Unlike what a sorcerer can do, a spellcaster using this system cannot spontaneously cast a meta version of the spell on the fly (They have to pre-memorize the meta version(s) they wish to use, taking up slots. Example: A 12th level wizard can memorize 3 level 5 spells. He may choose Cloudkill, Hungry Pit and Maximized Magic Missile. During the day, he may cast 3 cloudkills, or 3 pits, or 3 maximized magic missiles, or any combination of those spells...but once he casts 3 of them, he's out of fifth level spells until he rests.

As you can see, its quite similar to the arcanist in structure. While my version cannot meta on the fly, and has no arcane pool powers, they do get the same number of spells/day as the RAW wizard while having the arcanist's flexibility.

So, my opinion is not "armchair general" analysis, but opinion based on years and countless games of observation "in the field".

In short, my qualified, experienced opinion is This set up is not OP'd.

Over the years, I've had players complain to me when they play next to an optimized, pouncing barbarian, certain summoner builds, and a gunslinger. I have nurfed or outlawed most of those.

However, I've never had players complain, once, about feeling that their team wizard was overpowered. I have had other GM players who say they want to use this houserule. I believe there are two reasons for the GM *and* player love.

In PFS, where wizards must run as RAW, I find few wizards. They're very hard to play. You must prepare your spells ahead of time, oftentimes not knowing what you're going to face. And, if you want to cast a certain spell multiple times, you have to memorize it multiple times. The end result is that the fabled flexibility/adaptability of the wizard generally gives way as players memorize multiple copies of spells effective in the majority of situations, and don't bother with the more situational ones that make them feel more special. Taking away their ability to scribe scrolls in PFS(the best way to keep those situational spells on tap outside of arcane bond) makes it more difficult. Being squishy and generally not doing a lot of damage doesn't help, either.

In my home games, even with these rules (which clearly make wizards/casters more powerful) I don't find players banging down the door to play them (though I generally get balanced teams). Now, I've clearly made a powerful class more powerful. Why don't players bellyache, the way they gripe about some of the other, semi-broken classes? Simple. The way the wizard is OP'd mostly makes others shine. When a wizard buffs someone with invisibility, or crowd controls with stinking cloud, sets others up to knock those pins down. The wizard enables team awesomeness. Sure, I get the occasional evocation build that just kills things as often as possible, but true power gamin' wizards go for CC and buffage. Unlike, say, the OPd summoner build of death that consistently kills tough (or even some boss) mobs in on round... which drew comments from my players like "Why are we here? It's like we're the backup singers for the summoner."

So, this gets more people to play arcane (which always seems to be a need), and gives the wizard more ways to shine which, in turn, helps the entire party to feel more awesome. I think I'm OK with that :) The only ones who tend to feel the burn, here, are my lovely monsters. The added flexibility does allow the wizard to be more effective, more often in combat. But, hey, my enemy casters get to use the same rules, so its all good :)

I've done a lot of PFS... where we basically have to run things by the rules. We don't get the luxury of fiat'ing encounters or the such to make the non-wizard characters feel better about themselves. And players know that.

And many, in PFS, just make what, in their mind, is the most powerful build they can find. It seemed to me that nearly half of the players focused a lot of optimization and squeezing every last bit of combat effectiveness out of their builds. They wanted to dominate.

Yet, I didn't see all that many pure arcane casters/builds. And, I even saw more than a few martial builds.

I won't argue whether or not wizards/arcane casters are the key MVP in or out of battle more often than martials. I think you can make a solid case either way. But, in PFS, where players don't really get to have long discussions at all about party balance (you basically show up with your character and go for it), I rarely had two arcane casters. I often had none! So... while they may more powerful or dominating (especially when played well), I just don't see a swath of people flocking to them. :/

Even in homebrews, where party members discuss roles and balance, ya just don't see a lot of times where two players but heads over who gets to fill that arcane role. I couldn't tell you why, but its often harder to fill than the cleric/healer role nowadays. So, if they get to be OP'd in some battles where they prep properly and know what tools to use and when to use them...well, that's OK :)

What ya said, Mystically.

I've run dozens of parties. Players don't all go caster. I've even had a party missing arcane casters before. In PFS games, I seem to get a good variation. A good reason why is that, in lower levels, they aren't that pwnsome. The pay off for this, IMHO, is that if a caster DOES reach higher levels, they tend to outshine other classes.

This was really the case in older editions. Low level casters were really near - useless... and high level casters were demigods. Pathfinder gives low levels more toys to play with than D&D 1st, and because martials are much tougher and the such, Wizards feel just little less OP'd at high levels than the old days.

It's hard to really determine true 'balance' with so many moving pieces in a game as deep as PF. But, I do believe that good anecdotal evidence includes things like player preference. I've had high percentages of players go for builds like Zen Archer, certain summoner archtypes, etc...(which I've outlawed or nurfed in my home games) but I really don't get as many arcane casters as you would think if they were so overpowered.

I also agree with someone else's earlier post... a lot of what the wizard does makes others shine...since their true strength is in things like crowd control, buffs, etc. Color Spraying half of the opponents means little if you don't have some good martial characters on the team to take advantage of the enemies short term plight. Back in the old days, when they were more blasty, it felt more like they stole spotlights.

