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 5,350 posts (5,434 including aliases). 15 reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 21 Organized Play characters. 3 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,354 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Since PFS1 will continue to be a viable, reportable campaign when PFS2 launches, its not going to be effective to reset character numbers or try to switch the existing ones into an alternate code group to make space for the new group. It might be counter-intuitive to some, but many of the rules we have both in the game mechanics and the organize play guide are not necessarily based in logic. Its a simply matter of (1) people reading the OP Guide which is a requirement just as important as reading the Core Rulebook, and (2) VOs, organizers, and GMs being aware some people may make mistakes and it is our responsibility to notify and help them correct it just like any other issue. Using -1500 for the playtest and -2000 for PFS2 makes as much sense as anything, and IMO certainly more than expecting them to change the database position (and possibly the number scheme) of 200,000+ registered existing characters

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is not a clarification issue. The new grizzly bear is a different animal than the original bear which is the one specifically listed in reference to the owlbear boon unlock. Now, if Paizo wants to errata the existing boon and make the new grizzly bear a legal selection, that is something entirely different since they will also have to provide rules for those who have already assigned said boon unlock and already have an owlbear companion. Do you get a free replacement? Do you have to use the retaining rules? If any equipment is not properly sized for the new option do you get a free replacement? Or do you have to sell it back for half-price and re-buy? I'm not speculating what they should do or what I want them to do, only what the rule IS until something else is provided by Paizo.

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

4 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
You really think PFS is going to be promoting 1e tables at PaizoCon 2021?

It is quite possible. The error you are making is that the continued viability is not being decided by Paizo. The PLAYERS will decide if PFS1 continues to be a living campaign. If the trend is it is being actively played by a measureable number in the community, then Paizo will continue to offer it at future conventions. How can I say that? Because I am involved in organizing at least one of the Paizo sponsored annual events (Gen Con). We do not decide what to offer based on our own preferences. We look at ticket sales, previous year’s results, and the trend in the general play to determine what is offered. In 2021 if players are still actively playing and reporting PFS1 content, it will be offered at those events.

Grand Lodge

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

IMO, It would be much easier to have more diversity in ability score adjustments if we dropped the idea of only one per group (physical vs mental). Goblins feel more like +Dex/+Con/-Wis, halflings +Dex/+Cha/-Str, gnomes +Int/+Cha/-Str.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The assimar and to some extent the tiefling are a magnitude better than other races. Particularly with the former and its ability score advantage. Also, the availability of the bloodlines (angel blood, azata blood, etc.) make it almost pointedly better than any core race and most of the optional races due to its customization. Nearly any character build can be done better with an assimar (or tiefling). Aside from the obvious mechanical advantages, the idea is supported by nearly every player in the community wanting access to them, and not only once but for numerous characters. This was apparent when they went back into retirement and there was a concerted effort by a particularly large amount of the community to make special schedules and "speed runs" in order to lock in more assimar. No other race that has been introduced has seen this type of activity. There is an understanding that the race is clearly better than others.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
CheeseStalker wrote:
Replay - There is quite literally, absolutely no reason that you should not allow unlimited replay.

No. It is not "quite literally." There are a number of reasons not to allow unlimited replay and most/all of them have been expressed dozens of times over the years as well as in this thread. No one should be telling anyone else their OPINION is wrong. Some people like the idea of unlimited replay, many people don't. The fact of the matter those opinions are valid from the perspective of the individual. We need to stop acting like one side is "right" and the other "wrong." The only thing "wrong" about this conversation is the insistence that this is anything other than a difference of perspective.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
However, since they are getting rid of 1e...

I'm sorry, but this is a gross misrepresentation. Organized Play is not getting rid of PFS1/1E. That campaign will continue to run and be sanctioned indefinitely. In fact they will continue to sell any published material that is still in print (and the pdfs) including the soft cover versions that aren't even published yet. They just aren't going to produce new content after Gen Con 2019, but that is not the same as getting rid of it. Please stop misinforming the casual reader who might skim across these comments and be misled that they will no longer be able to play PFS1/1E when PFS2/2E is launched.

Grand Lodge

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

“I am sooo mad about the 2E Oracle. Grrrr”

“Um, you know that haven’t told us anything about it yet?”

