Isn't that how Runecarved worked? I thought the goblin boons went to the high score teams/GMs.
Jessica Price wrote:
I'll leave that call up to people above my pay grade. My concern is doing the most we can with our current resources. And at this time it is not apparent that our current resources can support more than two scenarios a month unless we cancel something else.
That's regrettable. I was under the impression that Paizo was dominating the industry and expanding rapidly, so I didn't expect limited resources to be an issue.
Speaking as a PFS player, I'm inclined to at least ask--are you certain that the return on increasing PFS output (vs. something else) would be so low that it's not worth canceling anything? Or is your next-lowest-returning product so awesome that PFS can't hope to compare?
(That question is not sarcasm! You guys do have a tendency to produce some seriously awesome stuff. And PFS is a marketing tool, so if you guys have decided that expanding it won't be worth your time, that's fair. But it would save a lot of time and debate to know that now.)
Michael Brock wrote:
This is something we receive a good deal of feedback on. I'm curious what the best number of scenarios released each month is. I know there are some people who would advise they could play 10 scenarios a month. However, 10 simply isn't feasible. So, what do you think is the target number for players, where PFS is the primary source of their Pathfinder games.
I don't think there's any straightforward answer. I guess the questions would be this:
1. Can you, with current manpower, produce more scenarios a month? If so, I would say do it.
Long story short, I'd say to start making the minimum more than you can, either without hiring anyone, or with a minimal staff increase. That way Paizo isn't risking any more than it has to, and you can watch for results before adding more.
It's not a question of "will new scenarios make us more money," it's a question of whether Pathfinder Society is a useful tool for Paizo overall. If the answer is yes, then it makes sense to want to grow it.
We move on then to, "Is PFS in a place where it needs some growth?" Or, if you prefer, "Does D&D Next present a challenge that should be responded to with growth?" I contend that the answer to both is yes.
From there, the question becomes, "Does increasing the number of scenarios lead to growth of PFS?" I think yes, but I have no data to go with that. Neither, it seems, does anyone else, since Paizo staff types are asking for our opinions on the matter. Which isn't a bad thing--it just hasn't been tried, so there can't be any data. So then it becomes a question of whether it's worth the risk.
tl;dr: PFS isn't about selling scenarios, it's about getting people to play Pathfinder, which leads quite naturally to people becoming customers of Paizo. Spending money on this seems like a good idea to me.
Jason S wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with #1 & #2. I'm of the opinion that we're approaching (if not already beyond) the point where it would behoove Paizo to add another person or two and up their scenario release schedule. More and more threads are popping up from people who've played everything available, after which the only option is to run for no credit.
Which leads to the importance of #4, because some people will get bored with rerunning for no credit eventually, and wander off, which is bad, because they're the ones who we should be keeping on hand to help with #3, which grows the product line.
Also, #5 is going to come from a combination of new people with new ideas and established people who know how everything works, so #3 & #4 will lead to #5.
It's all connected, y'see ... :D
Michael Brock wrote:
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?
Got it: Definitely "maybe." ;)
Michael Brock wrote:
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
That's all conjecture on the OPs part, actually. The ony rumors he alluded to were "that content from this book might be making an appearance in PFS." Which came from you, assuming we accept the correlation between "maybe" and "might be."
Michael Brock wrote:
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.
Chris Mortika wrote:
Actually, this reminds me of another issue with the "X a month" theory--reporting isn't automatic and some event organizers are terrible about it. Like months behind. It's annoying enough if you're waiting for another star, but if it affects your continued eligibility for something, it's going to start to be a problem.
Ira kroll wrote:
Reporting is broken. They're working on it.
If that is the quote that Mike Brock is referring to, then it will be the first time I've disagreed with anything he's ruled.
It is. And I agree with your disagreement (although not the qualifier of frequency :P ).
Nevertheless, it has been ruled that everyone must own the core assumption.
There are, to the best of my knowledge, about 20 surviving goblins of the original 37. So he'll want to let that dream go.
As to buying a boon, campaign leadership has said that they don't want people to do so, but they have also said that they can't and/or won't stop eBay auctions of boons. That said, I've had an eBay alert on "pathfinder boon" for quite some time due to an overwhelmingly mischievous sense of curiosity, and I've seen none. Unless there's a sudden surge of them after the big cons this summer, I'm going to assume that the campaign leadership disapproving of the process was sufficient to prevent people from bothering.
I completely disagree. That's the whole idea behind the Core Assumption. The Core Rulebook, the Pathfinder Society Field Guide, and the Guide to Organized Play are assumed to be at every table. Everything within them (with few exceptions) is legal for play. Not only do you needn't own them, you don't even have to bring them to a game. If you read the Guide to Organized Play, page 5, you'll see that "In order to utilize content from an Additional Resource (emphasis mine), a player must have a physical copy of the Additional Resource in question". Nowhere in the Guide does it say you must own or bring a copy of the Core Rulebook with you.
todd morgan wrote:
mike brock wrote:
Todd said it very well. Topic is now locked. Time to move on.
Chris Mortika wrote:
If you really run that often, I am deeply impressed, and I'm not just saying that--that's an impressive level of commitment. We have a few GMs in this region who are that in to it, and that's awesome. I'd love to see some sort of reward for them.
