Michael Brock's page

Then let me clarify since people want to read way too much into one word. We may use parts of the Mythic Hardcover when it becomes available. We may not use parts of the Mythic Hardcover when it becomes available. Once the book is on my desk, and I have a chance to look at the final product, I can provide a better answer. Until such a time, everything is conjecture as nothing has been decided. Does that clear it up?

There is no current plans to allow replay above what is currently in place.

With Todd Morgan moving to the west side of Iowa and assuming a VC role in Missouri Valley, IA, LeDon Sweeney has now been promoted from VL to VC.

Congrats and keep up the awesome work LeDon!

Michael Brock wrote:

Robert A Matthews wrote:

I have heard rumor that content from this book might be making an appearance in PFS. Acquiring mythic tiers requires fighting mythic monsters or accomplishing other epic deeds. They could easily control access to mythic tiers by making very few scenarios/sanctioned modules that increase your mythic tier so that you don't become too ridiculously overpowered.

Those sound like some juicy and interesting rumors. I would love to hear more of what you've heard .

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p5n7?Mythic-Society#2

Probably this, where you said "maybe" to a lot of questions about PFS inclusion of Mythic content, thus making people think you were considering it.

Mike Brock wrote:

since I didn't start any rumors and have yet to even see the book so have no idea what might and might not be legal, if anything

... unless someone hacked your account, I suppose.

I guess I can see how "maybe" could be construed as "Acquiring mythic tiers requires fighting mythic monsters or accomplishing other epic deeds. They could easily control access to mythic tiers by making very few scenarios/sanctioned modules that increase your mythic tier so that you don't become too ridiculously overpowered".

Please feel free to link any other comments I made, besides the word maybe, that would lead to rumors. I would love to see them.

:-/

Yes ma'am, torture is evil.

And again, I think we all agree that torture is evil. The question is "What is torture?"

How many movies, TV shows, comic books, etc have featured "heroes" who are willing to punch bad guys during an interrogation? Is that torture? Is it evil? Batman routinely hangs people upside down over a ledge. He has a personal code that won't let him ever actually let go and let them die, but the fact that the criminals don't know that makes it effective.

In the non-hypothetical scenario that prompted me to start this thread, our group beat up a bunch of bad guys, took one of them alive, tied him up, tapped him with a wand of CLW to wake him from negative HPs, then started asking questions. The captive was clearly evil, and we needed information to prevent more evil activity. None of the PCs in the room had a good alignment, as far as I know, so the question of a paladin or something objecting wasn't an issue.

We're describing how we're intimidating him before rolling the intimidate check and assists, and one of the players describes his character punching the guy while asking him a question. Having seen this sort of thing more times than I can count in PFS sessions, I didn't consider that even remotely abnormal, and I was actually really surprised when the GM objected and said he couldn't do that because it's evil. He was going to stop, roll the intimidate check, and hope for the best without hitting the guy a second time, so that's as far as it ever would have gone.

So is a single slap or punch to an evil captive while trying to prevent more death and destruction of innocent people considered evil? What about shoving someone against a wall? Is the line drawn at any physical contact?

Torture is when you deliberatly cause excessive pain and suffering to an individual and they are unable to defend themselves. It also includes inflicting such pain for the purposes of obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession or needlessly and excessively punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed (even if you can heal the damage afterwards).

Michael Brock wrote:

Fromper wrote:

Everyone seems to be ignoring the second question in the original post. Exactly where is the line between "intimidation" and "torture"?

Yes torture is evil.

Intimidation is when you threaten to do physical harm that would cause maiming, injury, etc...

Torture is when you deliberatly cause pain and suffering to an individual and they are unable to defend themselves.

So let me get this strait.

The pathfinders have some vague information that a place is involved in smuggling that might be related to a kidnapping. (as if skyreach weren't the number two source of smuggled artifacts in the inner sea) A heavily armed and armored swat team of pathfinders kick in the door and find mook thug number 2, who oddly enough at seeing people apparently about to kill him, picks up a knife to defend himself.

This person can be shot with an arrow, decapitated with a sword , turned into a marmoset, have his blood boiled within his own veins, be bathed in acid, or even set on fire and be left to burn to death alive... and THEN have his body reanimated into an unholy mockery of life that exists to satiate an inexorable hunger for the tender flesh of the living and thats not an evil act.

But if you take someone you know is guilty of the most heinous crimes, who deserves to be decapitated on the spot, and instead smack him around a little for information then suddenly you've crossed the line...

