Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Sheyln (Symbol)

Saint Bernard de Clairveaux's page

FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 80 posts (6,266 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 15 Pathfinder Society characters. 6 aliases.


1 to 50 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Just thinking about you all and the amazing time I had with this story. Despite my tempestuous moments, I hope it also has left fond memories for you all!

I'll join you over there now. Thanks for being open to the swap, Nightdeath and Luke.

Archasimos wrote:

For the Swashbuckler and for several other classes, there really needs to be the addition of the main-gauche as a parrying dagger, and rules to support it. Also it shouldn't be an exotic weapon.

Rather than stat-ing out main-gauche separately, this could perhaps be accomplished by making Two-Weapon Defense an optional bonus feat that doesn't require Two-Weapon Fighting (though of course most people would want to get that too), and just using dagger stats.

With respect, I sense that folks don't want to discuss out of character. I don't see how I can move forward without your help problem solving out if character. I gather there are a
side conversations happening by IM that don't include me, and I'm left uncertain about how to move forward.

I'm going to stop posting IC for a while. If you want to discuss here or privately, please let me know. I mean well, but I clearly don't know what to do without some feedback. DM Euan, please feel free to do what you wish with Fondo.

One piece of feedback that is clear us that I post too damn much, and that may have made you all feel drowned out. I'm going to try to take that to heart, though I need some help finding the right pace....

I resent that. I am a Razmiran. I celebrate Razmas.

A somewhat provocative post I put together about the dreaded 'metagaming.'

A somewhat provocative post I put together about the dreaded 'metagaming.'

This post is mainly directed at diehard roleplaying and storytelling fans like me, and those who game with us via play-by-post (PbP) or face-to-face (F2F).

As a diehard PbP and F2F gamer with a love of the creative elements of the game, I have frequent opportunities to debate the finer points of roleplaying and metagaming.

One question that often comes up is how much player characters are likely to know about each other, specifically in terms of metagame knowledge about spells, powers, etc.

A related complaint that often arises is that asking questions or making assumptions about such things is 'metagaming.' And that metagaming is bad / evil / the antithesis of (capital R) Roleplaying.


However, Pathfinder isn't just a game about roleplaying and storytelling. It's a game about cooperation, strategy, and dice, in which our storytelling is mediated by rules.

Both the game and storytelling aspects of Pathfinder are greatly aided when players and characters find ways to communicate what qualities and abilities we and our PCs bring to the table.

Put slightly more poetically, the metagame is the skeleton upon which we build the flesh of our story. Being able to speak to the metagame can be distracting, but it can also help us ensure that the overall body of the game is healthy.

The question is, how do we communicate the metagame aspect of the game, while preserving a sense of immersion, which is critical to good storytelling and roleplaying?

I submit to you the best roleplaying doesn't mean avoiding metagaming. It means recasting our metagame knowledge and requests into evocative roleplay and narration, and conveying when we're slipping out of narrative mode.

Yes, Metagame!

Let's look at a specific example from one of my PbP games: How would a Varisian bravo / battle herald possibly know that an elven cleric of Nethys, who is an extremely reticent chauvinist who looks down on humans, has antimagic field as a domain spell? It would be metagaming to suggest otherwise, if his elf had never cast the spell.

True. The Varisian likely has no in-character way of knowing about antimagic field, if the other player doesn't indicate such through either narration or roleplay.

If I were to have my Varisian say, "Hey, elf, mind casting antimagic field?" other diehard roleplayers might respond by crying foul: "Metagamer! Get a rope!"

Rather than get bent out of shape, why not look at this as an opportunity to encourage with each other more roleplaying and immersion.

Instead of getting mad at another player for asking your character to do 'X,' roll with it.

Encourage that player to reframe their request in a way that's more immersive / non-game-speak, or just respond with your in-character or narrative voice, with a smile on your face.

It could even be fun for the player being approached with metagamey requests to quickly write up (in PbP) or engage that player (in F2F or PbP) in a flashback that shows how that player's PC knows about X ability. Chances are characters are spending a lot of time together off-screen—an infinite pool of potential vignettes to tap into.

