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

A Player's View of PFS


Pathfinder Society® General Discussion

51 to 100 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Illinois—Decatur aka TwilightKnight

David Bowles wrote:
Both fighter archers I have seen had *three* 7s. And neither of them roleplayed any 7s.

Sorry if this offends any power-gamers or optomizers out there, but *Facepalm*

Silver Crusade **

Not just shoddy roleplaying, I just don't think three 7s should be legal. It's turning your character into a pillbox in this case, so they can dominate combats. In PFS, this is not necessary.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

David Bowles wrote:
Not just shoddy roleplaying, I just don't think three 7s should be legal. It's turning your character into a pillbox in this case, so they can dominate combats. In PFS, this is not necessary.

Don't worry; not only is it not necessary, but as soon as they start facing Will saves that matter, they're toast. I TPK'd my family once, largely because one of my brothers (who also made his wife's character) thought it best to bring a caster's primary stat to 20 at level 1 and disregard physical stats. The 20CHA/8DEX oracle didn't even slow the BBEG down, and his wife's 20INT/8CON wizard wasn't even a speed bump.

Qadira ***** RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Well, one might ponder the implications of the Deans of the Pathfinder College letting a candidate with such wracking limitations into the ranks of active agents.

So, let's presume that the PC applied to the Grand Lodge with near-normal or better stats. And somewhere near the end of training, something bad happened. A failed save versus Wisdom-draining effects. An encounter with undead. Potion miscibility mishaps.

And the PC was left with the attributes he displays at 1st level.

Qadira **** Venture-Captain, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Thorkull

1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the other hand, I've seen a 7 INT/WIS/CHA barbarian role-played to the hilt... and I'm not even really that bitter about him getting dominated and killing my cleric.

I have, however, learned to prep magic circle against evil just for when I adventure with him.

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

Jiggy wrote:
I TPK'd my family once, largely because one of my brothers (who also made his wife's character) thought it best to bring a caster's primary stat to 20 at level 1 and disregard physical stats. The 20CHA/8DEX oracle didn't even slow the BBEG down, and his wife's 20INT/8CON wizard wasn't even a speed bump.

but how many tables did they "ruin" before getting their just rewards? Hopefully none, but I've seen too many table's fun reduced because one (or more) player/s character is soo much more combat effective than the rest that most of the players don't even get to act. There is nothing wrong with building an uber-optimized combat monster, but for pete's sake, let everyone else play too.

I have an optimized barbarian/druid/cleric of Gozreh. Between his two-handed weapon, combat feats, rage, swift growth, and an animal companion, he can tear up most encounters, but, I usually spend 2-3 rounds buffing. I also play the animal companion on its own initiative so there are times when it looses its first action because I have not commanded it to do anything yet (and that's just fine with me). It just stays in self-preservation mode.

Andoran ***

Well, at least convinvce him to pick up a Wayfinder and a clear spindle Ioun stone to put in it....

Silver Crusade ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Mortika wrote:

Well, one might ponder the implications of the Deans of the Pathfinder College letting a candidate with such wracking limitations into the ranks of active agents.

Druid's local 704 approves the pathfinders willingness to let natural selection decide these things.

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

kinevon wrote:
Well, at least convinvce him to pick up a Wayfinder and a clear spindle Ioun stone to put in it....

That'll block the dominate, but I don't think it'll be effective vs. confusion. But, I don't recall the comments from SKR & JJ on what is/not impacted by prot evil effects.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I TPK'd my family once, largely because one of my brothers (who also made his wife's character) thought it best to bring a caster's primary stat to 20 at level 1 and disregard physical stats. The 20CHA/8DEX oracle didn't even slow the BBEG down, and his wife's 20INT/8CON wizard wasn't even a speed bump.
but how many tables did they "ruin" before getting their just rewards?

Don't worry, I got 'em at first level. ;)

*

David Bowles wrote:
Not just shoddy roleplaying, I just don't think three 7s should be legal. It's turning your character into a pillbox in this case, so they can dominate combats. In PFS, this is not necessary.

Almost all Fighter archers dump Int/Wis/Chr. If they don't they're likely dumping Con or some of their damage output. A lot of archers have average Con (10-12). Rangers and Zen Archers dump 2 stats. This surprises veteran GMs? (Maybe I'm just more nosy and check character sheets).

