|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
When there is a rules issue that is not clear as evident by the reasonable arguments made by both sides, it is not cheating just because your opinion differs from someone else's.
I don't see how anyone "pulled" something on you last year?
A player at my table yesterday got mad at me because I did not read the blurb from the product page to him. He was scheduled to play a different scenario, but the table had to cancel (lack of players). We re-organized him onto my table. Before I started setting up the scenario or read intro boxed text, he asked what the scenario is about. Rather than tell him any details, I just said that in a moment I would give the intro info. He specifically asked what the blurb from the product page said. I had no idea as I hadn't read it myself. I just said, "you are in Absalom, boarding a ship to meet Venture-Captain [X] at the lodge in location [Y]". Apparently, that was not good enough since he sort of slammed his game materials around and muttered for a while.
IMO, it is wrong to read a scenario unless/until you are preparing to GM it, you have already played it, or definitively know you will never play it. Having to GM a scenario before you play it is a burden many of us have to accept in order to support the community, but intentionally reading the scenario just to know whats in it before you play it is terrible form. When a new scenario drops, I do not read it until I know I will be GMing it before I can play it. The only exception is that I open a new scenario to scan the maps. I just want to know if they use Paizo maps that I need to buy or custom maps I will eventually need to get printed.
Does Surma get to chose the effect of the gaze individually for each target, or only a single effect applies to all targets per round? I cannot seem to find anything in the Bestiary or the scenario indicating either. If there former, Surma could theoretically stun some characters while focusing the curse effect on someone about to get a spell in the face. And if any PCs are down, unconscious, hit them with 1d4 damage to push them closer to death.
But the guide says if you reach a certain age you die and are retired from play
This will only happen if there is a specific event that causes you to age in the scenario/module/AP. Generally speaking, PFS characters do not age in the game and never adjust their ability scores per the aging charts in the CRB. The age of your character is merely fluff and you can virtually say it is anything you want within the legal limitations of your race and makes sense. So please don't claim your human is 300 years old (at least not naturally) or your elf is two.
Eliza swiper wrote:
I would think it be real world years for age, as the years in pathfinder directly link up to the real world year. ( i forget the pathfinder year currently, but i recall it goes up when ours goes up)
Correct, the correlation is game year = real year+2700. Or more easily drop the '20' from 2016 and replace it with '47' for the in game calendar. Thus the current year in the PFS campaign is 4716
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.
Gary Bush wrote:
What about newer players who are not likely to go back and get the obsolete books (or likely PDFs)?
They will if they want to use the material for a PFS character. Out of print books are not necessarily lost revenue streams. The pdf option makes most/all books viable years after their print run is gone. If you REALLY want a [print] book there is always the secondary market like eBay.
Since gaming is becoming more and more a digital format genre, it makes sense to maintain a healthy library of PDF offerings. Maybe if/when the sale of many of the older books with similar themes drops enough, they will decide to package the material and re-release it. You certainly don't want to force books into obsolescence by releasing the same material in another book if the original is still a generating reliable revenue.
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.
In the past, volunteers received a shirt for each day there were working, so even someone only volunteering for one slot, got a shirt. Unless of course, they received them previously and didn't need any. I assume that practice will be the case again this year as we want all volunteers to be as visible as possible.
Robert Reine wrote:
If we are a tier 1 volunteer, do we need to register or do anything on the Gencon side?
At this time, all you need is to have a GenCon account. Paizo needs your GenCon email in order to get your badge/hotel assignments. It only becomes an issue later if the events registration opens (May 15th) and you have not received your badge yet. It is required to buy events tickets. If that happens, you'll need to buy a convention badge to unlock event registrations and then when Paizo arranges for your badge, you can get a refund on your purchased one. Hopefully, Paizo will get the badges fulfilled before that so it will not be an issue.
EDIT--a GenCon account is required to volunteer. the email you register with them is required as part of volunteering for Paizo. so, go to GenCon and register before submitting the app for Paizo. Thx
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.
I ask myself that question all the time. IMO, most explanations why a player gives to support the decision are often at beast very thin and occasionally ridiculous or just dumb. Its clear to me that some players are just trying to ignore the 'no evil' rules of the campaign. Most players, however, just believe that their interpretation of how the religion and that deity works is sufficient to justify whatever their choice in character. And that is fine as long as the rules of PFS are what they are.