Also, when leveling up, why not take some time to talk out how your character describes their growing expertise in narrative terms? Maybe talk excitedly in-character about a new spell. Or describe narratively the lightning crackling from her fingertips, if you have a more reticent character.

Anyway, there are lots of potential ways to navigate metagaming that are constructive, and help set a positive expectation for roleplaying and storytelling. Let's help each other, instead of getting bent out of shape.

Immersion & voice

I love immersion in roleplaying games—little touches that players and GMs add that are crucial to RPG storytelling and roleplaying.

Immersion is not the same as always being immersed, and never speaking in metagame terms. Rather, it's about getting the right balance of speaking in metagame-ese and speaking immersively. One doesn't have to fight with the other, and it's hard to play the game if we don't do some of each.

The trick is finding a way to distinguish between when we're speaking metagame, and when we're being immersive.

One thing that is beautiful about PbP, but harder in F2F, is the ability to separate out-of-character metagame writing from narrative description and dialogue. A few simple tags and you're set!

It's harder in F2F gameplay, but not impossible. Some suggestions:

  • Cultivate a narrative voice, and to use it as much as possible. Perhaps you lower your voice for narration, or use the Movie Guy voice—"In a world..." (ok, please don't use that guy's voice)
  • Change your pitch or make a hand gesture when you're slipping into metagame-ese
  • Cultivate another tone or accent for your character. It doesn't have to be a perfect British accent. Just something that lets others know you're roleplaying

The more we can make clear when we're putting flesh on the story and when we're talking about its skeleton, the less of a problem metagaming will be.

What happens off-screen?

Sometimes we talk about PCs relationships with each other as though they only spend time together during the hours when we're gaming. In most campaigns, though, PCs spend huge amounts of time together.

What do they learn about each other during that time? Do they pick up things about each other? Sit in stony silence? Lie to each other?

I believe it's reasonable to assume that PCs learn a lot about each other during those long ocean voyages or caravan trips. Enough for us to give each other the benefit of the doubt about how much they know about each other. The roleplaying fun comes with filling in the details—explaining how we know what we know.

Metagame: yes. Play other people's characters: NO!

It is a point well taken that control freaks like me can really push the envelope in terms of claiming to know more than our PCs would know, and then provide 'suggestions' that are too directive.

This isn't the same as assuming that we know something unstated about each others' characters based on metagame knowledge—the subject of this post.

Let's find ways to make metagaming a catalyst for more creativity, while agreeing not to be directive jerks (which is a much taller task for jerks like me than, say, making roleplaying lemonade out of metagame lemons).

Hey everyone,

I'm sorry to say that I'll be withdrawing from this PBP. A lot going on in life right now, and I find I'm not able to bring to Malki and the game the level of attention I desire in a game.

Thanks to Slosh for his good, hard work putting things together for the campaign, and apologies if this leaves the group in the lurch for a while.

don't all of their rolls get cut in half too?

Malki is much more respectful of boundaries than his player. :-p

Thanks, James and everyone! Much appreciated. I"ll keep my eye open for new avatar options as the new campaign gets into full gear.

Would it be helpful to send a note to Erik or Sarah Robinson with suggestions? I appreciate your receptiveness to feedback.

I hear you, and wouldn't necessarily expect you to develop a separate line of avatar images. Best to build up the overall image library, from an art direction perspective... I'd be curious whether the art department is working with the sort of grid that I mentioned above as it develops NPCs, new iconics and their images...

Hey Gary,

Thanks for your quick response. Yes, I did review all of them. I only saw about 1-2 male avatars that fit the Legacy of Fire campaign setting. There weren't a huge amount of options for other racial, er, phenotypes (though much more for European).

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I might suggest art direction plans that try to fill a cross-section of:

  • races/ethnicities & skin tones
  • body types
  • genders (with Wes Schneider's discussion of including transgender characters, this might be more than just male/female)
  • character class types, or the range of armored to cloth

A quick scan of the available avatars will likely show that European-style avatars cover a lot of these categories (e.g., girthier white men with goatees in armor or in cloth; young, slender, buxom women and perhaps fewer older or full-figured women...), but other race/ethnicity types don't.

I appreciate your efforts, in any case! I know the budget for image licenses must not be high...

I have just begun play in a Legacy of Fire campaign online. Several of the PCs are playing Keleshite, Mwangi or Vudrani characters (from what I understand).