Jiggy wrote:
I TPK'd my family once, largely because one of my brothers (who also made his wife's character) thought it best to bring a caster's primary stat to 20 at level 1 and disregard physical stats. The 20CHA/8DEX oracle didn't even slow the BBEG down, and his wife's 20INT/8CON wizard wasn't even a speed bump.

Do you really think that +2 AC or +2 hit points at 1st level would have made the difference? Sounds like they didn't have good martial support, casters aren't the best at low levels.

Silver Crusade **

Why not be more well rounded and *gasp* have a 16 dex instead of 18? I always thought that the diminishing returns of pouring in points to high stats would discourage it, but no, it doesn't.

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

David Bowles wrote:
Why not be more well rounded and *gasp* have a 16 dex instead of 18? I always thought that the diminishing returns of pouring in points to high stats would discourage it, but no, it doesn't.

If a group of Jackpots (that is, characters with triple 7s) is generally succeeding, then one of the following is happening:

1) They're getting very lucky in that they're playing scenarios that can be "beaten" through sheer combat power,

2) They're getting very lucky (or have coordinated well) by always having someone else at the table to handle NPC interactions and whatnot, or

3) The GM is inappropriately hand-waving success conditions for non-combat endeavors that are supposed to have serious consequences for failure and can't be solved with brute force.

In any case, the players have done nothing wrong, as long as they're pleasant at the table. Campaign management could have banned that type of build, but hasn't. Of the millions of possible PCs allowed in the campaign, they picked ones that they liked. That's not a bad thing.

For myself, the more I play, the more I appreciate well-rounded PCs. My next one will have (pre-racial) stats of 14/14/13/13/12/12, for crying out loud. That someone else would choose otherwise is fine, though.

Now, if they're somehow skipping out on the consequences of having Jackpot stats (like, apparently, never needing to succeed on a skill check, ever), then THAT is a problem. But that's on the GM's end, not the players'. It's not like the GM is asking for a skill check and the players are just refusing and insisting on getting the reward anyway.

Silver Crusade **

I think that it's a combination of factors. For example, the one guys plays in a play group that doesn't enforce -4 from team members for cover. So he's had improved precise since level 1. Additionally, the hand-waiving is likely happening since his fame total indicates that he has *never* failed a prestige mission.

I like the term "jackpot" character :)

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
I think that it's a combination of factors. For example, the one guys plays in a play group that doesn't enforce -4 from team members for cover. So he's had improved precise since level 1. Additionally, the hand-waiving is likely happening since his fame total indicates that he has *never* failed a prestige mission.

Sounds like that's the problem, then. You might want to (politely) confront the GM about running sanctioned games by the rules. Houserules (like removing cover) are for home games, not organized play.

Quote:
I like the term "jackpot" character :)

Glad you like it! I just thought of it while writing that post. It's the little things, you know? :D

*

Jiggy wrote:
Sounds like that's the problem, then. You might want to (politely) confront the GM about running sanctioned games by the rules. Houserules (like removing cover) are for home games, not organized play.

FYI, lots of GMs overlook this, and I'm talking about VCs and VLs you'd meet at Gencon. I've actually not seen this enforced a single time. (Well, one player self enforced, but it was with a polearm).

These GMs are not cheating, they either don't know the rule, aren't enforcing it, or depending on the player to enforce it (which in my experience, doesn't always happen unless reminded).

Another thing I commonly see is that spellcasters aren't taking the -4 penalty for shooting into combat (with a ranged touched attack like Scorching Ray) when they don't have Precise Shot. Makes a huge difference and most GMs don't ask the question/check and let it go.

Like in life, specialized PCs are often a lot more effective than non-specialized PCs, this is why they can "wreck" scenarios. Anyway, this thread has already been derailed enough.

*****

Nani Pratt wrote:
...You just have to do the best you can...bring your own party! The kind with confetti. Not the other kind. *ahem* VC announcement voice: You are not permitted to bring four of your own characters to a Pathfinder Society game.

But if you bring four of your own characters, the GM can shred them to make confetti!

Seriously, Nani, that is one of the best posts I've seen in a long time. Thanks for sharing!

Sczarni **

Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

On the topic of Storming the Diamond Gate, I have to sorta scratch my head and wonder just what ultimate storm of suckitude must've formed to culminate in that player having such a lackluster experience in that scenario.

