Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Please Do Away With 7-Person Tables


Pathfinder Society® General Discussion

1 to 50 of 212 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Andoran ****

I've never had a good experience at one and they only make scenarios drag.


Isn't that more an issue with a lack of GMs at the gathering?

Paizo Employee ** Developer

If you're playing at a 7-person table more often than very rarely, something more than the presence of 7-person tables is going on.

We've gone from making them fairly common to extreme rarities, however, and every time the topic is brought up, we stop just short of banning them completely, because there are situations in which a GM needs the ability to run a 7-person table as a last resort.

Cheliax

Feral wrote:
I've never had a good experience at one and they only make scenarios drag.

I has played at and GMed 7 person tables. I have only GMed 1 at PaizoCon 2011 and it was one of the best DMing experiences I have had (I have not had that many PFS gming experiences).

You always have a chance to have confrontational players and disagreements on how game mechanics work with how a PC runs, at with 7 players you are more likely to have these problems. I don't think it is a mechanic of a 7 player table it just makes having problems more likely to happen.

I have had some game mechanics bread down. 4 of the 7 players had pets 3 of which are large. The PC overflowed the place PCs here/murder box and started next to the enemy caster. If you dont play up the combat encounters tend to be a little light(the PCs just have so many more actions)

I believe PCs have to rollplay and interact with other player well and know what you are doing durning their turn.

Andoran ****

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

7 player tables suck. Too many people, too many side conversations, takes too long. We limit our tables to 6. 7 isn't an option and I appreciate that. The scenario's get steam rolled with too many players. I have never enjoyed them as a player or as a GM. In a perfect world, 5 is plenty. If you don't like 7 player tables, just say no.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A table of seven is at the discretion of the players/GM's. It is not recommended and exceeds the "soft" cap. We don't need to officially ban them.

As an organizer, I never schedule seven player tables and I try to find out from the GM's in advance if they would be accepting of a 7 player table. If not, I do not even broach the subject when it arises.

Even then, the players at the table are entitled to reject it or perhaps leave themselves. I try to use a silent ballot system to determine if a 7th is okay. If they do not vote yes by majority, then no 7th player. You have to be careful, because most players will shy away from their true feelings if you just ask about it openly. They might feel compelled to let the 7th play otherwise be labeled as a jerk.

Silver Crusade **

I don't like 7 player tables, but I will run them if there is no other way to seat all the players who showed up. I quickly scan the mod, find the locations that having one more person could tip the scales, and figure out how to alter the scenario, such as adding one more mook. After that, I run with it, trying to encourage as much roleplay as possible, from all the players. I've run only a few 7 player tables, but they have in all actuality been some of the best tables I've ever had the pleasure of running.

*

I avoid 7 person tables, but when I GMed one and played one, they both worked out great. I think it depends a lot on the players whether it will be fun or not. You need basically low maintenance players who decide and perform (roll dice) actions quickly.

Andoran ***

Seven player tables suck, but from time-to-time they are a necessary evil.

Usually, seven player tables arise because of a lack of GMs + unpredictable attendance at an event.

If they are happening too often in your area, your organizer needs to use better reservation tools, (have a look at our OntarioPathfinders.com for a non-Warhorn solution) and do more to recruit GMs from the player base. Many organizers need to be more insistent that players take a turn GMing; however, this can in itself be a problem if some players really HATE being the GM so it is not a magic wand.

One thing worse than a table with seven players and a good GM is a table with 3 players, a pre-gen and a GM who HATES doing it.

Taldor *

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

They work for some groups so they should be left in. My worst 2 experiences were with 5 player tables. GM/Player conflicts, side conversations, delays in combat, inattentiveness these two games had it all (even one probable cheater). But it was due to the players and GMs not the head count. Like someone said above the more people at the table the greater the chance of a bad seed but if the GM thinks they can run it well they should be allowed to. There have been a lot of things banned or changed in this campaigns history because some of the gaming population (usually it seems to be about a 50/50 split) didn't like them. Table size should be left where it is with enough rules and guidelines to ensure fairness but with the ultimate decisions made at the local level.