We can list all kinds of situations. That isn't what this topic is about. If you want to discuss blood boiling, bathing in acid, setting on fire or many other acts, start your own thread instead of derailing this one.

Let me simplify. Torture is evil. I'm not arguing about it, I'm not debating it.

Torture is evil, plain and simple.

Torture is evil.

KingmanHighborn wrote:

You torture known bad guy for info to a 'good' end. Then no it's not evil.

No the "torture" is still evil. You are making a "greater good" argument that the "evil act" is outweighed by the end result but the act is still evil.

That is correct. For example, if a bad guy enters a classroom and advises the teacher if she kills one of her students, the other 29 will be allowed to leave unharmed and she hesitates. he then advises If she doesn't kill 1 of them, all 30 will die. If she kills one child to save 29 others, it still an evil act, even when made under duress.

I understand your point. If you wish to decide in the pathfinder world all uses of torture are evil. That is fine. You are making a judgement call.

I am sorry, but when blanket statement are made about few civilizations using it. Well thats sad to say not true. I do not agree with the use of torture, but many people feel there is a place for it. But it is evil in Golarion

Some people feel there is a place for chopping the head off of an innocent while they film it. Just because they justify it through their religion, and it is an accepted practice in their culture, doesn't make it any less evil.

And the article you listed above proves my point. "While many states use torture, few wish to be described as doing so, either to their own citizens or to international bodies...Almost all regimes and governments engaging in torture (and other crimes against humanity) consistently deny engaging in it, in spite of overwhelming hearsay and physical evidence from the citizens they tortured"

The countries that engage in it know it is wrong, and 99% of them go to great lengths to cover up any accusations of torture.

Torture is evil.

Michael Brock wrote:

And since you brouht real world into it, Just because Spain acted a certain way during the inquisition doesn't make it anymore right or acceptable. There is a reason why very few civilizations have acted I that way since.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_torture_since_1948

Many countries have used. few as wide spread.

In russia they can use torture in captial crime suspects.

And it doesn't make any of those many countries right for partaking in country. And it doesn't make it ok. Torture is evil.

Don is torture by an inquisitor of Asmodeus an evil act as it is one of asmodes's portfolios I think not for most other it would be but for a servant of zon Knthon or Asmodeus it would be one of their holy offices. One problem with things like torture is we use our current societal values for determining what we think of things like torture. Compare current societal norms vs.those of Spain in the time of the inqusistion a d then to the time period that the game is equivalent to and the classes your character is to wether something is evil or. Not.

Yes, just because it was a function of their office doesn't make it any less of an evil act. Both deities are LE, both are detailed in Faiths of Corruption , and any torture aspect falls under the "E" in their alignment.

And since you brouht real world into it, Just because Spain acted a certain way during the inquisition doesn't make it anymore right or acceptable. There is a reason why very few civilizations have acted I that way since.

Everyone seems to be ignoring the second question in the original post. Exactly where is the line between "intimidation" and "torture"?

Yes torture is evil.

Intimidation is when you threaten to do physical harm that would cause maiming, injury, etc...

Torture is when you deliberatly cause pain and suffering to an individual and they are unable to defend themselves. It also includes inflicting such pain for the purposes of obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession or needlessly and excessively punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed (even if you can heal the damage afterwards).

As I tell my six year old, if you have to ask......

I have heard rumor that content from this book might be making an appearance in PFS. Acquiring mythic tiers requires fighting mythic monsters or accomplishing other epic deeds. They could easily control access to mythic tiers by making very few scenarios/sanctioned modules that increase your mythic tier so that you don't become too ridiculously overpowered.

Those sound like some juicy and interesting rumors. I would love to hear more of what you've heard since I didn't start any rumors and have yet to even see the book so have no idea what might and might not be legal, if anything.

Is your character locked into bonekeep once they start it, or can they play other scenarios in between?

They can play other scenarios.

There are currently four levels planned for Bonekeep.

If tickets for the special sell out, will Paizo seat any more tables, or are we just out of luck?

Once tickets sell out, every seat in the Sagamore is filled, and we won't be able to seat anymore tables.

With that said, as of right now, there are 58 tickets remaining for the Special, 308 tickets remaining for RoB part 1, and 219 tickets remaining for RoB part 2.

Welcome to the mountain! Please read the briefing that is waiting in your room and make sure to avoid the hot tub as the goblins were in it last and left it in quiet a foul state.

