|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
It was listed as exclusive because it ran in only one slot at Gen Con. Calling it shady is a bit over the top.
We actually did do a very exclusive event, Race for the Runecarved Key part 2, at Gen Con. It only ran at that Gen Con and has never been run since. It wasn't very well accepted and people still ask to this day to be able to play it. I understand Gen Con is the convention of the year. However, I don't like for all the work development does to go into an event that is only run once ever. Our resources can be better utilized.
As for the word "exclusive" sure offer up some other options and I will consider a name change for the event for Gen Con 2015.
Saint Caleth wrote:
Well then it's a good thing this season has scenarios in both Mwangi and the tapestry.
Sammy T wrote:
A last-stand Horde Mode type scenario. Basically, one continuous combat against non-stop waves of enemies of escalating difficulty for the entire scenario slot until you tap out (or die).
Also not likely to happen. We've received a good bit of feedback that people no longer want waves of creatures in the specials. If people don't like waves of critters in a few acts, they certainly aren't going to enjoy a full four hour scenario of it.
Another reason to limit the unique subsystems to rarely, or more likely none, is because people have been asking for less prep times for GM's, and easier scenarios for new GMs and Gms running cold to run. Adding a new type of scenario-only subsystem goes counter to all three of those reasonable requests.
One of the things to keep in mind is that, if we are going to help cut the time back to a manageable four hour slot, most of the "unique" systems we've put in (mass combat, dog sled race in #16, etc...) are likely going to be done away with. When a GM has to teach the players about the mechanics of a unique system for that scenario only, that leans towards adding an extra 15+ minutes to the slot.
So, with that said and confirmed, what kind of plot would you all like to see? Keep in mind we are going to work our very best to cut scenario play time back closer to four hours so we may not be able to fit as many sandbox or super roleplay heavy scenarios into a season (we are likely to still have a few).
Also keep in mind this season. We have returned to the exploring and there will likely be 12-15 different locations adventures take place in. Also, contrary to what some keep saying, the season is not all based on tech (aka...don't judge an entire season on the first three scenarios). You will see a variety of different type of adventures. So, what would you like to see?
thanks for the information. I'll take some time and read the guide as suggested. It's a shame I can't have beads made. would have been cool, as a tiefling, to walk in, blow up the boss, and walk out, letting my reflex save for 1/2 and dr 5 fire soak up all the hurt.
While it sounds very cool as an individual experience, unfortunately it would likely create a poor play experience for the other five players at the table since they wouldn't get to do anything in the final fight except watch you blow up the bad guy in a single action. That would be a anticlimactic end to 4-5 hours of a play experience and likely put everyone in a sour mood.
No, I still haven't changed my mind.
The whole thing about stat block references is an age old topic discussed five years ago! I yearn for appendices, which could include the templated creatures and feats and ... wait, I wrote about the same stuff on the previous page.
Yes we discussed that and several other things about scenario layout, including possibly removing the two pages of ads. No need to keep stating the same thing. We are aware of all the issues people have asked about. :-)
Renegade Paladin wrote:
It will come off on the next Additional Resources update.
After discussing with the rules and design teams, PFS will use the scorpion whip found in the Adventurer's Armory, not Ultimate Equipment. Future printings of the Ultimate Equipment will fix the problem.
Additionally, Pummeling Charge has been removed from the banned list and will be legal again once the Additional Resources goes live.
Finally, the rules and design teams are discussing the fixes to make with MoMS. Until that time, we will not make any changes to it for PFS.
I don't see a smiley face or a /sarcasm anywhere. Like I said, some things will be changes that happen very soon while others will take a bit longer to see happen.
Mine too! And I still have this idea in the back of my head that the girl from Black Waters should become a serial killer that hunts down Pathfinders. Just saying....
I know my interest is piqued to hear what is coming. At this time, would you advise that we should anticipate to learn of these changes as they actually come into play, or will there be a heads up of "here is what to expect in the near future for PFS" sort of announcement?
Most will likely be highlights in a Monday blog as they come on line.
First, let me say that a lot of time and effort were put into improving PFS in this meeting. Both Lisa and Erik were in the meeting most of the Five hours and forty minutes. They are both as dedicated as anyone to see PFS become better. John, Mark Moreland, Mark Seifter, and I were part of the team as well.
