Ogre

trollbill's page

FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne 2,590 posts. 28 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 34 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,590 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

It also possible they are looking to the future where Feats or Abilities might allow additional advantage against a Flat-footed Target.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

CultClown wrote:
Bill Baldwin wrote:

I am glad you didn't see that as a justification, as I had clearly stated I wasn't trying to justify anything. But, then again, you decided to edit that part out of your response.

What I was trying to do was explain why things in a volunteer situation don't necessarily work like they do in a normal employment position. So comparisons between the two are not 100% accurate. And just because I sympathize with a desire does not mean I agree with a decision.

Bill,

I apologize if my use of the word justification was unclear. I was questioning your premises, because I don't think they support your conclusion. What you are in essence saying, is that a volunteer workplace should be able to treat their workers worse than a paid place of employment. You may not view it that way, but when I read your post, that's what I see.
My post is not in relation to your previous comments about this exact situation, and I agree, there are a number of unknown factors. I'm not accusing you of not taking sides here, I'm simply stating that your conclusion is faulty.

Ah, okay. No, I am not trying to say it is okay to treat them worse. What I am trying to say is there is a greater need to hold on to both people even when they have a problem working together and not take the easy way out by simply getting rid of one of them. Now, from appearances, this desire may have been handled poorly, but again, we are only hearing one side.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

CultClown wrote:
Bill Baldwin wrote:
[...]Volunteers, especially those with actual authority, are hard to come by and because of that, I can sympathize with the RVC's desire to keep you both on board and hope you can work together.

Honestly, I don't see how your point justifies your reasoning. If a volunteer feels threatened, disparaged, or otherwise harassed, telling them to continue working with the person who has caused this hardship is frankly unethical. Sure: Paizo has a lack of volunteers, but people are much less likely to volunteer if this is how they are treated. Furthermore, that does not justify being complicit in damaging a person's social standing and emotional well being.

I am glad you didn't see that as a justification, as I had clearly stated I wasn't trying to justify anything. But, then again, you decided to edit that part out of your response.

What I was trying to do was explain why things in a volunteer situation don't necessarily work like they do in a normal employment position. So comparisons between the two are not 100% accurate. And just because I sympathize with a desire does not mean I agree with a decision.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Delbert Collins II wrote:

Meanwhile, just south of Melbourne in Plantation they have gone from 1 table to 3 tables per session rapidly and are struggling with keeping up with the GM demand with 8 new players just last month. Its weird how one area can drop off and another booms but it just goes that way.

Del, I have been debating whether to respond to this publicly because I really don't want to add to the drama that has been on these boards lately, but then it occurred to me that maybe that is exactly why I should, as this goes very much to the heart of volunteer morale, and morale is a public issue, not a private one. Also, while I have likely met you in my long history of organized play, I apologize if I do not specifically recall ever working with you.

But to the heart of this post. I made a post indicating my area was struggling. I would have expected a reply from my RVC to be helpful, either directly offering some assistance, offering suggestions/advice, or, at the very least, offering words of encouragement. Instead, what I got was a casual dismissal of my problems with a response that came across as, “Well, that sucks for you, but since other areas are doing well, I don’t really care.” To say the least, I was very disappointed at your response. And if this is a typical response to issues in your area, I am beginning to understand why there appears to be a morale problem amongst the volunteers. I am hoping your response to this will dispel both my own apprehension and those of others reading it. Thank you ahead of time for your response.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

I am not going to attempt any form of justification for any actions involved, partly because I don't want to promote this type of activity, but mostly because I am not going to weigh in on a one sided argument, which is exactly what this post is. What I will say is that the fact that this is a volunteer job and not a paid one is very much part of the problem. Unlike a paid job, there are not a hoard of job seekers who will happily replace anyone Paizo dismisses from the position. Volunteers, especially those with actual authority, are hard to come by and because of that, I can sympathize with the RVC's desire to keep you both on board and hope you can work together.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bear in mind the following:

1) Unlimited replay appeals more to the casual and new player than the invested player. Invested players try to get as much out of each gaming experience as they can, and many feel that unlimited replay cheapens this. This is actually somewhat paradoxical since invested players are the ones who play the most and would logically get the most benefit out of unlimited re-play.