I will never disagree though, that they are certainly a class that completely shines if you play the class well.

You have one week of downtime. I expect to have these resolved over the next day or two. Post early and check every posting period for updates on how yours is resolved.

As a reminder, and for benefit of new players, here are the CoT downtime rules and options.

Downtime Actions

This week, you can training up to three NPCs with one training roll, and you can entertain NPCs on two separate occasions. To avoid overwhelming the GM, you're going to do one of these each posting period, please.

For example, Kyle may elect to train Fiosa, Amaya and Yako in the AM posting period...RP it out a little bit, and roll a training roll. In the Afternoon posting period, Kyle RPs out a date with Cala and rolls diplo. Finally, in the night posting period, Kyle RPs out a night discussing the greater points of religion with Fiosa (they actually find that entertaining) and also rolls diplo.

Ask questions here. Thanks!

Phillip Willis wrote:

Quote:

But even if you do it before, at a Con (or a multi-slot game day, like where I ususally play), you can end up just as crunched for time before the scenario. I don't want to sit down at a table, have the GM roll in 5 minutes late for whatever reason, and try to get my ITS signed off just to be told "I don't have time. We need to get started, so we'll just do that after."

Indeed. I mean, here's the thing. For some reason, when a GM perceives time is short, they automatically cut out reviewing sheets, handling purchases, having players complete chronicle sheets before signing etc., etc. Honestly, these should NOT be handwaved, IMHO. I'd rather cut out an optional encounter, or rush players through some of the RP or combat, rather than cut out the 15 minutes that the bookeeping requires, because this is organized play, and bookkeeping/documentation is part of the process of keeping this whole thing organized.

With all due respect, your players play the game for the RP or the combat, not the paperwork. If PFS is going to continue to be a thing, we need to focus on the portions of the game that players and GMs enjoy - the actual game itself. Paperwork is necessary, but should not be done at the expense of other portions of the game.

My players also play organized play expecting a certain balance between characters (based on levels and the such, of course). At one table I ran, one of the players had a 30 point build, and another had an illegal feat that was wicked powerful. These were things I quickly caught in doing roughly 10 minutes of spot checking. When you have overpowered players making other players feel totally worthless by contrast, it diminishes the experience every bit as much (if not more) than if the GM passed up an optional encounter.

Paperwork is part of Pathfinder and even more so in Pathfinder Society. I do absolutely take steps to maintain a balance. We spend a max of 30 minutes on paperwork (15 before reviewing and 15 minutes after reporting) and ~4 hours RP and combat. The game is still front and center.

Wow!!! That's awesome to hear, Drogon. This gives me some much needed insight, as I have heard the concern not only from loyal players, but also from the occasional store manager as well. I will be certain to pass this perspective along.

While I know it may not be representative of gamers as a whole, I do know that some (not all) of the gamers at my table buy cards, mats, figures, etc from the store while they are there.

The only point that I am trying to make, the only point of confusion I suffer, is this one thing: if a player is utilizing a single spell from the Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition book for his character, why is it inappropriate for that player to photocopy that single page instead of bring a the entire 400+ page book with him?

I have a story or two about a player who would do things just like that. I'll put the same advice out there that I gave him.

First, I hope...REALLY hope you don't buy any book, must less a really expensive one like that one...for just one spell. I've seen people do that. Far be it from me to tell someone how to spend their money, but I will tell ya...if that one spell gets banned down the road, they get REALLY upset. Outside of some of the rules books like Ultimate Equipment, many of the other books serve other purposes. RotRL is a campaign book, eh? My advice is to only buy that book if you're going to use it as a campaign book, or for the flavoring it provides. That way, you won't be disappointed if your one spell gets banned.

Second, a player should build his characters around what he owns, or what he's willing to carry around, whichever is the most limiting factor. Just sticking to core, AGP and Ultimate Equipment covers a myriad of builds. Carrying around a 10lb behemoth (like RotRL) for one spell isn't a great idea no more than buying it for that one spell. Just sayin'.

The rule is there to insure not only is the GM running the game provided with a copy of the spell/feat/rule that applies, but also that you have purchased that specific source. That purchase entitles you to use anything legal from that source. A photocopy doesn't prove you purchased anything, it just proves you have access to a copier. That could have a copy of a friend's book, something you downloaded somewhere illegally, etc.

For the more LN types out there, "because the rules says so" is usually a good enough reason, lol. However, for those diggin' deeper, this reasoning may work as well. None of us non-staffers, even VO's, speak directly for Paizo, but what Chad says here makes a lot of logical sense to me. And in the 50+ legal PFS games I have played, I have had a number of players attempt to pass off bootleg PDF print outs (and well as on handheld devices) as backup for their characters. What's interesting, is I had people do that to me at a con..where I know they spent some money in travel, hotel, etc. They could have easily bought the PDFs with some of their left over money, or invested in a cart.

The reality is, if you're doing an organized play system, and you don't have some basic controls in place, there are people who will simply use bootleg stuff and cheat your company of money you should probably be earning off the event. I hear a lot of GMs say, "I trust my players!" That sounds great! But, the reality of life is that people love to cut corners and even cheat when presented with easy opportunities. This is why we lock our car doors. It's EASY to get past a car door lock if you put your mind to it (or just break the glass), but locking the door discourages that person enough to maybe choose another car to rob. Leaving it open makes it very tempting to those who may not normally take larger steps to theft.

