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

Replaying scenarios for credit.


Pathfinder Society® General Discussion

1 to 50 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Osirion

Since I wasnt able to put my 2 cents in to that other thread-(before it was locked due to a few bad apples spoiling it for everyone else)
I just wanted to add that if GMs can effectively get credit for each scenario twice (applying to different characters of course) then each player should get to apply a "GM credit" to a level 1 character in the rare case of being forced to make the decision of either: 1)replay something with a pregen to make a legal table, or 2)NOBODY gets to play because there are only 3 players and a GM and 2 out of those 3 havent played the scenario while the 3 player has played it and would rather go home than run a game.
When GMs run a scenario multiple times, I've seen them apply player credit despite never having played. So- rather than doing some weird accounting schemes so that everyone gets player credit and gm credit, Institute a change where everyone can qualify for 2 credits under the following guideline.

1) Playing your character as normal, you gain player credit as normal.

2) Playing a pregen to make a legal table; when your presence would bring the table to 4 players (or 3 with GM pregen). You may apply this credit to a new level 1 character.

I understand the need to create GM incentive, (you have the GM star program thing as well) but there also needs to be incentive for players who would be otherwise wasting their time, to help the other pathfinders fill a table.
If it were more than 1 player who have played a scenario- then we would play a different scenario but when you're singled out like that?- Its not a good feeling.

What's worse is when you actually have NOT played the scenario but you're FORCED to take the credit anyway.
Like in my case, we had a TPK on the FIRST encounter- so all I know about the scenario is the opening fluff and that there is a powerful evil cleric on a boat gonna ruin your day.
So I'm all for being able to "replay" that one for credit, since its not like anyone is gonna "ruin the story" I still dont know what happened.

Cheliax

Really the integrity of the society depends on trust. I am trusted to not preread a mod unless I am GMing it, I am trusted not to memorize every creature in the bestiaries and use that knowledge when encountering them on a table.

I would like to see that trust extended to the ability to replay a scenario, and if a GM suspects a player is useing prior knowledge to take them aside just as they would if the player was being disruptive in any other manner.

Osirion

I agree. Altho, I also believe that there should be some restrictions- since Paizo needs a reason for people to buy all the scenarios.
I just hate being limited to one; I would be cool with a limit of 2 or 3 credits per player, if nothing else- just to give players incentive to replay for the sake of "play play play"

Andoran *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Vixeryz wrote:
"play play play"

Dragonmoon loves this phrase.

My views of replay are public so I won't retype it all other than there has to be evidence that there is a need to make a change at this point.

Until that need / evidence occurs the rules will stay the way they are.

I play and GM regularly and so far I have been able to dodge the need for replay the more I GM'ed the less I needed it.

***** Venture-Lieutenant, Georgia—Atlanta aka CRobledo

Paul Rees wrote:
I play and GM regularly and so far I have been able to dodge the need for replay the more I GM'ed the less I needed it.

This statement applies to me as well. I think the system we have now works amazingly well compared to other op campaigns of the past. With two new scenarios released every month, I think things are kept fresh and with plenty available scenarios.

Yes, sometimes there is that one game day that has nothing you can play. I'd suggest volunteering to GM, and if this a frequent problem, how about volunteering to be a store liaison or venture lieutenant so you can help organize other game days with mods you a missing? Or start a home game with you PFS friends that might be in the same boat?

Cheliax ***** Owner - Enchanted Grounds

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am no longer surprised that this subject just insists on coming up every six months. I am surprised that it seems like no one ever does their research before trying again, though.

This thread and this thread have a lot to say on this subject, and all the arguments really should be read before anyone tries to rehash them, once again. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I sent you to my post in the second thread to save you time reading everything leading up to it - the LFR debate is still relevant, almost always comes up in replay threads, and happened just prior to and after my post. Moreover, many of the arguments for replay are even worse, now that there are two more seasons worth of scenarios.

Regardless of my lack of surprise, I'm always very sad to see this come up, yet again.

On the other hand, I'm always pleased to see that the campaign organizers are still in favor of No Replay. I really don't want to see the vibrant, healthy game that is PFS turned into the stagnant, sad state that is LFR.

Osirion

Drogon wrote:

I am no longer surprised that this subject just insists on coming up every six months. I am surprised that it seems like no one ever does their research before trying again, though.

This thread and this thread have a lot to say on this subject, and all the arguments really should be read before anyone tries to rehash them, once again. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I sent you to my post in the second thread to save you time reading everything leading up to it - the LFR debate is still relevant, almost always comes up in replay threads, and happened just prior to and after my post. Moreover, many of the arguments for replay are even worse, now that there are two more seasons worth of scenarios.

Regardless of my lack of surprise, I'm always very sad to see this come up, yet again.