Unfortunately, as we look at the available avatars, there are very few available.

I've been super grateful for the free service you provide for play by posts, and appreciate that you've worked hard to broaden the range of available avatars since an earlier conversation in 2006. The options are still pretty narrow, though.

Perhaps licensing out images from folks like I know it costs you money, but would be very meaningful for those of us who use your non-European-inspired settings or just want to see ourselves or our character types represented as options.

Of course, one could say that the options aren't wide enough around other dimensions, like body shape, gender, etc.. However, to me it's especially meaningful as a player to have options around racial, ethnic diversity, and different genders (from muscular, masculine looking men to masculine, heavy set women to slim, femme dudes).

If licensing images for a public website weren't an issue, I'd just suggest allowing us to upload custom avatars. My sense is that you use images for which you already own the rights, which makes sense.

I'd be grateful if folks responding to this post don't equate a frank discussion of race and ethnicity for 'playing the race card' or use it as an excuse to rail against 'political correctness.' I'm all for chatting about race and other elements of diversity within roleplaying games, but this is about a pretty specific request.

Hi again everyone. Josh has reassured me about my concerns. I do think I will be adjusting the character tonight, to go with a bit more light-hearted theme. Looking forward to beginning.

Hey all. I was just having a conversation with GM Sloth and Aldebert, and wanted to discuss with the broader group:

Although this is a setting where slavery is common and legal, I realize I'm not going to be comfortable playing in a game with PCs who unambiguously favor slavery, own slaves, twirl their waxed mustachio at the prospect of buying them, etc.

Knowing that some players enjoy making a comedy out of things like this (and perhaps might enjoy playing a flamboyantly nasty slaver), I wanted to discuss before jumping into the campaign. I'm not judging folks who enjoy that, but I don't think I'll enjoy dealing with it over the course of a long campaign.

Aldebert and I talked, and it sounds like he as a PC will likely have a complex relationship with slavery. This wouldn't necessarily kill my enjoyment of the game. There are some themes that could be maturely explored (e.g., is temporary, indentured-servitude-like slavery different from U.S. chattel slavery? could it ever truly be practiced in a way that's not corrupt?). But for me it's too fraught a topic for PCs to lampoon offhand.

If I understand GM Sloth correctly, he and I agree that even in Golarion slavery as a practice is an 'Evil' act, though Neutral characters may engage and perhaps even Good characters might have a complicated relationship with it.

Anyway, let me know if this is going to crimp on your style. I will likely bow out of this game. If your character is going to explore some of that Neutral gray area around slavery, I may change my character, but in any case you can count on me getting pretty *intense* with some of the roleplay.

Thanks for reading!

Hi all! Nice to make your acquaintance.

I just had a crazy bit of drama in the past few days, so a bit behind the curve in thinking of a character. Appreciate your patience as I gradually pull my head out of the sand.

Frankly I want to focus on leveling Thoerl and The Laughing One up a bit, and don't want to tie them down at this time. Happy to sit out a mod.

Night march is the only one I've missed..

Sean K Reynolds wrote:


Alchemist extracts only affect the drinker. You can't split it up....

...(2) The alchemist isn't limited in the number of spells he can learn. So, if he wants to learn the communal version of an extract, he can do so--unlike a sorcerer, he doesn't have a fixed limit to his number of extracts known, and learning it doesn't keep him from learning other extracts later.
(3) Many of these communal spells are on the sor/wiz list, and the basic spell is on the alchemist list, so if Spell A is an extract and a wizard spell, and Communal Spell A is a wizard spell, Communal Spell A should be a extract as well. Even if it's not an efficient use of the alchemist's extract slots. Especially since an alchemist can translate a wiz spell into an alch extract if it's on the extract). Basically, if an alchemist never bothered to learn spider climb, but he finds a spellbook or formula book with communal spider climb, he should be able to make use of it, even though he probably has better options for his level 3 extracts.

But, just like kissing sailors, that can spread diseases, so be careful.

This is quite possibly the most baffling, nonsensical ruling I've seen come from a game designer. I'm frankly flummoxed that there wasn't an actual note in the books with Communal spells, particularly since the alchemist was already in existence...

