Private Avatar Bob

TwilightKnight's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Pawns, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes 5,476 posts (5,561 including aliases). 15 reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 22 Organized Play characters. 3 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,417 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

9 people marked this as a favorite.
LoPan666 wrote:
That's who Michael Eshleman is.

This goes to a philosophy I started to adopt some time last year. That being the idea that we volunteer our time and effort not for Paizo, but for our community. Things come up from time to time that make people upset, be it receiving their con support late or not at all, new rules we don’t like or the banning of something existing, the announcement of 2E, not getting a timely response to an email you’ve send or not liking the response when you do, recent events in the SE region, etc. For some, these are all incidents that make you comsider quiting Pathfinder. I ask you to consider this, do you volunteer or play for the sake of Paizo or for your community? Sure Paizo is the publisher and issues out most of the rewards, but for me, it’s not for them that I volunteer. If Paizo was to diasappear tomorrow or sell the game to another company it wouldn’t matter to me; I would continue to organize games for the players in my community. If I was to be fired as a VO by Paizo, I would still organize and GM in my community. Why? I play this game because I enjoy it and because I have a fondness for the time I spend with the community. I’ve met some of my best friends through OP not the least of which is the love of my life. This community has been centrally important to me for more than a decade. Would I be upset if I was fired from my role for something I didn’t feel I deserved? I’m sure I would be, but I appauld Michael’s decision to continue to be a leader in the community, to organize, to GM, to play. That is what makes all the difference to his community, not some badge on his shirt. For that, Michael has my respect.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CelestinaAdams wrote:
I completely appreciate that you're trying to broaden the view on the discussion, but the end result is that you're coloring the discussion with your comment that what Eshleman did would be wrong if he were VC under you. However, he's not, and he never had that guidance, so your region's interpretation is completely irrelevant to the case at hand.

There are some both here and in other places that suggest, sometimes subtly sometimes overtly, what the powers of the RVC and the VOs in general are. Most players are unaware of the logistics of organizing for OP, especially as a VO. I am merely providing a look behind the curtain if you will, at least as far as it relates to the Great Lakes. I also try to consistently remind people that there is some "table variation" between the regions. If you want to know how something works specifically in your region, you should seek the advice of your RVC.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Sorry Bob, but I feel I have to offer a counterpoint to your post:

** spoiler omitted **...
Those tasks are the job description of an RVC

I am aware of what the published requirements are, but like most "job" requirements, they are the minimum. I have had numerous discussions with Tonya regarding what I do as an RVC and with Mike as a VC before her. I think I know what it is that is expected of me.

My philosophy on leadership has been the same since day one, and if I have ever done or said something inappropriate or violated any rules, they have only to call me on it. Not once has that ever happened*. I am supremely confident that my actions are supported by leadership, if not, I would have hoped to hear otherwise long ago. So, while I appreciate that there is a published list of responsibilities for the RVC position, I posit that it is not exhaustive. Of course, as I said every region is different so your experience may be different.

*EDIT--that is not to say I have not made mistakes. I just haven't done anything grossly wrong or in violation of our community rules as I understand them. My intentions are always with respect to what I think is best for the community.

I am not in a position to question the actions of Michael nor Del. If public forums and social media have taught me anything over the past ten years it is not to take everything I hear/read as the absolute gospel. The only thing I can do is await commentary from Tonya. She alone can definitely say what is/not going to happen going forward. I hope that when the dust clears any action taken is appropriate and the local community can turn its attention on just playing the game we all love.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreySector wrote:
I have asked several times to be quoted the policy or procedure that I am accused of violating, but to date I have had no response.

I can only speak for myself and how I manage the Great Lakes. I would consider this an abuse of privaledge from the perspective that VC are empowered to manage their own areas of responsibility. It would be appropriate to use the session access to review the activities of their subordinate VL/VA and to review complaints that come up regarding players in their area. However, it would not be appropriate to investigate the VA/VL of another area/VC, or to investigate other VCs. That is the purview of the RVC who has responsibility for that area. For example, I would not investigate an RVC or any VA/VL/VC who operated outside of the Great Lakes.