2) D&D 5E is a simpler system than Pathfinder. Simpler systems also appeal more to the casual and new player than the invested player.

In other words, just because Unlimited Replay may work for AL does not mean it will work for PFS because they don't have the exact same fan base.

Grand Lodge

Yes. This was a major pain for the PCs when running part 2 of Dead Suns. Poison in Starfinder seems exceptionally harsh against PC, especially considering the rest of the system isn't. One of the bigger problems is the high Attack bonuses most monsters have. In most SF battles, the high PC HP/SP and the high monster attack bonuses tend to wash. But not when it comes to poison. Especially considering the party doesn't have easy access to Remove Affliction until level 7. Poison doesn't just lay low PCs for a few encounters. It can lay them low for days. Quite frankly I am hoping they errata the Curing an Affliction section of the rules for poisons and drugs.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shaudius wrote:
Tallow wrote:
You do realize that just because you claim there is little to no support for those suppositions doesn't actually make it true, right? Just because you can say it, doesn't make it true.

Yes, I realize this, but considering it took at least a dozen posts to get people to even state what campaign they were talking about replay ruining and provided scant evidence of replay being the reason that a majority or even a strong minority stopped playing the campaign I'm fairly confident that my claim of little to support the supposition is accurate. Never mind the fact that the word "campaigns" is used and not the phrase "a previous campaign" and upon further examination people have only been able to cite one campaign.

Basically, this was used as a boogeyman for years and never challenged, is what it looks like to me.

To add to my previous statements. I did not see a huge number of people quitting LFR solely because of their unlimited replay rule, but I did see plenty that listed that as one of the factors. Now what I also saw was a lot of dedicated LG players that simply refused to play LFR because of the unlimited replay rules. Now I can't say how much of that was bluster, or how many may have eventually relented and played anyway, but I can think of at least a dozen people I new in LG who either stuck to their guns and never played it because of that stated reason, or who tried it and didn't like it enough to compensate for the fact that it offered unlimited replays (which they didn't like). Most of these people were generally of the opinion that replays ruin the experience for everyone at the table. I partially agree though I would use the word 'lessen' rather than 'ruin.' Regardless, most of these people pretty much went to PFS as soon as it came out.

Grand Lodge

I am running the Dead Suns AP with a large table (6-7 players). In order to compensate for the AP being designed for 4 people, I have upped the DCs on most skill checks and increased the number of monsters where appropriate. The biggest problem is that increasing the number of monsters isn't always appropriate. I have looked at the Templates in Alien Archives to make solo monsters tougher, but all of the templates seems to change the basic nature of the monster. There just does not seem to be an Advanced Template like in Pathfinder. So unless I missed this, what do you recommend for making solo monsters tougher?

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, certainly a .pdf copy of the maps would be nice.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Participation is definitely down in Florida and specifically my region of the Space Coast. I have been coordinating/co-coordinating Organized Play in my area since as early as 2004, starting with Living Greyhawk. At our peak around 2008, we were running 2 slots every Saturday with an average number of tables exceeding 3 each slot and we ran mini-cons at local game stores that ran 5+ tables per slot for 5 slots over a weekend. In 2008 we switched over to Living Forgotten Realms as our primary offering. While we lost some people because of the system switch, we also got a lot of enthusiastic newcomers, so this initially evened out. However, as time wore on, we started seeing problems. The people we lost due to 4E were primarily invested players which made up the bulk of the organizers and GMs. LG’s limited replay options had encouraged even casual players to occasionally GM, but LFR’s unlimited replay had the opposite effect and the same people ended up GMing all of the time. These two factors, combined with how long we had been doing this, lead to a lot of GM/organizer burn out. Participation had dwindled to less than half it had been by 2011 and I was left as the sole local organizer. This, combined with my, by then, frustration with Wizards of the Coast (I was the Regional Writing Director for the Southeast), led me to start offering PFS in 2012. Initially we saw a resurgence with PFS and a new co-coordinator joined with me at this time. Although we never reached our 2008 heyday numbers, we were still averaging over 2 tables per slot. My co-coordinator had to bow out due to family/job issues in 2015 pretty much leaving me to do everything by myself. While I continued to slog on, I am sure fatigue was starting to wear on my enthusiasm, which may have exacerbated things. By 2017, we were mostly down to single tables slots and half of those didn’t make. The introduction of Starfinder did help some, but not much, and we mostly are only offering Starfinder adventures currently. Had it not been for the timely return of one of our regular GMs who had moved out of the state, I probably would have stopped coordinating locally entirely due to fatigue. Even then, our current PFS/SFS gamedays are running on life support.