I don't speak for Paizo, but I'm taking a shot in the dark and guessing that having these rules primarily helps the GMs (I know it does for me) by forcing the players to have official documentation about their build that the GM can rely on as being legal and accurate. However, I bet a secondary reasons is that it helps to dissuade those who would normally cut corners and not buy the books they make their character with normally.

Well, if it makes you feel any better, the reality of the thing is that it probably will never come to that. From what I understand (and reinforced by my experience at PaizoCon), I'm one of the tougher GMs out there. And, I'm not even that mean. I basically spot check sheets (who has time to do a forensic audit?). I usually pick one or two 'topics' that I'm looking for each session. It may be double checking gold, or point buy...or feats and spells. Whatever that is, I look through those, and I'll ask about the ones I don't recognize (I don't generally ask about stuff I already know). This approach lends itself to mostly asking about non-core stuff. At that point, the players just have to show me their one or two things I ask for.

If, in asking about that one or two things, and/or checking their chronicle sheets for the one/two spells to see where they purchased them, it turns out they have NO backup for their character, I won't send them away, even then. I'll simply ask them to run a pre-gen. (If it's a FLGS setting, and that's a regular players, I may give them a pass for a week or two until they can secure and show me the resources).

If it's just one feat backup they are missing, item, etc, I'll give them the option of running that PC with the feat on suspension or playing a pregen. Occasionally, if they know exactly what book its from and they have the page number handy with additional resources, I'll look it up on my copy, if I have it, and make joke about remembering books and whatnot.

I think you'll find that most of us are totally willing to work with players. It is a co-operative experience after all, and as Mike said, we're not the police or anything.

Interestingly enough, we GMs have had this book carrying burden for some time. Save for those few with easy access to a copier, GMs generally have to carry about 5 or so books to run things smoothly...sometimes more. Add to that figures, mats, dice, markers, etc., and it looks like we're moving into an apartment. Some got this cute little carts. I, personally sprung for a tablet, and got on the subscription bandwagon early so I've always had important books as PDF that I can easily carry around. It was WELL worth the investment!

That being said...I have no idea what a good solution would be

When new players come to my table, I ask them to not look at the online SRD, herolabs, etc. I pull out the core rule book and ask them to make a character with just that. If they happen to own a few of the other books, I tell them to go ahead and use those to. If they only build by looking in the core and other books they own, they can build awesome, awesome characters.

If you're limited not by what you own, but by what you are willing to carry, I would recommend the same thing to you. If you take those books you are willing to carry, you will be in a much easier place than if you build with everything you own, then figure out you don't want to carry it all.

----

I see a few posts about supporting local game stores, Paizo/PFS selling strategy not lining up with what works best for FLGS, etc. I can tell you that it's been that way for some time, and the core issues that affect that relationship the most goes beyond PFS and to Paizo's strategy as a whole. There's some very interesting posts about it from Paizo staff if you dig deep enough. Long story short, though, this direction that Mike has laid out here (which has really been the rule for a while now), isn't affecting that relationship nearly as much as some of you might thing...not when compared to decisions such as the 'free PDF with subscription' deals and the such.

Long story short, we'll never buy as much as the Magic guys do, and probably don't even do our part to help pay for the bills given the space we take. I think some of you addressed this well when you state up above that you buy something from the store each time. I know what I like to do a lot is we charge an entrance fee sometimes...(especially on larger events). It's usually $3/player/slot. We then buy products in the store, or gift certificates, and raffle them off. It's a great way to support the store, and everyone loves a good raffle :) Outside of that, as GM, I always encourage players to buy the books and accessories from the store whenever I'm in it. Just seems to be the polite thing to do.

I understand that if someone sits down to a table and they're using a feat or a piece of equipment from a book they don't own, they should just switch that feat out or get their gold back for that piece of equipment. That makes total sense to me. But I apparently have customers (and I'm using the term loosely here) who don't own a single Pathfinder book, and I'm not sure what to do about them.

Can someone who's using ten different books he doesn't own for a character effectively rebuild nearly every aspect of his character to be core only? Or does he have to make a choice between buying the books and losing his character? What am I supposed to do about this?

Alright...you're not going to like what I have to say...because a lot of it is not peaches & creme, as we say in the south.

If a players has a feat, illegal item, etc...technically, he would need to follow the normal rules for retraining that feat (coming up in the new PFS guide, which WILL cost something, I'm sure)...if it's an item, he would need to sell it and buy something out, losing out on gold or whatever. If you decided to handwave those costs because of a misunderstanding or whatnot, I understand. It's not normally allowed, but I might do the same thing in your case. Mistakes happen, and we don't want to bash people upside the head with a nurf stick for complete mistakes.

However, If a player has 7th level character using 10 different books he doesn't own, and doesn't have access to in the games he plays with him (from a spouse, close bud, whatever), he's essentially been breaking the rules of the organized campaign for some time. This is a little harder to handwave. You'd have to rebuild the character from scratch, which is clearly not allowed by the rules of the campaign.

The additional requirement rules are clearly spelled out in the Guide to Organized Play. Of course, I understand not everyone reads them well (or reads them at all), which is why my VL and I do everything we can to educate players on these types of things...to avoid this scenario! No one likes being surprised by the fact that their 7th level character is essentially illegal for play!

