Thanks for the recognition everybody. This has been an incredible journey, I have loved organized play since I happened across Living Greyhawk at a local game store when I was 16. I love GMing for our community. I love being one of the first people who introduce the game to new people. I love GMing at the big cons, the little cons and the retail game days. Ive slowed down a bit with a kid and all the extra responsibilities in my life but... Bring on the 150 Starfinder 2 games!
Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion wrote:
1. I dont have him roll ever. Thats a proactive pc thing vs his bluff dc imo. 2. I played it like the brekthroughs were too small to be traversed without squeezing 3. Short of Joseph coming in here to say otherwise, run it as only having the bite back in the tier it says it does. Maybe thats why its a variant.
Id like to take this opportunity to congratulate the 3 newest campaign coin recipients and explain why the three were awarded since people seem to like knowing what people have done to earn these. #880 - Amie Tracey
#881 - Robert Wiesehugel
#882 Amber Howell - Amber has been a stalwart of our community for as long as Ive been involved in this campaign, which is by this point a damn long time. Amber does all the behind the scenes work for her Cookeville scene, and she and her husband Matt Travel all over the region, an almost completely reliable pair of gms at any con thats drivable for a pretty liberal definition of drivable. She has also been a relentless advocate for the campaign all over Tennessee. Congratulations again to Amie, Robert and Amber and I am proud to have been able to award these coins to you.
I will say that the biggest challenge as an organizer in terms of getting people to GM are these two percieved factors 1) The rules seem really complicated and prospective GMs always seem to feel that "they just do not know the game well enough to run the games". There is an intimidatiom factor 1a) The game is completely asymmetrical. So just playing the game doesnt really prepare you for running the game. 2) It seems like a lot of work and a lot of money. Long-time GMs can take for granted that these scenarios are basically their own genre and things you read as second nature now can sometimes be near impenetrable for a new person. Toss in that each scenario requires 1-3 flip mats, maybe some flip tiles, and a drawn or printed custom map. From the outside, GMing looks pretty expensive both in terms of money and time invested. There are three things I have seen done in my region that have put a dent in these two factors. A) Some kind of reward always helps. The old boon system was great for this but there are other ways we can do this. One local VC gives every GM a free mini the first time they run a game. Another has name tags with spots for 5 glyphs. Run pnce and get the tag, get a glyph, you get a glyph on the tag. B) Offering/promising as VO that youll be there the first few times to help with amy rules and to offer mentorship as theyre working through the scenarop. Plan ahead. Asking someone to run a game 6 weeks from now can give them a chance to take their time. C) Have a library of resources available. One local lodge prints every adventure and every map from every adventure and lovingly cuts out and tapes together the maps. Those folders then can be lent out to whoever is going to gm. They still need to study the scenario but now maps, chronicles handours and printing are done and the investment is significantly lightened. The downside to all this is that it DOES mean an increased investment in terms of time and treasure from the venture officers and not everyong can do all of this (including me, i barely have time to do any of this). If my wildest dreams were to come true Paizo/OPF could offset some of this expense somehow or provide some of these resources.
Driftbourne wrote:
Both are accessible via scenario boon.
CorvusMask wrote:
My money is on Triaxus because eff them dragons.
First reaction:
Second reaction: “The classes you will see will be unlike classes you’ve seen before," said Thurston. “The classes we are doing for Starfinder 2nd Edition are not just sci-fi versions of Pathfinder classes.” I wonder if this means "unlike the PF2 classes that already exist" or "unlike the SF classes that already exist". Ive been assuming the core 6 field test classes were going to be 6 of the 7 CRB classes but maybe the last two that havent been confirmed yet are going to be entirely new?
thistledown wrote:
I can say my scene has been on life support for some time. If I lose even 2 of these people we dont have a scene and the state of the current releases has made it hard to onboard newer people while still serving the surviving few. The pandemic really kinda murdered SFS here hard in ways it didnt PFS2. I felt it really gathering momentum hard coming out of season 2 and the 2 years of online play just took the wind right out of the sails in profoundly disappointing ways. I myself almost resigned because it felt like the campaign was dead. But the announcement does have people asking me about the game again for the first time since the pandemic. I think a lot of people had kind of left it for dead and are delighted to see that not be the case. As for compatibility, I think a lot of people expected SF2 to use big chunks of the P2 "engine" but not, to torture the analogy, the transmission, brakes and power steering. And that is what "compatibility" hits a lot of ears as, including my own at first glance. I have now seen you in many places say its not your intention to make things 100% directly compatible. The former makes it sound like SF2 is like...a campaign setting for P2 a la Spelljammer and the latter makes it sound like SF2 might be to PF2 what SF1 was to PF1.
Kishmo wrote:
There is a very real tension between keeping common SFisms in the game and allowing for clean porting from P2ERemaster I do hope it leans more toward the former.