I have had several talks with our FLGS owners and they have confirmed this is not simply a PFS problem. Attendance in all forms of Organized Play, including tabletop miniatures & CTGs is down, though tournament participation is still high. So I can’t even blame 5E as it too is struggling as far as organized play is concerned. But book sales are brisk, so there are definitely lots of home games in the area. Just no one seems interested in public organized play events.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Hurricon is in Tampa this year? That doesn't seem right. They have always held it in Orlando previously.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Philippe Lam wrote:
The Human Diversion wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
What will you do if Paizo has taken that consideration and decides to let the removal stand?
I've already taken the action of no longer playing PFS. I've also stopped purchasing Paizo products, and I am strongly encouraging everyone I meet and game with to do the same.
It might be great on a personal standpoint, but unless at least 50 percent + 1 customers of Paizo do the same thing, it's unlikely to have a lasting impact. Not a judgment, merely a possible consequence.

While I get your point, we aren't talking about the BOD here, which would require over 50%. We are talking sales figures and I pretty sure Paizo will notice a sudden, significant regional sales drop long before it reaches 50%. But, yes, it is going to take more than a few stalwart boycotters.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheFlyingPhoton wrote:
That is something else I've noticed - whenever there's a pot-stirring drama thread, they always get posted at the beginning of a holiday weekend or a major convention when the people whose job it actually is to deal with these things will be publicly known to not be in the office. It's really starting to look like the timing is intentional on these things, and it's starting to color the intent of the threads themselves as well - it looks like these types of threads are specifically intended just to cause drama among the community, not to resolve an issue with the help of leadership.

I would suggest that it is logical that issues that revolve around Conventions would most likely rear their heads during the middle of Convention Season (which is mostly late Spring to early Fall). Which, of course, is the time of year that's PFS's Leadership is busiest and most likely traveling or out of office.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charlotte Halcyon wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
jon dehning wrote:
LoPan666 wrote:
That sounds like a very reasonable policy and I heartily endorse it. Locally, we were first told that they would not be approved for conventions held in a retail location, then that they would not be approved unless it was a new event because the RVC wanted to get his VCs to expand out of their comfort zone, then that they would only be approved for events with 100-150 attendees for a new event and 250+ attendees for an established one.

O-O

Sweet Asmodeus! If that were the case here, we’d never be able to run ANY special, EVER.

Wow.

I am moderately certain, that the same would apply to any event in Europe and eastern Europe, potentially excluding 2 large events in the UK.

Assuming we are talking about PFS attendance and not total convention attendance, but to be honest it would be weird to allow something for mixed gaming convention with a 15 slot PFS convention held at the same time and prevent a PFS centric event with 50 tables from offering something.

I honestly have no idea, how many events worldwide would qualify, but I suspect they are in the tens rather than hundreds.

I'd wager there is only a handful of events in the entire world not named Paizo Con or Gen Con that could meet either of those criteria.
Of the conventions in the Southeast region, I believe the only ones that would qualify based on these parameters would be SCARAB, MegaCon, and possibly Dragon*Con.

