Rene Ayala's page

Awesome. I am trying out the Alchemist on Saturday.

First Thoughts.

Alchemist seems... meh. And I was looking forward to this class. It seems very 'Me Me Me' oriented, very little teamwork. He might make a good NPC class or possibly BBEG Henchman, but that's about it, as my first thought on the class. Not saying I'll continue to feel that way, but, it seems like he's very much a non-team oriented player. He also seems overly complicated yet also clunky at the same time (mostly because of balance issues I'm sure, that is, balancing it out leaves some clunky fluff/crunch disconnects), but that could just be me trying to take a lot in all at once.

MDT - the build is exactly how it was described at the sneak peek session held at GenCon Indy this year. The class is built to use his/her alchemy as a personal effect. The character can perform these actions then help out the party. Every character class has an ability used as a personal effect; a monk's flurry, a paladin's smite, a ranger's favored enemy, etc. Take another look. You'll see it's a very colorful, fun roleplaying potential class.

What is everybody's problem with letting eidolon's use items? Seriously, it comes from the same pool of wealth as the summoner, why are so many peoples freaking out over the possibility of an Eidolon wearing a ring of X or an amulet of Y, or a belt of Z?

I have one gentle answer to this question. In no way is the answer intended to judge another person's play style or decision. I haven't commented on this subject because I feel I have a narrow opinion on the matter (or maybe not). Having said that, this is my reasoning why I have an issue with it. In a different organized play campaign I judged many players running a druid that focused on the animal companion instead of his/her PC. I made jokes about it (which was ok because the people were friends of mine) that he played an animal PC with a druid companion. I said that because the animal companion, when buffed with items, dominated every combat. So much so that fighters, paladins and barbarians succumbed to providing it flanks and aid another because it could hit more often and do better damage. The druid didn't participate other than to cast the buff spells. It went even so far that the player(s) wanted their companion to use martial weapons, make knowledge rolls then 'communicate' this information to the party, intimidate NPCs, and speak to NPCs. Yes, speak to NPCs because they were 'trained to' and 'had the skills by rule'. I never enjoyed those particular game sessions because I wanted to roleplay with PCs, not run a scenario with an animal taking center stage leading six PCs around like pups. The eidolon isn't this bad but having it use weapons and magic items does concern me because of my experience. I think we need to focus on making a great summoner class and compliment it with an eidolon that doesn't overpower the roleplaying potential of its master, and the five other party members.

Again, that's my experience and opinion. I've held off on saying it because it could be an exception to the norm. I didn't want to start or add to the long list of posts on the subject.

I would like to ask those that read this please do not say I'm wrong or find faults to debate. I've posted my thought to kyrt-ryder as a courtesy to his answer his question.

Hadesblade wrote:

Hypothetical situations is actually what it comes down to from what I have read

Please don't let Hypothetical situations ruin a great original build.

My stake in seeing a great summoner class comes from wanting a great Pathfinder Society experience. I know playtesting the class involves running many homebrew games and with material from Paizo and non-Paizo sources (and it should). However, since 90% of my Pathfinder RPG play comes from Pathfinder Society games I'd like to see a class that's solid in both how a player builds the character and how the GM uses the rules. Consistency is the point I'm trying to make. To do that we need more playtest data like what I commented to earlier. i'll back up this statement when I post the results of our 12/13 playtest (our earlier session was postponed).

This is a playtest of Jason's design, not "Design a class by comittee".

Yes, this is the focus. I would like to add posting results from a playtest is worth more than a debate of how the mechanics should change.

Some feedback from my group:

- We drew up a gnome summoner at lvl 1, 7, 13, and 20. His Eidolon was a quadruped.

Excellent feedback, Kain Gallant. I think the board needs to see more of this type of posting. Concise and sticks to the facts Jason is asking for. Also, I can use it when considering my own playtesting.

I just don't think its right that a summoner is worse with summoning than a conjurer speced wizard.

I agree. I've been trying to keep up with the posts and it seems Jason's vision of the class is now diluted because of hypothetical examples on how players will abuse the class and its abilities. Sorry to say this all, but any and every class, feat, spell and ability has the potential to get abused by players who game in this fashion. I've seen it many, many times. We can't mitigate every imaginable play situation at every table world-wide and we shouldn't try. I suggest we give Jason a moment to use his good judgement to decide if these hypothetical situations give grounds to tanking a great class. If creating a specialized wizard character is better at summoning than the summoner character there's no need to include the class in the APG. In fact, I'll be bold enough to say everyone should take a step back and try it again. I'd like to see a great class included in the APG not a mediocre one that'll get ignored.

I tried to create a third character in my account. I'm encountering issues as well. I'm being asked to change my avatar and other profile information instead of just adding a new character.

Can't find an answer on the threads. For Pathfinder Society, if there is a difference from the core rules, is a druid limited to choose his/her animal companion from the list in the core rule book? Or is the Bestiary a valid source as well? I have a player who chose a Roc at first level. I have found everything he's done as valid and correct to building a Roc animal companion. I want to make sure it'll stand a challenge from any GM at a game day or convention. if anyone has information on it I'd appreciate it. I would prefer a reference to a post from Josh commenting on allowed animal companions, or restrictions. I've already checked the math and rules on the build. -Thanks.