I had the ultimate pleasure of playing under Myron for that scenario, and I can say I'm pretty sure the table had a blast. (that terrain was bloody terrific)

Yes. The scenario is a bit railroady, but that's because you go in, and there's only so many options and directions you have to be able to go in. I mean, when it equates to what is essentially a (highly entertaining) dungeon crawl, there's only so many doors to open before you're taking the only path available.

Now, I can see where there may be complaints about a lack of roleplaying opportunity with what's written in the scenario. On the other hand, what's written in the scenario shouldn't dictate just how much RP is available. For example, we had a party that was half comprised of tieflings. A witch, a rogue, and the most supremely flamboyant dandy around (a Fighter/Monk/Magus). The rogue and the dandy were at each other's throats the entire time, leading to some rather amusing antics. The gnome alchemist kept trying to set everything on fire.

Spoiler:
We stood there staring down the hall, having detected the magic trap while being completely unable to disarm it or discern anything but the explosive nature of it. We all stood there debating what to do about it before the fighter just went plowing ahead. Hilariousness ensued.

The the final fight was challenging, but I thought it was an absolute scream.

Spoiler:
Collapsible bridges? Big gaps? Pff. Expeditious retreat and acrobatics, FTW! Jumped the gap to say "HI!" to the BBEG, before jump-chasing him back to the other corner. Many lulz were had.

The thing is, a scenario is what you make of it. Even one that's poorly written (not that this was! It was awesome!) in the opinions of players or GMs can be made to be fun based on who you're playing with. At a con, it's like a bag of mixed nuts. You may get lucky with a handful and get delicious walnuts, tasty hazelnuts, and nom-worthy almonds. Or you might get a handful of cashews and brazilnuts causing an allergic reaction of doom.

You can't please everyone, but the direction and fun-times of PFS shouldn't be judged by a single scenario, especially if you didn't have a fun experience in just that one scenario.

I, on the other hand, did. Thanks a heap Myron, it was awesome!

Andoran ***

@Jiggy & David: A party of all Jackpot PCs could actually be awesome for both combat and non-combat, since a Jackpot Bard and Wizard would have most skill challenges covered, while the Jackpot Fighter and Rogue would tend to chew through the combats, especially with Bardic support and the Wizard's AoEs.

Spoiler:
I like cashews!

On the -4 to hit from not having Precise Shot when doing a ranged attack into melee; and the +4 to the defender's AC when using ranged and reach attacks, both rules seem to be fairly universally followed here in Vegas-land. I may have to claim, "Mea Culpa!", for it, though; since I was the major archer player out here for some time....

Spoiler:
Since I GM and play, I do have an effect on the local play scene. I tend towards the rules lawyer siode of things, but, even so, I can still learn new things...

And I am at 28 tables of GM credit, 29 once Perry inputs July's Game Day tables. One more table to my second star. Finally!

*****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
3) The GM is inappropriately hand-waving success conditions for non-combat endeavors that are supposed to have serious consequences for failure and can't be solved with brute force.

I have found an inappropriate number of GMs who simply can't stand to see PCs fail at anything. Happiness doesn't always equal success. Unfortunately I see that trend going in the US, where people can't be happy unless they're always rewarded every gold star possible. I remember a player retiring a character because he had a negative boon. I remember a player not getting a character raised because it would put his character too far behind the wealth curve.

This type of behavior from players and the GMs that coddle them has me worried for Race for the Runecarved Key. All I can hope is that GMs don't feel the need to try to advance their table to Part 2. There are literally dozens of opportunities to gain points in Part 1. I'm expecting that some GMs out there won't bother to deduct points when the scenario dictates they must.

I guess in summary, I blame the (not as rare as it should be) existence of jackpot characters squarely on PFS GMs.

*please don't read this as GMs should be "against" PCs. They shouldn't, but they equally shouldn't be "for" the PCs. GMs are there to narrate at story driven by the PCs and to make sure the players are having fun within the boundaries laid by PFRPG and the Society.

Osirion

kinevon wrote:
Once Perry...

Kinevon,

I apologize, I put in the incorrect society number for you. I have corrected the number for July; please let me know if you are displaying proper credit.

-Perry

*****

Kyle Baird wrote:


This type of behavior from players and the GMs that coddle them has me worried for Race for the Runecarved Key. All I can hope is that GMs don't feel the need to try to advance their table to Part 2. There are literally dozens of opportunities to gain points in Part 1. I'm expecting that some GMs out there won't bother to deduct points when the scenario dictates they must.