Karmagator wrote:
Dustin said "a year" roughly on the keynote stream.
WatersLethe wrote:
Yeah but trust me Id rather trade in my ancestral feats for more class feats not the other way around.28
Staffan Johansson wrote:
I mean....Fighter.
WatersLethe wrote:
Its mostly the same to be honest because you got all the stuff you got at level 1 and if you wanted more later racial feats were a thing. The difference is you didnt often have to piecemeal together your basic features like your wings or darkvision etc so you had a pretty potent core of abilities, which you could then improve if you wanted to. It sounds to me from further interviews that they plan to not be slavishly devoted to clean 1 to 1 ports of mechanics from P2e so we may yet see some loosening in areas where P2 is very conservative, including flight climbing and burrowing. So i will be very anxious to see what they cook up for the Kasatha and Kiirinta and the like
OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote:
Its true that theres a lot of ancestries but they are largely fantasy-coded not sci-fi coded and that is an important distinction. But like...we will get there somehow and hell we will probably get there faster not having to waste bookspace on space elves or space dwarves
I mean it does genuinely feel like "its gonna be like P2" is the only real selling point which is meh. And I do play both games alot. *gestures towards his glyphs and novas* Im not really happy or sad about the new edition. I like P2 well enough but its old hat by this point. I know what it is at this point its not exciting or sexy or anything like that in and of itself. There isnt a whole lot of mystery waiting to be unfolded. That's more what I think Kish is getting at - its not got any real selling point for people who actually like Starfinder already beyond "hey your games not getting moth balled". Itll maybe be nice to see some new faces at the starfinder table I guess but thats like two years away still.
It will certainly be harder for scenario writers to just drop a random new playable species in a starfinder society scenario but I do think this is a potential benefit to the game being 100% cross compatible. We already have mechanics for a lot of species so they will be able to focus on just the most alien ones. I imagine there will be full mechanics for all the common pact world and scoured star species from early on. Especially since Ysoki, Android, and Human plus all the "legacy" species already have mechanics.
First of all, I am not speculating; let me quote the FAQ for you: Will new classes just be old classes IN SPAAAAAAAAAAAACE? Classes in Starfinder are going to be their own bespoke classes that operate alongside the existing set of Pathfinder classes. Theyre already explicitly telling us this is how its going to work and if you watched the announcement stream they really couldnt have been any more explicit about their intent. Second while the fighter class is the same one used in Pathfinder its not like he is gonna use a holy avenger longsword. He is gonna use the same Reaction Cannon the soldier is or a doshko or something and still use Sudden Charge or Power Attack as normal. I want to be clear I dont think this even necessarily is a bad thing, they still have a solid chance of nailing the flavor anyway even without their own mechanical engine. But I think being in denial that its what this is gonna be is weird.
WatersLethe wrote: I mean they aren't going to require a SF2 player to pick up a PF2 book in order to fill out their core class or science-fantasy archetypical character lineup. Their goal will be to be able to buy and play SF2 completely independently from PF2, with the interoperability as a surprise bonus for new players who want to branch out later. This is the part that I just dont think is true or else Soldier wouldnt look the way it does.
WatersLethe wrote:
Well my point is I dont think they even percieve much of a system border on the mechanical level.
Lightning Raven wrote:
Funny thing is most of the guns in the field test actually need reloaded MORE often than the guns in Pathfinder do at the moment. Hopefully they iron that out, but I did find it funny. Im also not sure how theyre gonna handle flight while maintaining simple 1 to 1 cross compatibility. It will be interesting to see where the compromise gets made.
Anorak wrote: If this is what it takes for Starfinder brand to survive then so be it but I am not thrilled by having the setting be a subsystem of PF2e because then it may well become Pathfinder in SPAAAACCEEE rather than its own distinct brand. Still, on the optimistic side, making Starfinder 2E compatible with PF2e can open doors for cross-play, broader story arcs, and a unified player base. Time will tell. Pretty much where I am too. I knew the 3.X elements were gone but I was really hoping Starfinder would make some advancements on P2 - at this point 5ish years into Pathfinder 2 I think we can all identify the pain points of its design philosophy and all have our own homebrewed ways of dealing with them. I thought SF2 would be a great time to see professionals try to tackle the beast but I guess its not to be. Anyway to borrow the format for the topic I am the Regional Venture Coordinator for the Appalachian region and was one of the first 5 nova gms. I LOVE just about everything about Starfinder 1. GOOD Its early yet but Im glad they ditched Reynolds for the art and have gone in a new direction. Anything to help Starfinder really pop as its own thing is a massive positive in my book. I think the new rules for emphasizing big explodey guns are really interesting even if theyre in sort of a rough unrefined state in the current field test BAD I REALLY do not think fantasy style pantheon worship is something I want in my Science Fantasy. Its barely an element I like in my Fantasy fantasy but its an old sacred cow thats never gonna die. But for me religion and its place in a world with high technology really shouldnt look and feel the same as it does in old golarion and stuff like Zon-Shelyn just rubs me the wrong way. I dont buy that anyone would care unless all the god drama was playing out as a days of our lives style soap opera on the vidsphere. I know cross compatibility is gonna be a thing, but the Pathfinder classes really all place a premium on close quarters, melee oriented combat. I want lasers to reign supreme in my Starfinder and I hope they find a way to keep the game more ranged combat oriented despite having all the Pathfinder Classes available. HOPE: I hope that they are somehow able to, despite this goal of full and easy cross-compatibility, to keep Starfinder as a distinct game somehow, instead of being reduced to being a setting book for P2 like Spelljammer is for 5e. I hope that the technology can still be the star of the show in this setting despite now having 10 level casters. I hope in general that Starfinder still feels like Starfinder with all the flight and kablooey and computers and all of that and doesnt end up feeling like Pathfinder with spaceships.