I like Hooli. The perfect foil for the Eternal Peror. Alas, he shall not be around much on the boards.

Thorel might be up for another go. Ze has one more chronicle sheet to go before 2nd level. Probably won't get to it before you start another mod.

My mistake re: the bless. :-)

Er, frightfully sorry Mr. Twigs, but there's a bit of an error with Archibald's staff attack. It should be:

+3 to hit (+0 BAB, +2 Str, +1 masterwork)
1d6+3 damage (1d6 +3 Str x 1.5)

It's awesome to see a wizard kicking butt with his staff though. :-)

It's not like I'm cheering for Archibald to die or anything. But man, a few moments of quiet sure tastes sweet.


I don't mean to speak for the Judge, but I think we have 6 people already.

Fortunately, the Gray Reek had plenty of PA for Raise Dead. His player had made a terrible tactical move unbecoming of a cowardly witch.

Twigs, you really shouldn't worry about playing a second dwarf. I recently played some sessions in an all-dwarf game, and it was one of the fonnest gaming experiences I've ever had.

Er, the link you provided above leads back to this campaign.

First Steps is Level One and Level One only.

I'm quite interested in Part II — have started a Lantern Lodge character who I'd love to get up to Lvl 3 for the Lantern Lodge retirement... Had a lot of fun debuting said character at our store this last week. A bard, and that's all that I'm saying.

The Disappeared is the main one that I have not played. I could potentially do The Night March of Kalkamedes as well, and switch out of it at Kublacon. Also, God's Market Gamble would probably work. I am trying to switch tables at our store, and just need to find a 2nd DM. :-p

St. Bernard scolds Moblyd for depriving the Judge of his fun. "Stop killing everything so quickly! Let him get some hits in!"

I'd be very interested, but don't have any unplayed low level Seasons 0-2. Would anyone be up for the following?

3-05 Tide of Twilight
3-18 The God Market's Gamble
3-23 The Goblinblood Dead

It is likely I would play a certain extragolarial adventurer named Jondolph Qartayr. The longrifle is mostly for show, Euan and Painlord. Mostly.


It's unclear from the entry in Additional Resources whether familiar and animal companion archetypes are sanctioned, or whether feats can be swapped. Also, to what degree are archetypes and feats usable with Improved Familiar options?

Damn. That Fondo is a chatterbox.

Wishing you all a lovely New Years Eve and joyful New Year!

Hope to post something in the next couple of days. Still working on character concept.

Some friends who hate power-gaming might blanch at the idea of this book, but I'm excited! Sounds a bit like Planescape for Pathfinder, but with a rules system to support the interdimensional themes.

My apologies if it seemed like I was actually doing PvP, D30. I'm not personally feeling the need to attack you or Petrel.

I am trying to roleplay how Mobled might respond to being compared to an orc. She's a bit of a bully and sensitive to certain slights, like being compared to her people's greatest mortal enemy, who've been holding her captive and torturing her for weeks or months.

Honestly, it would probably be more in character for her to start wrestling Petrel to the ground, but I'm trying to avoid actually have her assault the party...

I totally respect the weird delusional creation that is Petrel, but I don't see a way around an argument in this situation.

You could always learn Lesser Restoration from the scroll, Rabbit. Er, Tiabrar. :-)

I'm pretty out in my gaming, and actively work to weave my mostly gay, lesbian and/or trans characters' love and sex lives a part of my roleplaying. Not usually in a salacious way, although there was that tantric temple prostitute/sorcerer...

In general, i've found gaming groups and Pathfinder Society to be fairly tolerant places, but definitely not always comfortable or fab. I'd put gamer homophobia, transphobia and heterosexism in a few buckets that can be a drag.

  • "That's so gay," "pansy," or even the occasional "f-g" are common enough at the PFS or home game table. Luckily not too common...

  • The occasional young male gamer or older meat head has a more irritating gross out moment when encountering an LGBT NPC or my PCs. Sigh.

  • There is also the typical straight bro thing, making jokes out of hugging each other just a little too long, etc. Not hostile humor, but still annoying.

