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

PaizoCon 2014!

Definition of PFS General Discussion


Pathfinder Society® General Discussion

51 to 77 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Andoran **** Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau aka Arnim Thayer

Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
I agree, that would be nice and in some from I think is doable .. however, the variable factor is the denizens of the pfs forums that don't play but consider themselves experts, unfortunately it can be hard to segment them out from the actual players and those with first hand experience.

Can we just ignore them if they have yet to even achieve a first star? Any PFS judge with less than ten tables experience can probably be safely ignored as an "expert"... not that GMing more than ten tables automatically makes a GM an expert either.

*EDIT* Just kidding! LOL!

Andoran **** Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau aka Arnim Thayer

Seth Gipson wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:

There are 3 types of rules.

1. Clear and understandable Rules
2. Rules that are not very clear
3. Things with no rules.

You are forgetting that #3 has two sub-categories.

3A. Things with no rules which generally don't need a rule (Are oils a weapon if you throw them, etc)
3B. Things with no rules which should NEVER require a rule (can a horse climb a ladder/rope, Can you make a ride check to avoid a hit to your mount while unconscious, etc)

Let's not forget...

3c. When Take 10 can or cannot be used. LOL!


Michael VonHasseln wrote:
Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
I agree, that would be nice and in some from I think is doable .. however, the variable factor is the denizens of the pfs forums that don't play but consider themselves experts, unfortunately it can be hard to segment them out from the actual players and those with first hand experience.

Can we just ignore them if they have yet to even achieve a first star? Any PFS judge with less than ten tables experience can probably be safely ignored as an "expert"... not that GMing more than ten tables automatically makes a GM an expert either.

*EDIT* Just kidding! LOL!

I would hope you would be kidding. Just like I would hope Thea would be kidding, though I can tell better from her posts. It is just that kind of discriminatory BS that could keep some people from even bothering to play or GM for PFS. Besides, why should someone who has played and GMed plenty of RPG's, just not PFS scenarios specifically, be shunned? People are perfectly capable of reading the general rules, reading the PFS-specific rules, and reading the forums, and making sound rules judgements without having had a chance to play or run a scenario.

Osirion

Jiggy wrote:

Sorry Painlord, but although I liked the idea at first, and like the idea behind it, I think in the end it would create more problems than it would solve.

I think the best thing community members can do right now (in regard to rules questions) is to admit when we don't know, refrain from answering until we've looked it up, and leave our assumptions and traditions at the door.

Can we hold anyone but ourselves to that? No. But we can each decide to be the best judge we know how to be.

I'm with Jiggy on this one ... it's a good idea to have some kind of authority, but, it would be horrible to implement.

As has been mentioned, we can use the VCs and VLs in this capacity, though. Generally speaking, in so much as I have met them, they are a talented and eager bunch that are interested in making a better PFS for their local players and the community at large.

The only proviso that I will put on this whole thing, is that I don't really like the idea of people who are not Paizo making "rulings", at all. I know it's not likely to happen very much, but, there's always the potential for abuse. I can envision a situation where a VC/VL makes a decision based on personal preference, and it would adversly effect players that had to "abide" by that person's fiat based on nothing more than the area in which they lived and played.
I know this may all seem very "Who watches the Watchmen", but, I think that the VCs/VLs are better left to toeing the Paizo line. They're not (presumably) individually any different or better players than any other player, and are subject to the foiables of being human, just like the rest of us ... with one specific exception:

"Mike Brock is my GM." ;-)

Andoran ***

Michael Brock wrote:
On a side note, when you mention some groups might want someone outside themselves to clarify things. We currently have 110+ VCs and VLs. Every one of their emails are published and available at anytime. They are more than capable of making rules calls in their regions or else I would not have assigned them there.

I hate to be the one to ask this but certain characters within the community are going to go out of there way to read too much into what I quoted.

Does this mean that VCs and/or VLs are allowed to issue rulings on a local level?

If, for example, the VC says that Vital Strike can be used on a charge/full attack does that mean that as long as I'm within that VC's area we're clear to use that ruling?

Osirion

Feral wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
... We currently have 110+ VCs and VLs. Every one of their emails are published and available at anytime. They are more than capable of making rules calls in their regions or else I would not have assigned them there.

I hate to be the one to ask this but certain characters within the community are going to go out of there way to read too much into what I quoted.

Does this mean that VCs and/or VLs are allowed to issue rulings on a local level?