The PRD is available online to meet the OGL requirements. Traits are the property of Paizo, they're not open gaming content.

First a literal answer. There isn't a default time. The results are displayed immediately after reporting the event. The person who reports the events determines when they'll appear. So, the real question is, when will the NeonCon Pathfinder Coordinator report the events. Having organized organized play for multiple games myself I can say it'll take at least a month to report all the events. If they're not reported after a month I'd recommend sending Doug an email. Hope this helps.

Thanks for all the replies. I was interested to know what you all thought. I wasn't hinting Pathfinder Society should consider revising the skill mechanic. It was better asking here than in the general Pathfinder RPG boards. I also kept the question away from the rules board to not have people think I wanted a ruling. The skill's use crossed my mind from time to time. I wanted to get a feel for how other people perceived it.

What I'm understanding is for home games GMs have made it their own instead of using it strictly as written. For organized play it's best to keep it simple. I agree with both takes on it.

I searched the boards but can't find if the subject of Knowledge (local) was brought up here in the Pathfinder Society discussion group. What's everyone's thought about this skill in how a person originating from, let's say Taldor, could, by rule, make a knowledge (local) check when adventuring in Osirion? It becomes more strange if a PC is leaving their small village in Varisia for the first time yet can roll a knowledge (local) check to know the inner-workings of the merchant streets in Qadira. Referencing the first example, wouldn't it make more sense if the skill was chosen by country, for example, knowledge (local: Taldor) and Knowledge (local: Osirion)? Then, when adventuring in that country, a PC could make a Knowledge (local) roll but not in others. Though if this was the case it'll be too costly in skill points to choose every country in Golarion. Instead, following the thought that K:local is too general, is it more prudent to take the skill by continent? If so, then a PC could take Knowledge (local: Avistan) and/or (local: Garund). Perhaps I'm making this too complex but thought to ask what you all thought.

anyone here know a contact email for one of the pathfinder coordinators from neoncon? I'm trying to get in touch with one to chase down some prestige awards for my friend and I, but I'm having no luck using the neoncon homepage "Contact Us" box.

You can contact Doug, the NeonCon director. I'm sure he'll know who to contact. doug.daulton@neoncon.com

I agree with you to a point, but I don't feel it's fair to assume that every author can know every possible way a scenario can be played, especially when once considers the always intangible and varied GM play styles. Even in a game where a full diplomacy group blows through a scenario, I'd ask some of the same questions that were asked above: did the GM do the diplomacy amidst roleplay or were there skill check dice rolls and nothing else? In the case of the archers, did all of the archers just relent or did one relent to diplomacy and the rest wonder what their buddy was doing and attack anyway? There are so many different ways to solve a scenario that I'm not sure the low word-count of a $4 product could cover them.

I appreciate the notion of expecting 4 hours of play and getting 1.5--that sucks. In an OP environment, though, I think you just have to know that sometimes your scenario will be short, sometimes it will run long and unfinished, and sometimes it'll be spot on. There are too many "outside the scenario" metrics to measure here to be sure we'll get it right every time.

Yep, those are fair statements. It's very difficult for an author to include notes to mitigate many situations, and impossible to include them all. This scenario I think is an exception because it includes text that can skip encounters. I would like to stress to you and the author, if he's reading, I'm not complaining in the least. I offered constructive criticism based on my experience playing it.

In our game specifically we roleplayed a little bit. We had a table of six with four of the PCs having zero diplomacy skills, and that's apart from character concepts whose first option wouldn't be to talk it out. One player had a good charisma modifier and the last PC was built for diplomacy. As it turned out he did 99% of the talking. He and the DM roleplayed the archer encounter for a couple minutes. Only one archer spoke, no one attacked. The DM asked for a diplomacy roll. He made the DC and all archers relented. The guard then called main NPC to the gate. He roleplayed that for a couple minutes. Another diplomacy roll was asked, he made it again. We were allowed to enter. Scenario over. The last 15 or so minutes was spent to accomplish missions which I commented on earlier.

Playing off your feedback, Rene, what happens when your party breezes through the scenario using diplomacy (which not everyone does) and then the GM sends them on non-written side missions to extend play and a player dies (and let's say can't afford to be rezzed) during a non-written side mission?

My previous comments were not proposing a GM send players through non-written encounters. What I meant was the author should have a good idea how their scenario plays. If an author writes a scenario in such a way where Diplomacy may cause players to skip entire Acts I think it's a good idea to include notes for alternatives. Perhaps writing these alternatives as Game Designer notes like those used in Gamemastery modules. The options I wrote in my previous comments were ideas an author could include in Game Designer notes within such a scenario.

Rene

I was going to ask if it would be possible to convert an existing character to one of the new classes. Regardless, I am going to try and use one in PFS.

I'm wondering the same thing. I've offered players at my game days to play a base class for no credit, if they choose. I'll check back in to see what Josh says on the subject.

Starting with season 1, each faction has one rather simple assignment and one difficult assignment. The assumption for PA progression is that no one is going to get 2 PA every single time they play a scenario.