“I don’t care. I hate what they’ve done. Grrrr”

“Chuckle”

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Pawns, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
thflame wrote:
Where's my stat customization? Are you telling me that my stats are going to be universally determined by my class, race and background, with only small tweaks? I WANT the added customization of point-buy. I WANT to be able to make characters with bad stats, or REALLY good ones. This seems counter to the promised "more customization".
Well, we have no idea how many floating bonuses there are at each stage. It's very possible that you wind up with more floating bonuses than set ones.

Also, what if there are ancestry options, some kind of variant rules, that let you shed the basic ability adjustments in favor or something else? Sort of like how aasimar have the source bloodlines that alter their standard ability adjustments. We might have to wait for the Advanced Ancestry Guide, but its certainly doable.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Pawns, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
eddv wrote:
People are still gonna try to wield oversized weapons because thats anime as all get out and we're all various stripes of nerd here.

I think that's part of the reason for the change. Now, PCs can do the Final Fantasy thing without the game mechanics making GMs object. It "feels" like the rule of cool is being applied more to 2E than 1E. Less about everything trying to make logic sense in a world of magic, gods, etc. Let players be more imaginative without having to jump through hoops to make the game mechanics work. IMO that's a good idea.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Pawns, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Cup wrote:
“No, we’re not!”...

Oh I knew that was gonna get you all riled up :-D

Remember, I'm an ol' grognard and back in my day, gnomes were just dwarves with vertical angst. LoL

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Pawns, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thflame wrote:
Where's my stat customization? Are you telling me that my stats are going to be universally determined by my class, race and background, with only small tweaks? I WANT the added customization of point-buy. I WANT to be able to make characters with bad stats, or REALLY good ones. This seems counter to the promised "more customization".

It sounds like they will have multiple systems for generating ability scores just like there is now, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. I'm sure there will be an alternative to have more varied scores and if not, just make it up for your game.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Pawns, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
eddv wrote:
Though giving them no modifications to mentals at all and giving them -str, +Dex, +Con would fix that, even if it would feel a bit goofy

I strongly believe that goblins should have -Wis, but that is based on the iconography of the past decade plus. If they make a change in the narrative in support of goblins as PCs, then maybe they lose the "dumb, impulsive" aspect they have that justifies the penalty.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Pawns, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:
They could just make the gobbos +Dex +Con. It really wouldn't be unbalanced, and it would fit trash-scavengers who live in harsh environments.

If I have to accept goblins, this would be a good alternative, though Paizo seems to be married to the only one physical and one mental stat concept. I would suspect some would argue that goblin would make the best martial since they could then spend their floater on Str and boost all three physical stats.

Grand Lodge

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

I would prefer gnomes +Int, Halflings +Cha, and goblins out of the core, but I'm fairly convinced the later is not going to happen. As such, it certainly makes no sense to give the goblin +Wis, so I guess the next best option is the one above with gnome +Int, halfling +Wis, goblin +Cha. Of those three, I am least opposed to the goblin +Cha. In no universe should they get +Wis and I think the only reason to give them +Int would be because they are the iconic alchemist. Plus, as was said about, giving goblins +Int is essentially saying the average goblin is smarter than the average gnome or halfling and that is a rough pill to swallow. At least with +Cha you could argue that's based on intimidating which is more reasonably than the other two, IMO.

Grand Lodge

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

"Additionally, the sling is now a more formidable weapon than in Pathfinder First Edition—we've both increased its damage and done away with the difference in damage die size between Small and Medium creatures."

The way this reads is a bit misleading. Is it that slings (and only slings) will have the same damage small vs medium? Or will all weapons not have the same damage. I read it as only slings are getting this treatment, but others are reading all weapons are. Can we get designer commentary please?

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

According to the Gen Con newsletter I received today...

"The event catalog will be posted on Sunday, April 22 at noon (Eastern). Event Registration begins at noon (Eastern) on Sunday, May 6. You will need a Gen Con 2018 badge to participate in Event Registration. Badge and event ticket fulfillment will begin on June 17."

In preparation of this, we are working on volunteer block schedules and will be distributing them very soon so you will know which slots are free to register for events.