;-)

Those weren't goblins. That was John Compton speaking in his four different voices.

Congrats Mark! I look forward to playing at your table some day.

It is my pleasure to announce that Chris Bonnet has been promoted from Venture-Lieutenant of Indianapolis to Venture-Captain of the Indiana region.

Congrats and job well done Chris!

It is my pleasure to announce that Matthew Starch has been promoted from Venture-Lieutenant of Janesville, WI to Venture-Captain of the Madison, WI region.

Congrats and job well done Matthew!

Please join me in welcoming Brendan Green as the new Venture-Captain of Alaska, specifically Fairbanks. Welcome to the team!

Please join me in welcoming the new Venture-Captain of Chicago, Dick Gilbert. He has some big shoes to fill with Rene Duquesnoy retiring as VC but I have full confidence Dick will help continue to grow PFS in Chicago.

Please join me in welcoming Lee Vanderlip as the new Venture-Captain of Ft. Myers, FL. Welcome to the team, Lee.

Please take a minute and join me in welcoming Matthew Pemrich as the new Venture-Captain of New Mexico! Welcome to the team, Matthew.

138 active scenarios, 9 retired scenarios, 3 Specials, 1 exclusive, 2 Grand Convocation events, 25 modules, and 13 AP volumes.

Cold Napalm wrote:

The Red Ninja wrote:

Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:

When making decision for the overall good of the campaign, the two extremes cannot be fully considered. The campaign cannot be geared towards either the over-optimizer or the under-optimizer. It has to be geared for the mid-line players as that is where the majority of the players live.

I'm sorry but this simply does not make sense. I'm not asking anybody to cater to/gear things towards these people; I'm asking someone to deal with them. Gearing things to the mid-line player means dealing with the problems caused by the extremes.

And that somebody is the local game day coordinator, your VL and VC. You don't need a systemic change for something that a quick word from one of these folks will fix. Hell even as a fellow gamer works. I have had a chat with several people on either side. Except for one player, we talked like mature adults and it worked out JUST FINE. Seriously, if somebody as much of a grognard as I am can deal with this one a personal level, I honestly fail to see how this could even be an issue.

I appreciate the advice, but trust me, this is not going to work in this case.

If it isn't something you think you're VC or VL can handle, then email me directly. But, I think they can handle it.

There are two full sessions of all four scenarios for Eyes of Ten Scheduled, not just six seats.

And a fair number of people have already advised they would not play up for just a challenge without the commensurate rewards. So, number one fails before it even gets out of the gate.

Number two, leaving it unchecked, means that that level 4, who is now 20,000+ GPs above the WBL curve after playing 4-5 games at the 7-11 tier, would still be eligible to play in a tier 1-5 scenario where he would make it even more of a mockery than what it currently is. This allows for even more opportunity to solo an adventure while the other 5 players serve as his audience. This is opposite of what we want in PFS.

On a side note, since , for the past 2+ years, you have supported people out of tier always being able to play up, such as above with 4th level PC playing a tier 7-11, would it be ok when this same PC hits 7th level, to play down into a 1-5 scenario to helps cake walk it for the other PCs?

Michael Brock wrote:

I respect that. Unfortunately, we have had many complaints from across the world that scenarios, especially season 3 and 4, tend to run long.

On this note...

Is the thought of reducing the number of combats per scenario, perhaps down to, say, two, being considered at all? Not for scenarios here and there, but for every scenario?

-Matt

That is a decision that is made by development, not me. I can certainly offer the thoughts people have here to that department in or weekly meetings.

Special is down to 276 tickets remaining in the first hour of registration.

Michael Brock wrote:

What was the final straw on 3-18? Without mowing specifics, it is hard to know what you are talking about. As for the scenarios being too easy, it sounds as if you stopped GMing midway through season 3. I assume you haven't GMed any season 4 which has been received, across the board, as the most challenging season yet.

You're right, and season 4 has indeed been making me consider stepping back into the DMs chair. It's hard to remember specifically what was so frustrating about 3-18, except that it didn't challenge the PCs in the slightest. In particular they pwned the boss fight with a degree of ease that was staggering. The fire in the warehouse was kind of challenging, but more tedious than anything. Also, I vaguely remember that players wanted to pursue legitimate courses of action that the mod simply didn't allow for, and that it was kind of a mystery/investigation but with ridiculous clues and leads that weren't very believable or interesting. It seemed like a plot that should have been open form, but it was just as much a railroad as any dungeon crawl, etc.