100% agree. Early in season 0 the players asked me to hand wave the missions. Now they're more interesting. I give a little slack to allow the PC to get the main PA, but they must earn the bonus PA.

I have positives, negatives and suggestion(s) for thought about this scenario. I'm a fan of constructive criticism as opposed to complaints. Please take these comments as constructive.

I hope the feedback was helpful for future scenarios. Or, perhaps, DMs who run it as a private game could take advantage of my notes.

Good mod, Craig. I wish my table could have experienced it cover to cover.

Society Roleplayers are so used to railroad tracks, that removing them would leave them high and dry?

How is this a good thing?

Navdi, I've written about a dozen organized play adventures and DM'd hundreds of OP game day and convention slots. I replied to Josh's question based on my experience. It wasn't an isolated event and I don't think I need to defend it. I gave one example to support my reply instead of writing a laundry list of them. I don't believe Josh's question was posted to incite debate. He asked for GM feedback.

Rene

I vote to keep the 2nd person. Reason is players of organized play need a bit of prodding to get into the game. I'm not being negative or speaking ill of the players but it's true. They need something that focuses them to get started. Once hooked, they are good to go as long as the carrots guide them. I've written adventures for organized play not using the 2nd person and kept the adventure a bit open ended. I thought giving the DMs and players room to create and explore would be a good change of pace. The reviews weren't good and the people who spoke to me said they were thoroughly confused because the opening read aloud didn't tell them what to do.

That's been my experience.

Besides, if enough people are disappointed with Josh’s decision the dissidents can band together to form a NEW organized play campaign called “Aspis Consortium” where they get to thwart the Pathfinder Society, swipe their McGuffins and have a meta-campaign that impacts Golarion. At GenCon they can try to steal PFS session tracking sheets and plant them on Dave Christ.

Not sure if this was meant 100% as humor but I enjoyed it. Especially the part about David Christ. Laughed loud on that part.

Now thinking about it. Creating an Aspis Consortium campaign could be fun to play. Though not as competition based on unpopular rulings. I'm thinking it similar to RPGA's Eberron campaigns called Mark of Heroes and Xen'drik Expeditions.

LOL, session sheets on David....too funny.

Do you have an idea of how many people decide not to come down to the Inn because they have already played the offered scenario for that slot?

I re-run scenarios periodically once I get enough new players to make a table. That would have eight players not replaying that scenario. And that is good and well. I do not see that as an opportunity to run two more tables of the same scenario for them for many reason. For these eight players I'd run a new game or they skip that particular game day. I do not see this as an issue.

I get the sense that you feel that if replaying were allowed, all these replayers would clamor for scenarios to be rerun so they could level up different characters. Are you worried they will want these reruns in addition to the two (presumably) new scenarios you run each month, thus burning

I'm worried about coordinator time and judging resources. I reserve enough of both to keep the game days running smooth. Increasing this effort to fit in replays will tax my resources to breaking. I strongly think once a person plays a scenario, they're done with it. Someone posted PFS scenarios are hack-and-slash. They're not. With replays, the scenarios will turn into just rolling for initiative and getting a chronicle. There is a roleplay and story in these scenarios. A good judge will bring that out. I can't see spending additional resources is worth the value of a replay that creates a play experience reduced to combat.

Do you mean beyond the scope of Chapter 13 of the Guide book where non-core, Golarion-specific items/equipment/prestige classes/etc are allowed? If yes, can you be more specific?

As for ioun stones, those are coming in Seekers of Secrets. Once that book is out, I'll update Chapter 13.

Yes, I did mean having access other than items, equip and prestige classes from these other publications. That access is great but what about story elements or faction benefits. For example, there were a handful of scenarios based in Absalom. If in one of these scenarios where the PCs had interaction with a merchant it would be cool if the chronicle awarded a +2 circumstance bonus on Charisma-based checks when dealing with merchants. Or, the merchant can procure an item for the PC at a discount from the published cost. Another example is in a recent scenario the Pathfinder Society had to cooperate with the Aspis Consortium. What if a chronicle benefit was having a future one-time contact with a person from this group to perform some task. This task wouldn't break the mod. It could be granting a +2 circumstance bonus on diplomacy (gather information) checks. (though, for me, it's the Aspis Consortium so I would use the favor to have them clean my boots but perhaps someone is more productive in its use than me.)

For faction benefits, what about including a one-use benefit that grants a re-roll to achieve a faction mission (sometimes a roll is low to get the DC 25 check, this could be a popular insurance to get the 2nd PA point). Although I'd include the restriction that only one such re-roll per faction, per table.

I could write more example is you need them but in short, what I'm saying is instead of using the chronicle for item access what about granting in-game benefits that are universal enough to always come in handy.

-Thanks for the follow up.

This post is all about how to keep players once they've played an adventure. I think the very most useful thing to get people to stay with Pathfinder Society is to target what new people see, as follows:

-snip-
3) Starting Chronicle Sheet. This paperwork has been the single most confusing aspect for anyone I've introduced to this game. You should provide a "Chronicle Sheet 0" that anyone may use, to be filled out as people make their character. This sheet has the 0 Starting XP, 0 Starting PA, and 150 Starting GP already in place, a spot to list all the equipment purchased, and perhaps comment bubbles with helpful things like "Your character name goes here", "Your name goes here", etc. You could have one of these with each pre-gen, because people playing pre-gens are most likely to be intimidated by the sudden blast of post-game paperwork.