Also, be on the lookout for a notification that your event badge was dropped into your Gen Con account. Gen Con's standard practice is to email the account owner whenever there is a change in your account such as a badge added or an event cancelled. However, we had reports that process was not 100% last year. Perhaps there are some technical glitches in their system, or some people have unusually strict spam mail protocols. Whatever the reason, do not assume that just because you did not receive an email your badge did not drop. You'll need to actually log into your account and verify.

Whenever one of these tasks is completed, we will post a notification. That way if you were expecting [stuff] and you did not get [stuff], you can reach out and notify us.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Seb Mullins wrote:
Asking/expecting everyone to start over isn't acceptable - its ungrateful and also disrespectful.

That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it, but it is not a universal opinion on this subject. I do not think anyone can say with any reliability which group of opinions is the largest and therefore the one we should gravitate to. For every person who says what you said, there is someone asking for a clean restart. In the end, I do not envy Tonya/John/Linda/Thursty/Mike's position of having to figure out which way to go. If players are an earnest as their commentary, it is clear we are going to lose some players no matter which system is used.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
*steps back in briefly* I have a friend that steadfastly refuses to play PFS1 until they can play a Catfolk.

Is that really a demand we should take seriously? No offense to you’re friend but how is that different than someone saying “I refuse to play until they allow evil alignments” or “I refuse to play until they allow cyclops” or “I refuse to play until they allow 3PP?”

Grand Lodge

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

My only complaint about alchemists in 1E is their exceptions-based rules that no one else can do. I hope they fix that for 2E. For example, an alchemist can draw an extract which for all intents and purposes is a potion and drink it all as a standard action. While the rest of us have to spend a move action (that provokes) plus a standard to perform the same action. Makes no sense and is not explained in the rules. They essentially get a special version of quick draw that no one else can take and the benefit of a handy haversack which they do not own.
They can learn new formulas by studying a wizard’s spellbook, but somehow the reverse process is too complicated for wizards so they cannot do so in reverse.

Grand Lodge

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

If we played on a non grid surface, I would agree with the movement issues, but we don’t. Mixing square-based tactical movement (digital) with foot-based speeds (analog) creates problems that cannot be accurately represented in game. We need to make up our minds one way or the other. If you’re going to base tactical movement on squares, then list it that way in the rules. If you do that, you don’t need to account for diagonals because it’s still the same number of squares whether it’s strsight line or diagonal. If you want to use real numbers, then abandon the grid system and use tape measures.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Pawns, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
"totoro” wrote:
Easy. Make diagonals cost 7.5 feet.

Oh I hope not. I am hoping that things that hinder movement are static modifier not fractional penalties. And get rid of the extra cost for diagonal movement. It’s an unnecessary complication that is hard for new players to understand and even hard for many experienced players to figure out without counting their movement one square at a time. So someone gains a few feet when traveling diagonally. Who cares? It’s a small number for most creatures and the ones most able to exploit it already have enough movement to not need the bonus anyway. It’s archaic and unnecessary. K.I.S.S. Please

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just a reminder, we have plenty of availability for more GMs including hotel room space. With Starfinder now a year in and the 2E playtest attracting a lot of attention, Gen Con 2018 is going to be as exciting as ever. Don't miss out. Click on over to our questionnaire and sign up!

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.

No offense but that smells an awful lot like everyone gets a trophy just for participating. While that make some people feel good, it also creates a lack of incentive to excel and by excel I mean contribute extra time (i.e. GM). I would certain prefer a world were we don't need incentives for people to GM, but I'm told time and time again that is not reality. So, unless/until we come up with an alternative reward for GMing that has the same value as access to restricted race boon, I have to continue to promote it as the best available solution. All knowing that there are some people due to geography or other personal limitations who will not have an opportunity to earn them. I am sorry about that, but I will always decide in favor of the majority on cases like this as that maximizes our efforts and our limited reward opportunities.

Grand Lodge

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Pawns, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
TheFinish wrote:
Overall not very happy

This evaluation suffers from the same issue as many others in that it takes the VERY limited peak into the rules and views them through the scope of 1E rules. For example, yes bombs only do x6 base at capstone instead of the x10 they do in 1E, but what's to say that isn't a HUGE amount of damage within the scope of 2E? We need to see all the rules and how they interact before making a definitive decision on what is a "weak" option. Not to mention there are, if the description is accurate, a lot more of these class feats we haven't seen yet and they way be the balancing options that make these other options work well.

