|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
There is an undefined amount of time between scenarios. Unless a multi-part scenario specifically says it happens immediately after its predecessor without any time-lapse, you can assume as much or as little time passes as you wish. However, since there is no aging or ability score adjustments due to aging in PFS, it doesn't matter.
Louis Manko Levite wrote:
So not sure this has been brought up but I know a number of people have been unable to go to conventions and get boons.
Actually, one of the new initiatives for 2016 is for GameDay rewards. There will be a limited amount of rewards granted to select local GameDay events each quarter by the Regional Venture-Coordinators. These will allow players who cannot play PFS at events other than with their local lodge to still earn some/most/all of the things players who attend conventions can. Will it include ultra-rare boons like GenCon GM boons? Dunno, yet, but circulation will reach a much wider audience.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Isn't the HQ group also the group that 'emergency GMs' are pulled from in case a GM has an illness or the like, too?
Typically no. HQ volunteers rarely have their GMing materials with them and we have A LOT of logistical activities to keep marshals busy. "Emergency" GMs are usually either GMs who were released from their scheduled event and willing to run something else, or players who have GMing materials with them and volunteer to cover a table. The latter is exceedingly rare though.
All for no benefit. Or so I observed.
I think this is just a perception issue. There may have been a lot of problems that you were just not aware of. Miscalculated bonuses, items bought before legal access, over-spending, etc. Did it disrupt play? No, but it would have certainly impacted the play. It could be one of the reasons why soo many people claim PFS is too easy. It might also help to explain why some think its too hard.
In the past, talking to GMs who have done character audits, much more often than not, the player shorted themself. That is not to say there aren't cases in the other direction. It would be hard to argue that if players were
David Setty wrote:
There's no way to give leeway on purchasing and still complete every single box at the table. Can't fill it all out without knowing how much was spent.
Don't think of this in absolutes. The point is we have to have a compromise between what CAN be done, what MUST to be done, and what WILL be done. It is pretty clear the biggest objection comes from the tracking of purchasing, so rather than argue back and forth about the strictness of RAW and how most of us are cheating by not following it, why not have some banter about how to fix the problem so maybe Tonya will consider updating the rules and expectations?Assuming everything is maintained appropriately, all the steps, less #8 (and related), are easily reasonable. If we can modify Step 8 (and related) somehow, I think the process would be more consistent throughout the community.
Gary Bush wrote:
So if I am still pretty new to PFS and Paizo but interested in helping some, what would the learned and experienced among us suggest I do?
VOLUNTEER! Fill out the online form with the amount of time you want to help out and we'll see ya there. We do not assume you have been a volunteer before so we will provide you with what you need to perform your volunteer tasks. Just decide what area you prefer: GMing, running card game demos, or working with the HQ staff
Or to make a joke. (although now that i think about it that sounds really fun provided some sort of net setup and eye protection...)
I didn't see an emoji so if it was meant as a joke, I missed that. I apologize that my response may have some off as sounding condescending. I've been conditioned to expect comments like that presented with more serious intent.
EDIT--and it certainly sounds like a good time. Something funny about the idea of someone cosplaying as an iconic running through the GenCon ballroom shooting people with over-sized foam d20s.
Are you claiming that neither are disruptive, or that paper sheets can also be disruptive? If you mean that both can be I am curious as to when paper sheets have been disruptive. This would be the first time that I have heard such a claim, and I am curious about what happened.
Paper character sheets are only disruptive if the player using it does not know the material contained therein. It is no different than HeroLab or any other digital character sheet/tracker. The point is, the PLAYER is disruptive, not he tool. As long as you know how to use it, there is no reason to take any action. Its only when a player demonstrates the are incapable of using their character tools without being a repeated disruption that the GM should decide what form of action to take against that player.
Not all gaming aids are equally disruptive. Shooting foam d20's out of a ping pong ball launcher for example...
And as I've said before, people just love to take something someone says in the forums and extend it to the most extreme, and often obviously ridiculous, condition to muddle the generally reasonable value of original comment
Ferious Thune wrote:
Or, like so many other things in Pathfinder, it could be left to table variation, and the campaign could spend time addressing things that are actually causing widespread issues.