YMMV


While it would be hard to do, I would love to see an optional system where you could separate the tables into new/casual/non-optimized players, where six or seven may be the only way to succeed/avoid a TPK, and hardcore/optimized players, where a table of four, or even three and pre-gen, could wipe the floor with the scenario. Personally, even though I have been into gaming for 30 years, I have never considered myself an optimizer and would have more fun with the casual players and would have no fun at all at a table full of optimized/min-maxed/munchkined/whatever characters.

*****

I've run my fair share of 7 player tables, I don't like to but if the option is to turn a player away, as long as the table is agreeable I don't have a problem with it.

The trick to 7 player tables is on both sides.

The GM has to be organized enuf and know the scenario well enuf to be able to adjust things as needed for another person on the table (I've had 7 player tables thrown at me at the last minute).

The players also have to be cognizant of the fact that there are 7 players and make adjustments -- roll attacks and damage ahead of time, know what you're going to do and be able to change what you're going to to based on what players ahead of you do, players also have to understand that having long drawn out conversations regarding rules minutiae aren't going to be able to happen.

A successful 7 player table, while it shouldn't be the norm has to be a cooperation between the judge and the players, if the cooperation isn't there the table isn't going to be good.

Andoran ****

One of the other posters already mentioned the problem with polling the table. A lot of gamers will just agree or say nothing for fear of looking like a jerk. The rule, as it exists, puts coordinators, DMs, and players in a spot they shouldn't have to be in.

For those of you that seek feedback from a table before adding a 7th, how many players have to object? One, two, the majority? If the coordinator okays the 7th person and someone chooses to walk as a result isn't that doing just as much harm as turning away the 7th person in the first place.

*****

In my case, I tell the table it has to be a unanimous decision... if one person says no, then it's a no for the table

Cheliax

Mark Moreland wrote:

If you're playing at a 7-person table more often than very rarely, something more than the presence of 7-person tables is going on.

What is Very rare? I dont remember a home PFS game which I have played 7 players. In CONs they are far from very rare, I dont know about more than 50% but far more than what I would consider very rare. What % of PFS games at the last 2 PaizoCons were 7 players??

Paizo Employee ** Developer

Given the current rule on the circumstances that can necessitate a 7-person table, I'd say it should be happening less than 10% of the time. Using past PaizoCons as an example is comparing apples to oranges, as the rules have changed since then. I know that we specifically seated only 6-person tables at GenCon this year and might have had around 10 7-person tables out of 500 total sessions throughout the con.

It is entirely possible to run a large convention without needing to set 7-person tables. If folks are running into 7-person tables a lot, inform your venture-captain or Mike Brock and hopefully a solution can be reached that avoids them in most cases going forward.

Andoran ****

It's less an issue at gamedays as I can simply go home if it's looking like 7 person tables are unavoidable.

It's a major problem at conventions where I'm spending serious cash to attend. I attend 2-3 conventions a year and with the exception of PaizoCon which I attended last year each convention that I've attended has had 1-2 slots that were going to be 7 person tables that I either had to walk away from or hope the coordinator could make it work.

*****

Feral, it sounds more like a growth issue and the coordinator for the conventions you're attending not planning for walk-ins that happen at conventions. Of course, from my opinion, a way to help nix the 7-player tables is to step up and judge.

Andoran ****

I already judge more than my share as well as coordinate games in my area. I've also done the impromptu judging on more than one occasion even at conventions I've traveled very far to attend. I've done plenty of 'stepping up' and I'm a bit offended that you'd mention it.

*****

A: don't know your history so chill;

B: as a coordinator you know that sometimes situations are out of your control and you have to make that choice of either a 7 player table or sending away a new player

Andoran ****

Fair enough.

As I asked a couple posts back: What's worse telling a 7th player that they cannot play because the table is full or having a player that was seated walk away when you sit a 7th player down?