Essentially, I think we should all be cautiously optimistic about 2E. Don't get too excited, nor too discouraged by what you read in these VERY limited previews. It sounds like DPR is a bit more limited than it is in 1E, but there will be a lot more options for players to choose from for their character. If that is the case, I think it'll be a fantastic edition.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Look, the bottom line is this. Keeping the replay rules as they are will drive some players away from PFS1. Opening up more opportunities for replay in PFS1 will drive some players away. What we don't know is which group is larger. PFS being a community-based campaign should almost always "side" with the majority. No rule is going to make everyone happy. The only thing we can do is try to minimize those made unhappy and if they leave, they leave. That is neither dismissive of their position nor intended to push them away. At some point, the rules are what the rules are and each of us has to decide for themself if they will enjoy playing under them. If not, go find something else.

I can only speak for myself. If replay is expanded, I'm out. I think there is already too much of it now. I hope they decide not to expand replay, but I'm not arrogant enough to blame them for doing so if that is the majority position. I'll be fine doing something else and won't hold any grudges. If it stays the same I'll continue to play PFS1 as long as I can find four other people will to do the same.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.

How is that different than say going to a movie or attending a sporting event at the last minute. Hey, I've heard the consessions are expensive at this event so I'll just stop off at the convenient store and get some drinks and snacks and save some money. Then you go and find out no outside food is allowed and then blame the event for your failure to read the rules written on the back of the ticket. You cannot simply say you watch movies or sports at home and therefore attending those events must be the same thing.

Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't look at our process for boons and perhaps make some changes, but to blame the system for following its published rules and getting upset about it because you chose not to read them is a non-starter for me.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Due to issues like missing reporting sheets, technical errors with the website, etc. it is fairly rare for a player to have online reporting that doesn't have some errors or omissions. The paper records you have are the official record. As long as you maintain those documents, some errors in your online history is not a problem.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh jeez, just let it go. The thread was necroed. Enough said.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Pawns, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
ENHenry wrote:
I may have my first thing I really dislike hearing on the play test rules: the change of base speed for most races to 25 feet. It feels REALLY unintuitive, and is going to be very annoying to keep track of after almost 20 years of humans getting 6 squares of movement. Plus, a base of 6 squares (or 30 feet) is easier to divide because it’s not a prime number like 5 is. You can easily halve or even third the 30 feet speed, but you can do neither to a base 25 speed without rounding down. I would rather they have kept base speed for humanoids at 30 feet, and make elves 35 speed if they wanted to give them a boost.

I think a lot of people are looking at this through the lens of PF1E. Sure if 25 move was the standard in 1E, it would be problematic because it does not "half" equally. However, what's to say that mechanic is even used in 2E? Maybe, movement penalties are being converted to number adjustments rather than ratios. Maybe difficult terrain (if it even exists in 2E) is a -10 to move. Then you are free to have a more diverse movement/speed system throughout the rules without having to worry about fractions and decimals. Personally, I would prefer this system to having to calculate fractional movement due to climbing, swimming, crawling, etc.

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

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Paul Jackson wrote:
I'm not asking for guidance on this specific case, I'm asking for guidance on the general situation where I cannot simulultaneously follow the PFS and Convention rules

I think the point is, every situation is different and no set of rules is going to be able to tell you exactly how to proceed. We can only provide guidance on the intentions of the rules and then its left up to us to make the decision in real time. If we could codify these types of things not only would the Guide be enormous, but there would be little need for community leaders like VO. We are not going to make a rule that says, "you must follow every single rule of OP both written and understood to the letter of the law, no exceptions," nor are we going to say, "any time the OP rules interfere with convention rules, local gaming group regulations, or are simply in the way of a fun time, ignore them."

In the case of a problem arising that you are not sure how to handle, escalate it through the VO corps as far as is necessary to get a meaningful response, eventually to Tonya if necessary. If there is no time, because it is an "at the table issue" consult the onsite organizer or perhaps some experienced GMs in the area. Pool their ideas, come up with a workable resolution and move forward. Then afterwards when you have time, report the incident to your VO leadership with your resolution and ask for their opinion. If your resolution was fair, reasonable, and within the spirit of the campaign rules, 99/100, you'll be fine.