If we are talking total Pathfinder Attendees, I am pretty sure we didn't have 250+ for this last Megacon, maybe not even 100+. As has been pointed out, participation in the Southeast has been diminishing for several years. If you are talking total attendees (both gamer and non-gamer) then there are easily a dozen Wargamer, Anime & SciFi Cons in Florida alone that qualify. The only problem with the latter is that a dedicated PFS convention would get less attention/support than a random convention that offered PFS. Of course, it also matters if we are talking unique attendees vs. turnstile attendees.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

The Masked Ferret wrote:
Bill Baldwin wrote:
You know you are in trouble when you, as the GM, just put a nasty dragon on the table that you are looking forward to challenging the party with and one of the players announces he has used shadow projection + beastshape II to turn himself into a shadow octopus that gets 8 touch attacks for 1d6 strength damage each.
Was it a Quickened Shadow projection? Did the character have minutes to plan for the dragon's arrival?

Not sure of all the details as this happened to a friend of mine, not me directly. I do know they had some buff time, but I do not know how much. Regardless, this resulted in 2 Con organizers getting involved to see if it was actually legal.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

You know you are in trouble when you, as the GM, just put a nasty dragon on the table that you are looking forward to challenging the party with and one of the players announces he has used shadow projection + beastshape II to turn himself into a shadow octopus that gets 8 touch attacks for 1d6 strength damage each.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Fromper wrote:


... the party healer is playing up, and nobody else in the party can even activate a CLW wand without a UMD check.

My Cleric of Sarenrae spent the entirety of her first two levels like this. The entirety of her low level purchases were for stuff just to help her survive.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ward Davis wrote:
  • You've signed up for tier 10-11 in a special. Why do I keep signing up for that tier? I swear 5-6 or 7-8 is the sweet spot.
    [/list]
  • This is sooo true. The 5-6's will have finished the encounter before the 10-11s are even half-way through. Just played a special at 10-11 and never finished a single encounter. Unfortunately, I have seven 10-11 characters and get to play them so seldom, I just don't really have a choice.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    World of Dim Light wrote:
    No. It just means people need to pay attention. Your redesign project is full of flaws, and mistaken assumptions, and will do nothing to get the people who can't be bothered to read instructions to follow your instructions.

    Dude! I read how to do it 3 times and I still got it wrong. I am not stupid and I have been dealing with Organized Play paperwork since the early 2000s. In addition, I am far from the only one to have issues getting this right. Simply telling people to pay more attention is trite and unhelpful.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    To be fair, as an ex-WizO for Wizards of the Coast, it is standard operating procedure for most companies to attempt to have issues like this resolved behind the scenes. While I understand you are doing this because you feel it is not being handled, that has nothing to do with the policies the moderators are obliged to follow, i.e. the moderators aren't trying to shut you up, they are just trying to follow SOP for this kind of situation.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Philippe Lam wrote:
    There's also the problem of having unreasonable expectations. *coughs*

    Based on his statements, it appears the OP may not be well suited for Organized Play. But that doesn't mean we should discourage him from at least trying it to see if he likes it. We all know Organized Play has downsides. We overlook those because we feel the upsides outweigh them. Right now, the OP is focusing on one of the downsides. But if he actually tries PFS out, he may discover the same thing we did.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    PonyFlare wrote:
    ... and this discussion is reducing my interest in PFS.

    In my personal opinion, you are making a bit too much of the whole Faction issue. But clearly, you feel it is important and I am not going to tell you that you are wrong. So since you have invested already in PFS, I would recommend simply playing a few games just to see if PFS is for you. If you find it as enjoyable as most of us, we can help you more with what you are looking for in factions.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    I’m holding out for miniature giant space Hamsters.

    “Go for the eyes, Boo! Go for the eyes.”

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    Quentin Coldwater wrote:
    "Go down swinging" indeed. Of the five times (I think, might be four) I've played The Confirmation, at least three times she ate a crit from that thing and went down hard. She's a crit-magnet.

    Sounds like a perfect match for Ledford from First Steps. I crit with that Halfling Barbarian way too many times.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Given they are now the universe's arms dealers, they make a good fit for the Acquisitives.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    Thurston Hillman wrote:
    Bill Baldwin wrote:

    Wait! The lead singer is on the cover of the mod. Does that mean we have to fight her?

    Also, why no pictures of the rest of the band?

    Also, when did Su-metal start her own band?