I'd like to expand on this. Since access on the chronicle sheet takes a backseat when a character has enough PA to buy the cool stuff how about about having non-PFRPG rule book access. Before the gasps, I mean what about having Golorian specific access? One specific example I have is getting an ioun stone for their wayfinder that does something specific, something cool, other than +X bonus to stats or combat related bumps. Another might be a faction story element that is relevant to a future scenario. This might help tie in the continuity requests.

There are some things that could be done to increase pathfinder society turnout. In order of necessity they are.

-snip-
2: You have the better game system out there right now. Act like you know it.
Picking your own path and going with 1xp per mod works amazingly well. Borrowing the replay rules from LFR betrays a lack of confidence that makes what you have to offer seem inferior.

-snip-

4: Make some con special event to promote larger local cons.
Having an interactive for every small con out there is too labor intensive. I would recomend having a single faction special mission available per year for each faction. This would give each faction a chace to do what they do best without the interference of others. Make sure that these special missions use most of all of the wierd stuff people had to do to get their faction awards in the first place. Getting alot of people in one place playing works to the herd mentality of people. Some will only try this out if enough other people are seen to be doing it.

5: Tie the mods together better.
From what i have seen from the first 20 mods or so the continuity has been almost nonexistent. This isn't all bad as it frees people to play stuff out of order without spoiling other mods. That the faction missions come off more like a pointless scavenger hunt doesn't...

I agree with #2 very much. PFS needs to stand on it's own. If PFS tastes a little like 4E why would a player try it? If they play 4E they won't see a benefit to playing PFS if they experience is the same.

#4 is good stepping stone for full-blown interactives.

#5 would be nice. Even if it's only a recurring villain.

I'm an experienced RPGA DM and author for Living Greyhawk. I've played a little LFR but more interested in Pathfinder at this point.

To get new players interested without replays. I'd say make some modules that are Tier 1-2 ONLY. Maybe make one or two free so DMs can download them, along with a Rules lite version of the organized play rules. So DM's running a "home style game" can run the module for his or her players and make it "count" as an official Society module or just for home play.

To have the DM's or players coming back, maybe make a "part 2" to the module as a Tier 1-2 only module and have it available at the store.

Another idea I mentioned to Erik and Josh, have PFS adaptables of Pathfinder modules like Crown of the Kobold King. The module is low level. You'd like the hard copy module to run the adaptable. Its for 2nd level PCs but I'm sure a table of six first levels might be able to handle it. I haven't played it so I'm not 100% sure if thats the case but since its low level. I think it would be a good bridge into the PFS.

Also get the word out to game stores. Here's some posters plastic minis or dice or what not to give out to new Pathfinder Society players like I mentioned maybe a special module to game stores that sign up for a program.

Mike

I buy the Adventure Paths but cannot find a consistent group to play them. Pathfinder Society players don't have time for another weekly game. If the Gamemastery or AP modules became PFS-friendly I think I'd have a full-body freakout first, then put it up on the game day sign-ups right after. (perhaps that was too much information).

I think being active in local conventions is going to really get the word out. Maybe have convention packages that come with everyone an organizer needs to run Pathfinder at a convention, for a price of course.

In Living Greyhawk, the reason people traveled to different local conventions were to play unique sanctioned interactives, and of course, to play in new regions.

I'm not saying you need to go with regions (though that would increase travel), but maybe have sanctioned battle interactives that affect a certain region of Golarion, that is only given to a few conventions that request it.

Yes! I would buy the convention package and hand out prizes to judges and players. Working with the convention owner/gaming organizer on the cost of the package was difficult. But, if you're creative, all things are possible.

A portal would make a lot of sense, maybe even one written from the perspective of characters in Golarian. Showcase the world, the Pathfinder Society, and all the wonderful things about the game in an interactive, in character experience. This was one of the things that first drew me to Exalted. The comics at the start of each chapter helped me feel like I knew the world, even if I didn't know the rules.

I'll add myself to this suggestion. In favor of.

I have been working hard to spread PFS locally at game days, meetups, and mini-cons since it started last GenCon and I know that it can be tough roping people in long-term. Just to toss out some ideas in a rather haphazard manner:

1) Everyone who registers for a PFS number gives you their email. Send out monthly newsletters on upcoming scenarios, events, open calls, invitations to participate in ongoing discussions on these boards, contests, etc. If a meta-plot is decided upon based on other discussions, give people updates on how their actions are affecting their faction, the Society, or Golarion as a whole.

2) Create a page long "intro document" to give to new players about the campaign without getting into rules and specifics. I found that I spent a lot of time at meetups explaining to people who just wanted a one-off game why they should register for the Society, and why it was worth them sticking with.

3) Allow play of pregens for new players to provide full XP, prestige and wealth to a new character they can build themselves using the conversion rules from 2.0. This allows them a built-in incentive to make their own PC and download the current GtPFSOP as they actually get to keep what they earned in that first game.