Please check your PMs and send me a reply. I don't see this game reported. If there is an error in the reporting system, I need to alert IT that there is a problem they need to address. If it is some other problem, hopefully I can help fix it.

My experience with PFS play is running a few games and playing lots and lots of them. My experience with other OPs is minimal and confined only to Living Greyhawk. I stopped GMing PFS games because of the frustrations mentioned here- the mods were too easy and I couldn't challenge players. I had no power to improvise or create. I felt like a drone mindlessly carrying out what was put before me despite my numerous problems with it. Running "The God's Market Gamble" was the final straw.

I've sent you a PM. Please reply to that before I address any points further. I need clarification on some confusion I have.

What was the final straw on 3-18? Without mowing specifics, it is hard to know what you are talking about. As for the scenarios being too easy, it sounds as if you stopped GMing midway through season 3. I assume you haven't GMed any season 4 which has been received, across the board, as the most challenging season yet.

Also, not sure why you feel like a drone carrying out what is put before you. I've GMed nearly 200 tables of PFS and each game is an experience of its own. I add role playing flavor where possible depending on where the PCs are adventuring at. As far as I know, the players at my tables always have a good time. I haven't experienced this drone experience you report and need further info before I can understand what you are trying to describe.

Even if these players are a minority, they are a large and statistically significant one." Would you agree that this is a problem and that it bears examining and possibly trying to fix in some way?

The second argument is whether to fix it by allowing play out of tier or designing in modular threat level adjustment blocs to the scenarios. On this, you have been very clear insofar as you do not approve of the out of tier solution (and though I accept that there may be many problems with this solution that I have not considered, I have not actually heard them yet). But I don't think you've said your POV about the second solution of threat adjustment. Are you open to the idea as a possibility?

I'm a bit confused. If it is a minority, how is it a large and statistically significant one? How big of a problem do you perceive this to be? I talk with regional coordinators across the globe on a daily basis and it is a much smaller problem than what is being portrayed in this very thread.

Threat adjustment could work, but it would add extra workload to development to review and check extra stat blocks. Their schedule is fairly tight as is and this proposal adds additional workload to an already crammed schedule.

Admittedly, my proposal does squeeze the table for time. It would take time to formulate an informed decision as to what difficulty mode to use. But frankly, its the only system I can think of to mitigate the effects of the incredible range of PCs that we will find out there.

The "one-size fits all" approach will always have the problems enumerated in this thread, whether being too hard or too easy. It's like fitting an equation: we can get a better fit with three points (easy,normal,hard)than a single point (current scenario design).

I respect that. Unfortunately, we have had many complaints from across the world that scenarios, especially season 3 and 4, tend to run long. This creates even more problems as con slots end or game stores close and people aren't able to finish a game. Tis compounds the problem with how to handle awarding Chronicles, how to finish the game, etc.... I would not want to introduce a system that makes the problem worse by squeezing even more time from a table.

Michael Brock wrote:

Theory crafting is when you have little or no experience with PFS organized play but know how best to fix its problems through theories instead of any real game experience to fall back upon. Good ideas are only good if they will actually work in practice and not just theoretically work because they sound good. Allowing players or GMs to play in any tier they wish may sound good, however it would cause a train wreck if actually implemented. There is no political buzzwords here. It is just an easy two word term to describe quickly what it took a paragraph to explain just now.

The same people have been asking for years, to just let players and/or GMs decide to play in whatever tier or subtler they like without restrictions. It simply isn't going to happen. I don't know how many times I have to say no before people stop suggesting it as a solution and come up with other solutions.

Well, I have a lot of experience with organized play and so it's not "theory crafting" when I suggest it. And okay, it's not going to happen, but a lot of people on this thread are, in fact, proposing other solutions. Will you consider those? Also, I wouldn't mind an explanation for why playing out of tier is such a bad idea, even if that means a linked redirect to an earlier thread, since you have apparently had this conversation before.

What experiences do you have with PFS organized play? Is it with PFS or another OP?

And I am considering those other ideas, but none can work across the globe. Maybe in specific regions they will work, but not across PFS OP at large.

Also, what happens to the WBL and the ability to purchase more powerful items, or a ton of consumables if a 4th level plays a 7-11 scenario? It becomes skewed and just exacerbates the problem as the character continues to advance.