Admittedly, that is not expressly listed in the Guide or in the NDA, but I have expressed this concept to my VO team and explained on numerous occasions my ideas on the philosophy of chain-of-command and the escalation process to the VCs.

In general, VOs are given some flexibility on how they deal with issues within their areas which is why we do not have a specific laundry list of rules. We tend to apply the behavior policy from the Guide to most situations. Its fairly liberal language allows the regions to address actions as it best fits their demographics. Given that we are a global organization there is a very wide swathe of differences in culture that need to be accommodated.

When it comes to the specific matter at hand, I cannot really comment as I am not aware of the details of what transpired, nor is it my business to get involved. It is an issue in another region and as such outside my mandate. I trust Tonya to review the situation and to take appropriate action if any is warranted.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
For the record, while I was a VC up through September 2016, I know for a fact that the RVCs don't have administrative control over the VCs. As in, they can't affect the "firing" digitally, themselves. Only Tonya can do that. Which means she'd have to approve of such a move. It sounds like in her recent post, that perhaps she's put too much "blind" (probably the wrong word here) trust in the requests her RVCs put before her, thus she's asking to start a new review task force.

I cannot speak to what was told to you back in 2016, but I can say that I have now and always have had the ability to not only approve VA/VL candidates under the VCs in the Great Lakes, but I can remove VCs if I feel the action is warranted. There is no "official" policy that I obtain the permission of the CC/OPC/OPM, but I would never do something as significant as that without consulting with Tonya and getting her feedback. The same goes with any significant action such as banning a player for violating our behavior policy, etc. Its an issue of courtesy and communication in the case an action is appealed.

And I express that the VO who volunteer in the region give me the same level of courtesy. I will advise a VC on their VO staff, but at the end of the day they are responsible for the VL/VA who are on their staff and if situations occur that the VO needs to be removed, I would expect them to consult me. Not so much for approval, but so they can get another perspective and so I can support their action if it is brought into question.
I'm sorry to derail the thread, just wanted to make a clarification.
I am not what I would call friends with Michael Eshleman, but I know him through our work as VOs and general volunteers. He has volunteered at Gen Con on more than one occasion. I found him to be a nice person, well liked and well received by his peers and players at a table.
That being said, I'm not trying to imply any of the recent actions were unfair and that I am petitioning for his reinstatement. I'm just saying that of what little contact we had, I found him friendly and pleasant. I hope that Michael and all of the Carolina community can get past this unfortunate incident and get back to enjoying the game we are all here to play.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Generally speaking, the only way to make "extra" cash in PFS is a DayJob

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Abraham Zablocki wrote:
Richard Moore wrote:
...Except for when she DOES add them, and then the RVC revokes the privilege to play them after the fact.
Has that happened?
I have heard quiet talk and grumbles of things happening along these lines in more than one area including my own at certain points in the past few years, with reasons including 'lack of players', 'insufficient GMs', and 'market over-saturation'.

Just to be clear because some may know which region you reside in, only once since the approval process for specials went into effect did I deny it and it was before the event was advertised or convention support was requested. If specials have been cancelled it was not due to lack of approval. Generally speaking, I have a blanket approval in the Great Lakes for the organizers to offer the specials and expect them to discuss their schedule with other organizers if two (or more) event occur in close proximity geographically and/or on the calendar. Only when they cannot come to a fair compromise do I typically get involved.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Stop with any veiled commentary. If this thread is intended to discuss the issue of real life OP leadership than just say that and say what you have to say. If the intent really is to discuss the ingame decemvirate, than let’s do that. The duality of this thread is irritating.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
• Created 6 lines for Factions with one distinguished from the others