Most of these types of discussions always seem to stem from some real-world perception of religion and how we, as a society, openly accept most, if not all of the them in all the variations. Ours is largely a world governed by a single god and differences occur in how it is worshiped. This seems to support the idea that god allow the followers to manipulate the tenets to suit their own culture. IMO, that breaks down in a polytheistic world where the differences between cultures and areas of focused worship are what defines the differences between the gods. In fantasy, gods are not [arguably] imaginary beings that only a person of faith can comprehend, but rather real 'creatures' that directly interact with the cosmos and grant supernatural powers to their most devout followers. [Nearly] all the gods in fantasy have some level of 'absolute power, corrupts absolutely' because they are for the most part immortal and indestructible. It is usually only by the hands of a combined force of gods or some universal super-power that a god is killed/destroyed. So, they are real, somewhat arrogant beings with personalities, prejudices, and obsessions. They have control over the portfolios, spheres, domains, whatever you want to call them because of a complete zealous commitment to them. IMO, they would demand absolute devotion and commitment from their followers before they would grant them any powers. I seriously doubt a cleric who chooses to ignore or downplay part of a gods portfolio because they dislike it or are not comfortable with it would engender the type of attention that would grant them supernatural powers.
IMO, the argument depends on your philosophical belief of how religion/deities exist in fantasy. If you believe that the deities exist or or created because a large number of mortals believe in them granting them power, then I think you can believe it is possible to only accept certain aspects of a god's theme. After all, in that situation, mortals are the driving force. In this premise, the gods only exist because mass-worship of them somehow pools that energy into a representative being. It is reasonable to think that minor variations in what mortals believe explains why some deities have unusual combinations of domains.
OTOH, if the being exists regardless of worship, as I believe, then it becomes more problematic. IMO, the deity shapes/molds/controls their existence and spheres of influence based on their personality. The domains they control are determined by who they are as beings. They show their "truth" by granting powers to those who follow them the most closely. Of course, there may also be a feedback loop such that the more worshipers they have, the more powerful they become, similar to the first system, but what the deity represents doesn't change regardless of the size of their congregation.
Think of it simply as, "did the gods create the universe" or "did mortals, through the power of their devotions create the gods." It also depends a lot on if you think the domains a deity oversees can be worshiped individually or they are a package deal that must be embraced holistically.
This is of course just my opinion and one that I have held for most of my entire gaming life. I am neither trying to convince anyone else nor will anyone else convince me otherwise. I am merely stating my thoughts and you can conclude for yourself whatever you are comfortable with. In all cases of religion and philosophy, real or fantasy, people chose to believe what they believe. That position can be influenced marginally from time to time, but rarely is it significantly changed. And when it is, there is often a visibly pronounced epiphany of faith. 'Course my thoughts and opinions are largely influenced by my real-life atheistic beliefs, so YMMV.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
The take 10 rules apply to anything the core rules allow them for, so essentially whenever you are not distracted. Of course, what constitutes a distraction is often very subjective from GM to GM so expect some table variation. The direct answer to your query is yes, if the GM allows it*.
*or unless the text specifically says you cannot take 10
Markov Spiked Chain wrote:
Did the Tier 6 GM boon have the Character Rebuild option last year?
The language for the free rebuild may have changed slightly from year to year. Last year it did not specify a tier requirement. So while the portion that provided access to a normally banned race varied from tier to tier as to what race/s you were granted access, the free rebuild was worded in such a way that all GMs earned it regardless of tier. That may or may not be the case this year. We typically do not get advanced notice of the contents of the GM boon so we'll have to wait until the con to see what it says.
Ferious Thune wrote:
There is a team of VOs (or at least one VO) reviewing the guide. I'd suggest this be added to their list if they have time for it.
That is true, there is a team working on cleaning up some language in the Guide, [hopefully] finding ways to trim it down a bit, and updating rules as directed by Tonya. I am confirming that they are aware of this thread, but I would not expect them to comment nor speculate what the final changes will/might look like.
Ferious Thune wrote:
In the meantime, the table variation that is currently happening does not appear to be an actual problem
That may be true, but there is also an argument to be made that there could be significant problems with many characters out there that the GM is just not aware of because the paperwork is in such poor condition. But, as you say, we've endured it for all this time already, probably not going to get any worse if we wait a few months for any changes, if there are to be any.
Gary Bush wrote:
Since the 7.0 Guide came out after Mike's ruling, wouldn't the guide override Mike?
Technically speaking probably so, but practically speaking, it was an oversight. Adding language about the
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
Can anyone confirm there is or is not going to be any special bus services? If so, what the schedule is? what the routes are? Cost? Contact info? Or maybe its too early in the season to know what Indy will have available for us. Past experience indicates they embrace the GenCon crowds and try to offer extra services.
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.
By filling out only the boxes that require my initials, including the very bottom lines of the sheet, I have done my legal obligation as according to the Guide.
Actually (technically) if you read the Guide under "Filling Out a Chronicle Sheet" on page 36, the steps include you are instructed to have the player complete the top of the form and the starting values for XP, Fame/PP, and gold. Then they pass it back to you to complete what they earned. Then you pass it back to them to complete the totals, including all purchasing to be done. Then you complete the bottom and sign. It is pretty clear and hard to argue what the intent is.Now, being a realist, maybe we can compromise that the purchasing part of the process is the biggest time sink and needs some leeway, but I really don't see any reason why the rest cannot be completed. Unless of course it is a delayed chronicle for a pregen play session. In that case, I think we all would agree that some of the info would have to be left blank, but there should be a clear note added to the body of the chronicle indicating it is a delayed chronicle and when it is to be applied. At least that is what I do when I complete one of those.