If, for example, the VC says that Vital Strike can be used on a charge/full attack does that mean that as long as I'm within that VC's area we're clear to use that ruling?

Therein lies the rub. VCs/VLs making calls ... unless you're telling us, Mike, that you want them making those calls about rules-grey areas. If you want them to have the power to make rules adjudications that affect their whole region, that should be spelled out carefully.

I'd never understood before now that they were for that kind of thing ... I thought they were volunteer organizers for PFS, not in positions of authority to make regional rules decisions.

Andoran *****

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

I really don't think we need to go that far.

Like I said stuff like this comes up rarely at the Table, and I have no problem trusting our GMs to make a rules call that is fair for the table at that time for odd things not covered by rules or unclear rules. This exact situation is already covered in the PFS guide.

PFS Guide PG 26 wrote:
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever calls you feel are necessary at your table to ensure that everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com, but only you can judge what is right at your table for cases not covered in these sources.

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Alex Draconis wrote:

Uh I'm with Brock on this Pain.

First of all who appoints your Triad? You? Because I sure as hell don't support your choice(s).

*left wondering if I should be offended by this* :)

Cheliax *

Kyle Baird wrote:
Alex Draconis wrote:

Uh I'm with Brock on this Pain.

First of all who appoints your Triad? You? Because I sure as hell don't support your choice(s).
*left wondering if I should be offended by this* :)

No, not at all. I uh saved you from bureaucracy. Think of the paperwork alone. Nobody should be subjected to that kind of torture, save perhaps Joseph Caubo. *makes bluff check while grinning toothily*

*****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
Michael VonHasseln wrote:
Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
I agree, that would be nice and in some from I think is doable .. however, the variable factor is the denizens of the pfs forums that don't play but consider themselves experts, unfortunately it can be hard to segment them out from the actual players and those with first hand experience.

Can we just ignore them if they have yet to even achieve a first star? Any PFS judge with less than ten tables experience can probably be safely ignored as an "expert"... not that GMing more than ten tables automatically makes a GM an expert either.

*EDIT* Just kidding! LOL!

I would hope you would be kidding. Just like I would hope Thea would be kidding, though I can tell better from her posts. It is just that kind of discriminatory BS that could keep some people from even bothering to play or GM for PFS. Besides, why should someone who has played and GMed plenty of RPG's, just not PFS scenarios specifically, be shunned? People are perfectly capable of reading the general rules, reading the PFS-specific rules, and reading the forums, and making sound rules judgements without having had a chance to play or run a scenario.

Enevhar,

Sorry if I struck to close to home for you with that comment.

Let me explain where my thought pattern was with that statement;

IF something like this was to ever get off the ground and we as forum-ites made non-RAW standard guidelines (cannot call them rules sorry) for the rest of the gaming public to follow. I wouldn't feel that someone that cannot/doesn't play PFS and understand how the item in question works at a PFS specific table should have a hand in deciding how the collective of PFS players are going to run it.

While I acknowledge that there are people with far more gaming experience than I, that that experience is with other game systems. While game systems may have the same core across them, each one has different twists and turns and needs to be treated as it's own entity.

Michael Brock wrote:


PFS is not other organized play campaigns that have come before it

Let's say you and I are discussing how a specific rule should be "normalized". You can I can both go to the book and state that "this is what the rule says and it's unclear". Great. You can give me dozens of examples of how the rule was interpreted and run during other campaigns, but can you give me the specifics at how this works at a PFS table when the campaign rules are different?

I hope that adds clarification for you what my position is and why I made that comment. I have invested a lot of me and my time into this game and I just don't feel that people that cannot/don't play should have a say in the making of rules for it.

Taldor ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Card Game Subscriber
Feral wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
On a side note, when you mention some groups might want someone outside themselves to clarify things. We currently have 110+ VCs and VLs. Every one of their emails are published and available at anytime. They are more than capable of making rules calls in their regions or else I would not have assigned them there.

I hate to be the one to ask this but certain characters within the community are going to go out of there way to read too much into what I quoted.

Does this mean that VCs and/or VLs are allowed to issue rulings on a local level?

If, for example, the VC says that Vital Strike can be used on a charge/full attack does that mean that as long as I'm within that VC's area we're clear to use that ruling?

I think it means as a first line of support with a rules question, you can/should go to your VC or VL as a resource. This would be their interpretation of the rules, and how they'd run it at their tables I'd presume.