  • Mostly, I find that straight GMs don't know how to respond to the gay themed roleplaying threads that I try to feed them, and drop them like a hot potato (no matter how quaint and non-sexual I'm trying to be). This is a drag, especially when the same GM puts energy into developing other PC's straight romances... I suspect this is as much about not wanting to offend by doing it wrong, as it is about their actual discomfort with gay sex and romance. But it still lessens the gaming experience.

Most straight gamers don't say anything when these things surface, leaving it to the queer folks to call bad behavior out. It's pretty rare that a straight gamer realizes they have to actually make an active, vocal effort to create a welcoming space for LGBT people. Usually, I feel like we have to sink or swim. Luckily, the gaming community is relatively tolerant. But folks could do a better job of making it explicitly welcoming.

I've been really pleased with Paizo for actively creating LGBT non-player characters in mods, and hope they continue to build on this tradition.

They've also been pretty ground breaking about trying to address some of the legacy of racism in the industry, like by having a greater diversity of skin tones and phenotypes in their artwork. Still, as I've said elsewhere, there's still room for improvement—the pulp fiction references in their Sargava materials are especially in need of a 21st century tweaking, but that's all been said before...

I just wanted to send a note of thanks to GM_Chris and DMPanic for their work on these campaigns. I'm having a lot of fun!


Having read Mike Brock's post in follow-up to the 'cheaters' discussion, I feel that he and Paizo have addressed my primary concern, which was about tone and inclusivity. I appreciate the great care Mike brought to this latest communication.

Thanks, Euan, for leading a great conversation. I don't know how others feel, but I believe your approach helped draw out some great ideas in a constructive manner. Glad that the Society has you!


Thanks, Mike, for a post that greatly eases my mind as a player and customer. I appreciate the great amount of effort and commitment you have put into your work, and the great care you put into crafting this post. It reaffirms my respect for you and Paizo as a company.

The added detail about the specific problems is very helpful—especially your framing of the Fourth Instance. This was the substantive area of most concern to me in discussion around your previous post. It makes sense that you would want clear feedback about mods, not just have judges tweak without any sort of consistency, and without any sort of feedback or communication when a mod proves clunky.

As a sometimes-judge, I would be more than happy to provide more immediate feedback about scenarios (and that includes positive as well as corrective feedback), especially if there were a standardized form with specific prompts.

It's a pleasure to be able to have open, respectful dialogue with you and the rest of the Paizo community on these matters. Thanks again for being receptive while also taking on leadership of this society of grave robbers.


JohnF wrote:
Unfortunately we have been explicitly told not to do that until official guidelines on permissible modifications are announced, and in addition not to make any posts on the forums that could be read as encouraging such activity.

Hi John! I think we may have met last week across the gaming table.

With respect to Mike, Mark and other PFS leadership, I will happily go along with the former part of that directive, while pressing for adjustments to policies that meet my and other players' needs.

As for the second part, as a loyal Society member and Paizo customer, I am not certain how I can give feedback about products and my needs as a customer without honestly sharing my desires and perspective as a player—including my concerns about the policy as stated.

I'm sure my words could be interpreted as encouraging others to break the rules as stated, just as my vocal opposition to Federal same-sex marriage policy could be taken as an encouragement for any given same sex couple to get married, or for same sex couples to file Federal income taxes as married rather than single people. (For the record and super off-topic, I'm a gay man who doesn't love the institution of marriage, even though I support those who seek that right.)

But discussing or disagreeing about a policy is not the same as telling people to break it or follow it. I share my concerns and perspective out of love for Paizo, respect for the people who are creating its products, and fond hopes for PFS' continued success. Both PFS and Paizo depend on open support and engagement with the public.


Vinyc Kettlebek wrote:

The biggest issue is that your group appears to be advocating and cultivating an atmosphere that encourages PFS members not to follow campaign rules, regardless of what the rules are. That has to be watched since that behavior will carry over to any rule format the campaign adapts to in the future.

I agree that tweaking clunky mods needs to be monitored, and believe that our local coordinators have done a great job of monitoring it, such that it has not been a problem at our store. I disagree that we should consider tweaking mods to be verboten or automatically cheating, since it adds to fun and the attractiveness of our game.

