Patrick Harris @ SD's page

This idea just popped in my head because I was thinking about GenCon and how Drogon has not gone yet.

What about a tournament based around PFS to be run at Cons? The idea is like the old school Goodman Games Tournies.

-Build a 6 person team of level 1 characters.
-Everyone runs through a new scenario and is graded (points for knowledge checks, finding certain items, etc and negative points for failures, deaths, etc).
-Each team is scored and only x number of teams move on.
-If your team moves on you get to progress your character to some new level for the next round. If your team does not progress you get credit for the scenario played.
-Repeat the next round with a new scenario. Run as many rounds as needed to eliminate all but 1 team.
-Winning team ends at level 12 with some door prizes, a lvl 12 character, and some cool boon.

Isn't that how Runecarved worked? I thought the goblin boons went to the high score teams/GMs.

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.)

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.
2. Based on some of Mark's comments, it seems like it's not that you guys can't find authors or balance story; it's more about editing and development. With the addition of one person on the back end, can you afford to produce more scenarios per month? If so, I would recommend hiring them and increasing output accordingly.

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.

While I'd love to see Paizo start publishing a greater quantity of scenarios, we don't know if the company can afford that extra manpower. More quantity = more cost, so it has to be a financial decision more than anything.

People aren't going to suddenly start playing more PFS, thus buying more scenarios to run, just because there are more available. So there won't be an immediate increase in revenue to make up that cost. It's more of a long term investment in keeping PFS players engaged longer before they run out of scenarios to play, so the exact value to the company will be harder to determine.

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.

Drogon wrote:

PFS has grown; you need to begin to publish more adventures. PFS needs to continue to grow; you need to publish more entry level adventures so that veterans can sit with their trainees. PFS has become a massive volunteer network; you need to begin to show those volunteers that they MEAN something to you and that you are aware of everything they have done for you.

So if I understood your feedback correctly, your feedback is:

1) Produce more tier 1-5 scenarios.
2) Produce more scenarios in general.
3) Do more to support new players.
4) Support the GM network in some undetermined way.
5) Create innovative ideas to be better than the D&D Next OP program.

Is that right?

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

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." ;)

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."

If you want to be quick about it, Aram Zey teleports them all to the dungeon entrance, tells the to go to town, then has to get back to foundling his tapestry.

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.

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.

Are you sure it's "torture" and not "enhanced interrogation"?

All right, John.

Reduce the thresh-hold to three, or write the website code to drop maps in whenever the GM gets at least five games reported, so that a GM still gets rewarded if it takes her three months to get that.

The point is to reward continual GMing, rather than passing big mile-markers.

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.

One of Paizo's other ventures, Goblinworks, just sold boons for $5. They weren't race boons like you are looking for but yes you can buy boons.

Touché.

Help a new GM!!

I just ran Reign of Winter: Snows of Summer as a PFS, and now, I'm looking to report the game and give credit to the players. But, when I try to report the game, it asks for scenarios, but doesn't give a choice for RoW:SoS. How can I report this so that the players get the credit?

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.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p8nl?Policing-the-Core-Assumption#43

Enough of the back and forth. The rules are clear, you have to have the physical book or a pdf of any book you use to build your character.

"Pathfinder Society Organized Play assumes that every player has the following resources.
• Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook
• Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Pathfinder Society Field Guide
• Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play"

It doesn't state "has access to" it states "has", therefore you have to own these three resources.

Todd said it very well. Topic is now locked. Time to move on.

All right, John.

Reduce the thresh-hold to three, or write the website code to drop maps in whenever the GM gets at least five games reported, so that a GM still gets rewarded if it takes her three months to get that.

The point is to reward continual GMing, rather than passing big mile-markers.

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.

Patrick they do have day passes. They are available at the door. There isn't any info yet about the cost. The con people are going to try to post it. They had a quick reply to my question.

Groovy, thanks!

All weapons do damage of some kind (that's the point of being a weapon) and many of them can be used to perform a Trip maneuver. None of them do damage and Trip at the same time.

I guess I shouldn't say "none" because I haven't read every weapon in every supplement, maybe there is one that somewhere does, but I will say that if there is, then that weapon has specific wording to allow it to do damage while tripping.

Otherwise, you pick one - use the weapon to hurt your enemy (roll hit and damage) or use the weapon to trip your enemy (roll CMB).

As for the specific Scorpion Whip, the text you quoted is to override the normal whip that deals only non-lethal damage to armored targets - the quoted text makes it clear that the scorpion whip works differently than other whips, not that it works differently than other trip-capable weapons.