I very much prefer a system with a little ambiguity allowing our organizers and leaders the flexibility to make the best decision based on the circumstance than a rigid laundry list of "If this, do this."

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

5 people marked this as a favorite.

With regards to the specific issue of worshipping a devil or Asmodeus, within the scope of PFS, no a player is not required to change that aspect of their character. There is nothing graphic about the fact they are a follower, but I can see a situation where if they were to describe their daily obesdiance in shocking detail or suggest that part of their daily prayers they have to sacrifice a baby or some other extreme behavior, THAT could be offensive and should be glossed over. It’s really no different that saying someone is a slaver vs describing how they abuse their chattel, or a Calistiran temple “prostitute.” There is no need to roleplay their sexual excursions, but if it happens off camera, there should be no issue.

One thing that can be done is to list an event includes adult themes of violence, slavery, sexuality, etc and then the player can make an informed decision to join that game. If they do, they cannot then complain when said material appears in game. There is some level of personal responsibility with making good choices if you are easily offended or have a personal trauma that could be triggered by exposure to certain types of stimulus.

Also, if you decide to organize events for, or participate in say a convention where the owners will be using a practice that permits one player to insist another has to change their character because of an offending presentation, then you accept that parameter and cannot complain if/when it actually happens. Again, there is an expectation established at the outset and you accept personal responsibility when you participate.

If OTOH, there is no “warning label” or reasonable way you could know that a certain topic may present itself during a game, then we all owe it to that person to make an honest attempt to accommodate them, and vice versa. As long as everyone is willing to cooperate we may reach a resolution. It’s when one side is defiantly resistant to making any accommodation at all that we run into serious problems.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Paul Jackson wrote:
I believe that when incidents like this occur Paizo has to investigate and then make SOME public statement about what occurred and, in the case of them finding a problem, make a statement as to what they are doing to try to rectify the problem

Generally speaking (not including the incident that spurred this thread) I disagree. Paizo does not need to get directly involved in every incident that occurs in organized play. We have people in place to deal with these things from local organizers, to VOs, to leaders in the local community, etc. Also, Paizo is technically no longer directly involved in management people/volunteers, that falls to the Organized Play Foundation led by the OPM (Tonya). She should be aware of/notified when an incident occurs and informed of what was discovered during an investigation and any action taken, but she does not personally have to be involved in every investigation. If someone contacts Paizo directly and pulls them into the issue, then they might have to get more involved as was the case with the incident referred to by the original post.

I would expect Paizo to take the lead if an incident occurs at a convention they are specifically organizing, say PaizoCon, maybe Gen Con, Origins, etc. but not the smaller regional/local conventions and events of which they have no control over or involvement in organizing.

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

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The only expansion of the replay system I would like to see, and in both campaigns, is GMs earning credit every time they run a game, not just once. It would further encourage GMing which is something we need more of and would not "punish" GMs who attend conventions and run the same scenario multiple times.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.

With regards to the original post, I just want to clarify that a thorough investigation was conducted and no action was taken against anyone involved. The author of the article indicated she wanted this issue to be dealt with privately and we honor that request. We are using this incident (and others like it) to influence how we shape the organized play community and improve logistics and procedures to foster a more inclusive, safe gaming space for all participants.

Grand Lodge

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Pawns, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
you might have to work harder to work a goblin PC into something

Not working them in, working them out. A campaign with a core race restricted is not the norm. Somsay someone hates gnomes. Whatever, it’s their campaign. They have to do the work removing NPC gnomes and any encounters with gnomes out of the narrative. Everyone else doesn’t care. By making goblins core, they will inevitably appear as NPCs and in other situations were it will require significant effort to excise them from the game. If we assume that the majority of people don’t like goblins in core it means a lot of GMs will have to make significant changes to run these products and they may decide it’s not worth the effort. Now, it’s certainly too early to tell which group,is bigger (pro core goblin vs con core goblin) but if they fail to produce a substantial change in the narrative to justify the shift in attitude towards goblins, the cautiously expectant readers will join the group against core goblins. In that circumstance, the con group like likely be much larger than the pro group. It’s rarely a good idea to publish game material that you know is disliked by the majority of the customers.