    Let it be said that I tried my darnedest to get a "band shot" as the cover for this scenario, but it wasn't in the cards. Something about art budgets and not breaking our entire art budget on one scenario... ;)

    I am willing to contribute to a source funded pool to get official artwork for the entire band.

    HELL! Why the heck isn't Paizo selling official Star Sugar Heartlove tour t-shirts with a picture of the entire band on it!

    The existance of a fan-made one without official artwork should have given you a hint. ;-)

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    SFS continues to write scenarios that seem to be written with my character in mind. I am not sure how that is happening, but the level of personal investment I am getting out of SFS so far has exceeded that of any of my PFS characters. Whatever you are doing, please keep doing it.

    Also, does anyone else feel the same way?

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Also, UK Games Expo should coordinate these so it's a Strawberry Machine Cake - Save the Renkrodas Benefit Concert.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    Wait! The lead singer is on the cover of the mod. Does that mean we have to fight her?

    Also, why no pictures of the rest of the band?

    Also, when did Su-metal start her own band?

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    I seem to recall my Halfling Swashbuckler hitting on her.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    Shaudius wrote:

    Yes I meant mk1 for the +2 for some reason in my brain they are mk2,4, and 6.

    Bill Baldwin wrote:
    It is also not very cost effective to do this at 4th level. At 5th, when you get 4 free stat bumps, you can add a +2 to a 16 to make it an 18 and then get the MK1 personal upgrade to make it a 20. If you get it at 4th, then you have an 18 in your stat and you can only bump it up to 19.

    Personal upgrades are excluded from the calculation as to whether a stat bump is 1 or 2 points. Pg. 21:

    "Each time you reach one of these level thresholds, choose four of your ability scores to increase. If that ability score is 17 or higher (excluding any ability increases from personal upgrades—see page 212)..."

    Thanks! Still learning the rules.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    GM Eazy-Earl wrote:
    Shaudius wrote:
    And also there's the fact that at level 4 you should easily have a Mk2 personal upgrade so your primary stat should pretty much always be 18 at that level.
    Pardon the quick derail, but I thought equipment purchases were limited by character level. A Mk 2 Personal Upgrade is Level 7 and wouldn't be available for purchase until Level 6, unless one was listed on the character's Chronicle sheets (making it available at Level 5). Am I misunderstanding how equipment purchases work in SFS? Did I overlook or misread a rule somewhere?

    It is also not very cost effective to do this at 4th level. At 5th, when you get 4 free stat bumps, you can add a +2 to a 16 to make it an 18 and then get the MK1 personal upgrade to make it a 20. If you get it at 4th, then you have an 18 in your stat and you can only bump it up to 19.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    RealAlchemy wrote:
    High enough level operatives can take 10 just about all the time on skills they have skill focus in.

    At 7th level, Skill Focus becomes irrelevant to Operatives as both Skill Focus and Operative's Edge provide Insight bonuses, so they would not stack.

    Edit: Never mind. You are referring to the Operative's ability to Take 10 under any circumstances for skills they have Skill Focus in at 7th level.

    Of course, that is somewhat irrelevant to this discussion as this specific exception to the rule would override any GM decision to say, "you can't Take 10 under these circumstances because..."

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    The Masked Ferret wrote:
    And I love the flexibility that SFS has.

    I don't get the idea that PFS doesn't have it as well.

    I know there's a lot more encouragement for plus and minus twos here and there and whatnot but thats always been allowed in the pathfinder core rules.

    I think, over time, campaigns simply become more regimented.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    The Masked Ferret wrote:
    Everyone is digesting the last arguments and getting ready to regurgitate new ones...

    Nom Nom Nom

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    This is one time where table variation in Organized Play might not really matter that much other than annoying rules purists. I can think of no character build that is invalidated or diminished by the lack of Take 10 in the SFS. Even in PFS, the only thing I can think of that would be diminished was a single trait that essentially let you Take 12 instead of Take 10. This is especially true if everyone knows there is going to be table variation on this.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    How is it going for you Thomas? Have you considered becoming the Venture Agent for the Infinite Mushroom?

