|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Only thee more days until FlatCon!
Everything is shaping up nicely. Nearly all of our tables have GMs and most have enough players to go off. In addition to our full PFS schedule, we are offering some cool extras...
-Pathfinder Adventure Card Guild in every slot
When we first went to the new model, I continued to print out the faction missions and asked, at the start of every session, if the players wanted to use them. I never once had a player say they wanted to do the missions, but most wanted the sheets for the additional information they could get on the challenges to come. Now some of those missions provided indirect information that the society couldn't possibly know or that it sounded more like a shot in the dark..."if you happened to run across ABC, or PDQ event happened to occur, make sure you do XYZ." Ridiculous. Some just came right out and told you who/what you were going to encounter. Sounds great, except that your only got said "juicy" info if you were lucky enough to have the "right" faction player at the table. Certainly did not support the idea of consistent play from table to table.
Anyway, after a short time, I stopped giving them out, even stopped bothering to print them. If there is actually important information on the mission sheet/s that the players need, but is otherwise not available, I will provide it during the course of the scenario. Otherwise, its at least a waste of paper and ink, or at worst a distraction from the main goals of the scenario which is exactly the reason we moved away from that model in the first place.
Personally, I think factions have evolved to the point of not even being necessary. I haven't had a single player reference their faction's annual goals. In fact, I would wager that I can count on one hand the number of players with whom I've played in the past year who even know or could tell me what their faction's goal is/was. It is unfortunate since the faction aspect is one of the things I liked best about PFS. IMO, they are having little to no impact on PFS and we could save some developer time and effort, not to mention valuable print-space, if we eliminated them and just focused on the Society's primary goals.
...and I am saddened to say it
I fail to see why this is being hashed out in the forums. We see posts all the time where a player bashes a GM or a GM complains about a "broken" character or disruptive GM. I just don't understand why these issues have to be aired-out in the forums.
In nearly every case, the OP is describing the situation from their perspective, often with selective memory, or at least skewed perspective (their own) or is unaware of some aspects of the situation that caused the other party to do what they did.
When you post these types of complaints in the forums, you get the same two types of responses. (1) one that sides with the OP as if everything they say is 100% accurate and complete, and they blast the other party for their failure. (2) a passive response, where the comments are "what-ifs" that try to speculate why what happened is what happened.
Why does it seem soo many players/GMs are unable/unwilling to just talk, face-to-face, to the person in question, express their feelings, and get feedback that will proceed to a resolution, or at least an understanding?
Isn't it interesting how we as players espouse rules/RAW when it comes to things like the GM sticking to tactics, not making things up, or adhering to the take 10 (or whatever) rules, but when it comes to things like wearing a shirt to earn a re-roll (RAW), we conveniently ignore it. Seems like sometimes we only like adjudication when its in our favor. Just an observation.
If an event does not have a GM, it is waiting for one. You (anyone) is welcome to sign up. Any event without a GM by the start of the convention is at risk of being cancelled. But, don't fret. We have some events that don't have any (or enough) players so GMs might be re-tasked. We also have GMs who always wait until the last minute to register so don't lose hope yet.
The point is, play what you want, GM what you want, and just have fun. Leave the logistical headaches for me. :-)
I personally think having the shirt with you suffices. Just like you dont have to actually use the folio. Just have it with you.
Its not my place to tell you or your GM how to adjudicate the "wear" rule, but it does go against the original spirit of the re-roll shirt. PFS is a marketing tool for Paizo and the shirts bring more visibility to their products. The intent was for players to wear the shirts to their local GameDays and to conventions so people unfamiliar with Pathfinder would be influenced to check into it.Of course it also influences those already playing PFS to buy a shirt of their own as well, so the "just have it with you" idea has some merit as well.
The point is to sell not only more t-shirts but more game material as well. The re-roll is the reward, the compensation if you will, you get for being a walking billboard for Paizo.