On the other hand, I'm always pleased to see that the campaign organizers are still in favor of No Replay. I really don't want to see the vibrant, healthy game that is PFS turned into the stagnant, sad state that is LFR.

When you have 6 or more characters and game 2 or 3 days a week...this becomes a problem. Lets say there are 30 scenarios and you have 6 level 1 toons. Lets say that you play twice a week. It takes 3 weeks for you to do tier 1-2 from 6 of those 30, 1 exp for each of those guys. So at 2 mods a week, leveling each toon equally- you knock out all the scenarios by the time everyone is level 3. Then what do you do, since you cant play the higher tiers? Sure, Paizo will have published some more scenarios in the 4 months it will take to do this- but it will have only been 5 or 6 new scenarios. That will be done in a month. Then if youre lucky Paizo will have published another 2 or 3 scenarios but..you see the diminishing returns will make it so you CANT play ANYTHING within 6 or 7 months. Giving the player (who refuses to GM) AT LEAST 1 replay credit per scenario gives the avid player another 6 months and gives Paizo more time to crank out more scenarios.

Alternate methods of loosening the noose on replayability could be: Allowing the player 1 player credit at each tier. 1 Low tier, 1 mid tier, 1 high tier.(but still 1 chronicle per character)

Or, Allowing the player to replay any scenario (for credit) which resulted in a permanent character death.
Come on- tell me that ^this wouldnt at least be fair. To essentially allow you to avenge yourself?

Osirion ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Vixeryz wrote:
... while the 3 player has played it and would rather go home than run a game...

I don't mean to be harsh, and there are plenty of suggestions for other ways to extend things, but I honestly don't have the desire to cater to "that avid a player" who is not willing to contribute back to other players. All it takes is for two out of three players to GM one game in four for everyone to play routinely. If you're playing 8 times a month, running one or two of those instead is not asking a great deal.

As for the example scenario given, just the information listed is quite a spoiler that can really alter the experience for the group.

Paizo Employee ***** Global Organized Play Coordinator

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Vixeryz wrote:
Stuff

If you play 2-3 days a week, why not switch 3 or 4 days a month to Adevnture Paths? It sounds like your group gets together often enough that APs would be an exceptional alternative for you.

*

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Michael Brock wrote:


If you play 2-3 days a week, why not switch 3 or 4 days a month to Adevnture Paths? It sounds like your group gets together often enough that APs would be an exceptional alternative for you.

Agreed that seeking out a second source of adventures is something you really should be investigating. A group which plays this frequently is going to very quickly run out of adventures to play in *any* single OP campaign, past or present.

Andoran *****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Vixeryz wrote:
if nothing else- just to give players incentive to replay for the sake of "play play play"

What is this Play, Play, Play!? in fact I don't understand this term... I have not understood this term since August 4, 2011.(let's see who gets that)

*****

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am in favor of no replay for credit. If a player doesn't want to GM, then tough luck not getting credit a second time. Some players need to step up up and judge from time to time if you are going to keep a good community going, and who knows, they might even like it! (I do... now. I didn't at first).

Sczarni **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Majuba wrote:

I don't mean to be harsh, and there are plenty of suggestions for other ways to extend things, but I honestly don't have the desire to cater to "that avid a player" who is not willing to contribute back to other players. All it takes is for two out of three players to GM one game in four for everyone to play routinely. If you're playing 8 times a month, running one or two of those instead is not asking a great deal.

As for the example scenario given, just the information listed is quite a spoiler that can really alter the experience for the group.

+1 to this.

When I first started doing PFS two years ago, I was new to the system (but previously a 3.5er, so...) and not in the least bit comfortable with the idea of GMing because I really didn't feel I knew the rules well enough.

After about 6-8 months, however, I'd settled in and gotten to talking to the regular GM's at my FLGS and one thing I was constantly hearing about was how they ALWAYS had to GM and they never really got to play. I offered to start running games, and didn't really get the chance to do so until I took to driving an hour and a half every Friday to go up north and game with a larger PFS group (Not that my local crew isn't awesome too, mind you!). There, after a while of getting to know the crowd, I started prepping scenarios and running them every so often. Now I'm one of the regular GM's and because we have so many people showing up all the time (Which is awesome!) I find about half the time it's a real struggle to see if any of our usual GM's actually gets to play or if everyone's needed just to make sure everyone that showed up gets to game.

I can understand the frustration of dieing early in a scenario and not getting to play it again for the experience of it and for credit, but... Are you so obsessed with getting credit for EVERY GAME EVER that you can't replay one you've done just for funsies? There are several scenarios that I just love and have replayed just to fill out a table or because it sounded entertaining.

Also, if you're playing and getting credit every single time, what about your GM's? Do they get to play as often as you, or are they stuck GMing for you and those other avid gamers that refuse to GM? What are you giving back to your gaming community on a regular basis that means you should get credit all the time? The joy of having you at a table with them? Sorry, mate, but that's not enough in my opinion to be giving you credit every time.