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    Thanks. I have had GMs allow this before but I was never sure if it was officially okay.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    Bill Baldwin wrote:
    I seriously doubt there will be any official support for PFS1 from Paizo after GenCon 2019. From a business standpoint, they need to fully support their new product and not funnel anymore resources into the old one.

    The backbone of the paizo fanbase (people who organize and run games) are people who jumped ship from a role playing game who's name is synonymous with role playing because they didn't like the new game. Jumping from paizo if someone decides to paizo paizo and emerge as the new champions of the 3.x system is a definite possibility.

    If supporting PFS1 risks doing that, then so does ticking off the PFS players by slamming the doors shut on the campaign as a marketing decision to deliberately kill the campaign (which in this case means not altering the replay rules when PF2 comes out- because that will kill the campaign)

    If Paizo does that I'm going to be ticked and not even give PF2 a chance and I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment.

    I am assuming that any decision to alter the replay rules would occur prior to the end of GenCon 2019. I do not expect them to invest any addition resources beyond that date.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    nosig wrote:
    Tallow wrote:
    without an "all-in" commitment, Then PF2 and PFS2 will certainly fail.

    again, (IMHO) this is not true.

    4th Ed. (and LFR) had an "all-in" commitment - and it failed.

    Not really a valid counter. A valid counter would have been, "4th Ed. (and LFR) didn't have an "all-in" commitment - and it succeeded.

    Of course, that would only really be valid if the above statement were true, but it isn't.

    The fact that 4E had an all-in-commitment and failed does not negate the possibility that an all-in-commitment is needed for success.

    Quote:

    Old D&D played for years after the creation of AD&D. This is not an "only game in town" hobby.

    The AD&D was released in stages, with the Monster Manual being released in 1977, the Player's Handbook in 1978, & the Dungeon Master's Guide in 1979. You literally HAD to play both versions at the same time.

    Grand Lodge

    Don't know whether to be happy these are finally coming out, or ticked-off that they are coming taking so long to come out?

    Also, Ninja Division had about a dozen Starfinder minis available at GenCon 2017 that I failed to pick up and I have never seen since. Clearly Ninja Division had the ability to produce these for GenCon. Was there never a second product run made on these?

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    I seriously doubt there will be any official support for PFS1 from Paizo after GenCon 2019. From a business standpoint, they need to fully support their new product and not funnel anymore resources into the old one. It also doesn't behoove them to essentially be competing with themselves for two campaigns. They will want every PFS1 customer they can get to move on to PFS2, which means they will be at least quietly trying to discourage even grassroot attempts at continuing PFS1.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    Shaudius wrote:
    Thank you, Bill, that is very thoughtful and helpful. I am curious if this same phenomenon is being experienced in AL. Since AL has a similar replay system to LFR has it persuvied in the face of unlimited replay or has the constant influx of CCC meant that there is less need to worry about people replaying since there is enough content for them to not need to.

    Locally, I can tell you that AL is not getting the same level of dedicated support that PFS gets. However, there are a lot of people who want to play AL (I attribute a lot of this influx in players to things like the very popular Critical Roll). AL manages to get GMs mostly only because people want to play 5E so badly some begrudgingly step up who never did before so that everyone gets to play.

    Quote:
    Would PFS experience the same issues since there is con boon support and RSP for GMing incentivizing GMing even in the face of more expanded replay.

    Putting limits on things allows PFS to offer rewards at little to no expense to them. This can mean limiting races, rules access, and can include replay. Also, I find the invested players are more likely to avoid the metagaming pitfalls of replay than the casual players. Thus, limiting replay not only allows Paizo to reward people with more replays but limits the negative aspects of the metagaming replaying can cause.

    Quote:
    It's been my recent experience that it's been a lot harder to get players at conventions than GMs because of the boon rewards.

    If we are talking PFS - if you offer players a limited boon and GMs a much better one, this shouldn't be a problem.