*****

If that player chooses to get up and walk away because I asked if I could sit a 7th player that would be his choice. I wouldn't arbitrarily seat a 7th player without the tables ok.

Taldor ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
If that player chooses to get up and walk away because I asked if I could sit a 7th player that would be his choice. I wouldn't arbitrarily seat a 7th player without the tables ok.

Hmm...

The problem you run into then is the newbies-vs-veterans conflict. Is it really worth alienating a veteran, who more than does his share of GMing, in order to seat a walkin who might not show up next time?

I know my local group is having this problem, and though we've been lucky so far, it's going to come to a head in about a month, when we just won't have enough space to have all the existing high-level-to-be PCs play as well as have all the low-level PCs play, all without resorting to seven-man tables.

And that's assuming we don't get any newbies in the meantime.

-Matt


Mattastrophic wrote:

The problem you run into then is the newbies-vs-veterans conflict. Is it really worth alienating a veteran, who more than does his share of GMing, in order to seat a walkin who might not show up next time?

Not to point at anyone at all or annoy any of these veteran players, but they should be unselfish enough to know that letting a new player have their seat is good for the Society, and their local group, in the long run.

Shadow Lodge ***

Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
Feral, it sounds more like a growth issue and the coordinator for the conventions you're attending not planning for walk-ins that happen at conventions. Of course, from my opinion, a way to help nix the 7-player tables is to step up and judge.

If he's paid good money to be there as a player, it's not his place to "step up and judge".

**

Bob Jonquet wrote:
As an organizer, I never schedule seven player tables and I try to find out from the GM's in advance if they would be accepting of a 7 player table. If not, I do not even broach the subject when it arises.

As a GM, this is appreciated: I feel like I can handle a 7-player table most of the time, and keep everyone engaged and interested, but actually *asking* if I'm okay with this ahead of time is very appreciated.

*****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mystic Lemur wrote:
Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
Feral, it sounds more like a growth issue and the coordinator for the conventions you're attending not planning for walk-ins that happen at conventions. Of course, from my opinion, a way to help nix the 7-player tables is to step up and judge.
If he's paid good money to be there as a player, it's not his place to "step up and judge".

Not quite sure how to take your comment. I wasn't saying specficially that he had to step up and judge and if you read the thread feral and I discussed it already.

However, here is my answer to your comment.

The gaming community has to be somewhat of a cyclical support system, everyone supports people. Judges support gamedays and conventions by volunteering their time, players can support by stepping up to judge, providing judges bribes (i.e. snacks); even just saying "hey that was a great game, thanks for running" is support.

Players aren't the only ones that "pay good money" to attend conventions. Judges generally pay for their badges, the convention fee as well as spend their time and money prepping multiple scenarios to run for the convention. So colored me a little miffed when you say that paying good money as a player means he shouldn't have to step up and judge, when the judges have probably spent more money to be there and end up with a 7 player table due to no fault of their own.

Silver Crusade *****

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Cards, Maps Subscriber

Well as people have said up thread.....I would prefer not to run a 7 person table.

I find myself mostly GMing at gaming stores. If i can get one of my players to step up and GM a second table, we can have two 3 person tables. I find that much more preferable. (we would have 8 people at the game in total)

But sometimes we are stuck with the choice of sending someone home, or adding that seventh seat. I would prefer not to send someone home.

I think the legal table size ranging from 4-6 players, with GMs being able to run 3 and 7 person tables in case of emergencies, sounds like an excellent way to go.

Osirion *

Myles Crocker wrote:
I think the legal table size ranging from 4-6 players, with GMs being able to run 3 and 7 person tables in case of emergencies, sounds like an excellent way to go.

+1

I too really dislike playing and running 7 at a table. But sometimes it works.