The multiple threads are out there. Do a search in the search engine here to review them if you wish.

David Bowles wrote:

So how is letting people play out of tier a better solution than having difficulty modulation at each sub tier? It saves the writers what? 8 upgrade/degrade blocks of text per scenario?

It's absurd for the GM to force a level of play on the players. Why is that even a possibility? If people *want* to play "normal mode" with two optimized PCs in the group, let them. If people want to try "hard mode" without "cracked out" builds, let them.

I don't know that it is a better solution. I think that's what we're here to "theory craft," as Mike would call it. But then, I don't know why we bother since the staff has officially moved on and ruled all of this pointless.

And please point out where I said, "all of this is pointless"? I don't think any of the ideas presented here will work for actual play. I didn't say I'm locking this topic, stop discussing it. I was simply saying come up with different ideas and lets see if any of those would actually work. Please stop reading things in to what I type or making leaps as to what I am advising. If I didn't care, I sure wouldn't be reading this post at 8:30 am on a Sunday.

Michael Brock wrote:

Anyhow, I will leave this thread to all of you to get back to theory crafting the best ways to make things better.

What is this "theory crafting" term you keep throwing around pejoratively? Good ideas are good ideas, and yes they are more likely to be had by people who have played a lot then people who haven't but...I don't know, this "theory crafting" business strikes me as a political buzzword, like when Kevin Spacey keeps saying "disorganized labor" in House of Cards. I don't get the point of it.

Theory crafting is when you have little or no experience with PFS organized play but know how best to fix its problems through theories instead of any real game experience to fall back upon. Good ideas are only good if they will actually work in practice and not just theoretically work because they sound good. Allowing players or GMs to play in any tier they wish may sound good, however it would cause a train wreck if actually implemented. There is no political buzzwords here. It is just an easy two word term to describe quickly what it took a paragraph to explain just now.

The same people have been asking for years, to just let players and/or GMs decide to play in whatever tier or subtler they like without restrictions. It simply isn't going to happen. I don't know how many times I have to say no before people stop suggesting it as a solution and come up with other solutions.

I wasn't asking to start a witch hunt or the like. I was simply asking for the VOs and what region you play in as they most likely have a better grasp of the entire region. I discuss often and in detail with the VOs, to make the top down decisions you advised of in your last reply

However, Since I don't know where you play, and whether this is an isolated location or a more widespread problem, I have little to work with not being able to discuss with the VOs in that particular region and will move on to the other topics on these message boards.

Anyhow, I will leave this thread to all of you to get back to theory crafting the best ways to make things better.

Cold Napalm wrote:

So...how many people have you met, that was on either spectrum, who when told that they are ruining the fun for everyone and they should either tone it down or up refused to do so and continue to ruin games?

A lot. Like I said, I live in a big city. Lots of players here. And you meet plenty of both types in all kinds of other gaming related, non PFS environments too. But more importantly my experience has been that nobody has really been comfortable having that conversation with the players, and I'm not sure they should be comfortable having it in an organized play setting.

So, where is it the region that you play? I would like to speak with the VCs and/or VLs in tha area to get some more info.

And please don't read tone or intent into the request. I no longer respond on these message boards with any tone other than matter-of-fact statements.

I simply wish to speak to the VOs in your region to see if this is a problem only in the store(s), convention (s), and game day (s) you play at, or if it something more widespread in the region.

David Bowles wrote:

Well, as I said above, I think season 4 is pretty entertaining. There is the real threat of TPK in some scenarios if the group has a couple of particularly weak links. From what I've seen, there are far fewer mathematically futile encounters. In general, it's painful to DM seasons 0-2 and even 3 often, because I know there's nothing I can do to keep the group challenged.

I agree with everything you're saying, but then we also have to consider the flip-side. People come on and post that season 4 has become too hard for them. I don't want to be dismissive of these people. Both sides are satisfied, however, if DMs have the ability to run the mods for whatever character levels they want. And if the DM wants to run a high tier mod for a lower level group and you think it's going to be too hard or don't want your character to die, don't show up for that game. It's a simple fix and doesn't require them to change anything about the way they design.