Looks reasonable

Nefreet wrote:
• A larger "7" for the Character Number

Good with that

Nefreet wrote:
• Removed the "Normal" checkbox for credits (there is no Slow Track)

Assuming there will be future expansion into slow track once there is more content, I oppose this one. We don't want to have to redesign the sheet multiple times. Leave it for now. Its not hurting anything. Plus it keeps more consistency in appearance to PFS. The two campaigns are separate, but a good amount of the GMs run both and having both sheets look the same will reduce errors and increase speed of completion which is important for events always pressed for time

Nefreet wrote:
• Moved Chronicle Number box down into Player/Character information (because seriously, new players miss it up in the top right corner)

I prefer it at the top in a prominent location. IMO it will be missed more often in the body of the document than isolated in the heading area

Nefreet wrote:
• Added Infamy tracker to right side of sheet (because that should be something the GM does)

Makes sense

Nefreet wrote:
• Removed GM signature from bottom of sheet (because, why? We already have GM initials in the boxes and GM #)

Disagree. The signature provides a level of legitimacy to the sheet even if it is illusory. Makes the form "feel" complete and should encourage GMs to verify they have completed their information correctly

Nefreet wrote:
• Changed "Initial Fame" to "Starting Fame" (For consistency, because every other section has "Starting")

Consistency in language is good

Just my opinion, YMMV

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Pawns, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Sorry, I misspoke I’m my excitement, but we know what I meant. Let’s not miss the forest for the trees.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Pawns, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Dragon78 wrote:
Well that is disappointing to hear

Not me. I am STOKED about the final 1E AP. Arguably the coolest bad guy in Golarion. If it’s the penultimate 1E AP, I cannot wait to see how it unfolds and what they have in store for the conclusion of the path.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just over three weeks until Origins and with PaizoCon taking the attention of the entire staff this week, when can we expect to see the 2E Playtest materials? The target for "normal" prep is two weeks, but with the added expectation of learning a new game system, seems like we should get a bit more lead time.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

4 people marked this as a favorite.

There is an "unofficial" (read: not in the dictionary) meaning for fluff in the context of RPGs. We have used it for decades simply to mean non-mechanical aspects of the game. We cannot ignore that fact and suggest that anytime the word "fluff" is used it is with the intent of trivializing the creative narrative aspects of the campaign.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Balderdash. I think this is much ado about nothing. I do not recall anyone, when describing their character or campaign using the term fluff intends it to mean "without consequence." Quite the opposite from the perspective of the player. The "fluff" is often what makes their character cool and sets them apart from other similar (mechanically) characters. Words often have multiple meanings and the context with which they are used specifies the meaning. I see no difference between "fluff" "flavor" or "story." No offense, I think this is a case of misinterpreted perception. It is merely a word used (for decades) to describe the difference between the technical aspects of the game (mechanical ruleset, ie "crunch") and the creative, narrative (ie "fluff").

I can understand being offended if the player actually intends to mean it as suggested, but they could interchange any of the words above to describe the (in their opinion) inconsequential aspects of their character, dismissing the creative aspect of their character saying "Ignore the fluff" or "Ignore the flavor" or "Ignore the narrative" etc. So, the word is not the compelling factor, its the intent behind the use and if used as described and directed towards the content creators, I agree it would be offensive.

IMO, this is similar to how "bad" is used with the typical long-enunciation in colloquial speech. The textbook definition of "bad" is well-know, but clearly the intention is antilogous. It would be misperception if someone performed an interesting act and got offended when someone described it "Man that was bad!" (you know what I mean :-)

When I originally posted the question, I thought maybe there was a marginalized community (LGBTQ, ethnic, etc) where that word was used negatively and I was simply unaware. Certainly, people are entitled to their feelings and to be offended, when something is offensive, but I don't understand how this qualifies.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Are we seriously going to argue "fluff" vs "flavor"?