Personally, I think they should have put the company or Pathfinder logo on the faction shirts were it would be visible, but that's just my opinion
For those who don't want to constantly and continually fight with me regarding the pregens, take a moment to read the advice given throughout this thread and see if you can incorporate it into your games. I think you'll find that the pregens, even Harsk, can be played effectively. They won't compete with your player-built characters for support, AoE, DPR, etc. (hint: they aren't expected to), but they can provide an enjoyable experience.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
especially for the least experienced players that the pregens are most often in the hands of.
I'm sorry, I thought the other, more experienced players at the table and the GM had a responsibility to HELP players learn how to play?
Then the enemy steps away from them and is either free to cast and or denies the party its full attacks
No one said every tactic works every time. Delaying actions to coordinate tactics can be quite effective, especially if the GM is lumping all the enemies into a single initiative. Players like to complain about that mechanic, but there are ways to take advantage of it.
From other players. Hardly guaranteed.
I thought this was a cooperative gamer. If you are playing with people who don't want to cooperate, find new players.
And draw aoo's in the face, and block more important and damaging charge lanes for the rather prolific pfs melee.
Again, not every tactic works every time. Shoot and then move out of their way.
You seems to like to take a bit of advice to help players be more effective and refute it because it is not 100% effective, 100% of the time.
Have you considered the possibility...
As the saying goes, if the shoe fits. I have experienced a lot of pregen complaints over the years, yet have been quite successful "teaching" players how to use the pregens more effectively, thus mitigating their inherent under-optimization. There will be times when a pregen is completely ineffective, but the same can be said about most player-built characters as well. Sometimes, the scenario is not suited for that character type. Regardless of pregen or not, if you know the player will not be effective, its best to at least advise them that another character choice might be better. No one wants to play the enchanter in an all-undead scenario. Or play a big, dumb meat-shield in a combat light, role-playing adventure, etc.
As I have said numerous times, the pregens are just fine when played with a modicum of care. That is really no different than any other character. Its a game of strengths and weaknesses and minimizing the effects of those weaknesses. Most changes that the vocal minority call for with the pregens stems from a personal perspective of how THEY think the game should be played and how THEY think characters should be designed.
In my experience, the only real obstacles to pregens being successful is the obstinance of the player not wanting to adapt their style to what is necessary to make them more effective or their lack of knowledge/inexperience making them more effective. I am merely trying to help improve the latter.
With a little tactical forethought, you can mitigate may of the penalties he incurs.
Firing into melee? Delay and have your companions step back from the enemy after they have attacked.
Friendly cover in the way? Again, coordinated movement. Also, he's a ranger which should mean tracking and usually leading the party's formation. Firing with everyone behind you can mitigate the issue and then the melee'ers can charge in.
Its really no different than the struggles that other characters face. Merisiel depends heavily on flanking. Casters have to avoid companions or suffer collateral AoE damage. Clerics have to selectively channel or be careful where they stand so as to not provoke when trying to apply touch healing. Everyone has their subtle challenges to overcome. Often times, the complaints stem from lazy gaming.
I really don't want to fan the flames of pregen hate again. All, I'm saying is that too often the pregens are too harshly judged because they cannot just smash everything in the face until it coughs up loot.
If the re-roll is what you're after, then as others have said, the folio is the way to go. Its always available regardless of your wardrobe and at cons, you don't have to wear the same shirt everyday which everyone will appreciate.
Otherwise, yes, only the shirts listed in the guide and those that Mike has indicated in a forum post are eligible for re-rolls. As shirts go out of print, it would be nice to see more shirts approved. It doesn't really hurt anything and increases the likelihood of someone buying from Paizo.
While not "official" I have seen organizers allow convention shirts to be used as re-roll shirts during the event. This helps to improve sales of the shirts which is one way the conventions generate income, especially if the convention is a fund-raiser for a local charity.
Crossbows have always been sub-optimal choices vs. the bow. IMO, if they just would have dropped the increased loading time, left the larger damage die, and kept xbows at 20/x3, they would be seen much more.