There are quite a few changes and adjustments coming down the pipe. These could start as early as January but others may not go into effect until Gen Con 2015. Some changes willbe very prevelant and noticeable (and definitely highlighted with a Monday blog).
Others will not be seen by the player base at large. One such change that you want really see happening but will notice the affects is that we are building a product review team with the VOs. They will assist John and I in deciding what should and shouldn't make it in to PFS. That may delay update of additional resources from the last week of the month to a week to 10 days later. But, it will be a better system so we don't rush to get things added to the campaign and let something broken slip through the cracks.
Other notes of interest that I'm not ready to talk about in depth yet but do want to give some ideas to the playerbase what was covered.
We have come up with some ideas that we think can bring factions back to the forefront so they regain a good bit of their flavor and importance in the campaign. Note that this doesn't sacrifice the secondary success conditions that were implemented to make it feel like a "pathfinder society first" type of feel. It adds some things that make factions more personal, and at the same time more visible at the game table among the players. This should happen sooner rather than later.
We've come up with an idea that we think can address limited replay. For those worried about replay destroying the campaign, don't worry. We are very cognizant of that. I believe every VO can attest to my vehemence against replay on the VO message board. However, an idea has been presented that I think could work very well, that changed my vehement opposition against replay into a very excited positive, and would open up replay in a way we think the player base will like and appreciate, but at the same time won't destroy the campaign or the play experiences of people sitting down to play the game with someone who is replaying.
The entire team is in agreement we need more play content for the awesome player base. Once we have all of our goblins in a row, you will see more content. This will be in both more scenarios and more quests. However, this is going to take months to happen and not something you see immediately.
You will see some changes coming down the pipe that tweak the way scenarios are put together. John is going to start taking a very hard look in how best to help shorten scenarios just a touch so we can bring back play to the four hours they were always meant to be. The five hour slot is also supposed to include time for paperwork and mustering. We are acutely aware of the problems with scenarios running long and John is going to right that ship. In addition, weare aware of how much time some of the newer scenarios are taking to prep, as well as how difficult some scenarios can be for a newer GM to prepare. We are sensitive to all of these issues and I think you will start seeing some positive changes that make playing and GMing scenarios more timely and easier to GM.
There are a good many other things that we covered and changes and adjustments we are making to refocus PFS and make it a better experience. The above is just a few. But, I felt it important to let you in on a little of what was discussed so you all know that changes for the better are coming. Just have patience with us. It takes some time to get some of these things implemented so it won't be changes that happen overnight, or even in the next month. But rest assured, we have heard the complaints and criticisms, we have taken them to heart, and we are working with a renewed enthusiasm to give you the best organized play anywhere on the planet. And yes, please keep your feedback coming. We can always add to changes we want to make, or there may be something we didn't think of. There's alot of moving parts and I don't mind the challenge of having an awesome idea present a necessitated change to PFS. We've got the best volunteer leaders in the VO corp. Weve got the best playerbase. We are looking to continue having the best OP. Thanks for all the feedback over the past few months. It really has helped to make a difference.
On a last note, keep it positive. It can be constructive and positive at the same time. "Take the tech out of my fantasy" is neither. I will advise, don't judge an entire season off a few scenarios. We've got some awesome scenarios coming out in Kaer Maga and Mwangi and other awesome locations.
*EDIT* You are also going to see PFS shift away from a meta plot that revolves around an AP. We are looking at giving PFS it's own meta plot each season. We may have a multi-parter (similar to Destiny of Sands) that touches on the current AP. But, the entire team was in agreement PFS really needs its own Metaplot, similar to Year of the Shadow Lodge.
Because it is a big document, some things were placed in it before I got on the job, and I sometimes forget that there is an earlier entry, I will try to get it cleaned up before the next release.
You mean you can't read invisible ink? I guess you are fired then. I thought I listed that as one of the requirements.
"Hi, my name is... *rolls percentile dice* ...Mike Brock, and I'll be your GM today. I left my Pathfinder PHB at home, so we'll just go with 3.5 rules; I prefer those anyway."
And my intro is "Hi, my name is... *rolls percentile dice* ...Jacob, and I'll be your GM today. I left my Pathfinder PHB at home, so we'll just go with 3.5 rules; I prefer those anyway. Does everyone know about taking 10?"
Please join me in congratulating four VLs on their promotion to VCs. I decided to better serve Indiana, we would divide the state into five regions instead of two VCs having to overlook the entire state.