Taldor **

Katie Gonzalez wrote:
I am in favor of no replay for credit. If a player doesn't want to GM, then tough luck not getting credit a second time. Some players need to step up up and judge from time to time if you are going to keep a good community going, and who knows, they might even like it! (I do... now. I didn't at first).

You and me both, it's amazing how they get their hooks into you Katie.

Cheliax ***** Owner - Enchanted Grounds

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vixeryz wrote:
When you have 6 or more characters and game 2 or 3 days a week...this becomes a problem. Lets say there are 30 scenarios and you have 6 level 1 toons. Lets say that you play twice a week. It takes 3 weeks for you to do tier 1-2 from 6 of those 30, 1 exp for each of those guys. So at 2 mods a week, leveling each toon equally- you knock out all the scenarios by the time everyone is level 3. Then what do you do, since you cant play the higher tiers? Sure, Paizo will have published some more scenarios in the 4 months it will take to do this- but it will have only been 5 or 6 new scenarios. That will be done in a month. Then if youre lucky Paizo will have published another 2 or 3 scenarios but..you see the diminishing returns will...

Oh. THAT argument.

Let's see, currently there are 106 scenarios that can be played, not counting specials that require a 4-star GM or multiple tables to sanction. On top of that, you can play 17 different modules, all of which require two or three sessions to complete and grant 3 XP. Three more modules offer another session and 1 XP each.

By my count, that is 143 sessions (assuming you complete the modules in two sessions), with 160 XP available. That's enough to play for 71 weeks, even if you are playing twice per week, and enough XP to get four characters to retirement (and one of those to near 20th level). After 71 weeks, another 8 modules will have been released, and another 30+ scenarios.

By another count that is 572 hours of playing, not counting the stuff that gets released before you're done. Are you seriously playing so much that you consume that volume of material at the rate a speed reader blows through novels?

I am jealous of how much time you have to game, my friend, but you are a fringe portion of the gaming public. Paizo cannot, and should not, narrow their focus to accommodate the small percentage of the player base that does nothing but game. The quality of the campaign, and level of enjoyment, will go into serious decline if they do.

You need to start playing Adventure Paths if you play that much. Mix in one session per week with APs, and you will still outpace the schedule of release for PFS, but at least it will be a few years before you have nothing left to play.

A different take: slow down a little. Enjoy this experience. It's a game, not a race.

***** Venture-Lieutenant, Georgia—Atlanta aka CRobledo

Drogon wrote:
I am jealous of how much time you have to game, my friend, but you are a fringe portion of the gaming public. Paizo cannot, and should not, narrow their focus to accommodate the small percentage of the player base that does nothing but game. The quality of the campaign, and level of enjoyment, will go into serious decline if they do.

+1 to this. As Mike said, I think APs should be your next step at this point.

**

Drogon wrote:
Vixeryz wrote:
When you have 6 or more characters and game 2 or 3 days a week...this becomes a problem. Lets say there are 30 scenarios and you have 6 level 1 toons. Lets say that you play twice a week. It takes 3 weeks for you to do tier 1-2 from 6 of those 30, 1 exp for each of those guys. So at 2 mods a week, leveling each toon equally- you knock out all the scenarios by the time everyone is level 3. Then what do you do, since you cant play the higher tiers? Sure, Paizo will have published some more scenarios in the 4 months it will take to do this- but it will have only been 5 or 6 new scenarios. That will be done in a month. Then if youre lucky Paizo will have published another 2 or 3 scenarios but..you see the diminishing returns will...

Oh. THAT argument.

Let's see, currently there are 106 scenarios that can be played, not counting specials that require a 4-star GM or multiple tables to sanction. On top of that, you can play 17 different modules, all of which require two or three sessions to complete and grant 3 XP. Three more modules offer another session and 1 XP each.

By my count, that is 143 sessions (assuming you complete the modules in two sessions), with 160 XP available. That's enough to play for 71 weeks, even if you are playing twice per week, and enough XP to get four characters to retirement (and one of those to near 20th level). After 71 weeks, another 8 modules will have been released, and another 30+ scenarios.

I am just pointing out that LFR put out something like 150 mods the first 2.5 years. People call that campaign stagnant because it's only put out 50 or so additional mods in the last 2 years. I'm not disagreeing with this idea, as there was some incompentence at the top of that campaign and at WoTC. However, some perspective needs to be taken.

For example, I had 20 or so LFR characters in the 3 years I played that campaign. I still haven't played all the mods available, and I've played some mods up to 4 times (with additional runs in the DM chair). Plus the My Realms were a lot of fun for people who only play organized play.