Whe're not talking about ambiguity in the rules which is the basis for table variation. The rule in this case is clear and Omaha has found a way to follow it. We don't get to break rules and then use table variation as an excuse.
Pink Dragon wrote:
I disagree. Nothing hurts my feeling more than being told I can't play my own character because of a bookkeeping error. I could care less whether people are doing things differently from area to area, for the simple reason that I am not in competition with any one else when I play PFS.
To be fair, when we joined PFS we all decided to abide by the rules therein. We really do not get to pick and choose what rules to follow and which ones to ignore. If you are choosing not to maintain complete, accurate character records, you really have no one to blame but yourself.
That being said, I'm sure there is a difference between someone forgetting to record a single purchase or a minor calculation error being made. I think what we are talking about here are obvious and egregious errors. Things like failure to even have any records with you, or having numerous incomplete chronicles, or having numerous chronicles applied out of order, etc. I seriously doubt you would be denied playing your own character because of a failure to dot an 'i' or cross a 't.' Sometimes, discussion like this seem to lean towards extreme assumptions and excessive application of general comments.
I think the only course of action now is for Paizo to decide if the rules, as the currently exist, is what they really expect. If not, then we need to change the rules as written in the Guide. If so, then there needs to be a heightened expectation that paperwork be completed. Personally, I don't care which way it goes as long as the end result is consistency through the community. Nothing creates more disruption and hurt feelings than doing things differently from area to area.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
How many years is he supposed to deal with the same problem before reaching that conclusion
do I get to apply that question to the entirety of the game and community? What if every experience I've had with paladins has been disruptive? Do I get to ban them from my table? HeroLan is a tool no different than any other we use to aid us in our gaming. The program is not disruptive, the player using it is and we have said time and time again when there is a disruptive player, you deal with them directly. Address the source of the problem, not a symptom. A player who doesn't know their character, can't explain where all their numbers come from, and have to constantly ask for help or look up rules is disruptive whether they are using a digital device or a dead tree.
I really don't understand why this "argument" continues to persist after more than 500 posts.
The danger in my eyes is when people follow rules that make no sense simply because they are the rules. The danger in yours is when people ignore rules in the same context. We're not going to see eye to eye on this fundamental philosophical divide, which renders most of this thread moot. It's just mutually exclusive philosophies talking past each other.
This is the second time it has been suggested that if *you* feel a rule is dumb it doesn't have to be followed. Certainly the forum community is a very small minority of the entire society, but if it is at all representative of the pervasive base, we have some HUGE problems to consider.
And no, your two arguments are not philosophical at all. The rules are what the rules are. There is nothing philosophical about following them or not. Discussing why a rule is good or bad or why something is done the way it is, is philosophical, the act of choosing not to follow an existing rule is not philosophical in the least.
I admit to falling into the crowd that does not require the entire form to be complete before I sign it, but I can certainly understand why some do and why they are disappointed in the rest of us that don't. As long as the rules say what they say, we are required to do what Omaha is doing. Anything else is breaking the rules. Does that mean that suddenly everyone is going to correct their behavior and start doing it? I seriously doubt it, but that doesn't change the fact we are breaking the rules. This issue seems to be one similar to speeding while driving. We all know what the law [rule] says, we just don't feel there is anything wrong with breaking it...until we are caught. If one of us who is not following the rules as written encounters someone who is, we really don't have a defense to support our side any more than a speeder can go to court and use the "everyone else does it" as an excuse to get out it.
Any new technology is going to require people to learn how to use it. Until such time as they have learned the new technology, people are going to make mistakes and do things slower than they did before the new technology. Taking more time and making more mistakes at the gaming table is frequently disruptive to the game. This is not a complaint. This is an explanation of the nature of the beast.
True, but not everyone is new to the technology. Some of us are very adept at using it. All I ask is we are given the benefit of the doubt until we demonstrate disruptive behavior. This is true of any gaming aid, technology item, etc
Jack Brown wrote:
because of people playing World of Warcraft and the like while at the table
This is a growing problem and would be considered at least disruptive, but more likely breaking the "don't be a jerk" rule. I've stopped tolerating it at all. Checking a quick text message is one thing. Intentionally logging into a video game during a PFS event is a good way to get yourself booted from the table.