But, ultimately, if this type of scenario does come up, then, yes, I would tell the player that they could not play their character until they obtained the books to make it right. And, I would try to work with them (Allow them to play character for a month or so until he can afford the books, or I've even bought PDFs for players before at one point). But, if, ultimately, someone DOES end up shelving that character, I would remind you and myself, The rules are clearly spelled out. For the player to get cranky at you or I in enforcing those rules is as unreasonable as the person who gets upset at an officer for giving them a ticket, or the referee who throws out a football player for breaking the rules. Ignorance ultimately is not an acceptable defense. And if they're going to get upset, take their legos and go somewhere else because I'm asking them to follow the campaign rules they agreed to when they sat at my table...well...it happens.

However, it is an issue and we'll continue to work hard to insure in our areas that the ignorance aspect is kept to a minimum.

Thanks for taking time out of your very busy GenCon prep to answer this Mike, and setting the record straight.

Just one question about the pdfs: are you only supposed to print out the relevant portion of your character (i.e. I would print out the pages concerning the class, the spells, and whatever feats are non-core) or do I have to print out the entire PDF?

Many of the players here do just that...they print out just the pages from the PDF that pertain to their character, chosen feats, spells, etc. The have the chronicle sheets in order behind that, with their character sheet in the front. It's a great way to go, as you can very quickly answer any questions a GM may have about your character.

The biggest issue I have with audits is time. I would like to be able to do them each time I sit down to GM, but time constraints make that hard, especially for someone whose tables tend to run long as mine often do. (Any suggestions on speeding that up and providing an avenue for audits are certainly welcome as far as I'm concerned.)

There's a few recommendations.

First, it's OK to realize you cannot possibly review everyone's sheet completely in most settings. Spot checks are your friends. I set myself a strict 15 minute review time limit. If I don't get to check everyone's sheet, oh well.

Second, especially at higher level of play, understand you won't catch every error on each look over at the sheets.

What I do, is spot check. Pick 3 things to check on the sheets, and do so on as many character sheets as the time allows. It may be attack calculations, HPs and feats. Anything that you see on the sheets that you don't understand, or know, ask the player about. See a feat you don't recognize? That's the one to ask for additional resources and the page showing the feat. Have the player look that up while you look over the next sheet. This not only proves to you that the feat is legal, but gives you the chance to learn a new feat you were not previously familiar with.

Next week, pick 3 different things, such as gold levels, armor equipped and highest level spells. Use the same approach as above. If possible/appropriate, start with the players you skipped the week before.

The golden rule is Do what you can. Anything is a HUGE improvement over nothing. When players know GMs are checking, they are more likely to review their own sheets more regularly, since they now know there's a chance that they may get called on if there's a mistake... again, this is very similar to how MOST of us are super careful about our taxes even though they are very rarely audited. The chance of an audit in and of itself leads people to be more careful.

Hmmm...I was hoping to engender an intelligent conversation about reviewing sheets in order to create a more organized and consistant playing environment. Perhaps an in depth analysis of the profound implications of Herolabs on the PFS community could be discussed in another thread?

Indeed. I had a goal of creating a method of Pbp that could keep up with table top gaming in terms of speed (how long it takes to complete books), and a group to support it. You all have done just that. You've also shown me that the RP in Pbp is super awesome. Sure, the combat is clunky, but the RP totally makes up for it.

I'll definately keep you all updated. If the dust settles, and it looks like I'll still have the 15-20 minute breaks I normally need to do this (combat is the most time consuming), then I'll let y'all know.

If any of you are interested, I do run other games. My Friday night group is currently full, but we are running PFS on Sunday nights starting around 8pm EST. We don't have nothing set in stone, but the idea is that each Sunday, we see who shows up, and if we got enough to run a game, we do! PFS lends itself well to that type of gameplay. Also, in a few days on Saturday from 2pm EST to about midnight, I'm running a level 1 adventure that will earn the players one level for their PFS characters, The Crypt of Everflame.

Let me know if any of you are interested.

Salutations.

Nine months ago, give or take, I joined PFS as Venture Captain of the Salt Lake area. I had run Adventure Paths and the such for years. I knew that Organized play had some stronger rules and reporting attached to it. I was running a PFS play by post at the time...and within a month, I had people reporting me because I adjusted some of the rules at the time to facilitate online play. In my first few month running games locally and reviewing sheets I was constantly reminded by a number of players that while not everyone in my region had all the backup for their characters in order, they all KNEW they better have it ready for any convention, because those are super official and stuff!

So, in running local games, I made sure to continuously communicate and uphold RAW at the table. I spot checked character sheets regularly, and reviewed with players when they used illegal copies of books as backup, illegal feats, poor builds, etc. (I always limit myself to about 15 minutes of checking, and I check people who I haven't checked in a while so everyone eventually gets looked over). I had some people walk away very upset I did this, but the rules are the rules, right? And, it is usually the GM who enforces the rules of the game, and the rules of the PFS organized play, at the table.

So, imagine my surprise when, at PaizoCon, I learned that a very small minority of other PFS GMs were checking sheets at all. I questioned over a dozen players, including my friends from Utah who game. None of them had their sheets checked unless they sat at my table. Every player I asked told me I was the only one.