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Washington—Eastern Washington aka WalterGM

In my experience 7 player tables are a sure "win" as far as the game goes. There's not really a chance they'll party wipe or fail the mission they're on, even when I goad them into playing up. I have, however, had some deaths during 7 player tables. But, overall, the chance the group as a whole will fail is pretty remote. Whether this is a problem or not depends on your perspective. My goal as GM isn't to have my players fail their mission, but to make it challenging. And I feel that since there's still the chance one or two of them might die, it's still challenging.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

I think we are a bit too hung up on the number. I would venture (hehe) to guess that just as many people (perhaps more) have had poor experiences at 6-player tables than seven. No matter what we set the threshold at, there will be some that want it smaller/larger. Perhaps a soft cap of five, hard cap of six would be better. Dunno. But I would expect an outcry from those who would be just as happy with a soft cap of seven and a hard cap of eight.

I don't think the "fun" factor is the driving force to this argument. It is more about individual circumstances that occur at the local level. Many areas have a hard time getting GM's, or they have a group size that seems to present them with seven-player tables regularly. If we eliminated it as an option, would it change their organizing? Perhaps, but how many would just start reporting two tables and run one of seven anyway?

IMO, no matter what the number is, in the end, it is up to the organizer to take ownership of table size. Just do everything in your power to stay under seven, knowing that sometimes, it will be unavoidable. Occasionally you might have to make a hard choice. Seat a table of seven and risk a player walking away, or refuse the "extra" player a seat.

As long as we continue to allow real-life people to play this game, there will be times when things don't work out as intended. If anyone has an idea on how to eliminate the players so we can more consistently organize, feel free to share. :-)

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Alexander_Damocles wrote:
I don't like 7 player tables, but I will run them if there is no other way to seat all the players who showed up. I quickly scan the mod, find the locations that having one more person could tip the scales, and figure out how to alter the scenario, such as adding one more mook. After that, I run with it, trying to encourage as much roleplay as possible, from all the players. I've run only a few 7 player tables, but they have in all actuality been some of the best tables I've ever had the pleasure of running.

I understand the desire to scale the encounter to be more effective because of one more PC.

However, you are not allowed to do this.

Studying the scenario in depth to better find a way to optimize tactics and terrain within the boundaries of the scenario as written is acceptable.

But adding more mooks is not.

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Mark Moreland wrote:

Given the current rule on the circumstances that can necessitate a 7-person table, I'd say it should be happening less than 10% of the time. Using past PaizoCons as an example is comparing apples to oranges, as the rules have changed since then. I know that we specifically seated only 6-person tables at GenCon this year and might have had around 10 7-person tables out of 500 total sessions throughout the con.

It is entirely possible to run a large convention without needing to set 7-person tables. If folks are running into 7-person tables a lot, inform your venture-captain or Mike Brock and hopefully a solution can be reached that avoids them in most cases going forward.

Wow, I ran 2 of those 7 person tables....

And I enjoyed both of them.

I have never had a problem running or playing in 7 person tables and have yet to have a bad experience at one.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Andrew Christian wrote:
I have never had a problem running or playing in 7 person tables and have yet to have a bad experience at one.

That's not what your players told us...;-)

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
I have never had a problem running or playing in 7 person tables and have yet to have a bad experience at one.
That's not what your players told us...;-)

chuckle... hey now...


If I were at a convention, I'd suck it up and play at a table of seven; at a gaming night for PFS, I'd be more likely to volunteer to run than to play. I've seen five-player tables bog down pretty badly, let alone seven... And, while I do prefer to play a character than run a scenario, it's not like my character is losing out; if you run, you get the chronicle sheet for GMming, so it's no loss from an advancement point of view.

On a tangential direction from the subject, is it within the reasonable purview of a GM to specify "no cellphones" at a table? I can't STAND waiting for someone who's busy texting away instead of paying attention to the game in front of them -- this, mind you, as a player.