PFS does a lot right. DM credit is one of them. However, I do think that additional replay rights should be something considered for DMs once they've reached a certain level. Say 2+ stars lets you replay mods an additional time, and 4+ stars removes the replay limit altogether. That would both encourage DMing among heavy/longtime players, and let these heavy/longtime players continue to participate regularly outside of the DM sphere. For example, there are several local players who I rarely see playing pathfinder at local cons as they've played/DMed everything already at gencon, etc.

Cheliax ***** Owner - Enchanted Grounds

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Furious Kender wrote:
I am just pointing out that LFR put out something like 150 mods the first 2.5 years. People call that campaign stagnant because it's only put out 50 or so additional mods in the last 2 years. I'm not disagreeing with this idea, as there was some incompentence at the top of that campaign and at WoTC. However, some perspective needs to be taken.

LFR is not stagnant because of lack of play options.

LFR is stagnant because the same players show up at the same game every single week. Due to their ability to replay scenarios and/or build new PCs at whatever tier they need to build a PC to participate in a game, the veterans grab all the available spots, whether they've played a scenario before or not. New players are unable to find room at tables, and are often unwelcome when they do.

Stagnation, in this case, is defined as a player base that does not grow. In fact, it has shrunk, as many players have left the game rather than deal with the same players and/or GMs at every single table.

I, personally, left when the group I was GMing stopped me in the middle of a description and said, "Hey, man, just so you know, we've all played this already. Can we just skip to the combats? I have a new build I want to try, and the treasure drop at the end of this is all I'm really after."

THAT is my definition of stagnant. Write as much as you want, and publish as much as you want. Ask TSR how that worked out for them, after they had glutted the market so badly they were unable to attract new players.

Shadow Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, California—San Diego

Drogon wrote:
Paizo cannot, and should not, narrow their focus to accommodate the small percentage of the player base that does nothing but game. The quality of the campaign, and level of enjoyment, will go into serious decline if they do.

This

Silver Crusade **

Drogon wrote:


I, personally, left when the group I was GMing stopped me in the middle of a description and said, "Hey, man, just so you know, we've all played this already. Can we just skip to the combats? I have a new build I want to try, and the treasure drop at the end of this is all I'm really after."

THAT is my definition of stagnant. Write as much as you want, and publish as much as you want. Ask TSR how that worked out for them, after they had glutted the market so badly they were unable to attract new players.

+1. That is gross, you might as well just play WoW or any other MMORPG, because all you want is the end game, not the actual enjoyment of the game.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Drogon wrote:

I, personally, left when the group I was GMing stopped me in the middle of a description and said, "Hey, man, just so you know, we've all played this already. Can we just skip to the combats? I have a new build I want to try, and the treasure drop at the end of this is all I'm really after."

And, to an extent, this already happens with First Steps. It's kinda ugly.

**

Drogon wrote:


Oh. THAT argument.

Let's see, currently there are 106 scenarios that can be played, not counting specials that require a 4-star GM or multiple tables to sanction. On top of that, you can play 17 different modules, all of which require two or three sessions to complete and grant 3 XP. Three more modules offer another session and 1 XP each.

By my count, that is 143 sessions (assuming you complete the modules in two sessions), with 160 XP available. That's enough to play for 71 weeks, even if you are playing twice per week, and enough XP to get four characters to retirement (and one of those to near 20th level). After 71 weeks, another 8 modules will have been released, and another 30+ scenarios.

By another count that is 572 hours of playing, not counting the stuff that gets released before you're done. Are you seriously playing so much that you consume that volume of material at the rate a speed reader blows through novels?

Modules tend not to be offereed at Cons.

Let's see how many cons PFS provides in play. 104 scenarios, with 9 scenarios per con equals 11.56 cons worth of scenarios total. This is 2.89 cons per year for 4 years. We have more LOCAL cons within 2 hours of me than that this in september and october alone. Let's say you DM 1 slot for every 3 you play, so that's like 4 cons a year for 4 years or 5 for 3 years. The local cons within the next 5 weeks: Gaming Hoopla, Conception, and DCV or Rockcon. And yes, people do complain about having local cons on the same weekend here.

You can mock regular con goers all you want, but 4 or 5 cons a year isn't excessive or unusual for an organized player. There are 5-6 cons here per year without even leaving the city. If you add in cons within 2 hours, then there are 10 or more per year here. This is without local game days, of which there are like 10 per month on different days within 1 hour of me. Do people go to all of them, of course not.

In this area, I think most regular organized players go to 3-6 cons per year and 2-4 game days a month. The average gamer in these parts is 20 to 50 and has a solid job.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think open replay for more than the 1-2 tier mods is a good idea. I do however think opening up some replay options as a DM benefit would be helpful.

***** Venture-Lieutenant, Georgia—Atlanta aka CRobledo

Furious Kender wrote:
Modules tend not to be offereed at Cons.