That was my argument at the time.

Somebody else mentioned the same problem to me, FT, so I was hoping to solve the problem rather than have to innoculate every single person who GMs for that character.

I have since learned my lesson and created this messageboard alias and no longer post as any of my characters.

... until after you play them at 2nd level, at which point their names are presumably unlikely to change, yes?

Are day passes available? I don't see any prices listed for them.

Ah! A good argument. Thank you.

It's been my experience that the first four run in a four-hour slot, but the last one will go long.

Also some people report needing nearly eight hours for the first level, but YMMV.

You don't need to own any books if the class/race/feats you're using are part of the Core Assumption.

Of course you do--you need to own the core assumption. You just don't need to own any extra books.

Correct. Each level is a module by itself.

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.

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?"

Let's imagine, for a minute, two hypothetical people. Al is pretty new at PFS. He's got his first PC up to third level. Beth is more active, having GMed 7 or 8 sessions. She has a character at 7th level and a second character at 4th.

I would like to think that if I sit down to play PFS with Todd and Andy and Thea and with Al and Beth, that the high-star GMs would not have super re-rolls or super-PCs or any other mechanical benefit that will help make the newer players feel left out.

As a matter of fact, I'd rather that any thank-yous from Paizo not affect our PCs at all. We get enough of those for GMing conventions. (Really. I GM at conventions far more often than I start a new 1st-level PC. I can ladle four or five boons onto a brand new character, and it will be a lot spiffier than Al's or Beth's character. Let's not make the situation worse by giving GMs morepower-ups for characters.)

It seems unseemly to say how I'd like to be thanked, but I'm not always the seemliest. I would prefer that any thank-yous that Paizo sends make it either (a) easier to play, like getting first dibs for seats at high-demand venues like Gen Con, or (b) easier to GM, like free full-size pdfs of maps from this month's scenarios.

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.

Anybody want Expedition Manager? I'll trade for a similar con boon (Sinscarred sounds nice, but whichever).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know two people who have been playing since the beginning. They have, at this point, played and run every scenario, and play and run the new ones within a few weeks of them coming out. But they seem pretty content with that, so hey.

This is actually a very good argument in favor of allowing day jobs after modules.

Scarred witch doctor isn't a legal resource :-p

Well no, but neither are orcs, currently.

No orcs. Please at least keep the line drawn at evil races.

And, yes, I realize goblins are evil. I'm not happy about those, either.

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.

I just wanted to note that I adore the chronicle for this scenario.

There are some 'X of the Society' traits in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Faction Guide book that are legal, assuming you have that resource at the table.

Good to know. Thanks.

Fetchlings, Orcs? Would any of these sort of races be game-breaking?

Orcs might. Scarred Witch Doctor is insane.

Oh, crap, the "of the society" traits aren't legal?

Well ... hm. Okay, got some stuff to fix.

No. But it's also not important. You can write NewName/OldName on the sign-in sheet if the GMs you work with are getting confused.

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.

One GM reroll per star per session.

To what end?

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.

Wow, that's ... just ... super tacky.

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."

I was under the impression that the discounted crafting was allowed because it's part of a wizard's class progression, but since PFS PCs don't craft, the rest was handwaved--the crafting is done by some other wizard, and you get the discount because you're helping him or her in some way, etc etc.

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.
Two, you can wait for a few more fame points, and then someone will probably find something else to complain about.

Really, an official answer wouldn't even change these options; they would just change the type of complaints.

However I thought that all Society characters effectively retired at level 12, barring the odd level 12+ modules etc.

Effectively, not actually. Scenarios only go up to 12 (except Specials, I think those are going higher these days), but modules can still take you further.

I've been trying to get a good answer to this, but I haven't really gotten one that makes any sense to me.

Every boon or magic item I've ever pulled at a promo/perk at, say, GenCon, has been pre-signed by an event GM. That signature wasn't tied to the "attachment to the character" it was just pre-signed.

The elixir boon is, obviously, NOT pre-signed.

Paizo folks tell me via e-mail that "The GM signs the boon when you attach it to your character," which... OK, but then why are all the GenCon boons pre-signed? Shouldn't they ALSO be signed when they're attached to the character?

Does anyone have some experience with this, who could perhaps explain this discrepancy to me?

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.

I'm wondering if we're going to see an unlikely flood of 20s. And I'm also wondering if, even if we don't, people will roll their eyes at any 20 that they see, because they just don't believe it. Hmm.

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.

Seems reasonable to me.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.