I only do spot checks, as I hold to a 15 minute rule...but at the con alone, I found a 30 point build, two players with gold off by thousands, 2 players who did not have ANY backup (books OR chronicle sheets) for their tier 7-11 characters and one with a completely illegal item.

The fact that sheets are very, very rarely reviewed isn't limited to the con. It was clear that many of these players, from all over the country, had rarely, if ever, had their sheets checked. A 30 point build is easy to spot, but it had been on the character sheet for well over a dozen sessions by the time I saw it.

I passionately believe that checking sheets creates a fair, even playing field for the players which, in turn, makes the game more fun (after all, it's hard to have fun if a player or two in the party has a 30 point build with illegal items). It is my intention to encourage GMs to check sheets at each session whenever possible. In talking with other GMs and VO's about my concerns, some agreed. Those who did not had some common concerns I'd like to address here, as part of my plea to the community.

There's no time
Time management is always a difficult part of running any PFS scenario. Trust me, I understand. The stores we run at close at 10 promptly, and we arrive at the store at 5.30. Clearly, there's not enough time to do a forensic audit at the table. What we do is a simple spot check, and we limit ourselves to 15 minutes or less total for sheet checking. If something looks too complicated, we take a picture of the sheets with our phones (or write down some notes), get the player's email information, and look it up/follow up after the fact. If you are running a scenario that you know is time consuming and skip this step, no one is going to yell...but that should be the exception, not the rule.

It is not fun/It does not create a fun environment
True, reviewing characters sheets is not fun for the GM, and players can get bored if you take too long. Some players may not appreciate you questioning some things on their sheets. However, the even playing field it does create makes the game more fun over the long run.

I trust my players. Reviewing their sheets and backup sends a negative message to the contrary.
Hey, I have checked dozens of players, and I have caught maybe 2 who were outright cheating (Not recording expenditures I clearly told them to or using illegal material I knew they knew was illegal). But, you're right, the vast majority of people do not check. However, a lot of us do make mistakes. Pathfinder is a complicated game and PFS adds another layer of rules and upkeep. You would be surprised the sheer number of mistakes that are made...some of them rather large! One gentleman had a dozen or so more HPs because he added in correctly. Another was missing out on 7k gold because he skipped a chron sheet.

That brings me to another point...nearly half of the mistakes I found didn't make the character too powerful, but the opposite! I've seen 15 point builds, characters missing gold, feats, favored class bonuses and more. A player disappointed with his character performance may leave your game without saying a word, never knowing that he was missing critical elements that his character was actually entitled to!

I've heard about people leaving PFS because GMs who check treat them like jerks.
I've actually been the recipient of this type of behavior before...so I completely understand. I almost left Pathfinder as a hobby because of it. But, if YOU treat people with respect, the way you want to be treated, in reviewing their sheets, it doesn't have to be a negative experience at all. It can actually be positive. If you see mistakes, explain it to the player on the side. If they look confused, commit to spend some time during the break, or after the game, helping them to get it straight. Use it as an opportunity to build a bridge, rather than just to bust their chops, and you'll find the majority of players appreciate your assistance.

If you do this, you will invariably tick someone off. It's bound to happen. There are those who do not want to buy the book to back up their character, take the time to look up whether the feats they saw on d20pfsrd.com was actually legal, etc. You will have the occasional player who doesn't respect that organized play is exactly that. Sure, they could join or start their own AP or homebrew where none of this matters...but they're going to give YOU a hard time at your table. I've had it happen four times in the last nine months. Trust me, you don't want those types of players at your tables in PFS anyway. Give them Mike's email address and politely ask them to play somewhere else.

I hope this helps. Again, ultimately, I would like to see a stronger presence of double checking sheets somewhat regularly in order to create a more fair and consistent experience that comes to mind when we talk about organized play.

Congrats, Joseph. I have had a lot of success playing APs and Homebrews via Pbp and Maptools/Skype. And, with the advent of sanctioned APs, I'm now tying that in with my PFS activity. This online stuff is awesome! :)

My counterpoint: WBL rules make inherent sense. You fight some low-level mercenaries and they won't have much valuables you can take with you. You fight a high CR dragon and it has a bigger hoard than a younger one. While the amount of resources a character gets at a certain level may appear arbitrary, I have enough confidence in the developers that they actually balanced that number with the expected gear characters should have to deal with the challenges they are facing.

But your counterpoint doesn't explain why a party can't do things like take a year to perform in public and earn a few thousand gold (putting them above the WPL), inherit items/gold, start a business, sell a ship they got when they killed pirates, or do any number of things that would earn them more money than WPL allows. Making money by magic items is only one of a myriad of logical options that players can come up with that puts them well over WPL. It's always been up to the GM to either come up with in game reasons why they cannot, outright stop it (or make changes to rules such as lowering the gold value) with no explanation other than to cite game balance or allow it and hope it doesn't break the game. The direction that Ultimate Combat gives is only a guidelines. It's up to the GM to provide the support or whatnot. If you feel that too much wealth isn't an issue, then feel free to ignore it. If your GM suddenly has hordes of monsters attacking your town after you've created X GP in magic items, you'll have a good reason in the back of your mind what might have motivated him to do so :P

Unless Sean and the other developers can learn how to teleport into your living room, nobody can stop you from houseruling ( or interpreting RAW ) as you like. However, my personal hope and actual expectation is that a new rule ( or in this case, a change to an existing rule ) is given context so as not to appear arbitrary.