Andoran

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Cards, Maps Subscriber

OK,

This sounds to me like not a good idea. If there is a need for a 7th seat, then make room. This hobby is a social hobby and the more people we have playing the better. Is the 7th person optimal? No it is not. At one gaming store I frequent a pathfinder day was held. Two GMs showed up and ran standard 4 person tables, leaving me with a group of 15 players (not an exageration) and no other GM. I talked to the players, all new to pathfinder, but had 3.5 experience. Quickly, I set up a scenario (non-pathfinder society) and with the help of my wife we ran a full scale battle for the group (I ran, she answered questions and ran interference). One player complained, threatening to depart Pulling him aside, I asked him to give it a shot, grudgingly he did.

At the end of the session, I was totally drained and exhausted but I had 15 converts. Who bought him out of core rule books. Did I get credit for society play? Nope. Do I care about that? I dont think so. Would I want to do that every week? No way.

Even the initially unhappy player thanked me for the effort, saying it was one of the smoothest combats he had seen run despite the number of people.

Unfortunately, gaming is not always going to go the way you may wish. This was a huge risk, the table could have imploded and had 15 angry players, but it did not.

I would reccomend patience and flexibility for those who wish to see the hobby grow and flourish.

Question: Has anyone had a game literally implode from 7? Or is it just uncomfortable?

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

Alitan wrote:
On a tangential direction from the subject, is it within the reasonable purview of a GM to specify "no cellphones" at a table? I can't STAND waiting for someone who's busy texting away instead of paying attention to the game in front of them -- this, mind you, as a player.

A GM is left to adjudicate his/her table as they see fit. If a player is being distracting to the game-play, you can easily ask them to cease doing whatever it is they are doing. Failure to comply and kick them from the table. Personally, I have never seen a player continue to be disruptive, but I suppose it happens.

Cell phones are a sensitive issue for some people, especially at conventions where they might be used to track family members, especially kids using GPS, or keeping in contact with illness, etc. I am loath to make a blanket statement about cell phones, but I hope that everyone uses them appropriately.

My bigger gripe is with those who are using their iPad to play video games during the session. That is extremely disrespectful and I would have no problem kicking someone for that.

Bottom line, most people are respectful, and even if you need to take a five-minute break to explain to them that their actions are being disruptive, I'm sure they'll be understanding.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

RaGeR wrote:
Question: Has anyone had a game literally implode from 7? Or is it just uncomfortable?

I did, but I don't think it is fair to equate it strictly to 7-players. There were two summoners (not master thankfully), a summon-minded diviner, a druid, a ranger, a rogue who used elemental gems to ensure flanking, and a battle-cleric. IMO, it was a disaster because everyone was summoning gobs of creatures, not so much it was a 7-player table. Although, if any one player (except the cleric) was not there, it would have marginally reduced the problem. Just too many creatures and not enough grid-space on the battle map. Not to mention how long it took to complete a single round of combat.

I'm glad I was just an observer and not a player or the GM. But I think it would be unfair to strictly blame the 7th player for the debacle.

Silver Crusade **

Andrew Christian wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:
I don't like 7 player tables, but I will run them if there is no other way to seat all the players who showed up. I quickly scan the mod, find the locations that having one more person could tip the scales, and figure out how to alter the scenario, such as adding one more mook. After that, I run with it, trying to encourage as much roleplay as possible, from all the players. I've run only a few 7 player tables, but they have in all actuality been some of the best tables I've ever had the pleasure of running.

I understand the desire to scale the encounter to be more effective because of one more PC.

However, you are not allowed to do this.

Studying the scenario in depth to better find a way to optimize tactics and terrain within the boundaries of the scenario as written is acceptable.

But adding more mooks is not.

Frankly, I run my tables as best I can under the circumstances. If the rules occasionally get in the way, then I bend them. My VC has watched it happen, and was fine with it. When you've got a table of 7, 4 of whom are brand new players, I'm not going to send them off having done nothing.

***

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

Is it the lack of a second GM or a greater hatred for 3-player tables that the 7-player table issue keeps coming up? It seems to me that if you have 1 GM and 7 players - especially on a regular basis - and people are so set against playing/running that sort of configuration, then the desirable thing to do is have 2 GMs, 2 pre-gen NPCs, and 6 players.