As for the Vital Strike question, I don't think anything in Mike's statement is saying that VC's or VL's can ignore rules FAQ's, errata, or RAW. As such, VS does not work with charges or full attacks and could not be "overridden" by a VO who didn't like that rule.

Again, this is what it sounds like he's saying to me.

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

2 people marked this as a favorite.

That is correct, Sniggevert. VCs and VLs all know they can not ignore rules. FAQ, errata, etc...

VCs and VLs are, first and foremost, coordinators for their regions in PFS. Some may be rules experts, others not so much. But, what everyone of them have in common is, if they are not a rules lawyer themselves, they most likely know who the strongest rules person in their region is and can go to that person to get feedback. VCs and VLs are very good at organizing and coordinating PFS, and know how to use their resources.

When I was Alanta VC, there are three people off the top of my head who were more versed in the rules than I and I could turn to them at a convention or a game day for clarification because I knew I could trust them and I knew they were on top of all of the latest rulings. All of them also have my cell number, and in rare cases, they contact me.

Even if a VC or VL is not on top of every rule out there, they know where to go to get the answer for you. So, when I said that they were capable of making rules calls, that meant if they don't know the proper ruling off the top of their head, they sure as heck know who to go to to get it.

Grand Lodge ** Venture-Lieutenant, Illinois—Peoria

Thankfully I have not come up against any instances of having to make a rules calling at the PFS events I have been present at or organized - however, in a past life as an event organizer for the RPGA I have run into it a few times.

As Mike says - there is usually someone to ask who can recite the rules in their sleep, and with today's technology it is usually easy enough to get to the internet if all else fails (chances are someone else has run into the same question already). In the rare event that I have not been able to get a definitive answer to something, I have made it clear that any ruling given on the day is only provisional on the basis of keeping the session going. Wherever possible I have taken contact details of the player(s) affected and if I have not been able to get a definitive answer by the end of the convention, have followed up with them afterwards once I have the answer to hand.

Silver Crusade *

Mr Brock. we don't need an unoffcial triad/committe for rules adjudication. we all ready have a Venture captains group. Why don;t we have the VC's adudicate rules changes until Pazio's rules team come out with fixes?

THe First thing that needs to be fixed IMO is the Crafting Rules set an x price per spell level no complicated ath formulas on how much somthing costs just a base price per ability. I sure that a crfting guide line could be come up with as we are all adults. THe current crafting rules make no sence what so ever.

I think that Mike and Mark combined with the venture capatains could make a fine group of rules fixers for PFS.

Just my 2 cents.

Silver Crusade **

Lou Diamond wrote:

Mr Brock. we don't need an unoffcial triad/committe for rules adjudication. we all ready have a Venture captains group. Why don;t we have the VC's adudicate rules changes until Pazio's rules team come out with fixes?

THe First thing that needs to be fixed IMO is the Crafting Rules set an x price per spell level no complicated ath formulas on how much somthing costs just a base price per ability. I sure that a crfting guide line could be come up with as we are all adults. THe current crafting rules make no sence what so ever.

I think that Mike and Mark combined with the venture capatains could make a fine group of rules fixers for PFS.

Just my 2 cents.

Lou, its not the rules, its the paperwork. Secondly, that lets characters who can craft *utterly* destroy the WBL curve. Plus, then they'd need to be able to trade items etc. Basically, it is not going to happen. That is just the nature of any organized campaign.

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

The problem with crafting is there are no time limits set between scenarios. So, someone could craft 100 magic items if they had the cash because there are no time limit established.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Lou Diamond wrote:
Mr Brock. we don't need an unoffcial triad/committe for rules adjudication. we all ready have a Venture captains group. Why don;t we have the VC's adudicate rules changes until Pazio's rules team come out with fixes?

To be honest, I hope that rules mastery isn't too high on the list of requirements to be a VO; I would imagine that things like organizational skills, public relations ability, GMing experience, etc would be the things that get someone into such a role. Besides that, they've got enough on their plates already without everybody and their dog pestering them with rules quibbles.

Should the VCs be willing to help with rules questions when necessary? Of course. Should they be relied upon to be the main resource in that regard, on top of all their other responsibilities? No; I don't think it's fair to them.

Andoran **** Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau aka Arnim Thayer

Jiggy wrote:

To be honest, I hope that rules mastery isn't too high on the list of requirements to be a VO; I would imagine that things like organizational skills, public relations ability, GMing experience, etc would be the things that get someone into such a role. Besides that, they've got enough on their plates already without everybody and their dog pestering them with rules quibbles.