The issue, though, is getting the "little guy" more interested in GMing. This is why I've been proposing tiered rewards. Star tier is the easiest, because it requires no work on Paizo's part, but I'd be willing to work with regular games too--or maybe to compromise, require both; you have to run a certain amount of games to get the reward activated, but then run X games a month to keep it active.
That was my argument at the time.
... until after you play them at 2nd level, at which point their names are presumably unlikely to change, yes?
The description says, "It deals lethal damage, even to creatures with armor bonuses." I assume this means on an attack, not on a combat maneuver. However, the flavor text says "This whip has a series of razorsharp blades and fangs inset along its tip." This implies that it will damage anyone being hit by it.
Interestingly it was the GM who thought it might cause damage, because I was using it to trip an ally (long story); I argued that it doesn't, because that would be overpowered. But I figured I should check.
Mark Moreland wrote:
In general, a reroll can only be used before the results of the original roll have been determined. Since the DC of a Day Job isn't variable (or rather isn't a secret), using a reroll on a Day Job is sort of skirting the edge of how that mechanic is intended to work. If it were possible to fail a Day Job check by not hitting an undisclosed DC on a given attempt, then a reroll would be appropriate, but that's not how the Day Job mechanic works.
True, but one does ones day job last--if one has a reroll at that point, it is one's last chance to use it. Since you're saying "technically" I'm guessing you don't actually care (balance-wise), so couldn't we just say "go for it?"
Chris Mortika wrote:
This is why I like the idea of race boons. They don't have to be "power ups"--in theory, races are balanced, and should only add variety, not power.
In theory. But that's why you'd have to pick races carefully.
Scarred witch doctor isn't a legal resource :-p
Well no, but neither are orcs, currently.
BUT I WANTS TO PLAYZ TEH DROW
Seriously, though, as much as I enjoy a good redemption story, I agree that the fully evil races (such as Goblin) should be kept to a minimum. If races were authorized for this project, it should be things that would at least make a certain amount of sense.
while I completely understand the need to ignore a troll, or just a small minded idiot, you guys do realize that getting on "ignore" lists, is why most of the trolls do what they do, the object is to sow chaos, and push peoples buttons.
No, trolls aim to get responses. If I never see a troll's post, he doesn't get the satisfaction of having annoyed me.
What if, after you run the same scenario for the third time, you get a credit at the store good for one free scenario? You're demonstrating that you're getting mileage out of them--that's somewhere between 9 and 21 players that were entertained by you over the span of 12-ish hours--and that builds up some goodwill amongst the GMs who are willing to keep re-running things.
Edit: Oh, oh! How about this? After you run the scenario for the third time, if you purchased it--i.e. if you paid money for it, rather than getting it free from an organizer, which is presumably something noted on your account history--you get the price "refunded" in store credit! You're demonstrating that Paizo is better served by giving you more scenarios than keeping your $4.
Edit edit: It won't even require a lot of tech work--a task that runs once a day (or once a week or whatever) could query the database for the initial list, screen out people who've already been rewarded, then compare to account history. Or whatever; I'm not big on database protocols, but the point is it doesn't have to be part of the reporting process if that would mean a lot of work from the web team; the information is all there already.
Todd Morgan wrote:
I'm of the belief that you just pay the gold and not worry about it :P
Me too. This is one of those situations where verisimilitude gets thrown out to balance rules--anyone with an arcane bond class feature needs to be able to upgrade at cost, or they're screwed balance-wise. But since there's no crafting, we just ignore the details. Pay the gold, get the upgrade, don't worry about it too much--"a wizard did it."
Altus Lucrim wrote:
Ok, so I am unclear on this and asked my VL, he said he didn't know either. I am playing a gunslinger, but I have a boon that allowed him to spend 6PA to get a gun of greater value than he could purchase with his current gold limit. He has 2000+ gold now, can I make it +1? or because the then total value of my gun would exceed my Item Limit do I need to wait to enchant the masterwork gun?
As has been excellently summarized by this thread, there is no official answer to this question, and a lot of people are going to argue a lot of different answers. So what it comes down to is this: You have two options.
One, you can just do it, and probably somebody will complain.
Really, an official answer wouldn't even change these options; they would just change the type of complaints.
Markuus Brightsteel wrote:
The race boons are signed to indicate that they're legitimate. They don't need a GM's oversight for application.
The EE boon is watermarked to indicate it's legitimate. It does need a GM's oversight for application.
The sheet specifies that we may "use the experimental agents found near the vial to trigger a permanent mutation" but since we got the sheet without playing the scenario how do we do this? Wait until we play the scenario? Look for experimental agents in every game? (My DM will get sick of that...)
I'm pretty sure it's just fluff. You found the elixir; you also found the agents.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
okay so now we will see the yellow tengu (bigbird) with the wholly mammoth companion (snuffleupagus) traveling with Kermit (grippli boon for GenCon 2013). Hell, we could add in a drum-playing goblin (special boon from GenCon 2012) named Animal and a half-orc female bard (Miss Piggy). What's next? Elmo?!? <.< >.> O.O
I regret that I have but one "favorite" to click.