Mark Stratton has been promoted to VC of Indianapolis.
Along with current VC Leslie VanderHart in Ft Wayne, Indiana is now in fantastic hands.
Congrats and a job well done!
If you are a pending card game VL, send me an email. Include your Paizo.com email account and I will place all the card game scenario pdfs into your account. This will serve for the time being until the NDAs get sent out.
My email is email@example.com
Please join me in congratulating Fernando Bassini as the first Venture-Captain of Argentina. He will be based out of Tres Arroyos, but assist with growth of PFS throughout the Province of Buenos Aires.
I will let Fernando introduce himself, speak of the wesbite they have set up to coordinate game play, etc...
Welcome to the team!
Please join me in congratulating Rajmahendra Hegde as the first Venture-Captain of India. He will be based out of Hyderabad, but assist with growth of PFS in the state of Telanganan, Bangalore, and Chennai.
I will let Rajmahendra introduce himself, speak of the wesbite they have set up to coordinate game play, etc...
Welcome to the team!
They didn't respond to shoot him. They responded to save his wife and talk him out of the incident without it escalating. He choose to go off the deep end. You said we never hear of cops shooting other cops to save innocent people. I think they shot a person to save an innocent person, the other cop's wife. Again, people like to twist words to make it fit their story. A bad cop was threatening to kill his wife and started to shoot at the responding officers, placing innocent civilians in the area at risk. Its what you asked for. Also, you will notice, he shot at them, they tried to talk to him instead of returning fire immediately, and when he continued pointing his weapon at them, they then shot and killed him. They didn't just show up with guns blazing.That was just a quick example I thought of immediately. If I did a Google search, I could probably find a dozen more examples.
I showed it. And you still don't want to accept that good cops actually stopped a bad cop from hurting an innocent person by killing him. You said those are cops that should be honored in your post that I quoted. You failed to do it, again making excuses instead of even following up in what you posted just a few minutes ago. Your dislike for the police doesn't even allow you to give credit where it is due, even when you set the qualifiers and they meet that. Again, it is what it is and not worth arguing with you any longer. It's a holiday weekend. I'm out. Good luck to you.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
.What hurts the system more, angry internet posters or you?
Angry Internet posters. It does more to burn out good cops than anything else. You can say it doesn't. I've seen first hand that it absolutely does. Again, we aren't going to come to a compromise on this because you aren't going to believe what I say regardless of how much I've seen it happen over the ten years I was on the police force. I'm trying to talk my friends out of the job because I don't want them hurt or dying for people who don't appreciate the sacrifice they are willing to give. Again, I wouldn't mind having a beer and discussing face to face, unfortunately, that isn't an option so I choose to take my wife on a date and a nice dinner than continuing to have a conversation here where nothing is going to be solved and no one is going to change their opinion. It is what it is. Good luck.
You know what you never hear and would sell tons of papers? "Cop shoots other cop to save innocent." That would be a cop who would deserve to be honored. Where are the good cops when the bad cops are gunning people down in the street?
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Not really. Just figured it isn't worth debating. People are not going to change their minds - you, me, or anyone else in this thread.
There are people that think cops will do nothing but screw them over. They discredit them every chance they get, even the good cops with never a negative mark against them in a 20 year career, and don't honor the good ones who sacrifice their own lives to protect complete strangers. For those people, I guess they would rather live in an anarchy and protect all of their stuff on their own. That's fine. That is what they think. I disagree and there isn't really a middle ground to come to.
When people start twisting words to make it sound like the cop walked up, with malice and aforethougt, and shot the baby in the face at point blank range, it's time for me to exit the conversation. It is clear that those people don't want to discuss the topic. They only want to crucify the cop. They fail to see that every emergency incident like this has grey areas. Mistakes happen. If you think the system is broken, go make strides to fix it. I've already advised several times in this thred that bad police work should be held accountable. People seem to have ignored that and want to keep championing the position that all police are evil.
I'm not mad. Im not frustrated. It is what it is. I got out of police work because I got tired of all the people who didn't appreciate the service willingly offered and the risk of me losing my life every day for people that don't appreciate it. It isn't my loss. I work for a gaming company. It's really children who would have been protected had I stayed. They unfortunately don't receive the same level of investigation, and subsequent protection, that they would have received if I was still a crimes against children detective.