But I think it's healthy for us to be discussing more sanctioned ways to tweak existing and future mods, to adapt them to the desired challenge and role play level of local play groups. I'm all for creating rules and structures that enable flexibility, but also disagree that judicious adjustments (in the absence of such structured flexibility) is either cheating or a real issue.

Also, I feel that Season 0-2 power levels are often a bit weak, even when I don't optimize characters. That's because I and other players are clever. So giving judges some extra tools and license to adjust to smart ideas is very helpful and needed.

We may just need to disagree on this, Vinyc, and learn to coexist as part of a diverse society. If I'm labelled a cheater and asked to leave, we won't have the opportunity to do so.


Vinyc Kettlebek wrote:
Why do you continue to buy product that you are unhappy with "as is"? What is the point of starting off with a PFS scenario if you need to make changes every time to fit your group’s playstyle? Wouldn’t you simply be better off spending that time on creating a home game that is 100% customizable to your group?

Lots of points to respond to here, Vinyc. I don't want to hijack this discussion, so I'll keep my response spoilered for now, and happy to spin off into another discussion thread. However, my post was intended as a sharing of my POV, not to debate with ya.

Why don't I just leave if I don't like mods as-published?:

Let's turn this around a bit. I come back to PFS on a regular basis because of how the campaign is played at the tables, and out of a love for Pathfinder as a game overall (despite there being a fair number of clunky PFS scenarios).

To the extent that my enjoyment of PFS comes from judges not being in strict adherence to RAW, I want to preserve a degree of flexibility. (Though my players when I judge and judges when I play will tell you that I am quite a rules stickler, overall. So are the handful of folks whom I suspect might be labeled cheaters, despite demonstrating an excellent grasp and respect for rules in-game.)

I can feel frustrated with and speak out critically about aspects of a thing without leaving it behind. In fact, the more I care about a thing, the more inclined I am to fight for that thing to fit my needs and wants.

Here's why I keep coming back to PFS, despite finding some of the scenarios clunky and worthy of tweaking:

(a) The overall source material for Pathfinder is pretty stellar. Fun game!

(b) I have befriended many players at my store, and appreciate their creativity. Half of them are the people who actually make PFS blossom and grow in local conventions and stores. They're not more-than-full-time paid employees like Mike Brock and Mark Moreland, but most of my PFS friends are judges and coordinators who work extraordinarily hard to make this campaign happen and to boost the profile of the game in general.

I have joined home and PbP games with some of them. But PFS continues to be a regular spot for us to hang out and meet new, creative players.

(c) In my view, PFS and Pathfinder have benefited from a core base of players who left 4E and LFR in search of a better creative, roleplaying outlet. PFSers are not all heavy roleplayers or story-driven people, but that part of our community is a powerful part of what makes PFS and Pathfinder play experience great. And it's helping the game grow.

I suspect that this same base of users has a lot of overlap with people who want a degree of flexibility, and who may feel like they/we are being asked to leave Society play simply for trying to add quality to clunky, mis-balanced mods.

It is clear, I hope, that I'm distinguishing between judicious tweaks that are rooted in the rules, and outright disregard for rules such as changing the way combat game mechanics work, or pre-reading mods.

(d) I was personally moved a few years ago when Paizo green-lighted my brother, Tom Beckett's adaptation of Burnt Offerings into a (kick-ass) middle school play. I actually met many of them at the closing night.

Paizo's openness to the fan-base and the overall excellence of their product made a true believer out of me. I had already been impressed by the whole creation of Pathfinder, via public betas. This was a company that respected its customers and recognized the importance of balancing game mechanics and creativity.

Frankly, labeling a significant portion of those customers as 'cheaters' (when those customers are working hard to make PFS blossom and grow) makes me sad, and concerned about the game's future.

But that doesn't mean that I am just going to leave PFS or Paizo. Instead, I feel moved to speak up, and share how (a) loyal and (b) passionate I feel as a Society member and Paizo customer.

No new suggestions with this post. Oh, except perhaps to permit a standard +1 to +2 to trap DCs when playing with 5-6 table size in 0-3 mods (though probably not trap to-hits, since they tend to be very high already).

And truly, emphasizing the need to clear some authorized tweaks for Season 0-3 mods—unless we miraculously switch to 4-6 new mods per month, we will be working with that material for some time to come.