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
Although that does seem to be ignoring the main problems that come up with Hero Lab. Namely people feeling empowered that the wrong text is the correct one and that Hero Lab expansions are an acceptable source. Furthermore, when a Hero Lab sheet is of on a number, they are usually off by a lot. Where as physical sheets are far more likely to only be off by a few points.
That is certainly a problem, but I have also experienced just as many people using paper CS and using other online sights as a source or arguing about having to even own everything. Again, this is not a problem exclusive to or inherent of the tool.
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.
Generally speaking, the hotel blocks are referring to the ones right downtown. If you are okay with a brief drive in the morning, you can find accommodations for yourself that are not overly expensive 5-10 minutes outside of downtown. Course, you'll have to find and pay for parking, but there are relatively inexpensive options for that too. The name of the game is convenience. If you want it to be maximized, you'll have to pay for it. If you are okay with a little inefficiency, you can save some money.
Before I was committing my entire GenCon to working, I used to stay at a Holiday Inn Express just southeast of downtown. Double rooms were $79/night and the drive was just under 10 minutes from parking lot to parking garage. Add $20/day for parking and you are at $100/day. Split that between two (or more) people and you can do GenCon relatively inexpensively considering the nature of the event.
You can certainly get involved in the chaos that is the Hotel lottery, and many people do. Just offering an alternative to that. Once the hotels downtown sell out, the ones in the outskirts sell out VERY quickly.
Gary Bush wrote:
It is my understandint that you can purchase vanities regardless if you use prestige to buy an item. If that is true than your example is does not make sense.
Correct. The only restriction on how many times you can buy something with Prestige Points is with buying an item (1PP for $150 or 2PP for 750gp). That can only be done once per scenario. You can buy* as many of anything else you want until you run out of Prestige Points. Reference page 26 of the Guide, bottom of Table 5-4.
spend Prestige Points
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
And the idea that not doing enough paperwork could be disruptive is completely alien to me. It's a game.
Okay, then I'm going to stop track my expendables. Why? because I don't feel like it and what difference does it make? Its only a game. I think I'll play a master summoner. Why? Because I feel like it. Oh, don't worry, I have all my monster prepared and I can run my turn as quickly as anyone else, so I it won't be disruptive. Its only a game, right?
Again, people love to take a comment and use the most extreme application of it to demonstrate its unfair or "BadWrongFun." Take a moment, take a breath, and give people the benefit of the doubt that their intent is not to screw everyone who they come in contact with. It is no surprise that we have a pervasive problem with a lack of properly completed paperwork. When I say pervasive, I'm not kidding. Just go to a few conventions, especially big ones like GenCon that attract players from all over the place and ask everyone at the table to show you their character documents. TRY to conduct an audit. I think some people would be surprised how widespread the issue of improper records really is. Perhaps if record keeping was maintained more diligently we would have a lot fewer occurrences of arguments at the table. It would certainly reduce a lot of errors.
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.
Clearly your anecdotal evidence of not having a problem means that his anecdotal evidence of having a problem is false and merely the result of prejudice.
I disagree. The prejudice is not the anecdotal difference of opinion, it stems from the idea that anyone who uses HeroLab is automatically disruptive. To be fair, prejudice is not really the right word. The situation is more akin to stereotyping or profiling, but I think we all know what the point is.
Can HeroLab does used disruptively? Absolutely so. Is HeroLab inherently disruptive? No any moreso than other gaming aids, and certainly not moreso than a paper character sheet.
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!
Ferious Thune wrote:
the rules have changed
That is certainly true in regards to tracking expenditures and using the ITS [does anyone else always read that at TPS?] report. I don't think they are aguing that particular point, but the rules in the Guide have not removed or changed the requirements for the GM to sign the form AFTER it has been completed. To be honest, their method is probably the best example of following the rules in the Guild we have. Audits are a separate issue and we can argue that at length (again) in another thread, but reviewing the way they are doing it, I cannot really find fault with it. Of course, I am am particularly experienced with the online gaming community so I image there it could pose some challenges there. I think the real reason soo many of us fail to follow the expectation as written is that we choose to think it carries little value, or it takes too much time, or we're just lazy. Whatever the reason, I can see how their process has merit and can be done with minimal additional time. That assumes of course that everyone chooses to do it. No matter what process we want to follow is going to take longer if players/GMs refuse to cooperate.
Ferious Thune wrote:
The process you're using is working for your area. The process everyone else is using seems to be working for their areas.
"So-and-so is not following the rules" is not really a good defense for breaking the rules.
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.