So, since there is no middle ground to come to in this conversation, I choose to bow out of the conversation and wish you good luck in your life.
Unfortunately the swat team is not part of the info gathering, surveillance, etc... They are called out to end a situation based on the info that was provided to them. Should the swat member who fired the grenade be held accountble? No. Should the detective or commander that didn't confirm all of the information before telling the swat team to go be held accountable? Absolutely.
As to your larger point, I 1000% agree. The person providing the wrong info should be held accountable, the Habersham County DA should open an investigation, and if shoddy police work was responsible, the officer/detective that provided bad info that led to the awful injuries of the baby should be held accountable.
I dont think anyone here is arguing against that at all. I encourage everyone on this thread to write the Habersham County DA and ask what the hell? However, the DA did his job by bringing the case to the grand jury. I believe a grand jury of citizens failed to pass a true bill on any officer in this case. If you want to hold anyone accountable, hold the citizens of Habersham County responsible. They are the ones who refused to true bill the case and send it back to the DA's office so he could seek prosecution.
I would like to stay and discuss longer. Hell, I'd love to have a beer and just chat about it because difference of opinions is what makes everyone a more rounded person. But, my daughter has the day off school so I'm headed out to spend the day with her, not stay on the message boards.
Let's use another example and see if it helps clarify. And yes, I understand it is fictional but I'm trying to see if it helps clarify.
A doctor diagnoses a patient and says they have symptom XXXXX so what is wrong with that person is XXXXXX. They relay that information to the surgeon. The surgeon then cuts the person open to start performing the surgery on what he was advised was wrong. When he opens the person on the table up, he sees that the info he was given was wrong, that the person does not have XXXXXX, and he immediately tells the nursing staff to start sewing this person back up. When the nursing staff starts seeing the person back up, the patient goes into cardiac arrest and dies. Who should be held accountable? The doctor providing the incorrect info that led to the surgery, or the doctor who was performing the surgery based on the information he received from another professional in his same field? It was, after all,the tools used to cut the person open and the complications that arose from that, that caused the person to die, not the original doctor that provided bad info.
Please restate your argument. What you stated confused me in what you were asking me to rebut.
I didn't say that and you know it. The procedure is for the detective and the commander to do their job, make sure all of the information they are providing to a swat team is accurate, and relay that information.
Mass murderers don't usually kill neighbors. They go into a mall food court or a theatre or whatever and kill I discrimation. What I *think* you are referring to is a serial killer. They actually single out a specific type of victim and actively seek to kill that type of victim and not really deviate.
Also, please don't say "every killer in the history of mankind." For example, It's an inaccurate statement. Someone who kils a person because they struck the vehicle when they were driving drunk doesn't fit the argument you are trying to present.
Because it is standard practice in swat when you make entry into an apartment building, to use bird shot, not slugs. The officer was trained to change ammunition when in that specific instance. He didn't change ammunition. He put someone's life in danger through his actions of not changing ammunition, which is something he is solely accountable for. It is his weapon.
The swat officer who fired the flash bang grende, hadn't been on scene when the information was gathered. He was likely at home when the incident started and called out to the scene. When he arrived on scene, he was likely told by his commander, "We've received information that there are armed guards by the doors. From the drug buy a few hours ago, There are no children present. To prevent loss of life to offers entering, we are going to use a flash bang grenade to stun the guards by the front door. Upon entry, point man and second will proceed down the hall. Numbers three and four will handcuff and guard the incapacitated by the door."
The officer that fired the weapon that has the grenade is going by the information provided by his commander. He isn't afforded the opportunity to investigate the circumstances so has to rely on the info provided by either the detective or the commander. It is solely the detective or commanders responsibility to make sure the information they bare providing is accurate. If something is inaccurate, and innocent people get hurt or killed, it is completely the fault of the commander or detective, hit the guy who came from home, received the information, and followed through with actions based on the info he was given.
Since one doctor killed a person in surgery because he made a horrible error in judgement, that means all surgeons are eventually going to make an error in judgement and kill someone? I've never been a doctor but aren't medical reviews conducted by other doctors?
It's similar. The doctor didn't kill with a gun or a grenade, but he did kill due to errors made in surgery that, if not made, would have allowed the person to live.
Just because one person in a particular profession screws up, it doesn't mean everyone in that profession is going to do the same.