Funny, all the ones around here tend to do so. I GMed No Response From Deepmar at Dragon Con just a few weeks ago. I think TWO instances of Ruby Phoenix Tournament were offered at the Arsenal right at Gencon.

I think cons are a great place for modules.

Just saying YMMV.

Cheliax ***** Owner - Enchanted Grounds

Furious Kender wrote:
You can mock regular con goers all you want, but 4 or 5 cons a year isn't excessive or unusual for an organized player.

Why would I mock regular con-goers? And when did I mock them? People are allowed to game however they like. The debate is whether Paizo should alter their rules to fit in a tiny percentage of people who play non-stop.

I will say that anyone I know who is attending conventions that much has a far broader taste in gaming than just PFS. They play Savage Worlds, LFR, Tru-Dungeon, PFS, Shadowrun, Legend of the Five Rings...the list goes on. In other words, they have plenty of RPG interests, and try very hard to not pigeon-hole themselves into playing the same system for all nine slots of a weekend convention.

The suggestion to all those who game this much AT HOME is to broaden your gaming there, too; play Adventure Paths, home brews, or other systems. You obviously love gaming, and have the time to play three to four times as often as most people. Please reciprocate by trying new things and do not insist that the only solution is to change the campaign that the majority of us get along with just fine.

[Edit] Fixed a mis-quote

Qadira ***

I think the OP was asking the wrong question. There are perfectly good reasons on both sides for allowing replay, but what this is really about is removing currently existing restrictions on the campaign. So, the real question is whether or not PFS needs less restrictions, and there are pros and cons to both.

Campaign restrictions appeal to the invested player. After all, without campaign restrictions, especially those you can bypass by investing in the campaign, there isn’t much of a return on the invested player’s investment. The invested player has an 11th level character because he earned it playing for 100s of hours, not because he rolled one up the day before. The invested player can play a Drow because he got a special cert at a Con, not because everyone in the campaign can play a Drow. And the invested player cares more about campaign story integrity that may be disrupted by replay of adventures.

On the other hand, these same restrictions tend to turn off newbs and casual players. They feel intimidated by the benefits the invested players have that they don’t because they are new, or because they can’t or won’t put the same investment the invested players do into the campaign. They want to play an 11th level character, not because they spent hundreds of game hours to get there, but because they want to play that particular adventure, maybe with a set of friends or just because they can because they will never have the time to work one up that high. They don’t want to have to spend all the time and money required to go to conventions just to play the cool Drow character they came up with. And they want to be able to play whatever adventure is being offered with the people they want to play it with when they are actually available to play.

The problem is you can’t just side with one of these groups. Without the invested players you have no infrastructure as the invested player base is where the organizers, authors, administrators, DMs and promoters come from. But without the newbs and casual players you have low turnout and little of the new blood needed to keep the campaign alive.

So really, the trick is to get the proper balance between the two. As an example, I think LFR went too far overboard in supporting the casual/newb base. WotC has lots of pretty numbers showing all the new players the campaign has brought in, but I haven’t seen any numbers as to how many of those new players keep playing the game for any length of time. Right now, across my entire state, it is hard to find LFR games, not because there aren’t enough people interested in playing LFR, but cause there aren’t enough people interested in organizing and DMing it. Most of the invested LFR players have slowly been migrating to PFS since 4E came out and there is plenty of support for that in the area.

So I think what the OP really needs to ask himself is if the campaign needs to change that balance. Does the campaign staff feel they have a good balance between invested players and newbs/casuals? If they do, then don’t change anything. If they don’t, then they need to look at making changes like this.

Andoran *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

I attend 5+ Cons a year, I play/GM PFS exclusivly at all of them. Have a Game day twice a Month, and once in awhile go out of time do visit other City game days. I have still not run out of anything I can play or GM with my 9 PCs.

Since I can always GM no matter what no matter the scenario I will never run out of something I can GM.

Cheliax ***** Owner - Enchanted Grounds

Dragnmoon wrote:

I attend 5+ Cons a year, I play/GM PFS exclusivly at all of them. Have a Game day twice a Month, and once in awhile go out of time do visit other City game days. I have still not run out of anything I can play or GM with my 9 PCs.

Since I can always GM no matter what no matter the scenario I will never run out of something I can GM.

Once again, the stars align, and Dragnmoon and I see eye to eye. [CUE creepy music...]

trollbill wrote:
On the other hand, these same restrictions tend to turn off newbs and casual players.

I don't know about this. I have a lot of new players and casual players who play during my games (I organize around 20 tables per month). None of them get turned off by the restriction of only playing a scenario once. They are occasionally tripped up by the restriction and sign up for something they can't play, but I am almost always able to move them to another scenario they have not played, already.

Currently, I have no hardcore players who are clamoring for replay, either, as I am very diligent about managing how often scenarios appear on my schedule.