I like that Harsk is not the proto-typical drunken, axe/hammer slinging dwarf. Yes, he still has an axe and yes he's still quite dour, but you can't take all the dwarf outta him. His artwork and iconography is pretty cool. His pregen version just doesn't make for an optimized character, especially at 1st level.
That being said, I have played him a few times and done just fine. Unfortunately, some people define a character by how much damage they can do in a round and that is too bad.
Intent is hard to prove. If the player has a history of poor play or being disruptive, then you might have to take action which could be as much as banning them from your table if its serious enough.
But, before you get too ban-happy, look at some of the reasons why someone would read a scenario before playing it.
Replay. They've played it before and for whatever reason are playing it again. Clearly they will have meta-knowledge. The trick is being cooperative without revealing information or taking actions your character wouldn't possibly be able to do without said knowledge.
GM. There are lots of occurrences where someone GMs a scenario before playing it. Its not cheating. Its just the nature of our hobby. Again, they need separate player vs. character knowledge
Perhaps they are just excited about new content and wanna read all the juicy background material that the author provided. I was this way for the first few years of PFS. The moment a new scenario dropped, I downloaded it and read it cover to cover. Course, I have been mostly a GM for most of my time with PFS so chances are I would GM it before playing it anyway. These days, I just wait so I can at least have a chance of playing something "legit" before I GM it. If not, oh well.
As others have said, reading beforehand is not the best case scenario, but its something we have to accept. The issue is more what the player does with said knowledge. The "don't be a jerk" rule applies. Just don't assume that just because a player read the scenario before playing it that their intentions are to cheat
I can understand that, but as I said, if the save would have been DC572 instead, would that really have made it any better? I would guess that just about everyone would say setting the DC soo high to only allow 1 in 20 to make it out alive would be just as bad as making it an auto-death. IMO, the key is that warnings (perhaps multiple ones) were given. Its clear that your experience was poor and I don't want to kick a guy when he's down, but honestly, you really can't blame the outcome on the author. He kinda did the right thing and gave you what you needed to make the correct decision. Unfortunately, you chose poorly. It happens. We've all done it. No harm, no foul.
That being said, I don't want to argue with you about your experience. You are entitled to your opinion and we should respect that. I just hope that you don't let three examples of bad (your experience) scenarios diminish what is largely good, sometimes excellent, scenario design. We have had nearly 200 scenario offerings and three poor experiences (~1.5%) is probably not enough to get too upset about.
I cannot really blame you for your issues with Murder on the Throaty Mermaid. It was an enthusiastic attempt at something different than the typical "go here, kill stuff, loot, rise, repeat." It is very challenging to write a murder mystery to begin with, not to mention one that has to be Pathfinder compatible as well as playable in only four hours by the varying skill-sets of PFS players.
However, with respect to Bonekeep, there is no question that the intent was to kill moreso than challenge, even to the point of "cheating" by creating new monsters that could do things not normally seen. You really had to be prepared and think outside the box to be effective and even then, it might not be enough. IMO, anyone who survived should have considered themselves lucky and anyone who died should not have been surprised. All that being said, I can sympathize as I felt some of the monsters felt like they were "cheating" the system to gain an unfair advantage. Personally, I don't mind dying as long as my enemy is playing by the same rules that I am. In a couple of instance in the Bonekeep series, I didn't feel like they were. Nonetheless, I did have a good time.
Legacy of the Stonelords:
I'm afraid I cannot sympathize with this one. We/You were warned that there was an imminent time issue. In fact it sounds like there were multiple warnings. By your own admission, you were aware of it, yet chose to ignore it. Now, while don't dispute your assertion that there should have been a save allowed, would it really have made a difference? If the DC was soo high that only a 'nat 20' would have sufficed, let's be honest, the result would have been the same. The only difference in the complain would have been that the DC was unfair rather than not allowed at all.