Historically, it’s also generally proven to be a bad idea to significantly change the imagery of an iconic aspect of your product, whether that be Hollywood, works of fiction, comics, etc. sure there are exceptions but they are rare. This is what concerns me the most.

Grand Lodge

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

The problem with adding goblins to core is how they are going to appear in the rest of the publications, especially APs and modules (and scenarios). There are very few (any) people who restrict the existing core races. Other than a few very isolated cases, the core races are represented in every town in Golarion. If someone wants to exclude alternate races from their game, it has little effect on the narrative. They really weren’t there in the first place. However, by adding goblins to the core, authors will be gently encouraged to treat goblins as citizens in the same vein as half-elves, half-orc, maybe even gnomes or dwarves. Sure in almost all cases, human remains the dominant race, but the others exist in varying numbers. Having goblins treated that way makes it much more difficult on GMs who like goblins as they currently exist. Excising them from the narrative could be quite a challenging task, and neigh impossible in organized play.

One of the main reasons why goblins have become such a favored part of Pathfinder is the way they have been depicted for more than a decade. I fear that monkeying around with that iconic imagery puts the goblin’s position at risk. Will making it a more accepted member of society and even a welcome adventurer “dumb down” their imagery to the point they are no more special than any other race? Will that make them lose their iconic status? It’s hard to say this early in the process, but this is not something that can easily be corrected if it fails to accomplish what Paizo hopes. If it fails to work out in the playtest, they could be removed for the official 2E printing, but once they hit that book, there’s no turning back. And I, for one, am concerned what that will do to the iconography of the goblin in Golarion.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Noven wrote:
Bad player behavior cannot be blamed on characters

Generally that is true, but we don't have to allow rules that will specifically encourage them either. Its one of the reasons why things like master summoners and evil alignments are banned. Yes, there are plenty of players who could be trusted to play a cooperative, non-disruptive evil character. However, there is a very large group of those who cannot, including many people who "think" they are playing okay, but are actually disrupting because different people have different styles. Sure we could just deal with them on a case-by-case basis, but the more questionable/borderline material we allow, the more frequent the disruptive behavior becomes and the more time we spent battling it. That is no fun for anyone and drives players away in short order.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Graham Wilson wrote:
They could save the Goblins as the first GM boon race.

I would rather see the entire limited boon release program be scrapped. If something is balance and okay for play, make it legal. If not, keep it banned. There is some validity to the complaints from players about accessibility fairness. Maybe, I emphasize maybe we can allow some one-offs for charity boons since the focus is not the game but the charity. I am however, in favor of boons including not standard bonuses, unique magic item access, etc. Just not core game components like race. YMMV

Grand Lodge

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

As long as one of the options in the poll is "none of the above" its fine with me. I would prefer not to expand the core races at all. No matter that we put in goblin, tiefling, aardvark, its going to be monstrous or at least non-standard and therefore, IMO should be in a future expansion release.

Also, I think one of the reasons why we act like stupid murder monkeys when playing the goblin mods is because that is exactly what we've been conditioned to think they are. That, and we rarely get an opportunity to act that way, so why not embrace it fully. The experience is fun and can be cathartic. I would expect that after the initial run on goblin characters, most players will settle into their "normal" play mode and goblins will lose their position as the new shiny toy, especially if the narrative shifts their role in the campaign.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slyme wrote:
follower of Calistra who is a sex worker

I have to say that I've seen waay too many middle-aged white male juvenile delinquents playing this character that I have almost reached the point I will ban the character from my table (if the GM) or walk (if I'm a player). I realize that not everyone is a jerk, far from it, but this particular character trope seems to be sooo frequently played offensively that I simply cannot tolerate it anymore. When players introduce their characters at the start and I hear this type of description, I immediately respond with something to the effect of, "and we will not be role-playing that aspect of your character at this table." Sorry, not gonna do it. Hate me if you want, call me closed-minded, a prude, whatever, but I'm done risking the safe gaming space on the outside chance its one of the few who play this trope without being offensive.

1 to 50 of 1,354 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>