On the other hand, roughly every six months, the hard-core (invested) players I see on these boards occasionally, turn up to ask for replay. The only thing they seem to not have the time to do is weigh all the arguments for or against, or read what has come before.

**

Drogon wrote:
Furious Kender wrote:
You can mock regular con goers all you want, but 4 or 5 cons a year isn't excessive or unusual for an organized player.
Why would I mock regular con-goers? And when did I mock them? People are allowed to game however they like. The debate is whether Paizo should alter their rules to fit in a tiny percentage of people who play non-stop.

When you call regular con-goers and people who have played PFS for 3 or so years "People who game non-stop," and "the player base that does nothing but game," yes, I find it somewhat offensive.

I've played PFS since mid-march. I have attended 1 gameday per week and spent 1 weekend at a local con. I've GMed or played 22 different mods so far in these 4 months. I have a good job, a wife and kid that I spend a great deal of time with. My wife and kid are also going out of town for 3 weeks, so I go to some local and regional cons, and some gamedays and will pick up another 25 or so scenarios during that time.

I'm not that ususual, but the rate that I play isn't sustainable for more than a year to year and a half, even with my 50-50 gm/player split. The other regular con goers in this area started playing PFS 2-3 years ago, so they really are down to a few older mods and the new releases at this point.

You can call us a minority, but it's people like us who are the backbone of the local community.

Cheliax ***** Owner - Enchanted Grounds

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Furious Kender wrote:
Drogon wrote:
Furious Kender wrote:
You can mock regular con goers all you want, but 4 or 5 cons a year isn't excessive or unusual for an organized player.
Why would I mock regular con-goers? And when did I mock them? People are allowed to game however they like. The debate is whether Paizo should alter their rules to fit in a tiny percentage of people who play non-stop.
When you call regular con-goers and people who have played PFS for 3 or so years "People who game non-stop," and "the player base that does nothing but game," yes, I find it somewhat offensive.

Okay. I apologize to you, then. And anyone else who took offense at being told they game non-stop.

To be clear: I am honestly jealous of anyone who gets to play that much, and I will never hold it against them. I truly wish I had that kind of time, and doubt I ever will.

Furious Kender wrote:


You can call us a minority, but it's people like us who are the backbone of the local community.

I will take exception to this jibe at me.

The backbone of the community are the players who take the time to GM, play, coordinate, support, teach and enjoy games with anyone who comes along. If you are one of those people then you are, indeed, the backbone of the community.

If all you do is play a module once then GM it once and never touch it again, no matter how many new players come along who have not played it, then you are in it for yourself.

Dragnmoon plays as much as you do, is the backbone of his community, and has the four stars next to his name to prove it. And he has not yet played everything available to him, by his own statement. Strive for that instead of striving for replay.

*

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Furious Kender wrote:


When you call regular con-goers and people who have played PFS for 3 or so years "People who game non-stop," and "the player base that does nothing but game," yes, I find it somewhat offensive.

I won't speak for Drogon, but I don't think that the level of play which you (or I) engage in is really what he was referring to (certainly, it's not what *I* would refer to as "playing non-stop").

You're effectively playing once a week, or a little more (22 scenarios in 4 months), though you're about to go into a short-term heavy-gaming mode. The OP noted that his group is playing 2-3 times per week, every week. That's a level of play which goes well beyond "going to 4 or 5 cons a year", or playing on a weekly basis.

As I noted earlier, *that* is a level of play which, barring unlimited replay, no single OP campaign, current or past, could cope with (with the possible exception of Living Greyhawk, and even then, it would have necessitated a player to travel to out-of-region conventions to pick up adventures from other regions...I know people who did just that, and, yes, frankly, they *did* "game non-stop".)

**

Drogon wrote:

The backbone of the community are the players who take the time to GM, play, coordinate, support, teach and enjoy games with anyone who comes along. If you are one of those people then you are, indeed, the backbone of the community.

If all you do is play a module once then GM it once and never touch it again, no matter how many new players come along who have not played it, then you are in it for yourself.

Dragnmoon plays as much as you do, is the backbone of his community, and has the four stars next to his name to prove it. And he has not yet played everything available to him, by his own statement. Strive for that instead of striving for replay.

I do coordinate my local gaming group, just not currently for PFS. I am still new to PFS.

What I strive for is to have fun with my friends. When my friends have to check to make sure they haven't already played all the mods offered by local cons, it's annoying. Some of them won't go if they have to sit out/game by themselves 1-2 slots, as they didn't have the foresight/ability to GM that slot. E.g., many smaller cons fill in GMs with people the organizers know before they even put up the schedule. And yes, this happened to me this week.

I also foresee a time, not too far into the future when I will be forced to GM more than my current 50% just to be allowed to participate in many gamedays. This doesn't excite me, as I want GMing to be a choice. It make it more fun that way.