The issue is not digital vs. paper or HeroLab vs. PCGen, etc. Its disruptive vs. non-disruptive. A GM should not be banning a player resource/tool just because they personally don't like it. That is really no different than saying no gunslingers at my table, or no players with red hair, or no one named Bob, etc. Unless you have a history with a specific player that indicates they are incapable of not being disruptive using their tools, you should not be telling them they cannot use them.
That being said, I support a GMs right to say no to whatever they want at their table, but be prepared for the organizer to ban you from their events and perhaps make that situation known to other organizers. A GM who is not accommodating to the players at their table is likely not someone most organizers want to deal with. The risk for conflict is too high. I would rather just say no thank you and find someone else.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
To be honest, I really don't know that a GM has the kind of control over a player to tell them they cannot use a digital device, assuming of course that it is not being disruptive. Disruptive behavior by its very nature has to be demonstrated, otherwise it is profiling or stereotyping. Just because SOME players are disruptive using HeroLab, does not mean I am disruptive using it. I have no problem putting my character sheets on the table for reference by the GM should they need it, but I don't think I would comply with a GM telling me I cannot use my tablet/HeroLab just because they personally don't like it. Unless the GM can demonstrate that I am actually being disruptive at the table, IMO they would be the disruptive one if they insisted I not use any of my gaming resources just because they had a personal prejudice against it.
Done, this could be amazing. Nefreet, Andy, trollbill, and three others. I will provide a gaming space, myself as a GM, and sleeping arrangements in spare rooms for two. You pick the module and the weekend. We can record everything and someone can do a posting something. If Bob could make it, that would be amazing.
I will be at PaizoCon, GenCon, plus a myriad of conventions in the Midwest this spring. I welcome any opportunity to meet people passionate enough about this game to waste huge swathes of time posting repeatedly in the forums. :-D
That would be due to the fact that I have already had ample warning not to play at Nefreet's table.
True, but two things to think about. First, not everyone knows who Nefreet is. That is a Paizo handle, so unless you* know his name or know him personally, you wouldn't know to avoid his table. Hell, you cannot even be sure if he is a he or a she. Second, and more importantly, does Nefreet actually do what is stated at the table? Where are the players who have had the proverbial digital carpet pulled out from under them? Is his** post just trolling? Maybe just a rant? Hard to know at this point.
*general you not specifically you
**edited for clarity
Bill Dunn wrote:
I don't necessarily disagree with you, just saying that where one persons fun starts, anothers might end. Sometimes it can be a challenge to decide when the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one or when the one is being treated unfairly to the point of punishing the many.
It is interesting that we read in the forums all the time about extremest players/GMs exerting their will on the table, banning things will-nilly, forcing the GMs to take it, being a general nuisance and pain in the arse. However, in actual play few, if anyone, ever actually complains of actually having these things done to them, whether it be [really] wearing a re-roll shirt, or having their tablet banned, or not being able to play their favorite character because the GM hates that class/race/whatever. We all seem to have pleasant, fun, cooperative games. Its only when we get behind the "monitor of hate" and the "keyboard of anonymity" that these problems arise. With the hundreds of thousands of tables that have been played, I would posit that these types of issues occur less than 1/10th of 1% of the time. Certainly nothing to be afraid of nor have the need to take undue action against.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
As far as I know, there is no rule in the guide that allows GMs to ban specific items from the table.
Perhaps, but willingly accepting a more strict set of rules does not technically break the rules any more than a player who chooses to gimp their character vs. optimizing them. If a GM says, no digital devices and the players all agree, are they breaking the rules? What if a player says no digital devices and everyone including the GM agrees? Can a GM ban a gunslinger if all the players are okay with that? What if the players also hate gunslingers and don't want to play with them? While you cannot allow anything specifically banned by the rules, I posit that individual tables of players can ban whatever additional things they want, even if we don't like it. If a GM and five players say no gunslingers and a gunslinger sits at the table, we can talk to them about inclusiveness all we want, but in the end, they can just "cancel" the table and run it as scheduled on their own. Nothing really changes other than the organizer has to try and find a new table for the gunslinger. Its inconvenient as hell, and you might be inclined not to invite that GM to volunteer for you again, but sometimes its hard to say if the rules are technically being broken or people's personal preferences for what is "GoodRightFun" for them are being exercised.