    If we are talking AL - AL is much more appealing to the casual player than PFS. And casual players are much less likely to go to Cons, so I am not surprised.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    Just wanted to add that the diminishing support from WotC for the invested players coincided with the last economic recession. Take that for whatever it is worth.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Shaudius wrote:
    Steven Schopmeyer wrote:


    And if that isn't the argument of the campaign staff, what exactly are you accomplishing?

    Every replay thread I've seen has posited the "replay kills organized play campaigns" as objective fact, rarely, if ever, with supportive evidence, often as the sole reason why PFS has the replay scheme that it does.

    Therefore, what I believe I'm accomplishing is challenging this assertion such that hopefully it's not an argument that keeps getting made and instead more rational arguments are instead made with support and logic instead of the echo chamber of the same people who are now arguing with me that has existed in these threads for years.

    Basically people have been using this red herring for years to stiffle debate on the subject and I hope by exposing the argument for what it is, a fictitious one, we can actually have a real conversation about the merits of replay and the harm or help it causes.

    I realize this will require me to be vigilant as the same people posting now are the same people that have been making this claim with little support for years.

    I was both a Triad for Living Greyhawk and an Adventure Coordinator for Living Forgotten Realms. So I have some inside information about both.

    Living Greyhawk was heavily focused on the invested player and did not really cater to the casual player. It also supported conventions over local gamedays. It allowed absolutely NO replays. You couldn’t even play it if you GM it first. This discourage metagaming but required a lot of dedication. From what I saw, it’s primary benefit to the campaign was that it encouraged GMing, as if you went to a Con and they weren’t offering anything you hadn’t played in a slot, you would be inclined to offer to GM for it.

    Living Forgotten Realms did a flip flop on this. They focused heavily on the new and casual players and just assumed the invested players would engage even after WotC stopped giving them a return on their investment. They also focused more on gamedays than conventions. The only replay restriction was that you could not play the same mod twice with the same character. While it had the major advantage of you always new you could play something when you went to an event, I witnessed two major problems. The first was that some people just can’t avoid metagaming to the point of diminishing the experience for the rest of the players at the table. It’s not like they did it deliberately, but they didn’t try too hard to avoid it either. The second, and more concerning to me as an organized, was that, if people always had the option to play, they almost always took that over the option to GM. This led to serious GM shortages the meant the remaining GMs suffered from a lot of burn out. I saw an entire huge group (5+ tables every gameday) of LFR players in a major city implode overnight because their GM base was tired of no one else stepping up to GM.

    After those 2 experiences, it became clear to me that, in order to have a maximally successful campaign, you need to cater to both the invested and casual player (which, unfortunately sometimes means you can only make one happy at a time). So when I went to PFS, I was happy to see they were trying to tread the middle ground.

    As far as what killed LFR? Well, my personal take is that unlimited replays was a contributing factor but not the cause (it was more of a symptom). Originally, WotC was very supportive of the invested players, i.e. the GMs, the coordinators, the organizers and the dedicated fans. They sent out free minis to dedicated GMS and players; gave out limited boons to Con goers, sent free Con packets with lots of goodies, and paid their adventure writers. But after about 18 months they started withdrawing that support. Free minis became, free boons, and then nothing. Limited boons became unlimited (and thus were not longer a reward). Con support diminished. And they abruptly stopped paying adventure writers and asked them to volunteer.
    Now was this all because of diminished sales? Possibly. But I cannot confirm that. Support amongst my local players was still high at this time, but they lost the support of the invested players, so it didn’t matter how many people wanted to play when no one wanted to GM or organize anymore.

    As such, I am in favor or anything that incentivizes invested players, especially GMs. So either option 1 or 3, but NEVER option 4.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I picked up the Free Captains Affiliation Boon last GenCon and use it regularly with my Lashunta Icon Envoy. So I decided to incorporate this into her background in a cheesy romance novel way. Essentially, the starliner she was on was attacked by space pirates and she was kidnapped to be held for ransom. But she fell in love with the ruggedly handsome Captain and they had a brief, torrid affair before he set her free. She refers to him as her Ex-boyfriend, but that’s mostly because they can’t really maintain a relationship, what with her being a rising star in the Pact Worlds gaming/media industry and him being a pirate in the Diaspora. But they are still on very good terms.