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If anyone has artistic talent and willing to scratch out a nice little piece of art for this project it is much appreciated. The kids/youth players really go crazy for the coloring book every year so you are helping a good cause and you get your name in the credits. If you haven't yet done so, please consider contributing to this effort. Thx

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Ross wrote:

RVCs should get an embosser with their region so they can print and stamp limited copies of 'valuable' boons for their area (Regional events, charity boons, special boons for conventions). Delegate.

Such boons also need to say "PFS embossment required".

To what effect? Which boons are "valuable" and therefore treated differently than other boons? What significance is there to the embossing? Is it just to reduce counterfeiting? If we mandated this, who is designing the "official" embossing (so it is consistent from region to region? Who is paying for the embosser? When we emboss these boons, how do we get them in the hands of the recipient? What do we gain by adding this level of bureaucracy? I'm not sure the context of your comments

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hobo Sapiens wrote:
I'd like a Paizo statement...

Its unlikely that we're going to get many official statements regarding boons and other game mechanic-based rewards until the system is finalized. At this point they/we don't even know what parts of the system will be changed or scrapped entirely until after the playtest. Its hard to decide what to do with boons, racial or otherwise, and what changes to the OP Guide will be required until the rules are finalized.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Good news. New volunteers being added to the GM pool will allow us to add some tickets to the catalog an increase some availability for a few PFS events including some of the specials. Overall, we are still short GMs especially for Starfinder where we need some significant increase in number or risk having to cancel some events. It is possible that we may be forced to ask some volunteers to shift their schedules to help us meet demand, but we’re hoping that new volunteers will continue to trickle in such that we won’t have to. Changing schedules is one of our last solutions since most have already made plans based on them.

If any existing, qualified GMs would like to add more slots to their schedule it is certainly appreciated. Just send us an email. Normally we place an 8-block limit on the number of slots you GM, but are willing to break that depending on the volunteer. We still will not break the rule of no more than three consecutive slots. That is challenging enough, so we won’t approve anyone volunteering for four in a row without at least a slot off to get some rest.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.

At this time, all new/pending volunteer applicants have been processed and notified. All block schedules have been distributed. All pending issues have been contacted.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Young wrote:
There used to be a line about being a good ambassador for the game system, but that doesn't seem to be in the Venture-Agent job description. Maybe it should be.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't necessary need that language in the list to have the expectation. If a VA demonstrates a consistent lack of good ambassadorship, I'll just have them removed. Fortunately, it is not a problem I have needed to address.

Scarab Sages *****

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Harold Ervin wrote:
It's like...

playing World of Warcraft and ignoring the narrative. Way to participate in the roleplay and cooperate with the other characters.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just a clarification, in order to qualify for more than four slots at Gen Con a potential GM must have at least one star/nova (10 reported events as a GM) and one year of PFS/SFS experience. If you have less than that, you will be limited to four slots or fewer. However, if you consult with your local Venture-Captain and they can send us a letter of recommendation on your behalf, we will consider waiving the minimum requirements.

The number one complaint at Gen Con year after year is the quality of GMs and their lack of preparedness. In the vast majority of cases we investigate, the GM is inexperienced either with the Pathfinder game mechanics or the nuances of organized play (or both). In an effort to reduce the burden on newer GMs having to prep so much material for such a condensed event, we have instituted the above qualifications. Gen Con is a great experience, but its not really the place to learn how to be a GM. The setting is fast-paces and at times chaotic and players are spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars to attend. They deserve the best possible experience and that requires competent, experienced GMs.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:
The biggest issue I have lies with a GM's limited ability to make up for a scenario's poor design. If an encounter is no fun because a player took them out in a single turn, that's not the player's fault. That's the designer's fault for creating an encounter easily defeated by common tactics

I think its a little hubris to think the GM knows better than a team of professional writers and developers. I tend to think that if an encounter "seems" to be poorly built, its because I do not understand the parameters under which the writer/develop thinks it should work. Generally speaking those folks know what they are doing. Its why having the GM forum where you can usually talk directly to the author or developers about an encounter is so important.