4) Get game stores more involved. At this point, it's up to players/GMs who already know PFS to approach stores to set up games. I tried it at a place that wasn't very open to the idea because they expected Paizo would support them directly for doing so. Right now their only incentive to officially sponsoring PFS is extra people in their store, and for some stores that isn't enough. Supplying signage and resources to aid stores, and possibly other things on the backend that customers wouldn't see would go a long way to helping GMs and players find friendly places to play.

5) Now that players have access to almost every product from Paizo, perhaps providing discounts or coupons for pdfs based on prestige earned, games run, etc as an out-of-game benefit would be an...

All very good suggestions. Each one is a good base to start a discussion on how to implement it.

David Fryer wrote:

One thing that has been a barrier to getting the PFS going in my area is the fact that you have to pay for the adventures. I know that Paizo is a small company and needs the revenue, but I can't be the only one who has run into this as a problem.

One thing I know is that no gaming system is filling the void left for people having reasons to hold small conventions. The main draw to these conventions were interactives which could only be played there.

Therefore my suggestion is to start offering interactives and you could gain control of all the non-huge conventions that happen throughout the year.

100% agree. I gained more new players at conventions in comparison to store game day walk-ins. I think interactives on their own won't sell a person to travel. If there were regional scenarios perhaps it would gain more interest. But that's outside the scope of this thread.

I think that the biggest thing I can think of would be a rules light version of Pathfinder. It has been an idea that has been thrown about on occasion and it would definately make the game more accessabl to new players. I have been playing RPGs off an on since I was 5 years old, 1978 for those keeping track, and I was a litl intimidatd when I saw the pathfinder core rulebook. I can only imagine how it must look to new players.

Edit: The book could have human, elf, dwarf, and halfling as races; fighter, cleric, rogue, and either wizard or sorcerer as classes and basic items, spells, and rules. It would also have a lower price point which would also be attractive to green players.

I hope this doesn't happen. I believe players who are interested in the rules will buy the book. I have two copies and keep one floating around the table. Players who can't afford the $50 I suggest they get the $10 PDF. Having to learn Pathfinder RPG rules and then run PFS game days using a subset of those rules will be taxing.

One thing that has been a barrier to getting the PFS going in my area is the fact that you have to pay for the adventures. I know that Paizo is a small company and needs the revenue, but I can't be the only one who has run into this as a problem.

I ask for $1 from each player to pitch into the cost of the scenario and printing chronicles. I run two games per day, that's 50-cents per game. I've never had a player complain about it. Any funds left over is put into buying giveaways for the players at special events.

I ran Living Greyhawk games from 2003 - 2008 in metro-Phoenix (East Valley) as the lead coordinator for A Gathering of Players (AGoP). The tables grew from barely making one legal table per month to 12 tables (per month) in bi-weekly game days. The biggest reasons I attribute to this success is 1) judges, 2) always putting the club's name out there, every where, 3) the support of a gaming store (or a consistent location to run), 4) pairing up newbies with experienced players at the game day who have enthusiasm for the game, 5) creating a repeatable, consistent process for future game days, 6) constant communication with the players who attend, and 7) a constant stream of new play opportunities (new scenarios).

During the LG years the largest, local competition for a player's time was Living Arcanis, Mark of Heroes and Xen'drik Expeditions. These were not as successful as LG in terms of events at AGoP. I think a large part of it was because LG was more approachable for new players to get involved. LA players might think differently but I tried the game and felt getting up to speed on world events and previous story lines was an obstacle. For Mark of Heroes and Xen'drik Expeditions, there was interest but the scenario releases were inconsistent, killing off player participation. Although, some players dropped out because of how leveling was handled.

Using my experience with LG and lessons learned from other campaign offerings I'm finding it difficult to get interest in Pathfinder Society. The setting, scenarios, and rules are approachable but in my situation there is large gorilla in the room called Living Forgotten Realms. Only those players interested in playing something other than 4E are interested in the PFS campaign. AGoP’s play numbers for LFR is larger than LG’s numbers. However, I believe there are players out there who will not only try out PFS but stay with the campaign.

Per my steps outlined above here's what I've done in the past and will try out with Pathfinder Society. Hopefully some of it helps this audience. (I wish I could have put all this under the "show" button but I didn't know how to use it. Sorry for the length.)

1, Judges - I run slot 0s for a small group of judges, four player max. The reason to not offer a slot 0 with a full table of judges is to keep tables at the game day running. I don’t want to have six judges ready to run 2 - 3 players. I think online play now allowed with the new PFS guide can help coordinators in other cities a chance to run slot 0s who might have a problem with a small player base.

2. Create a club name that players can attach to, and repeat it every where you can. Put up photocopied sheets at game stores, or in other traffic spots that attract gamers. For our club, I also put it in a publication called ConNotations. It is a local paper published by local gamers, for local gaming. I also carry business cards with me to local conventions and hand them out. People at conventions try out new games. If any players sat down at a table they’ll walk away with a business card with the club’s information (yahoo group, warhorn.net URL, and coordinator email address). What I recommend is that you approach the club the same way as creating a brand for a product. When a gamer identifies a club’s name like a brand magnificent things happen when they talk about you to their friends.