Just for the record, my supporting of Nefreet's right has nothing to do with my desire to exercise that right myself.
Understood. I was merely indicating that you seemed to be supporting Nefreet's assertion that the rules supported his right to ban electronic devices. I believe that to be incorrect. Where or not you actually did it or not, is a different issue. I am certainly glad you do not do so at your tables.
And I am also not a fan of digital dice rollers and yes, I do not allow those at my tables. I can see how that might be considered hypocritical by the most staunchest digital users, but it is what I do. Sorry, if you have a preference for digital dice over real dice. Its actually kind of funny considering most dice are in fact not random due to their inconsistent manufacture. I have encountered numerous dice over the years that are clearly "weighted" and using them, IMO, constituted "cheating," albeit not necessarily the intentional kind. But, an argument could be made that a player who knowingly uses dice that clearly roll a magnitude or better above the "norm" are cheating in a way. I have been known to take dice out of circulation in a home-game if I suspect they are weighted towards a specific number of set of numbers.
you *could* just put the shirt on your head and claim that you're wearing it but then you'll have other problems... YMMV
As you said, YMMV. In general, "wearing" a shirt on your head is clearly not the intended purpose of a shirt and certainly not what Paizo had in mind when the rule was written. Remember, the point of PFS is a marketing platform and wearing a Paizo-sanctioned shirt advertises both the company and the products. For being a human billboard, you are being "paid" with an ingame re-roll. It is within the rights of the GM to require you to wear the shirt (properly) to get the reroll. While I do not require it personally, it really aggravates me when a player complains (typically creating a scene) because the GM required them to actually wear the shirt to get the bonus. The rules are what they are and if you don't like them, fine, but please don't get s@$@ty with someone because they chose to enforce the rules.
While the rules are fairly specific on what qualifies as a re-roll, those are only the things that the GM is required to allow. Technically, a GM would be violating the rules if they denied a re-roll for any of the listed items. However, there is nothing to say they cannot grant re-rolls for additional items. They are after all the GM. I have seen GMs grant the players a reroll if they [GM] was wearing a qualifying shirt. Some even let the players force the GM to reroll. I've seen conventions grant a re-roll if the players bought the convention specific shirt. PFS is afterall a marketing tool, so why shouldn't a convention hosting PFS get in on the loot? Some GMs don't care and just grant everyone a re-roll. I think this is another example of what must be allowed vs. what can be allowed.
My stance is a bit different and may take a few words to explain so bare with me. This is a volunteer activity and GMs are volunteers who are allowed to have fun just as much as players. Yes, I believe that the rules are to be followed, but I also think that a GMs ruling at a table should be given the respect it deserves. I am loathe to over-rule them and do so only under the most extreme of circumstances.
Yes, the rule says you MUST have a printed character sheet. It is what it is. If the GM asks for your printed character sheet and you fail to produce it, you are violating the rules. They are within their rights and responsibility to ask you to produce a printed copy, play a pregen, or leave the table. I also believe that the rules do not empower a GM to refuse to allow a player from using a digital device for no other reason than they don't like it. If it proves to be disruptive, fine, otherwise, they don't really have the authority to ban it. OTOH, I support the GMs right to refuse anything they want to. Don't like HeroLab, fine, don't allow it. Don't like gunslingers? Fine, don't allow it. Don't like fireball? Fine, don't allow it. Whatever. Remember, as I said this is a voluntary game and I don't feel the need to impose my will on the GM.
However, and this is a hugely important caveat, if you want to take a position like that (banning legal materials from your table), then please don't volunteer. You are being just as disruptive as a problem player. In fact, if you do something like that at an event I am organizing, I will do my best to move the player/s to an alternate table (if they wish) and I will most likely not ask, nor allow you to volunteer again. Remember, as an event organizer, I have the same rights of refusal that you do, so don't be surprised when I exercise them. This, of course assumes the players bring it to my attention. If they accept what the GMs says and are willing to play under those restrictions, then am I not going to interfere with that table.