I mean it is very clearly the #1 design goal and percieved selling point for Starfinder that it be 100% cross compatible. I would have much rather seen this game try to advance and improve on P2s engine rather than copy it myself. But easy and full compatibility is just so clearly the bedrock of the design philosophy they have done to this point and I do not anticipate any amount of feedback shifting them from that. I do think as a design goal it is extremely disappointing; Starfinder has always had its own vibes and I dont think they match pathfinders 1 to 1. I think Starfinder will have to give up some of it's identity in order to be fully cross compatible with Pathfinder. But its gonna be what its gonna be, we can only hope they really nail the equipment/enhancements and tech aspects to help it still feel distinct from the fantasy game. Back on topic somewhat, I anticipate all 6 classes are going to be the sort of niche experience the soldier is. I dont anticipate the 6 are necessarily even going to be 6 of the 7 from the starfinder core book. After all we dont need a generic fightyman or generic magic-user; Wizard and Fighter are gonna be usable. So maybe technomancer doesnt make the jump. Do we need an operative when we have a rogue? We are gonna find out I guess. What does mechanic do that Inventor doesnt already do? Maybe we see Biohacker and Precog instead.
I would love to see the return of your so-called Vanity Boons. I recognize they are a long shot because they require some developer work, but in PFS1 I loved having the ability to join the Ruby Prince's Undying Guard, or being able to buy a minor noble title in Taldor or to have my own pirate ship or a theater in Absalom. Really helped to pull together some character concepts.
Hello, I would like to be able to play as a Jinx halfling, something currently not possible because it is an uncommon option with no access condition And since were talking shorties, a boon to make it so my pony doesnt become a full blown horse when I take the mount advancement feats would be much appreciated.
Why are you bothering Jon about this sort of thing? I have seen you posting here and several community discords and it sure seems to me like you do absolutely nothing but go around sniffing for fights about organized play. Cannot help but notice you dont have a single organized play character registered. I think a lot of your concerns are purely theoretical and if you actually played the campaign you would feel pretty silly about the amount of concern youre projecting over purely hypothetical situations that would never ever come up as negative realities in a game. I beg of you - either make a character and play some games so you can be disabused of this toxic fantasy of yours about how terrible our campaign is or just STOP please.
Redelia wrote: Any good news here is for me more than overshadowed by disappointment about no PFS1 orcs. I have to chime in my agreement here. I have to register my disagreement with the characterization of pf1 orcs presented here. There are multiple PFS scenarios, including a multi table special, where the society collaborates with good aligned orcs even in the "dark ages" of pf1.
Lucerious wrote: I don’t have a stake in this debate, but a pony does remain a pony it’s whole life. Ponies are not baby horses, but small horses. They don’t grow up to be full-sized horses. You may be intending to say foal. Right and this more than anything is my issue. The visual here is patently absurd to me. And so is the roleplay. My pony shouldnt just BECOME a horse. The hobbits ride ponies not horses. Merry could not possibly ride that horse he and Eowyn share.
I am very confused about the way horses are handled. I liked that they were inclusive enough to add language that allows a horse to be medium so my halfling champion can ride around on a divine pony. But I cannot take any of the feats that would improve that mount without it increasing size to large and ending up unrideable for my halfling. Other than asking my GM nicely, is there any way to prevent this from happening? Is this an oversight we can get an FAQ for?
Leon Aquilla wrote:
Listen, I promote paizo products all over all the time - look at my profile check the profile before you accuse me of wanting to burn down the house. The pdf coming with subscription but not the hardcover in the store has long been a sore point for retailers - anyone who is properly obsessed with Paizo is eventually gonna switch off buying from the retailer to buying direct from Paizo.
|