3. AGoP has the support of a game store. Without their support we would not be as successful as we are. Before Gamer’s Inn was opened we ran at a place (not to be named) that was geared for LAN and Warhammer play. We did not feel welcome and the store owner only grunted a hello when I arrived to set up. I don’t mean to digress with that example but a game store that supports your club is essential to success. My suggestion if you play at a game store is to become the store owner’s friend. Let him/her know what you’re running, when, how long it’ll take, and what facilities you need (tables/chairs/space). Also let them know how you will benefit them. A good store owner already knows it but go the extra step. At AGoP game days players have the option to toss $1 into a pool that turns into a store gift certificate that is raffled off. Just recently I offered to have our club sponsor the RPG area. Think of adopt a highway. Our club is responsible to keep the area tidy not just for our games at all times. For this privilege we get to put up a sign that says, “RPG room sponsored by AGoP” (again, think branding). This trade off is good for the club and the store. Us for exposure and the store for freeing up an employee to pick up after untidy gamers. If you’re not lucky to have a store to game it is important to find a location that will not change. Players won’t stay interested if they need to travel to a different place every time they play. In the same vein as branding think, location, location, location.

4. When new players arrive I always connect them to experienced players who are enthused about the campaign. As a coordinator I can’t spend a lot of time with them but, again luckily, we have players who will take the time to teach a newbie what Pathfinder Society is all about. Tongue-in-cheek, this experienced player has a charisma of 13+, with a bend toward play experience and not rules teaching. A player will take the time to learn the rules if s/he is coming back so teaching them rules at their first session isn’t the way to go. If they leave with a good play experience it sets them up much better to return as a regular player. Rules are learned or picked up. Leaving confused and not tasting, breathing, and living the campaign world won’t produce regular players.

5. Use a sign-up system that is always kept up to date. My suggestion is not only keep it up to date but list games out at least two weeks in advance. And when this game day is approaching put up the schedule for the next game day. I invite people reading to look at AGoP’s sign-ups at www.warhorn.net/gathering as an example. Putting up sign-ups or asking who’s showing up at a game day a few days before the event will not give the coordinator enough time to drum up interest. Also, not having an advance schedule causes players to believe it’s not a recurring event or they will make other plans before the next event is put on the schedule. Always let players know their investment in time and money will produce a consistent, guaranteed game to play.

6. To communicate with players I use Yahoo! Groups. Anything and everything about the campaign and game days are put there. I have one group for players and another for judges. If you prefer a different tool to communicate with players that’s fine. My suggestion is the tool must allow two-way communication. Emails, Web site lists, or sign-ups lists won’t do it. Just like this message board, you need to create a local community to talk to each other. Keep the discussions on task to the campaign. If you allow random posts of about movies, quizzes, recent real world events, etc. Etc. you will lose your audience. Give your players one area to go to where they can quick information (not paging through irrelevant material) and participate in a dialogue with other players. Coordinators and judges should post often or at least keep posts fresh. Don’t let things go stale. Some people don’t post but they visit often. If they consistently see old posts you will lose them as regular players.

7. Keep one step ahead of the players in terms of scenarios out for play. I’ve been in situations, not PFS, when everyone’s sitting around wondering what’ll get run. Everyone wants to play or no one has played the latest scenario. This might be difficult with a small, local player base or if access to resources for online play is not available, but, my suggestion is set up a slot 0 opportunity face-to-face or online. For F2F play, I would like to point out that rotating judging duties is fine but I believe it creates a homogenous group of players who are not looking to grow the player base. Actively running a slot 0, or participating in one, then looking outward to run others is a good start to growing the Pathfinder Society player base. On the flip side of playing new scenarios is having new scenarios available to run. Don’t only look at what’s the latest Pathfinder Scenario released. Look to your new players and run scenarios they are missing. Don’t be shy about getting new players caught up even if it means veteran players don’t have something to play. To keep both sides happy I set up two slots, one for an old scenario, and one for the latest release.

All of what I said is pretty much equivalent to a part-time job. Get help if you need it. Don’t be afraid to delegate if you have people who agree to assist but remember they are friends, not employees. There’s more I’d like to say but this post is long already. I’ll check in on this thread and reply to any questions.

I think replaying scenarios should *not* be an option for Pathfinder Society. The scenarios are story-based so the person replaying it will just sit by to play the combats? I don't understand why someone would want to sit down, quiet and uninvolved, until it's time to roll initiative. If the reason to create replay rules is to fill out a table that's short a seat I say toss that detail over to the coordinators at the game days to figure out. I run A Gathering of Players in metro-Phoenix. I sometimes get stuck in 7-player sign-up situations and don't feel replay rules is the way to fix the issue. Also, if replays were allowed I can see it becoming a burden for the coordinators. There are many people who are only players and who are not involved as coordinators or judges (which is fine, no issue there), but, I can foresee demands on the coordinators and regular judges by these play-only players to run the scenarios again so they can get credit on another PC. Makes me shiver actually because there is a lot of work to run regular game days. If there are people out there saying they want replays so they can get exposure to play a different race/class then just create it and play it at the next, new scenario run. Or play Paizo's Adventure Path's and Gamemastery modules.