Hopefully the point system is simple to master--I remember at the Grand Melee at Paizocon 2011, the point system was confusing enough that one of the GMs heard the winning table's score and called out "How is that even a possible score?" after which a discussion ensued that proved the GM of the winning table correct, even though many of the other GMs had read it differently and their players were gone by the time the winning table ended.

Based on how close these things can be, I have the feeling that an unfortunate amount of honest mistakes combined with GM coddling level (it goes both ways--a GM who reads your post and goes super hardline on points will have the opposite effect) will make the decisions, but that's just a fact of life for these big complex events.

I know one year at Iron Player, through whatever arcane hidden point mechanism they used, a GM who is among the worst I have seen in my entire life won a prize for best GM in contest, even though our table rated him as being abysmal.

Sczarni **

Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kyle Baird wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
3) The GM is inappropriately hand-waving success conditions for non-combat endeavors that are supposed to have serious consequences for failure and can't be solved with brute force.

I have found an inappropriate number of GMs who simply can't stand to see PCs fail at anything. Happiness doesn't always equal success. Unfortunately I see that trend going in the US, where people can't be happy unless they're always rewarded every gold star possible. I remember a player retiring a character because he had a negative boon. I remember a player not getting a character raised because it would put his character too far behind the wealth curve.

This type of behavior from players and the GMs that coddle them has me worried for Race for the Runecarved Key. All I can hope is that GMs don't feel the need to try to advance their table to Part 2. There are literally dozens of opportunities to gain points in Part 1. I'm expecting that some GMs out there won't bother to deduct points when the scenario dictates they must.

I guess in summary, I blame the (not as rare as it should be) existence of jackpot characters squarely on PFS GMs.

*please don't read this as GMs should be "against" PCs. They shouldn't, but they equally shouldn't be "for" the PCs. GMs are there to narrate at story driven by the PCs and to make sure the players are having fun within the boundaries laid by PFRPG and the Society.

I've noticed this as well, but thankfully it seems to be pretty uncommon where I game. Very few GMs hand out the goodies like candy, though I have noticed some players that get pretty upset when they fail their faction mission or don't get all the gold for a scenario (or complain about the cost of a raise).

Heck, I, myself, am guilty of being an entitled little snot from time to time, though I am trying very hard not to do that. I mean, just because I'm irritated at losing a prestige point over a single pass/fail dice roll, doesn't mean I need it to be handed to me on a silver platter. Sure, I may try to sucker... err... ask a friend to let me borrow their shirt reroll for the day, but if I can't get the point it's not the end of the world. It's just irritating.

That being said, my irritation is not grounds for a GM to softball things. Success is all that much more enjoyable when you know the bitter taste of failure. Like the awful burnt taste of Starshmucks coffee.


Kyle Baird wrote:
Happiness doesn't always equal success. Unfortunately I see that trend going in the US, where people can't be happy unless they're always rewarded every gold star possible.

...easy mode, hard mode, etc...

Andoran ***

Perry Snow wrote:
kinevon wrote:
Once Perry...

Kinevon,

I apologize, I put in the incorrect society number for you. I have corrected the number for July; please let me know if you are displaying proper credit.

-Perry

Not a problem, Perry. I just thought the report sheets hadn't reached you, yet.

All my credit is good, now, other than a couple of games you weren't involved in.

29 tables of GM credit, and counting...

Which reminds me, I have been delayed responding to your note because of various real worlkd issues, but you should be hearing from me shortly.

depressing:
I just put in my antique laptop as my primary computer until I can get the issues with my much newer desktop resolved, so Internet is slow, and many of my shortcuts/favorites are missing. And that happened just in time to complicate matters where I found out my dad died this past Monday. Which also means that I am going to be out of town for much of next week. Not to mention that I am in the middle of a running debate with my apartment complex about getting a water leak fixed in my apartment. The flood makes getting into my bathroom without swimming an interesting proposiiton... Not to mention all the waterbugs in my aartment because of it. I did mention this spoiler was going to be depressing, didn't I? Sorry.

Osirion

kinevon wrote:
depressing...

I'm sorry to hear about your loss. Please accept my condolences. There's no rush on the note.