Seems like you're carrying quite a torch here. Hopefully I can help out. The WBL has been a guideline based on game balance for some time. It may feel arbitrary, but it's completely necessary and was decided on carefully. It's one of the few things however that doesn't tie in well with the 'fantasy world.' There's never been a great in story reason why a person couldn't receive a large inheritance, take a year off and work a craft to make a lot of money, or just find a really great magic item/gold horder early in their career rather than later.

It's all about game balance. A party's average wealth has strong impact on their ability to handle combat in conjunction with their APL vs. the CR rating of the encounters. If WBL is much higher or lower than the guideline given for your party's live, you can expect that the guidelines given for how tough an encounter is (based on the APL vs CR table) to no longer apply properly.

There's no really great in game reason given for the WBL guideline...much less for the fact that the average gold per encounter table shows less for the slow xp advancement track and more for the fast one. It's may feel arbitrary, but it's all set in the name of game balance. Fleshing those rules out for item creation, which is what this book does, similarly makes no more attempt to give in-game reasons for its guidelines than the CRB did with its tables.

Wealth is hardly the only place where this applies. As a GM, I know I have even created house rules that were done purely for similar reasons /game play balance reasons that had no direct tie-in with the lore. It's all in the name of fun...and proper game play balance is a huge part of the fun in any game. I absolutely love they way PF rules tie in really well with lore (it does that better than many Pen and paper games), but at the end of the day, it IS a game, and some rules/guidelines have to be there for fun/balance reasons even if there's not a great way to tie it in with the setting/lore/RP.

Well, if you like your evil mastermind to send one ninja at a time to wipe out the threat to his rulership, rather than sending all the ninjas at once, then Jade Regent is for you.

I liked the first Jade Regent book, but the second book was frustrating for me. The BBEG organization is run by a powerful intelligent leader who has had 60 years to amass power and prepare for the sole objective of killing survivors of the former royal families of Minkai. The followers are 100% loyal. Their network of spies extensive. Yet when the adventurers walk into town announcing "Hey, here we are!", they sit back and only present minor inconveniences to the people they should be exterminating.

They could have come up with a reason why the bad guys don't just gather their forces and wipe out the players, but they didn't. Even when the players assault their fortress, they don't even bother to lock the front door or gather their forces to retaliate.

If you enjoy sweeping logic under the rug, then maybe you can handle Jade Regent. I ran book 2 pretty much straight up, hoping to grind through it, but it ate away at me where I wasn't enjoying GMing it.

In my opinion, after Kingmaker, LoF and CotCT look to be the best bets.

My advice is to read into the AP enough to know that you will continue to like it past the first book.

I'm sorry that you're having that issue with it. I just completed it a month ago, and had a different experience.

A festival is starting in Sandpoint soon. Perhaps you would like to join?

You guys are going a bit off topic... This was more about GM etiquette after a PC goes down (In relation to PFS play) rather then GM mistakes.

It was also not about going back and seeing where a GM made a mistake..

Etiquette? I believe your OP was something along the lines of whether it was OK for a bad buy to hit you after you were KO'd. Hmmm...I guess it could be considered an 'etiqutte' issue, but "Avatar" above proposed a similar situation and asked, "Do these circumstances seem like it's okay to kill the PC like that to you?"

Etiquette, I imagine in PFS, is just a tiny step away from questions about fairness and rules ...especially when dealing with a sensative topic like character death. So, I understand your concern, but I wouldn't say it's completely off topic.

You know, in most house campaigns, you don't get to 'read the monster tactics' after the fact. You show up every week with the GM, he runs the monsters the way he thinks they're supposed to be run...and if you die for whatever reason, you take your lumps and move on. Even in AP's, I can't remember ever having a player question a death unless I clearly violated a rule in doing so. Only in PFS do players go back, read the tactics and then try to evaluate how the GM played that monster based off that one or two lines of text combined with how they think the monster would have reasoned things outside those tactics.

PFS Organized play certainly does lend itself to evaluating elements of the game more closely than an AP or homebrew. I understand that. However, doing so to an Nth degree, regardless of the motivation behind it, is determinental to attracting and keeping new GMs.

I can certainly understand and relate to the pain felt related to a character dying. However, unless a written rule was clearly violated, I'd just let it lie. If you honestly feel that the GM was being vindictive and cheap (or whatever), take it up with him/her directly. If the result of that is unsatisfactory, just don't go to his games anymore.

Worst case scenario...do what I did. Become a GM and run those monsters the way you want (Following rules/PFS tactics/etc of course) :)

Now, I agree there is a problem (and I disagree that having better promotion of exisiting feedback is a good option), I can certainly come up with alternatives.

Pathfinder has always been a group based event centered around the community. It's clear to me that while this problem exist, and easy fix from Paizo really isn't in their best interest. Furthermore, encouraging GM feedback may discourage some from stepping up to this needed role.

What I suggest is that we (those posting on these boards) step up as store organziers, VO's (where needed), etc. Work with your venture captain to visit game stores, get to know the GMs and players. Let them know who you, and what you do. Most importantly, let them know that you want them to have a great time playing PFS, and that you're available to support them. Give them your email addy and the such.