Should the VCs be willing to help with rules questions when necessary? Of course. Should they be relied upon to be the main resource in that regard, on top of all their other responsibilities? No; I don't think it's fair to them.

I will be the first to admit (and most of my players know it!) That I am not a rules lawyer; I am more of a storyteller GM. But within my group, I can tap the rules knowledge of at least two other GMs and one rules-lawyer type player I can count on. That is not to say that certain players look to me as an authority when it comes to the rules, solely based on my Venture-Lieutenant rank/title; far from it. At our last local convention, a quorum of Venture Officers (myself, Seth Gibson, and Jason Roeder) made a rules decision of a perceived grey area of the rules. I felt more comfortable with this mainly due to knowing that it wasn't only MY interpretation of the rule, but all of us in agreement.

By a certain perspective, we already have a GM support system for those grey area rulings: the Venture Captains and Venture Lieutenants. And we rely on each other (as well as other knowledgeable GMs, such as Painlord and Kyle Baird!) through these very forums to help us reach a common interpretation of those rules that are not so clear cut.

Qadira *** Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast aka heretic

It is not beyond the realms of extreme possibility that if some people set up a rules adjudication service that it could grow into a respected and authoritative force with in PFS. However many years within the gamng community suggests that cold fusion being discovered next month is much more probable.

I repectfully submit that while the problem that Painlord identifes is real and needs addressing I suspect the triad idea if it happens is on a well meaning hiding to nothing.
That ofc is no excuse to dismiss the matter.

I will note: Clearly a rules discussion outside of OP environments is a different animal to those within. One GM needs food for thought 100's of GMs need an aid to cohesion.

What would be cool would be for an official PFS voice to give opinions to specific questions. Maybe one or two a month. If there is apparent uncertainty on an issue then someone making a decision that we can use pending a general PFRPG would be useful.
If Gary Gygax, God rest him, could do this back in the glory days of Dragon magazine then it is not an impossibility.

W

***** Venture-Lieutenant, Illinois—Carbondale aka Disturbed1

Michael VonHasseln wrote:
Seth Gibson

Who's that?

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

Mel's younger brother.

***** Venture-Lieutenant, Illinois—Carbondale aka Disturbed1

I lolled.

Andoran **** Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau aka Arnim Thayer

Seth Gipson wrote:
I lolled.

Damn you auto-correct!!! This is why I hate responding from anything other than my laptop!

(I actually have the true spelling of your name listed as a proper word on my laptop, so that MS Word recognizes it correctly!)

***** Venture-Lieutenant, Illinois—Carbondale aka Disturbed1

You type my name into Word often enough that you need to save it to the dictionary so you dont misspell it?

I dont know if that's creepy, cause you type it that much, or insulting cause you can't spell it right without it being in the dictionary, despite typing it so much. :P

Qadira ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seth Gipson wrote:

You type my name into Word often enough that you need to save it to the dictionary so you dont misspell it?

I dont know if that's creepy, cause you type it that much, or insulting cause you can't spell it right without it being in the dictionary, despite typing it so much. :P

The funnist part of this series of posts is the fact that due to my dyslexia I had to read it like 5 times before I noticed the 'p' and 'b' differences. My brain kept "auto-correcting" them to be the same name....

Osirion

Michael Brock wrote:
The problem with crafting is there are no time limits set between scenarios. So, someone could craft 100 magic items if they had the cash because there are no time limit established.

First, I love PFS, and am perfectly content with the way it is.

But, this is one thing that I didn't understand why PFS doesn't have. I played Living Greyhawk as my first organized play campaign, and I assumed back then that a "Time Unit" was a normal thing. It really kept a li on things when players had to choose between going on adventures and crafting magical items. It wasn't possible to make enough magical items to ruin the WBL if you did that instead of adventuring. I was just about the only wizard I knew that would actually do it. Most players opted not to.

But, I love the campaign. And while I would love to see crafting in PFS, I'm not going to not play because of it.

Silver Crusade ****

Just a thought: Would it be difficult to say that anything crafted can only be sold for the value put into creating it, so X(crafting)=X(Crafting), and never can be increased in value, and for bothering with skill checks, just assume on the crafting of actual items you always take 10.

Or, alternatively, we could say you need certain skill ranks to craft something, similar to how the fame to buying power is setup.

I know this is likely to not be allowed, and I'm just musing.

51 to 77 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / General Discussion / Definition of PFS General Discussion 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.