The sheer size and scope of the Pathfinder ruleset makes it near impossible for a writer/developer to create encounters that are universally challenging. They have to write for the middle-ground of the campaign. If they assume every party is a well-balanced and optimized group, then any group that plays with a less-than-ideal mix is toast.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
One fight for example is a human rogue in a house. His tactic is to hide and sneak attack. He needs dim light to hide. He can't sneak attack in dim light.

To me this is just a matter of the rogue, being human, expecting the adventuring party to require a light source. Such a source will produce dim light outside of 20ft. The rogue also may be expecting any adventuring types to be alone or at least split up to investigate. Assuming otherwise is a bit meta-gamey. The rogue can hide using cover/dim light and then launch a sneak attack from said cover, hoping to return to said cover afterwards if necessary. Is it a perfect scenario? No, but without looking specifically at the build, perhaps the rogue is not that Intelligent tactically? Or perhaps the author/developer intended for the encounter to be on easy mode? We really only know by starting a thread in the GM forum and getting some feedback.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Its an inherent flaw in organized play and has been since this type of campaign was starter years ago that highly proficient players with optimized characters will generally have an "easy button" for much of their adventuring career. Nearly every time they write material truly meant to challenge the stronger characters, the general response is negative because a huge portion of our community are casual players and they get annihilated in these scenarios. There is a certain level of personal responsibility players have to accept in organized play. We know what the challenge setting is for most play. If we decide to create "monster" PCs that can routinely solo scenarios, we have no one but ourselves to blame when it happens. Everyone knows, both player and GM, that there is a very limited amount of GM fiat possible in OP. If you take advantage of that advantage as a player, its disingenuous to then blame the authors and developers for your lack of being challenged. There is nothing wrong with that type of character approach, but its better suited for a home-campaign where the GM has the freedom to adapt the encounters to meet the strengths and weaknesses of the characters.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

3 people marked this as a favorite.

According to Jason Bulmahn's Facebook page, the 2E Playtest material has been sent off to the printers. With that in mind, when should we expect to see that material (as well as the scenario) dropped to the few GMs running it at Origins? Being as it is largely a new game system, we need time to both prep the scenario/quest as well and simply learning the game mechanics. Only 34 days (less than five weeks) and counting until the show.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
...where is this mythical land?

My Carrion Crown players would say they live there he said smuggly

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find the vast majority of problems with GM fiat stem from either a poor (IMO) GM or a personality conflict between player and GM, either of which may be that the two should not be playing together. A good home-game GM will know the strengths and weaknesses of each PC in their campaign and will use that information to make the game better. Sometimes that means you stream-roll the challenge, sometimes the encounter will neutralize most of your strengths and expose your weaknesses. As long as it is being applied fairly there should be more problem. I would posit if you find yourself at odds with GM fiat on a regular basis, you should find a new GM or group of players to play with.

There is nothing wrong with limiting GM fiat in organized play. Its a necessary evil because we're in a social community and the GMs do not know "who's coming to dinner" nor do the players know if the GM's personal style (and preferred home rules) will be to their liking. There are certainly times when a more liberal GM fiat policy would help the GM adapt the scenario to the players at the table, but generally speaking our limitations work just fine.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It should be someone responsible and capable of making necessary decisions for the child. Generally, we are not checking IDs. You are the parent, so make appropriate decisions for your children. We just don't want to see a 16 year-old, older sibling being the "supervision" for an under 13 player. If you report to our Academy HQ and notify us you are leaving your child under the care of their uncle/aunt, grandparent, adult sibling, etc it should be fine. Remember, the point of this requirement is to ensure the safety of your children in case of an emergency, not to create an unreasonable burden on family gaming.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Swiftbrook wrote:
Maybe in five to ten years, but not yet.