Slightly off-topic regarding the tone of the 'cheater' and DM flexibility conversation:

I want to acknowledge Euan for facilitating this thread in such a measured fashion, and appreciate the similarly balanced tone that folks, including Mark, have used.

I am afraid what I have to say in this spoiler might disrupt that careful approach, and apologize if my words are too strong at some points.

This is slightly off-topic of me to say, but pertinent to the larger conversation:

One thing that I hear from both folks who support GM fiat / flexibility and those who do not support it is this: we all care about PFS, and want it to be the best experience for us as individuals, and newbies who come in the door each week.

Whether we're volunteers who put in countless hours to produce conferences, bottom-feeder (irony intended) players like myself who dislike judging, or Paizo staffers, we pour quite a bit of ourselves into this game. Really important things come into play for all of us: creativity, friendships, grey hairs from trying to make publication deadlines.

I was disturbed by the 'cheating' post by Mike last week, which labeled one side of this discussion as 'cheaters,' a term that's being applied to friends who pour COUNTLESS hours and energy into making PFS grow.

I'm sure Mike didn't intend to disrespect anyone. However, I wish the tone had been more inclusive, rather than off-putting. We need everyone in this community, if we're going to continue to make it grow and deepen in quality. It's just not helpful to cast a good 1/3 or 1/2 of the PFS community as cheaters or villains, when we're all trying to make the community strong. And if we're bringing more players in the door and showing them a good (PG- or PG-13 rated) time, that has direct benefit to Paizo's revenues and the sustainability of our FUN together!

If Mike is reading this: please know I don't mean to attack you. I can tell that you and Mark are enormously hard working. I am a huge fan of Paizo as a company, and feel an Apple-like loyalty to the stuff you're producing. (Of course, I hope the people in your Chinese manufacturing facilities are treated better than folks at Foxconn...).

Frankly, coming down hard on folks with regard to this discussion is a sure way to damage that brand loyalty among Paizo's most devoted fans. I know that Paizo staffers understand this, and appreciate that discussion since last week's post have been more measured in approach.

. . . . . . . . . .

I am a bit of a power gamer myself, although one who highly values roleplaying. I power-game through being tactically creative, and by leveraging the abundance of new rules that Paizo has released outside of the core assumption. I don't spend hours and entire discussion board threads crunching numbers so I can do 500 hp DPR, but I usually create characters that are more effective than Seasons 0-3 scenarios are designed to challenge.

Most of the players in my store are similarly smart. It's pretty common wisdom among us that PFS scenarios are under-powered for skillful players. That's where our judges often crave (and have sometimes 'cheatingly' used) the kind of simple power boosts that Euan is suggesting.

Frankly, I feel pretty bored with the Season 0-2 mods that continue to fill our schedule. Some are great, while quite a few are flat on both story and challenge. It will take time to create enough newer mods that address some of the power balancing issues that we've been discussing. Therefore, it'll be especially helpful to create some simple policies/allowances that can be applied retroactively.

Anyway, it's because of the good humor and friendship of other players, many of whom might be labeled 'cheaters,' that I keep coming back to PFS and deepening my involvement, despite not feeling very satisfied with the scenarios.

Having said all of that off-topic stuff, I like what I'm hearing about mods that include finer detail about customizing for large or differently balanced parties. I also like the sound of designing Season 4 scenarios to be for 6 person tables.

For older scenarios, Euan's suggestion for judicially using advanced templates is a good one. I'd suggest the simple advanced template, and not the one that gives a +4 AC boost. I don't have a particular suggestion for traps, but I don't see a reason to not apply the simple advanced template to monsters with class levels. (I will admit, I have used the advanced template when judging in the past, and avoided applying it to NPCs with class levels—I shared the concern that Mark sited previously.)

I might also suggest a rule about tier mustering: Why not allow players to play up one tier, if everyone at the table consents and acknowledges maturely the risk of character death? My suggestion would be to allow this, but to also stipulate that the character can only get credit at their actual, appropriate tier level.

In fact, I suggest that this should always be the case—if table mustering means that the average level is four (even though I'm level 2), I should always just get Level 2 rewards, even if we play 'up.' This would help prevent character power-level bloat...

1 to 50 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.