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I have a suggestion for event organizers: Schedule all your PFS tables with a 5 player limit. Yes, this means you will need extra GM(s). Yes, you'll need extra table(s). But, this means greater flexibility when seating tables w/o having to worry about the dreaded 7 player table. Doug and I discussed doing this with Origins (if we had still been involved). If you don't get enough players, the extra GM can be released to play. If you get more than 16% of your scheduled attendance as walk-ups, you still have the 7-player option.

Qadira ****

Kyle Baird wrote:
I have a suggestion for event organizers: Schedule all your PFS tables with a 5 player limit. Yes, this means you will need extra GM(s). Yes, you'll need extra table(s). But, this means greater flexibility when seating tables w/o having to worry about the dreaded 7 player table. Doug and I discussed doing this with Origins (if we had still been involved). If you don't get enough players, the extra GM can be released to play. If you get more than 16% of your scheduled attendance as walk-ups, you still have the 7-player option.

+1 I think this is a brilliant idea! That offers a great deal of flexibility. 7-player tables are horrible in the Con environment because it easily leads to not finishing in time, which is terrible. I really like this!

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You may run into an issue of 6 people who want to play together, but this should be rare and with proper communication can be easily dealt with.

Andoran *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Kyle Baird wrote:
You may run into an issue of 6 people who want to play together, but this should be rare and with proper communication can be easily dealt with.

I Still remembers fondly a group of 8 players at GenCon 09 that got all pissy at Josh because he would not let them all play together at the same table. He told them they would have to split up, so they walked out really mad... aaahh good memories.. :)

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I would have run a table for them, but the end result would have been the same. ;-)

Andoran ***** Venture-Captain, Minnesota—St. Paul

Alexander_Damocles wrote:


Frankly, I run my tables as best I can under the circumstances. If the rules occasionally get in the way, then I bend them. My VC has watched it happen, and was fine with it. When you've got a table of 7, 4 of whom are brand new players, I'm not going to send them off having done nothing.

You do know that the options are not:

Send a player away

- or -

Rescale the scenario

Right?

You play the scenario as written whether it is 3 & preg, 4, 5, 6, or 7 players. That's the rules.

Silver Crusade **

Andrew Christian wrote:
Alexander_Damocles wrote:


Frankly, I run my tables as best I can under the circumstances. If the rules occasionally get in the way, then I bend them. My VC has watched it happen, and was fine with it. When you've got a table of 7, 4 of whom are brand new players, I'm not going to send them off having done nothing.

You do know that the options are not:

Send a player away

- or -

Rescale the scenario

Right?

You play the scenario as written whether it is 3 & preg, 4, 5, 6, or 7 players. That's the rules.

If me adding a pair of extra 1HD goblins to make a round actually finish and let players have their fun is such a problem, I'm sorry for you. I'll run PFS to best that I can, for the good of the society. If are more worried about the sanctity of the module being run as written, instead of players having fun and becoming recurring players, well, then yank my GM license.

Qadira ****

Several times when I'm told the table will be 7 I bow out. I always do. More fun for the players left, and I'll get to play the mod later when it will be more fun for me too. ("if it's not fun, don't do it!") Each time I'll look up the organizer... and offer to run something (I have several mods printed and prepped to run, or I can do something cold). I've found a "Cold Run" mod to be better than a 7 player table.

Taldor ***

Alexander_Damocles wrote:
If me adding a pair of extra 1HD goblins to make a round actually finish and let players have their fun is such a problem, I'm sorry for you. I'll run PFS to best that I can, for the good of the society. If are more worried about the sanctity of the module being run as written, instead of players having fun and becoming recurring players, well, then yank my GM license.

Well said, man. Keep up the good work!

-Matt

1 to 50 of 212 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / General Discussion / Please Do Away With 7-Person Tables All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.