If something goes awry, then try to handle it as a friend and fellow member of the PFS community. Sometimes an ear to listen or a neutral party is all that's needed to resolve the issue. If it cannot be resolved, then help that player find another group. If some sort of permanent damage was done (PC being killed illegally), involve your VO or Mike.

Stay impartial. Keep in mind there are usually two sides to every story, and sometimes disagreements and personality conflicts happen with no real 'bad guy.' Let's just work together to resolve what little we can, and help the player find a new PFS group if at all possible.

If a store organizer sees a pattern, try to talk it out with the GM. If that doesn't work he/she reports it to the VO. If the VO's agree that a pattern is there about a bad GM who doesn't want to play nice in the sandbox, the most they can do is maybe not accept the 'bad apple' as GM at a con that's being organized, and in extreme cases, report it to Mike. Really, that's about it. It's not a perfect system, but if we work together, we can make it as good as we can and help PFS grow.

I've got the track record of what going?

Anyway, I think we're like 50/50 or better...cuz I've actually agreed wtih you on a number of threads lately.

Anywho, that rule guideline says,

" If that scene specifically calls for the PCs to receive gold piece rewards based on the gear collected from the defeated combatants, instead allow the PCs to find a chest of gold (or something similar) that gives them the same rewards."

So, it doesn't matter that the baddies have a metric @%@^@-ton of gear for this exercise. :) If the party suspects something is amiss based on earlier clues, and goes outside the box to insure their safe return to the lodge (which really is the main objective), the GM should do something to supplement their take based on the above guidelines. I would probably cross off the items as potential purchases from the Chronicle sheet, however, since they did not actually find those particular items on their trip.

Now, if I was running the table, and let's say that the party had no idea about the shady NPCs following them all over town with less-than-honorable-intentions. BUT, for whatever reason, the party decided to climb on the roof and take the scenic route home. I would probably rule that the bad guys, who have clearly been following them this entire time, would have seen the party's detour, and knowing the party was heading back to the lodge (based on their initial direction), decided to climb up on the roof from an opposing direction ...so the encounter would still play out. After all, it's a memorible ending to a fun scenario...I would hate for them to miss out just because they took a different route home.

Another thought...putting my GM cap on...I don't care for the idea of being constantly rated. Don't get me wrong, I always ask my players what they thought about the session, my style, etc. However, I don't care for the idea of everything being tracked and recorded Amazon.com style or something.

I'm already formally reviewed at my paying job. It would be a huge disincentive to be handled that way at a volunteer deal where I'm supposed to be relaxing and having fun (that I regularly sink both a lot of time and money into). We all know that even the best GM's butt heads with players. You can't please everyone. Do I really want to receive offical feedback from them that's channeled through Paizo? Really, I don't.

And as a VO, I don't want to be forced by Paizo to kick someone out of PFS because he didn't meet the benchmark of feedback/ratings (Because we're worried he/she is driving off players).

If someone has a concern with a GM in my area, they're welcome to contact me, of course. And if we're just talking about a webpage that facilitates that process, I imagine that wouldn't be a bad idea...but more than that (processes, procedures, etc), not really up for that.

And, if I get 8 complaints about the same GM, I'll definately reach out and try to talk with him about it (and do whatever I can to make the players whole if something really bad at the table happened). But, while I have no concrete data, I'm sure that scenario is the rare exception and not the rule. GMs want players to have fun...and those who don't are usually very lonely people.

I know this does not add a lot (if anything) but Jcservant, for a guy that does not have time to run a game useing a map you sure have a lot of time to post and argue with people.

Let me give this a more serious response.

You're right.... I am putting a lot of time into this...and I'll tell you why.

When I saw the posts regarding my Pbp thing, I was shocked. A conversation about a table I was currently running was happening. Mike even got involved. And I wasn't even invited. Do you know how that feels? To say it surprised me and made me feel angry and frustrated is an understatement.

If I wasn't already as involved as I am in PFS, and a huge supporter of Paizo, I may have left PFS (or even PF play) right then and there.

First, I don't want that to happen to anyone else. It really, really hurts, and it sucks. Second, in case you all haven't noticed, we have a shortage of dedicated GM's and organizers, especially on Pbp. Things like this really doesn't help that at all.

I could have just stayed silent. After all, the worst that could happen is that someone at Paizo write me and tells me that the Chronicle sheets we do for this is somehow invalid. I could have let the sleeping dog lie.

But a part of me hoped that by coming on here, asking for help, and engaging in open & frank converstaion about the whole thing that perhaps a few GMs/Organizers would see what I see...that our current approach which resulted my game being dissected and my approaching being critiqued in a public forum (that I was never told about) is not one that is healthy to PFS' growth. I also hoped that we could agree that, through mutual respect and a degree of tolerance that PFS might find new growth through diversity despite a structure founded by rules and regulations. Perhaps I hoped for too much, as some leopards will never change their spots. But, because of my passion for the game and the organization, I felt that I not only had to try, but I had to give it my best shot.

It's not theoretical. I can pull up Pbp games that do these things, as well as have players I know attest to it from PFS games I've played. You don't want to answer the questions? Why is that?