Drogon and Mike- I understand that the OP plays a lot more than I do, and that was who Drogon was originally aiming his comments at. My point was that the con regular can start hitting replay issues pretty quickly. Loosening replay for people who DM a lot doesn't change the campaign significantly. It does however let groups of regular con goers play together on a more regular basis.

Cheliax ***** Owner - Enchanted Grounds

I've seen many of your posts, Furious Kender, and you are a reasonable person with a well-thought-out opinion. Sometimes those opinions don't match up with my own, which is to be expected.

So, considering the respect we seem to be exhibiting for each other, I think it appropriate that we agree to disagree. I wish you could see how detrimental allowing replay would be to the health of the campaign. You wish I could see how detrimental it is for the health of your gaming community to NOT allow replay. We can continue this with that understanding.

The only thing I will ask is that you read everything I've pointed people toward. Many of these threads become much more heated than this, admittedly, so you'll probably see a lot of stuff that gets your back up. But, set that aside, and look at the suggestions many people give for those in your situation. Consider them, before thinking the only solution is replay.

Last, I want to reiterate something I alluded to above: it is okay to play other games. It is okay to play Adventure Paths with your home group or local game day group. There are lots of cool options out there. I suggest that, by pinning all of your plans for fun on the strength of PFS, you are doing yourself and many other gaming companies a disservice. Again, I do not say this in an effort to offend you, and you are certainly within your rights to disagree with me. I just want you to consider this.

Osirion *****

Michael Brock wrote:
If you play 2-3 days a week, why not switch 3 or 4 days a month to Adevnture Paths? It sounds like your group gets together often enough that APs would be an exceptional alternative for you.

This.

And I would be curious to know when you actually run out of scenarios? If you don't mind, it would be very cool if you come back here when you get through them all and shout out. I think it would be useful to know if players are actually running out of things to play within the campaign.

I have not heard of anyone having this problem in actuality but I have heard several people express this same concern that you have.

**

Michael Brock wrote:
Vixeryz wrote:
Stuff
If you play 2-3 days a week, why not switch 3 or 4 days a month to Adevnture Paths? It sounds like your group gets together often enough that APs would be an exceptional alternative for you.

I'm in this camp here. I'm playing a weekly campaign (online with maptools) and doing the other 1-2 times/week in PFS. It's a great balance.

Cheliax ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber

I'm close to clocking out on things to play for credit at subtier 1-2... which is a different but related issue.

Not enough first steps tables being offered because new players and hardcore players have a different perspective on using FS.

***** Venture-Lieutenant, Georgia—Atlanta aka CRobledo

TetsujinOni wrote:

I'm close to clocking out on things to play for credit at subtier 1-2... which is a different but related issue.

Not enough first steps tables being offered because new players and hardcore players have a different perspective on using FS.

Hey, you got Murder's Mark coming next month...

*****

Furious Kender wrote:

I've played PFS since mid-march. I have attended 1 gameday per week and spent 1 weekend at a local con. I've GMed or played 22 different mods so far in these 4 months. I have a good job, a wife and kid that I spend a great deal of time with. My wife and kid are also going out of town for 3 weeks, so I go to some local and regional cons, and some gamedays and will pick up another 25 or so scenarios during that time.

I'm not that ususual, but the rate that I play isn't sustainable for more than a year to year and a half, even with my 50-50 gm/player split. The other regular con goers in this area started playing PFS 2-3 years ago, so they really are down to a few older mods and the new releases at this point.

Hmm, this doesn't mesh with my experience. I've been playing PFS at Gencon since Season 0, and starting at Season 3, I've done exclusively PFS at Gencon (though due to Gencon's horrible customer service, this past year is my last year). I also played a few sessions at Paizocon the past two years as well as last year going to Totalcon and PAX East exclusively for PFS. Additionally, I started a home PFS group that has meets about once every two weeks about a year and a half ago, and I'm the liaison for the flagship open gamestore game in the region, which meets once a week. Finally, I play once every other week at another gamestore, which only started less than 6 months ago.

I have 9 characters, soon to be 10. I am a 3 Star GM, with about 70 scenarios under my belt (it's hard to remember these days). I GM about half the time. I have not run out of scenarios to play. To put it even more strongly--I've never played or GMed a module except for We Be Goblins, and I've barely touched the vast resources of 7-11 scenarios (I played one of them once this past Gencon and GMed none, though that's about to change) due to player turnover making it impossible to gather a 7-11 group.

Sorry for the long preamble, but it leads to this: I have never had to replay (except First Steps, for credit), and the only time I ever ran a scenario for no GM credit was when I was assigned my games for Gencon and was given the same scenario twice.