I am a bit different from most in that I do not take the same approach with a GM disallowing something that is legal as I do with someone that is allowing something that is banned. I tend to blend the core rules with the PFS-specific ones. In general, RPG GMs can refuse whatever they want from their table. the reality is, if stick to their convictions, the players won't want to play with them. Besides, if we tell them they cannot make the decision they made, they can just walk from the table. Either way, we are left with a table that is not running. Reasonable people will see who the "jerk" is in most situations, so I'm not worried about it. As long as the GM and the players are having fun and not allowing any banned material, it is not my job to impose my will on them. Technically, there is nothing in the rules that says a group cannot choose to impose greater restrictions on themselves than the rules allow. We sort of did that with the CORE campaign. Its only when some of the players at the table refuse to choose that position that we have a problem.
IMO, I think Nefreet and TrollBill are wrong in their interpretation that the rules give the GM the authority to ban electronic devices, but I support the core rules that give the GM the right to ban whatever they want at their table. I would just prefer they not volunteer if they are going to take said action.
I have recently acquired an iPad. My first. I love how HeroLab runs on it and since I can also carry most of my pdfs on it as well, it has become my go-to solution for convention play. I'm not to the point of GMing off of it yet, but maybe soon. Dunno.
Anyway, if the GM asked me to use my paper character sheet, I would set it out on the table, and then use the tablet anyway. As I said, I do not think the GM has the power to deny me my digital device. If he wants me removed from his table, he is welcome to get the event organizer and have them either tell the GM that they cannot deny my the use of the device (and the GM can respond as they wish), or can relocate me to another table running the same scenario since that is what I signed up for. If neither of those things occur, we can discuss further options, but since my right includes using a digital device and that is my preferred materials, I will stand by it.
Of course, I will take note of the GM for future reference. I would consider him/her to be unreasonable and neither sit at a gaming table with them, nor allow them to volunteer at any event I organized.
It is also of note that I will not hand my electronic device to anyone else at the table. I do not want to deal with the possibility of something happening to it accidentally or otherwise. So whether or not I can use it for my character sheet, I will use it for my ownership documentation and if you want to see the source book, you'll have to come to me to see it. Personally, I find most cases of a GM asking for "proof" of ownership to be borderline jerkish behavior. Not the act of asking, but the method they use and the attitude portrayed. While I may have to by rule provide it, I do not have to facilitate a GM who just wants to exercise their power over the players.
EDIT--with regards to HeroLab, remember that Paizo has granted them a license to publish the materials. That is not necessarily an endorsement of them as the "official" PFS digital program of choice. In fact the denial of using it as a rules source seems to indicate they (Paizo) do not 100% endorse it or at least that it does not support the marketing purpose of PFS. I think the official stance would be somewhere along the line of "it is a legal player's choice and you are encouraged to use it over other digital programs."
I have played two Paladins and GMd for dozens more without incident. Don't let the vocal minority here in the forums scare you. Just be reasonably good and try not to impose any zealotry on other player. The GM is required to notify you if any action you take will be an alignment violation in their view. My advice is that even if you disagree, just do as they say and let it go. It's not worth the fight at the table over what essentially is a GM call. Talk to them after the game about your concerns and if they are a jerk about it, just don't play at their table anymore. Playing a paladin is not the big fuss some make it out to be.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
As someone with an orange belt in jujitsu, I can choke someone out (i.e. render unconscious) in under 12 seconds
To be fair, real life has never been a good example of how something should work in a fantasy game. Although, if you want to use that, then perhaps better than than making "clarifications" on the intent of a feat, there should be a ruling on how "holding your breath" works. There is a big difference between taking a deep breath and holding it, which is what many feel the suffocation rules represents (2 rounds per point of Constitution) vs. being "surprised" by having to hold your breath. Meaning, in game terms, its not your turn and your enemy, environment, whatever forced you to suddenly hold your breath without the controlled opportunity to gulp a deep breath.