True, but if a player is not going to attend an event they commited to, its not too much to ask for them to unregister, email the organizer, call the GM, call the game store, etc. Generally spealing, unless you experience a last-minute emergency, simply not showing up is disrespectful to the organizer, GM, and perhaps the other players who have invested time, gas, child care, etc to attend the event. Not to mention the player who missed out that night because the table was full so they just stayed home and could have played had anyone known there would be an open seat.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just to be clear, we're not talking about expanding any replay until AFTER PFS2 launches and PFS1 loses its content support. Correct?

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
allvaldr wrote:
Just as an update...

I try to mentor all event organizers to track trending. If a single player complains about a GM once, there's no need to ban the GM. However, if you've received a number of complaints from different players over the course of some time, there is likely some validity to their claims. Probably time to have a talk with said GM.

If a player misses a session, life happens. Don't make too much of it. But, if a player is building a history of signing up then no showing, time for a conversation. If it continues, you may have to ban them from registering early. Or maybe they have to give you a personal guarantee they will show up when they register.

Some people do not stop to think how their actions affect the GM and/or the other players at the event and need someone to make them aware and worst case, ban them from the event.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Replay is not perfect.

That is accepted. It is acknowledged. It is known
Stating it again. And again. And again, and again does not itself make an argument against it.

Replay will provide more play opportunities. It is acknowledged. It is known

Stating it again. And again. And again, and again does not itself make it an argument

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
How about the people who look at the GM and say "yeah, we've all already done this mod, we're just here for the item certs, can we skip the story?"

This is essentially one of the contributing factors to why I dislike replay...

Personal Anecdote:
It actually happened to me back in season one as I recall. There was a brief period back then when players could earn more than one chronicle for playing a scenario, just not for the same character. No one I had played with took advantage of this because we all felt, why play an adventure if you already know what is going to happen.

Anyway, I traveled from my home 2-1/2 hours to a GameDay in Chicago. Everything appeared normal until we were about an hour into the scenario. Something happened that caused a player to remark about the impending encounter. Details they could only have known if they had GMd it before. I had fumbled a minor detail about the encounter set up and they started telling me how to run the scenario. Not just one, but all of them, and not just then, but the rest of the scenario right through the boss fight. To say I was surprised was an understatement. All six players indicated they were not GMs, but had played the scenario before. They were replaying because they were farming specific items/experience for particular characters they had not used the first time around. I was soo pissed at the audacity of the players telling the GM how to run the game that I stopped the session, issued the chronicles and spend the 2-1/2 hour drive home fuming about wasting my time. I will not go through that again.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.

gold?? Is there a diamond status? How about mithral or admanatine status? I think she qualifies :-D

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:
I can understand why you personally don't want to participate in expanded replay. I don't understand why you feel the need to force your choice upon the rest of us.

I could also say, "I can understand why you personally want expanded replay, but I don't understand why you feel the need to force it upon the rest of us." This is a circular argument and depends on which side you sit. If we "force" replay, people will quit. If you don't, people will quit. Either way, someone is being forced out.

The only thing we can do is try to determine which of those groups is larger so the decision is made for the greater good. We can use reporting data to give an idea of play and estimate the size of the group that is out of opportunities to play, but we do not have a way to track those who dislike replay and may quit if it is expanded, or may have already quit because of how much replay there already is. Thus, it makes the decision much more difficult on our leadership. They really don't need us repeatedly arguing the same points over and over, we need to hear from the largest pool of players as possible. Only through feedback from a meaningful dataset can Tonya hope to make the right decision.

Also, my position is that replay may solve the scheduling/opportunities problem in the short term, but as it has shown in every single campaign it has ever been used, over time, and that time is not particularly long, people stop playing because of the inherent problems with replay.

The bottom line is PFS1 is going to die. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue against that. What we can debate is what will PFS1 look like between the time PFS2 launches and PFS1 dies. If there is no replay, for those who have played everything already, they will quit and PFS1 will be essentially dead to them. Over time, that will happen to more players and eventually the campaign will die due to lack of participation.