I guess your last two lines makes it pretty clear it's a personal thing. That's cool. So do you feel that every table that drops clear cut RAW (or otherwise marganlize those rules) in a way you don't personally agree with is invalid for PFS play?

The guidelines you posted, Sveden, weren't my chaging the rules, par se. (At least it was not my intent) It was my first pass/attempt to "try to set some standards beforehand to avoid any confusion of the logistics regarding combat by description." (as one of my players put it better than I). I wanted to do my best to make guidelines to objectify those things that aren't as clear in "combat by description" so that, when someone does something rather tactical, such as casting a precise AoE, the result I announce doesn't seem subjective (or totally arbitrary).

The fruit of this first attempt of mine was far from perfect, and it has clearly upset one player...but, as I mention above, the vast majority are having fun (all but that one want to do another). I am using his feedback, as well as other's ideas, to better fine tune this approach. Please feel free to join the discussion.

I got home and found my core rule book PDF.

"Combat in the Pathfinder RPG can be resolved in one of two ways: you can describe the situation to the characters and allow them to interact based on the description you provide, or you can draw the situation on a piece of paper or a specially made battle mat and allow the characters to move their miniatures around to more accurately represent their position during the battle."

Would this not allow a Pbp to play without a combat mat right here? I believe it does. Obviously, as implied, this type of play doesn't allow for the exact positioning of a battle mat, but it is allowed by RAW. (And to think of it, I don't event use a battle mat for every encounter at the table.)

I think this opens up a new line of thinking in PFS, specifically Pbp. Without the requirement to somehow represent and maintain battle grids and call out precise movements, running a Pbp because easier and smoother. Obviously, certain aspects of the game such as flanking, AoE attacks and the such have to be addressed (which is something my Pbp guidelines attempt to do.) I think this deserves its own thread! I'm going to make one right now!

First, I think you're very mature in your post. I can feel your frustration, and I don't feel you're pitching a fit. And, I can tell you, personally, I also feel a bit of angst anytime a player dies in one of my campaigns. I just don't know if I would have done differently...even knowing you had died once. It really depends on the giant...Hill Giants, for example, are CE. In Giant's revisited it says...

Hill giants are towering brutes of frightening strength, heartless selfishness, and alarming stupidity. Dwelling in the temperate, rolling regions that give them their name, hill giants prove a constant menace to hillside communities, which suffer the brunt of the monstrous giants' unswayable brutality. Though hill giants raid primarily for food and resources, their depredations are not without a sizeable share of entirely extraneous, meaningless destruction, often as a result of their voracious appetite for mayhem and their insatiable bloodlust. For though they are dull-witted, hill giants are still smart enough to derive pleasure from chaos, and their overwhelming greed and ravenous hunger ensure that as long as there is something within reach that can be smashed, stolen, or eaten, a hill giant will gladly deliver such services.

Hill giants learn at an early age that violence is a universal problem-solver, a notion constantly reinforced within hill giant tribes

Personally, I think their personality lends them to over-kill in violence and squishing a cleric looks like big time fun...so much that he would even do something suboptimal (such as knocking out the wizard who can enchant him with one spell) in order to finish off this weak small-ing in front of him. BUT, like I said above, if I was GM'ing the table, I might roll an INT check or something to give you an extra chance...though I may not have told you. You would have just got the result and probably not be too happy with me.

IMHO, I believe the contstructive critique would be better served to the players. And really, they should have pulled together the gold to raise you rather than ask you to spend PPs on this. It really sounds like it wasn't your fault but rather the party not being smart about the fight. It's a shame that not everyone believes in sharing (not just gold, but responsibility).

I don't like killing players either...but I've learend in GM'ing many tables that most players actually like knowing that death is a very real possibility and perfer for GM's to not pull punches as long as they are following the rules. Keep that in mind when you're GM'ing. Next time you start a campaign, ask players, "Hey, do you want me to roll the monsters dice on the table, knowing that if I do, I cannot fiat in your favor if they hit a few lucky 20's in a row" You'd be surprised how many say "Do it!" I know it was a surprise to me.

I wouldn't make it a move action... why would the monster waste time testing to see if you're alive when he can just finish the full round make SURE you're dead :P

I guess it depends on the intelligence of the creature. A vicious rabid wolf might take a moment to discern if you're dead before moving on. That makes sense.

Yeah, I mean, we probably all agree more than we care to admit. Personally, I do take some liberties, as described in my last post (with PFS guidelines), to give players every non-meta chance to survive. However, if a GM doesn't do a perception check, followed by a heal check, followed by an INT check and, instead, just completes the full round attack, I don't hold that against him either (unless the tactics in the book say other wise, or it really can be shown that it was against that bad guys nature against all reasonable doubts). I think we need to allow GM's a bearth, as long as it is within the rules, to run the tables as they see fit. If you critsize every GM who you felt didn't make enough RP checks/thinkology before killing a player for your liking, you're going to find it even harder to find GMs than you do today.

I will tell you, for the one player I've had complain about deaths (which is 1 of the 8 or so I mentioned before...), I've had several players tell me straight up that they want me to run the dice as they fall. In fact, several of my groups have opt'd (when given the choice) to see the monster rolls on the table, so I cannot fiat the dice in the player's favor (which I did more often when I was new to the game)

Please post OOC discussion, rule questions, etc, right here. Thank you!!