-Perry

*****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
hogarth wrote:
...easy mode, hard mode, etc...

I'm still a firm believer that authors can do a better job of giving both GMs and players options within a scenario to experience their preferred choice. When I wrote Rats 1 I put in encounters that allow players to try to talk their way through fights, but if the players want to kill stuff, they can. The NPCs have roughly average tactics, but also have consumables or spells or abilities that allow them to react to especially difficult PCs should they need to.

One of the reasons I absolutely love Daigle and Fortune's Blight is because it was the first time PCs are actually told what they're going up against and allowed to come up with their own ideas and solutions for how to deal with it. The ways the PCs deal with the Hag (not really a spoiler) has been amazing and hilarious.

The best thing we can do is empower the players to come up with their own methods and reward/penalize accordingly. The worst thing we can do is drop the PCs in a small room and auto-attack them with the NPC.

Qadira ****

Bob Jonquet wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Both fighter archers I have seen had *three* 7s. And neither of them roleplayed any 7s.
Sorry if this offends any power-gamers or optomizers out there, but *Facepalm*

nah, it does offend the role player in me. Shesh! the POTENTIAL in playing a character that socially inept, nieve AND "slow"... wow. I may have to build one of these just to see him played right!...

edited: read the rest of the posts ... going to have to call a character with triple 7's Jack Pot. LOL! (gag... I already have 11 characters now!). I wonder if I can give him character number "-777"...

*****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kyle Baird wrote:

I have found an inappropriate number of GMs who simply can't stand to see PCs fail at anything. Happiness doesn't always equal success. Unfortunately I see that trend going in the US, where people can't be happy unless they're always rewarded every gold star possible. I remember a player retiring a character because he had a negative boon. I remember a player not getting a character raised because it would put his character too far behind the wealth curve.

This type of behavior from players and the GMs that coddle them has me worried for Race for the Runecarved Key. All I can hope is that GMs don't feel the need to try to advance their table to Part 2. There are literally dozens of opportunities to gain points in Part 1. I'm expecting that some GMs out there won't bother to deduct points when the scenario dictates they must.

Oh! oh! I'm a girl! Pick me to be your GM for Race to the Runecarved Key! The nice lady GM surely would go really easy on you, and never do anything horrible to you, or deduct points ruthlessly, and would never kill anyone! Pick me!

For Kyle Baird:
I think it was one box of cookies for every PC death, right? And I get a pound of chocolates if I make someone cry, right? Squee!

Qadira ****

Nani Pratt wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:

I have found an inappropriate number of GMs who simply can't stand to see PCs fail at anything. Happiness doesn't always equal success. Unfortunately I see that trend going in the US, where people can't be happy unless they're always rewarded every gold star possible. I remember a player retiring a character because he had a negative boon. I remember a player not getting a character raised because it would put his character too far behind the wealth curve.

This type of behavior from players and the GMs that coddle them has me worried for Race for the Runecarved Key. All I can hope is that GMs don't feel the need to try to advance their table to Part 2. There are literally dozens of opportunities to gain points in Part 1. I'm expecting that some GMs out there won't bother to deduct points when the scenario dictates they must.

Oh! oh! I'm a girl! Pick me to be your GM for Race to the Runecarved Key! The nice lady GM surely would go really easy on you, and never do anything horrible to you, or deduct points ruthlessly, and would never kill anyone! Pick me!

** spoiler omitted **

wow... I would love to have you judge for me. Even if you killed my PC... I may have to take a trip to Atlanta just to play for you.

If I cry:
can we split the box of candy?.

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yes, Nani. You are correct. >:)

*****

nosig wrote:

wow... I would love to have you judge for me. Even if you killed my PC... I may have to take a trip to Atlanta just to play for you.

To quote a player in Georgia, "I've played under both you and your husband. Kyle is very tough and very fair, but you are REALLY enthusiastic."

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Nani Pratt wrote:
...but you are REALLY enthusiastic.

About killing PCs?

*****

About everything!!!

I am equally enthusiastic about killing PCs as I am about not killing PCs. Additionally, I am also enthusiastic about threatening to kill players in a humorous fashion, keeping my players continually guessing as to my true intentions, pushing them to play their best under percieved threats, while guaranteeing an optimally enjoyable play experience. I am also enthusiastic about run-on sentences.

I am a nondiscriminatory equal opportunity enthusiast! YAY!

Qadira **** Venture-Captain, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Thorkull

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Nani, there are -- and I say this because I care -- there are many decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty.

*** Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010

Nani Pratt wrote:
Enthusiastic About everything!!!

I hope I get you as a GM for RftRCK, Nani. :-)

I want a GM who is enthusiastic about GMing (as I'm sure we all do). I'd gladly have Kyle as a GM too, he's going to be very enthusiastic (about killing characters!)

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Michigan—Alma

Matt Goodall wrote:
Nani Pratt wrote:
Enthusiastic About everything!!!

I hope I get you as a GM for RftRCK, Nani. :-)

I want a GM who is enthusiastic about GMing (as I'm sure we all do). I'd gladly have Kyle as a GM too, he's going to be very enthusiastic (about killing characters!)

Nah, I think he's going to be enthusiastically focused on killing Joseph Caubo's cleric...

Qadira *****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jonathan Cary wrote:
Nani, there are -- and I say this because I care -- there are many decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty.

The scary part is that this is without caffeine. You should see her with it.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Nani Pratt wrote:


** spoiler omitted **

Oh, you may have just become my new favorite VO, Nani.

Barring unfortunate cooking incidents, my wife and I are bringing fivespice cookie bars to GenCon. She'll have them at when she's volunteering.

Qadira ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TetsujinOni wrote:
Nani Pratt wrote:


** spoiler omitted **

Oh, you may have just become my new favorite VO, Nani.

Barring unfortunate cooking incidents, my wife and I are bringing fivespice cookie bars to GenCon. She'll have them at when she's volunteering.

wait!

I wish to be the first to complain that it is unfair that persons going to GenCon get a chance to have these cookies, when those of us, for what ever reason, are unable to attend have NO CHANCE at these cookies!

UNFAIR!

This is fostering a two class society in PFS - those of us who got the coveted "GenCon Fivespice Cookie Bars" and those of us who have to adventure without!

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Don't worry, we non-Con-goers can bake brownies. Dibs on the inside brownies.

Qadira ****

Jiggy wrote:
Don't worry, we non-Con-goers can bake brownies. Dibs on the inside brownies.

well... ok.

dibs on the edge ones.

hay! you think she can get a GenCon Boon out of bringing "GenCon Fivespice Cookie Bars"?


Kyle Baird wrote:

I'm still a firm believer that authors can do a better job of giving both GMs and players options within a scenario to experience their preferred choice.

[..]
The best thing we can do is empower the players to come up with their own methods and reward/penalize accordingly. The worst thing we can do is drop the PCs in a small room and auto-attack them with the NPC.

I can't argue with that. I can argue with this, though:

Quote:

Unfortunately I see that trend going in the US, where people can't be happy unless they're always rewarded every gold star possible.

I think that's a perfectly valid way to play and I don't think it's an unfortunate trend at all.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
hogarth wrote:

I can argue with this, though:

Quote:

Unfortunately I see that trend going in the US, where people can't be happy unless they're always rewarded every gold star possible.

I think that's a perfectly valid way to play and I don't think it's an unfortunate trend at all.

Am I hearing you to say "it's perfectly valid to want to succeed at all the parts of all the scenarios and not be happy unless you do?"

Just checking.


TetsujinOni wrote:

Am I hearing you to say "it's perfectly valid to want to succeed at all the parts of all the scenarios and not be happy unless you do?"

Just checking.

Sure. And you'd probably be perfectly happy playing some of the easier scenarios from earlier seasons.

I don't believe in "Bad Wrong Fun".

Silver Crusade **

Honestly, the new race guide gives the base races so many options, I could play two dozen characters and never dip into boon races. Just my view.

Qadira **** Venture-Captain, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Thorkull

nosig wrote:
This is fostering a two class society in PFS - those of us who got the coveted "GenCon Fivespice Cookie Bars" and those of us who have to adventure without!

I find the tears of your anguish delicious. I'll be thinking of you as I eat all the tasty goodies provided by the all the baking ladies of PFS at Gen Con.

:D

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jonathan Cary wrote:
baking ladies

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Michigan—Alma

Hey man! You need to spoiler that! Some of us have never seen the movie! Thanks a lot Jiggy! You've ruined it for me! ;D

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
Hey man! You need to spoiler that! Some of us have never seen the movie! Thanks a lot Jiggy! You've ruined it for me! ;D

SNAPE KILLS TRINITY WITH ROSEBUD!

51 to 100 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / General Discussion / A Player's View of PFS 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.