I know there's a lot of assumptions on people's motivations who want replays. They do not apply to everyone but I do believe they apply to some degree.

Heroes' Feast: I'd like to see this spell grant a +5 sacred bonus to saves versus fear effects and poisons instead of immunity. At higher levels many creatures have these abilities. A simple heroes' feast squashes the abilities of these creatures, which effectively lowers the CR for the encounter.

Heroes' Feast: I'd like to see this spell grant a +5 sacred bonus to saves versus fear effects and poisons instead of immunity. At higher levels many creatures have these abilities. A simple heroes' feast squashes the abilities of these creatures, which effectively lowers the CR for the encounter.

Pathfinder Society in Mesa, AZ is picking up. Putting a bug in people's ear in case someone out there is wondering or looking for games in the Metro-Phoenix area. Go to http://www.warhorn.net/gathering/ if you're interested.

Action Points always ruined the flow of the game for me. Perhaps created an imbalance is a better description. Take a table situation - everyone is focused on the PCs turn in combat, something doesn't go right because of a low die roll, the DM has a great roleplay situation to describe from the result, but then the failed die roll is resolved by rolling an extra d6. Talk about popping a balloon and bringing down the fun factor. I've seen this situation many times. I hope action points don't end up in PRPG. If a DM wants to add it as a house rule there's no stopping him/her from doing so. But don't push this onto others who are not a fan. If the publishers choose to include it I hope it comes in the form of a sidebar with "Variant Rule" as the heading.

2 adventures to reach 2nd level
3 adventures to reach 3rd level
4 adventures to reach 4th level
5 adventures to reach 5th level
6 adventures to reach 6th level
etc.

This slowed progression at higher levels might help lower level characters catch up over time, as some have been asking for, feels like you're working to earn each level, and re-captures the feel of old-school level progression,...

(snip, and insert)

Michael Suzio, Wed, Feb 4, 2009, 09:27 AM

lvl 1-4 = 3 xp/lvl
lvl 5-8 = 4 xp/lvl
lvl 9-12 = 5 xp/lvl

I like what you guys are saying here. Before I go on with agreeing I'd like to point out one, or two, thoughts. I agree with Joshua that death should be a part of the game. If it weren't combat encounters would lose its luster. I also think if death occurs there should be an in-game/role playing result after a raise dead. Losing a level is a classic component for that result. I've never been a fan of changing the rule to not lose a level after a raise dead.

Now back to me agreeing. After death, with the limited number of scenarios available, it is difficult for a player to catch up, if at all. Changing the xp per scenario would give a player the potential to catch up to his/her home/game-day party APL. Although, I do see Joshua's point that by eliminating the level loss it takes care of the catch up problem and does not complicate the xp award system. However, now I'm back to the thought of death and the enjoyment of tough combat. If all I need is coin accumulation and a generous party then the danger of death is dulled.

If it were up to a vote I think I'd go with DarkWhites recommendation. It's simple and easy to understand in a campaign guidebook. Michael's recommendation, though well thought out, doesn't fix the issue of catching up after taking a level loss from a raise dead (xp for levels 1 - 4 is how PFS is currently run and the issue at hand).

Hope this added something positive to the discussion.

This would be awesome. Perhaps when casting a charm person spell the rings adds the wearers Charisma modifier to the DC. Or a ring of shocking grasp that allows the wearer to add their Strength modifier to damage, when making an unarmed attack of course.

Yes, I did play Living Greyhawk. My biggest complaint to anyone that would listen was the free for all in magic items. Another was power gaming but that's a conversation for a different thread.

So much magic was available in LG it created a lot of imbalance at the tables. Some players would come from regions that liberally gave away these toys. Others took a little more responsibility and didn't offer a blank check to Magic Item Compendium. Many gaming sessions were not fun because of the silliness players invoked from the glut of magic they brought out.

I see what you're saying about placing this designation on the magic item's description. It reminds me of old school 1st edition's Monster Manual. A system I very much liked because it controlled the access to magic and coin - well at least it did the way we played it. In reference to my first post my thought comes from the difference in gamer value this information creates versus the time designers will take to classify items, then account for the number of questions and clarifications that arise after the PRPG is released.

I agree with what Purple Dragon's suggestions on improving the bard. I had a bard in WoTC's Living Greyhawk campaign. I kept him a full bard, no multiclassing. Straight out of 3.5e rules he was becoming ineffective. "Sing us a little song, bard" is all I was good for. Having perform as a bard only skill is a great idea. I played in a game once when a fighter cross-classed perform and was rolling better than the bard, albeit bad dice rolling vs. good dice rolling was a considerable and comedic factor.

I think the bard has incredible potential to move up the ranks of playability. There wasn't one suggestion you mentioned I didn't agree with. Hopefully some of these suggestions make it into the PRPG.

Rene

I like the idea but in practice I think it'll get ignored. As an example I turn to the race/class mixes labeled as "not likely". In the Pathfinder Society game days I run we had two halfling clerics. That is not only rare but the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting states it is unlikely, i.e. you should not see this race/class mix in the Inner Sea. But there it was, two halfling clerics, brothers nonetheless.