There are absolutely no plans to let GMs just do what they want willy nilly. And yes, that is exactly what it sounds like you are advocating. There are other OPs that allow for this, and if that is what you need, for GMs to change whatever they like about the scenario, or to run any scenario for any level character they like, then go and try those OPs out. PFS will most likely never allow for GMs to let 3rd level, super optimized characters play in a 5-9 or 7-11 scenario.

why not just have a discretionary allotment of extra enemies the GM can throw into the module, with notes like "If the players were not challenged by this conflict, you may choose to use 2 discretionary points to add these units to the next encounter"

So, if a GM only kills one character, and thinks he should have killed 3 with the last encounter, should he be allowed to add some extra enemies to every encounter to the end of the scenario? If you have a 5th or high per level PC, who for whatever reason doesnt have the gold or PP to raise dead, are you ok losing your character permanently because the GM decided he needed to give you more of a challenge, wasn't able to gauge properly, and TPKed the party? Because, there are GMs out there who would do such a thing.

And before anyone says, well people just won't play with that GM in the future, consider this. What if you only have one 5th level PC, have spent hundreds of dollars to go to a convention, only to die in the first slot. They signed up for all tiers higher than 1 and are now left with their entire con schedule being unable to play because one GM decided he wanted to give the party a bigger challenge and TPKed.

Clean it up ASAP. If there are anymore personal attacks, I'm locking this thread.

Michael Brock wrote:

Let me hear your thoughts. I'm not picking on anyone in this thread. I'm going to play devils advocate and welcome others to join me. If we are going to consider something like this, then we need to poke as many holes as possible in a suggestion to see if it would actually work as people intend it to do so.

You could theoretically have a check box in the scenario to report

TPK
X characters died but got better.

It would give you a larger sample size to see when deaths are occuring, because right now you only know who dies in what scenario locally but overall you only know they die if they don't come back.

But I thought the purpose of a rating system people have been asking for would be before they played it, not afterward. With this system, Sure it gives every one a good metric 6 months after release but it doesn't solve the problem people have been asking for - a rating system when a scenario is released before they play.

Making an assumption here, but the large majority of people who post here, and have been asking for such a thing, play a scenario in the first few months of release. A check box isn't going to do anything for those people.

So who do we base the difficulty indicator off of, Rip or Bond? As you said, "the high degree of customization" makes it a truly difficult, if not impossible task.

If we rate something as "difficult" and Bond finds it easy, then we still have the same problem. Also, do we rate it as a one star GM running the game or a five star GM running the game or a developer here at Paizo running the game? The skill level of a GM will most assuredly be the biggest determining factor of the difficulty of a scenario. And then, do you rate it with role players in mind, optimized characters in mind, a mixed group of the two (which you admit you don't play with one of those), or something else? Also, do you consider age and experience in a rating scale? A group of five 16 year olds who have been playing for 5 years will probably handle the scenario better than a group of 30 somethings that just started playing RPGs.

Even if you base it off of what 6 pregens could do, it depends quite variably on the player knowledge of those running the pregens. Six of us running pregens here at Paizo will probably have a very different experience than six new players in Moscow. Even if we rate a scenario as "easy", the group of six brand new players may TPK and the we get roasted for labeling it "easy."

So, how do you come up with a true difficulty indicator or rating scale that is going to satisfy the masses? I don't think it Is possible but here I am listening to suggestions.

It's not so easy as just putting a label of hard, easy or moderate on a scenario. There are many factors to consider before slapping a rating on a scenario.

Let me hear your thoughts. I'm not picking on anyone in this thread. I'm going to play devils advocate and welcome others to join me. If we are going to consider something like this, then we need to poke as many holes as possible in a suggestion to see if it would actually work as people intend it to do so.

The only boon that can be given away is the dhampir. The Free Raise Dead may not be given away period, regardless if the top says player or GM. If a GM wants to give the Dhampir boon away, cross off the free raise dead. Also, the Free Raise Dead may not be used, and then the dhampir boon be given to another person.

The BB Bash Chronicle sheets for players and GMs is not currently available to be issued. John and I have a new GM and player Chronicle on our list of things to do.

If a GM has one they aren't going to use, and want to give it away, then sure. The free raise dead is not allowed to be given away.

Welcome to the team!

Michael Brock wrote:

Stonecunning wrote:

I have, it's usually just ignored. Right now I'm trying to get up the chain for a game I played on Thursday where two people would not. stop. joking. about. rape.

Seriously, going "up the chain" is a lot harder than it might seem because often "avoiding conflict" means "continue letting one person be awful."

Email me about this incident please. My email is mike.brock@paizo.com.

Just sent you a wall of text.

Received and thank you. As a former Special Victims Detective, I don't take jokes about such a heinous act lightly.