    So, I have been looking at various sources trying to find a Free Captain that might fit the bill. Unfortunately, I have only found 2. One from the Pact Worlds, and one from the third book of the Dead Suns series. Both are female (which isn’t necessarily a deal breaker) but one is 88 years old and both don’t seem to have appropriate personalities for what I was looking for.

    So does anyone else know of any other specific Free Captains and the source?

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    I will be attending GenCon this year and want to play The Scoured Stars Invasion special. The problem is, the character I really want to play this with is 5th level, but my friends won't have anything higher than 4th. Can I play the 3-4 Tier with a level 5-6 character? I realize I will get less rewards, but we would at least all be able to play together.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    GM Lamplighter wrote:

    There are possible methods of calculating the APL of a party that could take some of this into account. One could count the APL of combat animals towards the party APL, for example. Certain classes could count as (level +1). PCs that use additional resources from X or more sources could count as higher level. (NOT a finished rule suggestion, just the concept - would obviously require a lot of work to function. But since a new OP Campaign is in development...)

    A character using optimized feats etc. performs at roughly APL+2 versus a Core character (which is what the adventure CR system is based on). This is based on my experience with home campaigns and as an adventure writer. In their element, it can easily be APL+3 or +4. That disparity breaks games.

    This goes back to the issue of judges being able to reliably judge the 'brokenness of a character,' which, BTW, isn't nearly as important as the brokenness of the party as a whole. It is essentially the same thing as letting GMs modify encounters based on their judgement of the party's power level. As stated before, this is fine in a home game but doesn't work so well in the inconsistent format of Organized Play.

    If you run a mod as written and it is too easy, there may be some mild disappointment. If you run an easy mod and decide to make it hard and misjudge the strength of the party, there can be some serious negative reactions. As such, I am opposed to any form of difficulty adjustment in organized paly that relies solely on the GM’s judgment. If the mod offers a hard mode and the players opt to play it in hard mode, well, that was their choice.

    I realize you are trying to come up with a list that would be more objective, but just because someone has a broken class, feat, magic item, etc. does not mean their character is broken. Brokeness usually relies on a combo of things that creates a powerful gestalt. Overall, I think the type of thing you are shooting for would be over-complicated as there are too many variables. The last thing we want for the new campaign is a Guide that is twice as thick as the current one.

    Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Cyrad wrote:

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

    I see way too many instances of rogue NPCs trying to 1v6 the party or bad guys backing themselves into counters or mages whose strategy involves casting spells almost within melee range or monsters who fight in terrain unfavorable to their powers.

    Sorry, but as an adventure writer, I have to take these comments to task.

    1) In a home game, where the GM knows all of his PCs’ abilities, you could argue an easily trounced encounter is the GM/author's fault, but the adventure authors cannot build for every possible PC/party build combination that may play their adventure. This isn't poor design. It's reality.

    2) Some encounters are deliberately designed to be easy. When every encounter becomes a near-death experience, the game becomes both stressful and depressing. Throwing in an occasional easy encounter keeps up PC self-confidence, eases tensions and keeps them guessing on the next encounter.

    3) Adventure writers have to write with the consideration that all types of players may be playing their adventure; from inexperienced casual newbs to highly experienced, heavily focus power gamers. Building an encounter to challenge the latter will TPK the former. So, if a PCs Nova-wipes an encounter designed to challenge the average party because he built an uber-cracked-out character that he never throttles back on, then it is very much the player’s fault.

    4) Difficulty changes over time, while encounters are stagnant. New rules always inch up the potential power level of PCs but seldom help old encounters. You can’t write an encounter to deal with what is currently a common spell when that spell didn’t exist when the encounter was written.

    I realize some of these comments might be considered a reason to let GMs modify encounters, but I have covered this issue previously. Because Organized Play GMs may not know their group very well for any given adventure, they are much more likely to misjudge the level of competency of the individual players, the group as a whole, and the effectiveness of their characters. And this misjudgment can easily lead to a bad gaming experience.

    1 to 50 of 2,590 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>