If there is a limit to magic items the control is with the DM for home games and authors/editors for the Pathfinder modules. If the Pathfinder RPG is a magic mart, the precendent being published mods and low cost to acquire magic baubles, it'll be a losing battle for DMs who like seeing low magic in their campaign. On the flip side it will create frustration with players who want the cool goodies early in their adventuring careers.

Like I said, I like the idea but I believe the classification will get ignored. However, for DMs who like to create home brew adventures I can see a value in it. If it is included it would be interesting to see because it will set the bar on where Pathfinder RPG lies. Magic mart or low magic?

Rene

I think they do create a problem as written in 3.5e. I used one to bump my AC for the sake of not losing my shield bonus and two-handing a longsword. I say either nerf it or raise the cost for high level adventuring, or both.

Rene

I've read many, not all, but many posts suggesting varied rules, classes, tweaks, and insights for the Pathfinder RPG. Some are fine but most make me very uncomfortable when I consider the potential of Pathfinder. These shiver-my-spine suggestions usually start with referencing an existing book from a different publisher (WoTC, Iron Mountain, etc) and how Pathfinder RPG should do something similar. Folks, this is a chance for a unique RPG. I don't understand why the trend is to create a Pathfinder/4e/Iron Mountain/Eberron/<enter your source here> RPG. We are in a wonderful position with a publisher requesting and reading our suggestions for a new RPG. Why are we suggesting to create is mish-mash of every other campaign system out there? If Pathfinder RPG were to become a hodgepodge of varied sources the playability and shelf life of the campaign is numbered.

I would like to see an RPG that is complementary to the wonderful world of Golarion. I've read many of the Pathfinder Chronicles modules and supplements. Each Pathfinder adventure read is a pleasurable experience and not pages of room descriptions and combat statistics. While I'm reading I wonder how the Pathfinder RPG would work in the module. I am literally saddened when I consider the possibility of running Legacy of Fire using powers from 4e, points from Eberron, tweaked classes from WoTC builder books, and variant rules from Iron Mountain. I don't believe the staff at Paizo intended solicitation on how they can copy other publishers when they opened the new RPG for public comment. I would venture they hoped to receive critical feedback on what Jason wrote to improve the RPG and unique proposals to complement the campaign world.

I sincerely wish I struck a key with some and perhaps motivated many individuals, like myself, who read, moaned, and didn't provide any feedback. I hope my comments are well received, either supporting my opinion or otherwise. Looking into the future, after the Pathfinder RPG is released, I hope to see many of you at the tables enjoying a very unique and strong RPG. In game terms, standing together overlooking the horizon of the Inner Sea from the spires of Absalom, with our pouches filled, our chronicles published, and our adventuring careers with the Pathfinder Society looking bright.

Rene

I have to vote the other way. I'm not a fan of action points or any points used to tweak up a die roll apart from what is provided by the mechanics (BAB, Ability modifier, synergy, etc). I feel it creates a disruption to the game flow and mechanics. I don't understand why players have such a hard time accepting the outcome of the dice. If your PC doesn't make the roll for a successful attack, save, skill, etc., well, that's the outcome - accept, live with it, and move on. The game is fun. Why damper the excitment when things don't go the way of the PC. Why is there a need to add points? Leave Eberron, 4e, and all those other games mentioned, to what they've done without seeing the need to copy it in Pathfinder. An incessant number of point sources to tweak a die roll isn't, in my view, the end all of a successfull game session. It creates imbalance to the mechanics.

endur wrote:

The Living Greyhawk campaign added a lot of material for various cities. If you know what city you want details on, you can probably find info for the corresponding region that city is placed in.

Somehow I am doubtful. As far as I'm aware very few cities have Living Greyhawk material on them. I tried looking for information on Riftcrag and found nothing (other than the "Iuz the Evil" supplement). I signed up with the RPGA to try to download adventures and it seems like it's more trouble than it's worth. Not only are all the old scenarios not available anymore, but to download an adventure I have to pass an online test (which was actually lots of fun), organise an event and send in a request to the RPGA so I can then have the password sent to me which finally allows me to download the adventure. A bit complicated to say the least. How can I possibly organise an event without first reading the scenario? I would at least like to review an adventure before I finally decide to run it.

I haven't entirely given up running Living Greyhawk adventures for my friends, and I appreciate all the hard work the folks at the RPGA must do, but it seems to me that Living Greyhawk would fare better if the stuff was more readily available to its fans. Maybe I'm just just doing it wrong and there's an easier way to get LG scenarios. Until then it strikes me as the kind of game you only run at conventions.

This isn't an issue of LG. LG scenarios are sanctioned events. Getting the password for scenarios is identical to ordering Core scenarios through rpga.com. One can't ask rpga to send COR6-01 Story for Another Day just for casual reading. In the same sense you can't ask the LG Triad for NYR5-01 Don't Cry for Me, Nyrond for Nyrond reference material. If you want to play LG you need to participate in santioned events by following the ordering process. If you want Greyhawk references for home campaigns there is a lot out there in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ed. materials. I would suggest if you want to run home games in Greyhawk you read the campaign building pages in the DMG and use what is available as a starting point. If you want to play/judge LG in sanctioned events and perhaps help build the detail you say is lacking I'm sure the triad in your region would welcome you.