If there is replay, people are going to quit because they are bored with the repetitiveness or because boon "farmers" are taking the fun away, whatever. Over time the pool will shrink and the campaign will die due to lack of participation.

The question is, which of these do we, as a campaign, prefer? Which is for the greater good? I don't think anyone can answer that with any measure of accuracy. So, all we have is our personal preference.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you don't mind, please take those types of conversations to a new thread. I would like to keep this thread focused on updates and answering questions about said updates and general informational inquiries. Thx

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Look, I'm not going to continue to argue with you. The bottom line is we are approaching this from different perspectives. You are placing the opportunity to play as the paramount factor, while I feel quality of play is more important. I would rather not play than play with replay which IME is a bad experience. You would rather allow everyone to play because play > no play. That's absolutely fine. I am not saying you are wrong for you, but please don't try to insinuate that replay is universally better or that I owe you some justification of why I feel the way I do. I simply do. I would happily continue playing PFS1 for as long as I can find a table, but not if replay is expanded. This is not a matter of who is more right or wrong, it is simply a difference of philosophy. In the end, when Paizo decides, someone is going to be disappointed. Selfishly, I would rather it not be me, but I understand if they decide the other way and will wish you luck with you expanded replay campaign.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:
I gotta say, I really don't understand the basis for your objection to expanded PFS1 replay if you're not going to participate in it. If you want to spend your time and energy on the limited number PFS2 scenarios that will be available post August 2019, that's fine with me. But please don't interfere with my and others' desire to continue to play PFS1 after that point.

The same could be said by those who like the campaign as it is and want to continue playing it without significant changes. We could say, "please don't interfere with my and other's desire to continue playing PFS1 by expanding replay, thereby making the gaming experience poor, and making us quit." I never said I wouldn't participate in PFS1, in fact I plan to as long as I can find a table of players. However, expanding replay is a non-starter for me.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Oh its a challenge, rise up, do it harder... Yeah. No. That's a pile of pap. How is it remotely possible to do this without the campaign screaching to a halt? We can't KNOW isn't a very good answer

I think you may be looking at my comments from the wrong perspective. I am not saying any of your concerns are not valid. Yes, the scheduling challenges will continue to increase as people play themselves out of content. As time goes on, that is inevitable. My experience and understanding indicates the vast majority of players still have plenty of PFS1 content they can play, so there is no need to change the existing rules for the majority of players to be able to continue. That is certainly not true for everyone. The simple truth is that for people who have a strong dislike for replay it doesn't matter. We feel the harm that expanded replay does to the actual gameplay outweighs the benefit it provides. That's a philosophical difference of opinion. We would rather not participate in the campaign than continue with expanded replay. This really just boils down to one group wanting expanded replay so they can continue to play indefinitely and the other thinking expanding replay will hurt the integrity of the game to the extent that they won't play.

Keep in mind, I am not making this decision for Paizo. Like you, I am merely expressing what my preferences are for the campaign. Not everyone has the same desires or needs. It is up to Paizo to determine which ones serves the greater good. If that means I cannot play OP anymore because the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one," [read: more people want replay than don't] then it is what it is.

Also, let us remember that organized play is a marketing platform for Paizo. It would surprise me if they wanted PFS1 to continue any longer than it naturally will. They are unlikely to make significant rules changes to artificially force it to continue. It is not likely to bring much if any revenue since they won't be producing new content for 1E. Naturally, they are going to want everyone to switch to 2E so they can sell more product. I think few would object to people continuing with 1E if 2E isn't their "thing," but that's not the same as actively supporting the old campaign through their network of volunteer organizers. I cannot imagine they would want to throw convention support at an event that was strictly or even mostly PFS1 after the launch of 2E. There is little to no return on that investment. And over time, as the number of 2E players grows and 1E players shrinks the problem becomes more pronounced. This is not an issue of a fluffy, feel-good desire to let people do whatever they want, its simply an issue of cash and putting their marketing resources in a position to maximize their revenue. Just my perspective, of course. I would not expect Paizo to be this forthcoming, since it would certainly rub some people the wrong way and there would be yelling and gnashing of teeth. YMMV