If "holding your breath" is a non-action or immediate, then yes, I can see this rule nerfing the feat to the point of not taking. OTOH, if taking a deep breath is a free-action, you can only do it on your turn. So if someone puts you into a condition of suffocation, you only get the two-turn opportunity to act before you die. While the latter might simulate real-life a bit more accurately, its probably too OP and not in the best interest of the game. YMMV
Let me remind everyone that selling boons is not the intent of the boon system, especially in regards to potentially valuable ones like the GenCon or PaizoCon boons. These are supposed to be rewards (a thank you) for volunteering your time to help us provide a fun, exciting event. If you want to trade a boon for another boon between players, that is certainly acceptable. Also, if you want to give them away to your local players/GMs as a reward, thus transferring the intent of the boon, please do so. We certainly encourage that type of altruism. However, if you are simply selling the boons for financial gain, you are disrespecting the intent of the program and make the leadership reconsider if it is having the value we intend it for. It has been said in the past, technically you own the boon and cannot stop you from transfering it any way you wish, but if the system is abused it will just stop. Please don't risk the entire boon program by making poor choices.
An important note. Boons ARE NOT eligible to be photocopied and distributed in mass. When you receive a boon, especially a limited edition boon like GenCon or PaizoCon boons, you are not empowered to duplicate them and certainly not so you can sell them repeatedly. Under special circumstances, the organizer of an event can photocopy the boon if they under-prepared for the demand or for other reasonable causes, but that is the power granted the event organizer and does not extend to the players/GMs in attendance.
If you are a player trying to acquire a boon, be cautious. If you suspect the boon you received has been photocopied or altered in anyway, please notify your local Venture-Officer. The boon reward program has always operated on a system of trust. If reports of abuse continue to rise, more stringent requirements may have to be implemented (enter the name/PFS# for the recipient making them non-transferable) or the program eliminated entirely. No one wants that.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
Seriously, if you pulled this in PFS, I'd leave the table mid-session. I don't play games in order to be treated like a child by the person behind the screen.
There is no reason to think the suggestion was asked with malice towards the players. Simply a way to increase tension and role-play and reduce the inherent meta-gaming that happens during gameplay. Because the game depends so heavily on numbers to resolve actions it is extremely difficult to eliminate all meta-knowledge from the game. Since everyone plays the game and derives pleasure differently PFS, its not a good format for the OP's proposal. For a home game, it can be a lot of fun and creates a different experience. That is a far cry from treating anyone like a child.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Being good at day jobs does not have to mean unable to contribute or survive. Not everyone thinks that every character decision must be governed by how it maximizes mechanical efficiency. I can spend resources on my day job and stil be a very competent character. Not to mention, the additional revenue is used to buy more resources that directly affect game play. Some skills like profession and craft are certainly used with less frequency than others, but they can often make a big difference when they do. These skills help define the theme and role-play significance of the character, not to mention it gets boring if all your character simply invest all their resources in maximizing the same few skills every time. Day jobs encourage players to think about their character as more than a collection of words and numbers on a page. To develop a rich personality and theme as it relates to the campaign world not just a sequence of sword-swinging, spell-slinging encounters where the only theme can become kill and loot.
Buying spellcasting services is the one of the only ways PCs can pool money for a purchase. How limited is this?
There does not seem to be an "official" answer to that, so expect table variation. Some GMs require the player (or GM) to roll to remove conditions if the spell requires it (see remove disease or remove curse). Others hand-wave that part. If the GM requires the roll, its often better to just pay for a higher level caster to ensure the condition is removed rather than waste money in a failed attempt.
This sounds a little passive-aggressive myself, but I guess you all got what you wanted. However, most would agree bad behavior is better handled out of the game. It can often save a lot of grief and hard feelings. Not everyone has the same expectations or plays the game the same way. Its not my/our place to tell you how to handle issues in your lodge, but if the description is 100% accurate, there may have been some better ways to approach the player that could have saved the relationship. YMMV
All I want for Christmas is a Tyrannosaurus pawn. Sure it is officially gargantuan, but a huge one would at least get us close. And why not create a special gargantuan/colossal pawn set? I'm sure it would sell. Throw in a couple of super special colossal like the tarrasque, red dragon, and fill the rest with gargantuans like the T-Rex, Roc, all the core dragons, a demon/devil or two like the Shemhazian, maybe a surprise. For those of us who like to have the mini actually be the creature it represents, we need some pawns for gargantuan/colossal creatures. Please!