We hear waay too often that if players just ran away, they wouldn't have died/tpk'd. Whether that death be as a result of boxed text, an over-whelming enemy, or something as simple as not having AoE vs. a swarm, doesn't really matter in the end. We, as players, need to learn that sometimes, the "right" choice is to run away. That is even more evident when the scenario/GM is both warning us, and perhaps even encouraging us to run away.
I respect your opinions and applaud your efforts to review scenario. I hope that what you and others have said will help to improve future adventures. I just have to disagree with some of the conclusions.
My opinion (not necessarily popular) regarding Beguiling Gift and the giving of a metal shield to a druid is that it doesn't force them to lose their spells/powers. I use the paladin's code as a basis for it such that only if you "willfully" preform an "illegal" action will you be punished. So if a paladin is dominated and forced to kill an innocent, they do not lose their powers. The same can be applied to a druid who is compelled to violate their tenets. Sure the rules do not specifically state as much, but it is a reasonable interpretation of similar/like class rules. IMO, it is ridiculous that a 1st level spell can be used to completely eliminate the effectiveness of an entire character class. YMMV
Of course, the player is free to choose to atone, and in fact my paladin has done so more than once because I felt it was appropriate for him to do so.
In the past FlatCon has only done onsite registration. This is the first year they are managing pre-registration online. It is a great upgrade.
That being said, they will likely still maintain onsite registrations with printed copied of each event sheet, but with the pre-reg people already listed. That is probably why you might see that registration will re-open at 9, the time the first slot is scheduled to start.
Chris Mortika wrote:
That's certainly one of many possible explanations why a druid-like PC would treat their AC that way. All I'm asking is that *you* actually play the character that way. Too often I see tree-hugging nature-freak PCs who still treat their AC with indifference simply because it benefits them mechanically. Sort of a have your cake and eat it too thing. I don't want to see specific rules in game forcing players to treat their AC a certain way. I just think that the character should have a theme and stick to it. But I guess that is just the old 'role' vs. 'roll' argument that is just a waste of time*sigh*
I'm not going to argue good vs. badwrongfun nor the (IMO) obvious themes of druid/ranger/hunter/etc and their animal companions.You [read: everyone] are welcome to your own opinion.
David Bowles wrote:
Just relaying my experiences. I don't use animal companions. It's from other players that I have learned that they are fire-and-forget. I think that even a minor penalty would at least have made people think twice. It's not me that "doesn't get it".
Gotcha, and thanks for clarifyingConsider my commentary directed at the community at large
David Bowles wrote:
Yeah, and if the pet dies, the free replacement pet gets all the goodies from the first one. It's a fire-and-forget meatbag. If Paizo intended something else, they would have attached real penalties to animal companions dying.
...or maybe you could, oh, I don't know, actually take an interest in the theme of the character instead of just treating it like numbers on a page. This is supposed to be a ROLE-playing game. If you think animal companions are intended to be disposable just because the designers didn't attach real penalties to losing one, you just don't "get it."
Sorry for the passive/aggressive, but IMO my response is nothing more than equal to this ridiculous commentary. YMMV
We're one month from FlatCon and nearly all of the GM slots have been filled. Thanks so much for those who have already volunteered. I am still looking for a GM to to run the Pathfinder Adventure Path Card Game table. All the materials will be provided, so all you need to do is demo the game for n00bs or coordinate the game for Organized Play sessions. AND you get to PLAY while you organize. What could be better?
We are also prepared to offer the Silverhex quests. Due to the nature of this series, it is not on the official schedule. Players can just walk up and play, no registration required. However, to pull it off, I need GMs willing to run them.
What we really need at this point is PLAYERS! Where are you? The closer we get to the convention, if players are not pre-registering, some tables may be at risk of being cancelled. If you are planning to attend, please take a moment to register for your events on Warhorn.
Well, there are a number of things not legal in Society play that simply boggle my mind, both as a player and GM...evil...grave robbing...race restrictions...
