|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I suppose I should comment on this...
I first met Mike (and his amazing wife) at Gen Con 2010 as his GM for Year of the Shadow Lodge, his first PFS event. I got to know him a bit more only a month later at Dragon*Con when we ran Rebel's Ransom side-by-side (oh the horror!)
Our friendship grew but was easily eclipsed by his passion for this silly little game. While Massacre Miles and his minions lead the charge in the Midwest, Mike was building something more powerful in the Deep South. That community exploded, catapulting Mike into his Overlord role where he spread his passion to the far corners of the Earth.
Without Mike, his love for the game, and his strong leadership (feat), this campaign and this game we love would be unknown to tens of thousands of people who now bolster our community.
Than you Mike. Thank you for all that you've done. I still regret not killing your dwarf.
John Compton wrote:
It was the Wounded Wisp (Seekers of Secrets 26). I have no recollection of where "The Pig's Paunch" came from, but it's not showing up in my search of Paizo's published materials. It's something that needs correcting in The Confirmation.
In The Confirmation GM briefing it states that the Pig's Paunch is the current name for the bar that was once known as the Wounded Wisp.
edit: I lied. It was the first sentence of the Summary, but it didn't make it into the final product:
"The scenario begins in a tavern in the Merchant’s Quarter district of Absalom that was once known as the Wounded Wisp."
"The scenario begins in a tavern in the Merchant’s Quarter district of Absalom."
I'm going to take a wild guess that either you haven't played 6-03 or didn't really play 6-03.
Here, I'll do mine:
#railroad #rats #dragons #swarms #deathbyathousanddarkstabbings #WTFGUGS #gimmeyourstuff
#scriptedsandbox #thetenarenotgoodaligned #chasescene #auction #caubomustdie
#sandyroad #freewayfinder #leavethehalflingalone #gcube #swarms
#railroad #demons #swarms #hopeyoudidnotdumpyourwisdomescore #funsponge #iwouldratherbepunchedintheface
#sandbox #mwangiexpanse #nantambu #ayaissmokinghot #gcube #notthatmanyrobots #blameitontheconsortium
And that the PC in that story us now an NPC? :-)
Discussed a running of this with a player recently and I came away with a this:
At high-tier the NPC Codex sorcerer in the warehouse has a wand of invisibility. The GM combined repeated uses of that with extra rounds buffing for the alchemist instead of engaging the PCs per the tactics. These tactics combined with the party make-up to cause the encounter to drag out and consume almost the entire slot.
This scenario is about drenching the PCs in Mwangi culture and providing the PCs options to do their investigation. Using the entire slot for a single encounter goes against the intent of this scenario.
As the GM, it's not your job to win, it's your job to tell a narrative with the PCs as the protagonists. You have a limited time to tell the story, don't waste it all on the first chapter.
Updated after a week:
Added Ruins of Bonekeep—Level One: The Silent Grave
Most New Reviews:
Given that it's college football season, I'm moving up to a Top 25 KB Poll. After Week 1, here's the standings:
Top 25 Scenarios (min 10 reviews)
Top 10 PFS Authors (min 2 credits)
Season/Cumulative Avg/PI/Reviews per Scenario
Prompted by this thread, I have now reviewed every PFS scenario that I have ran. I feel like a lot of my reviews ended up a bit samey, but...at least I'm caught up.
Only 4 stars for The Confirmation? Heresy I say! Burn him at the stake!
Eh hem. I mean... Thank you for your review. (*grumble*grumble*grumble*)
In fact, I just checked, and I've only written one review - 5 stars for Storming the Diamond Gate (so much for the theory that only people who had a bad time write reviews).
To be fair, one instance does not disprove the theory. Also, the theory is that people are more likely to write a review for an very bad experience over a very good experience.
May Contain Sarcasm wrote:
(Of course, I have never actually submitted a review, but that's another issue...)
That *IS* a huge problem. Many people feel as though they need to wait to submit a review. Whether it's to run it multiple times, or both play and GM it, or whatever, I argue that it's worth more to write an initial review and explain that you're likely to edit it later.
A big part of why I did this (and have done similar in the past), is to inspire people to post reviews. If you see a scenario that you remember well, whether positively or negatively, write a review! Even just a few constructive sentences can make the difference in future scenario design.
With all the data compiled for every scenario from every season, I present to you this. Thanks to everyone who helped!
Top 20 Scenarios (min 10 reviews)
4.75 2-03 The Rebel's Ransom
Bottom 10 Scenarios (min 10 reviews)
2.61 4-23 Rivalry's End
Polarizing Index (PI): Compares what % of reviews are either 1-star or 5-stars, how balanced it is between 1-star and 5-stars, and weights number of reviews (more reviews = more potential to be polarizing/controversial).
Top 10 PFS Authors (min 2 credits/low PI)
Top 10 Most Polarizing Scenarios
5-05 The Elven Entanglement
Top 10 Most Polarizing Authors
Ryan Costello, Jr.
I'd be willing to bet that at GenCon, where there were probably more than 500 tables playing the new season 6 scenarios with Numerican technology, there were probably no more than 5-10 tables where anyone had ever even heard of these rules.
I'll take that bet. I ran 7 and played 2, so that's 9 tables where someone was aware of these rules. Now we just need to find 2 more tables...
I think LazarX has the right idea. A True Primitive can't read or write, but might still be quite gregarious and well-socialized. The Feral Child seems like it's just asking for disruptive role-play ("I sniff the diplomat's butt because I was raised by wolves! I take a dump in the potted plant because that's how bears do it in the forest! Aren't I hilarious, guys?")
Steven Huffstutler wrote:
I DEMAND MORE TEARS!
Andrew Christian wrote:
Problem is, it makes these 3 scenarios nearly unplayable (or at least not any fun, as you need to make some skill checks to get past certain parts) if you use that rule.
Using this rule does *not* make 6-03 unplayable by any means and it actually pisses me off that you would jump to such a conclusion.
Hyperbole and assumptions help no one.
Nick Greene wrote:
Nick, it was truly a pleasure to meet you!
Pharasma's a demanding deity.
They're no different than 1/2/3 star GM's other than they have more tables ran. They're still humans and make mistakes, but they're putting forth the effort to try and give more players a chance to play.
And I'm sure that more experience couldn't possibly improve someone's ability to GM specifically for PFS (on average).
Trying to say someone is a better GM because of the number of scenarios they've run is just play stupid. Everyone enjoys the game differently, so no matter how good or reputable a GM is, they still may not be enjoyable for a given individual. Of course there are 5-star GMs who are not as enjoyable (to some) as some 1-star GMs. But taken on a whole, I'd rather have someone with more experience than less.