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you have never played Adventure Card Game before, I would encourage you to stop by our ACG area earlier in the convention and play a demo, maybe a scenario or two. The ACG component of the special is a fast-paced, meta-driven adventure. Having at least a basic understanding of the rules is important for getting through the content efficiently. There is no extra time built in to teach the game so not the best time to try out ACG for the first time. The same can be said for PFS/SFS, but if you are familiar with D&Dv3.5 or Path/Starfinder in general, joining the ranks of society play is largely the same.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thursday and a Friday night are multitable interactive specials for PFS. Unless we change the format of the show, I would expect Saturday night to be Starfinder night for the foreseeable future.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It’s how Gen Con manages ticket sales. You build your wish list from the catalog and then when they open registration, you submit your schedule and they process them in order of receipt. In the second they open registration, they receive over 10,000 requests for event tickets. The wish list lets you organize your tickets by preference.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Update. All volunteer applicants through today have been notified of their status. We will not be processing any new applicants for a couple of weeks so we can focus on responding to registration.

We will begin distributing volunteer block schedules tonight so watch your inbox. We strongly encourage volunteers to build wishlists. We can obtain an event report based on the wishlists which will help us identify demand and perhaps shift/add tickets before registration goes live on Sunday.

Remember, we have tables held in reserve so we can more quickly add availability to the highest demand tickets. So, if you see something fill up, you may want to check back periodically the first few days after registration opens as more tickets may become available.

Some volunteers have started to see the badge dropped into their Gen Con account. You should receive an email directly from Gen Con when this happens. The rest will be distributed ASAP so watch for it. When that process is complete, we will post a notification so you can alert us if you did not receive it. Please do not send email requests regarding missing badges until we let you know the process is complete. We anticipate having the process complete before registration goes live on Sunday.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The big reason that no replay works at all is because new content is being released. Once no more new content is being released that rule becomes massively problematic.

That may be true for scheduling, but there is nothing to address the game-play issues that arise from more replay. Which is the issue so many of us have with more relaxed replay. So the question becomes will expanding replay actually work in practice? If the number of people who simply refuse to participate given expanded replay is larger than the number of people who can play only with the expansion of replay, then we've done more to hurt the campaign than help it. If the reverse is true, great, it worked. I dunno if that can be determined without actually doing it and by then, there's no turning back. As I've said, I can only speak for myself that if replay is expanded, I'm out. If its just PFS1, then you'll only find me participating in PFS2. If it is extended to PFS2 as well, then I guess I'll just be focusing on my home group.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's because 8-99 is still going. 8-99C takes the place of 9-99.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Douglas Edwards wrote:
only using established VCs for instance...

If this is in reference to who could write the content, IMO, it would be a bad idea. The skill sets are completely different. The ability to be a good organizer and steward of the campaign is nothing like the ability to write creative stories, develop encounters, or know the difference between a preposition and a dangling participle. If anything, initial approval should be restricted to those who are already published and therefore (theoretically) proven their ability. Then it could be opened gradually to the general community. The bigger concern will be who is reviewing the material for rules accuracy, cannon consistency, and technical writing correctness. Again, being a VO should not necessarily automatically qualify someone for the review team.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Schedules are still pending distribution. There are a few details we are still working out to finalize the schedules. Hoping to have them finished this weekend. Expect to see volunteer schedule emails early next week.

No status on badge drops. AFAIK, we are still waiting on Gen Con to provide the bulk badges to Paizo. I believe Tonya is currently traveling to a convention this weekend. If so, I would not expect badges to drop any sooner than early next week at the earliest.

1 to 50 of 1,417 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>