Most things that are banned are typically because the campaign leadership has decided they fall into one of three categories; (1) not appropriate for the campaign's style/theme, (2) not balanced for community-based play, and/or (3) too much ambiguity in the rules leading to exploitation of "loopholes" and heated disagreements at the gaming table.There will always be people who disagree with the decisions of the campaign leadership (you cannot please all the people all the time), but we place our trust in them to provide us with the framework for a stable, balanced, fun campaign. Sometimes, we have to give up a particular shiny that we personally like to maintain the continuity of the game.
Join us for Pathfinder Society Events at FlatCon, Bloomington's annual gaming convention. Held at the Mclean County Faire Grounds, it is easily accessible from Interstate 55/74, just west of the Walmart.
There will be a multitude of games including board games, TCG/card games, miniature wargames, RPG's, etc. as well as an auction and local product vendors. We are offering up to 68 tables of PFS awesomeness! Proceeds from the convention go to the American Cancer Society's Relay for Life!
In addition to standard PFS games, we will be offering the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game so if you are a veteran player or always wanted to try it out, you are welcome. We will have both of the base sets (Rise of the Runelords and Skull & Shackles) available. If you are a veteran player and would like to help me organize/run the card game event, please let me know.
Also, we plan to offer the Silverhex Chronicles which is a series of five short (1 hour or less) mini-adventures. Pregen characters will be provided and an official PFS chronicle will be earned. No pre-registration is necessary, just walk up and play!
We would like to offer the Kidz Track which is an introduction to Pathfinder designed for children. There are two "levels," Basic and advanced, that utilize the Beginner Box materials. The former uses the original four 1st level mini-adventures designed for the Beginner Box, and the latter use five additional mini-adventures designed for level three. Up to four can play at a time in 1-2 hour sessions. In order to pull this off, I need some GMs who are experienced with instructing children.
Registration for standard sessions is open to everyone. If you are interested in volunteering for any/all of special offerings above, please contact me directly by email, facebook messenger, or Paizo private message.
I think you're going to lose loads of players. If you require every player at your table to own every book they use then you're probably going to lose 50-70% of the people playing society at your store.
Since PFS has been the largest, fastest growing organized play campaign for the past 5+ years, and has ALWAYS had the expectation that players own the books their character draw material from, I seriously doubt your estimate of 50-70% is anywhere near accurate.
People don't have the disposable income. Hell I know of a number of people selling their blood just to eat every week.
I sympathize, and no offense intended, but maybe PFS is not the best choice of game for them, nor would be Warhammer 40K, or Magic the Gathering. Some games just have a higher level of monetary commitment.
Maybe you should run some of the games as non-society *GASP* and let people play whatever they want.
Maybe he's not interested in running non-society games. Maybe those players who cannot afford to buy all the books should stick to using material from the books they already own. There are plenty of players that do this and have no complaints. Or maybe those players should organize their own non-society game. I'm sure there are other players who would be happy to join them. There are plenty of RPG players who don't like some of the restrictions of organized play or wish they could use non-society approved material. This would be an opportunity to meet the needs of all the above. I'm sorry, but the rules for PFS require players to own their materials. If you want to play in the campaign, you have to follow the rules.
Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Tales Subscriber
I find it interesting that soo many are saying things like,
"In earlier editions of DnD grease was flammable but they removed this in pathfinder"
"Grease has, in fact, never been flammable in any edition of D&D"
Until Mythic Adventures there was no rule, anywhere, that I could locate to confirm grease is/not flammable. To say there was a firm answer and therefore, no ambiguity (read: table variation) would be wrong. Of course, with the addition of a mythic version of grease being flammable, it would seen the original intention was that it not be flammable. However, as that is an additional/optional rulebook, mostly not approved for PFS, and certainly not part of the core assumption, it is reasonable to expect many GMs are unaware and therefore will continue to allow the standard version of the spell to be flammable.
Originally, I was just interested in how prevalent it was either way, but in light of the Mythic version, I think the question is mostly moot.
Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Tales Subscriber
Actually, Bob, here's...Mythic Grease
Excellent! That is the closest thing to an official rule I've seen. Never thought to look in Mythic for it.
It is interesting that so far, everyone seems to agree that it shouldn't be flammable. At the game table, sooo many players ask me about it, it would seem to be a relatively common occurrence.
Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Tales Subscriber
After a brief review of the rulebooks and forums, there doesn't seem to be an "official" answer, so I'm just wondering, how many GMs in PFS allow the grease spell effects to be flammable? The deciding factor seems to be do you consider grease to be more akin to actual grease or more like oil? If the former, most greases are generally not flammable, while most oils are. IMO, grease is already a supremely effective spell without adding the potential for additional fire damage, but YMMV.
I don't disagree with you necessarily, but for me, I would take the occasional "bad" table, if it meant I would have an increase in "good" tables. Again, this is just my experience, but the vast majority of GMs seem capable enough to run a good game. Sure its not everyone, nor every time (even the best can have an off-game), but I think we miss some opportunities to provide/experience excellent games for the sake of minimizing "bad" ones. Maybe its just the grognard in me, but one of the reasons we are better GMs today, is because we made, and learned from our mistakes. Restricting the GM from making those mistakes limits their growth. GMing becomes less of an art and more of a robotic process. As I said, I understand why the rule is in place, and I support it, I just don't like it. I am also not sure reducing/eliminating the RAW limitations would be a good thing for the overall community. All I know is it limits MY ability to really go all out and that is disappointing.
I think most of us would agree that one of the most disappointing (not sure obnoxious is the right word) aspects of PFS is the diminished ability of the GM to improvise during the game. Sure we have listed numerous opportunities and methods to tweak the encounters and still remain RAW at least in the spirit of the expectation, but most of us are experienced operators. One of the core aspects of role-playing games is the freedom of creation and adjusting to the fluidity of the game. Due to the nature of organized play, I understand why we have the RAW restrictions and I support them, but it doesn't mean I have to like them.
So, Bob, I'm very regretful that we as a whole have made you and others feel persecuted in this manner. Perhaps some small grain of solace can be taken from the knowledge that most of the extra criticism stems from a sense of respect and perhaps even awe. And if not, then thank you for accepting yet one more burden we as an organization have placed upon those who help so much to keep us running and having fun. I'm sure none of the VOs or dedicated GMs hear it enough, but Thank You.
Thank you for your kind words. None of the VO I know do what they do for public attention, but it is still nice to hear from time to time, your efforts are appreciated.Also, perhaps you are correct and I/we are being too sensitive. It is a double-edged sword, being a recognized "leader" within the community. Taking the good with the bad is kinda required. At least if you want to keep your sanity :-)
Huh, interesting. Maybe it's a regional thing...
Could very well be, I'm just speaking from my own experience. The vast majority of my play these days is at conventions, both regional and national. I think it is less of an issue in local groups and at smaller conventions where the attendees all likely know each other and developed their play-style as a group. Throw a group together from distant locations and either the tolerance level goes up, or more arguments ensue.
Wow, you've actually encountered "would never make a mistake, because stats"?
Yes, not all the time obviously, but often enough that it has stuck with me. One of the common ways I see this is with players who have absolutely no interest at all in the role-playing aspect of the game. Not that there is anything wrong with playing PF strictly as a tactical game, but some seem to take pride in throwing it in other people's faces (or something). When asked, in game, what they want to say, they don't even try and just say, "I don't need to, my character has a +X Diplomacy, so he'll know what to say. [roll dice]. I got a 30. I'm sure that's plenty. Now what." It's kinda disappointing.
There are really not a lot of expectations outside of what you are already doing to "qualify" for Venture-Lieutenant. Their responsibilities are largely defined by the Venture-Captain they report to. In fact, most Venture-Officers got their start as store organizers, and for many VL, that is their primary function.
My advice is to discuss the issue with the nearest Venture-Captain. You might find, you are already doing everything they require of their VLs. Besides, there are a few, albeit minor, perks for being a VL that could help with organizing your local area.
If you think the negative reaction is to the idea of 'don't play other people's characters for them' you are missing the point.
And if you think my comments in some way indicate you cannot talk at the table, then you are also missing the point. This is yet another example of people taking what is said and immediately jumping to the worse conclusions and assuming the absolute extremes. My point is that I constantly see players (usually rules lawyers) criticize other player's character build decisions what they "should" have done with their feats, equipment purchases, etc. And too many munchkins over-bearingly telling others what to do with their characters so they can min/max every single possible variable in the game. I'm generally not against power-gaming (or whatever you want to call it), but that's YOUR style of play. Not everyone derives pleasure from squeezing every last advantage, some just like to play for the fun of playing. There is cooperation and then there is dominating other players.
The point is, if a player is struggling with the game, then sure, give them advice. But if they are not interested in your comments, then leave them alone. Or if the player is obviously experienced with the game, they don't really need someone instructing their every action. Sometimes, people make less than optimized choices. That's not a bad thing. The idea that characters would never make a mistake (my character would know better) because their stat blocks are better than the player's real life one is ludicrous, but that is often the attitude I see. Just an observation.
This is also another great example of why sooo many people just don't want to participate in our forums, especially the Venture-Officers. I know its not all the time (fallacy), but it just seems like most of our opinion-posts are greeted with vitriol. And gawd forbid we list an example (good or bad) to try and illustrate our comment and it is picked apart. Its also a contributing reason why rarely will Mike/John give us details as to why a decision was made. Because no matter what you say, or how logically the decision was arrived at, the loudest voices will always nit-pick and slam them for it.
*sits back and awaits the next round of flaming
The most obnoxious thing, though not PFS specific, is when players tell others how to play their character, and/or tell them, mid-turn, not to take certain actions because it will interfere with what they have planned for their next (and subsequent) turns.
LET PEOPLE PLAY THEIR OWN CHARACTER FOR PETE'S SAKE!
Kyle Baird wrote:
Correction, Take 10 shirts
Yeah, cause intentionally wearing a shirt that essentially says, "You're an idiot, I know the rules better than you" is not obnoxious at all *sigh*
Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Tales Subscriber
This scenario continues to be a convention exclusive requiring 50+ tables for the event to qualify and probably will stay that way for the time being.
If Bonekeep I is the template, then BKII will become the annual exclusive scenario in February of 2015, after which it can be run at any event (no table minimum), but would require a 4/5-star GM or VO to run it.
This is, of course, speculation, YMMV
Is the change considered a "condition" that has to be cured or make your character unplayable? If you are hit by a polymorph and become a squirrel, you have to fix that. I'm not making a statement regarding the morality or sociological/psychological impact of a sex change, just evaluating it strictly from a mechanical/rules standpoint.
One thing that concerns me is the number of people saying their were no instructions for the GMs or for players.
Jon Cary, Todd Morgan, and I worked on documents with general instructions for both the GMs and the HQ volunteers that were sent out by email prior to the convention. It was clear to me a number of GMs did not read, or at best skimmed, the document. Did we miss something in the details? Did anyone get anything out of the material? Should we bother to do that next year?
Also, there was a board in front of every pair of doors with instructions on how to muster. Even still, there seems to be a lot of people who claim to have had no idea what to do. My guess is they either couldn't see the boards due to the crowds or just didn't pay attention to them. So, what do we need to do to improve that? Remember that bigger boards, banners in the hallway, or mounting them higher or up on the wall is not an option due to ICC restrictions.
I did not hear anything about line-cutting being available for volunteers/GMs. That might have been a one-off from one, or a small group of Paizo employees watching the line. I know I went down on Thursday and Friday and tried to get in on a limited break but was told I had to get into the line. I was concerned about the length, but it took less than 15 minutes to get into the booth and others I spoke to had a similar experience.