My girlfriend keeps a spreadsheet, and I'm about halfway through the scenarios (and I haven't touched the modules except playing We Be Goblins). So I'm a living example that replay isn't at all necessary in order to have something to play, and as such I'm against replay and against this argument for replay.

As an aside, it is true that my home group in general is running into trouble due to being only able to run one table and running out of 1-5s, 1-7s. and 3-7s that we can play when one new player joins us that the old players haven't played already, since even if you manage to throw up First Steps every time, you still need at least 9 scenarios per new player to get them into 5-9 range. This is probably because PFS is not optimized for home groups that usually gain new players one at a time.

Osirion

Drogon wrote:


To be clear: I am honestly jealous of anyone who gets to play that much, and I will never hold it against them. I truly wish I had that kind of time, and doubt I ever will.

Twice a week isnt that much... I'll bet if you tried hard enough you could find 2 5 hour blocks somewhere

And for those people who are saying we should play an adventure path- Adventure paths arent sanctioned by PFS altho- it would be nice to recieve 3 xp for each "module" in the set...

For those people who complain that the game would become broken or "mmo"-like... Its not like I'm asking for unlimited replayability- Like that other guy said, I'm advocating or lessening the restrictions a little. At the very minimum- if they only allow ONE replay for a scenario in which you had a character death, I believe most of us would be satisfied. I know that I would be eternally grateful.

Sczarni **

Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vixeryz wrote:
Drogon wrote:

To be clear: I am honestly jealous of anyone who gets to play that much, and I will never hold it against them. I truly wish I had that kind of time, and doubt I ever will.

Twice a week isnt that much... I'll bet if you tried hard enough you could find 2 5 hour blocks somewhere

And for those people who are saying we should play an adventure path- Adventure paths arent sanctioned by PFS altho- it would be nice to recieve 3 xp for each "module" in the set...

For those people who complain that the game would become broken or "mmo"-like... Its not like I'm asking for unlimited replayability- Like that other guy said, I'm advocating or lessening the restrictions a little. At the very minimum- if they only allow ONE replay for a scenario in which you had a character death, I believe most of us would be satisfied. I know that I would be eternally grateful.

The thing is, AP's aren't going to be for credit anytime in the foreseeable future because an AP is a completely different beast than PFS.

An AP is designed for you to be able to go and have fun in a home game with friends on your own schedules with your own rules. Not to find just one more thing to get credit for. It's not an arms race, man.

Not everything needs to be for PFS credit to be awesome, ya know? Heck, if I could reliably get into a home game I would, but considering the only reason I'm gaming twice a week with PFS is because I drive an hour and a half there and an hour and a half back every game night, save for 2 a month here locally. As it stands, the only reason I'm going to be doing Kingmaker here soon is because I'm running it for friends and family, 'cause otherwise it's just not gonna happen on its own.

*

In Season 1, there was an argument for limited replay. Now that it's Season 4, I think the disadvantages of replay strongly outweigh the advantages.

However, Vixeryz's idea of allowing replay for a scenario in which you had a character death is a good idea imo.

Cheliax ***** Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

Jason S wrote:

In Season 1, there was an argument for limited replay. Now that it's Season 4, I think the disadvantages of replay strongly outweigh the advantages.

However, Vixeryz's idea of allowing replay for a scenario in which you had a character death is a good idea imo.

This negates the penalty of death. Don't we all want character death to mean something?

Osirion

Mike Mistele wrote:
Furious Kender wrote:


When you call regular con-goers and people who have played PFS for 3 or so years "People who game non-stop," and "the player base that does nothing but game," yes, I find it somewhat offensive.

I won't speak for Drogon, but I don't think that the level of play which you (or I) engage in is really what he was referring to (certainly, it's not what *I* would refer to as "playing non-stop").

You're effectively playing once a week, or a little more (22 scenarios in 4 months), though you're about to go into a short-term heavy-gaming mode. The OP noted that his group is playing 2-3 times per week, every week. That's a level of play which goes well beyond "going to 4 or 5 cons a year", or playing on a weekly basis.

As I noted earlier, *that* is a level of play which, barring unlimited replay, no single OP campaign, current or past, could cope with (with the possible exception of Living Greyhawk, and even then, it would have necessitated a player to travel to out-of-region conventions to pick up adventures from other regions...I know people who did just that, and, yes, frankly, they *did* "game non-stop".)

2-3 times a week isnt nonstop either. I play in PFS twice a week, which means 5 WHOLE DAYS of NOT gaming. I dont have the money to attend conventions, not even the local ones.

You wanna talk "nonstop gaming"? When I was a teenager I had to keep a day planner because I gamed 6 days a week, and on 2 of those days I had one game in the morning (11am-6pm) and another game at night (7pm-midnight or later)

Osirion

Todd Morgan wrote:
Jason S wrote:

In Season 1, there was an argument for limited replay. Now that it's Season 4, I think the disadvantages of replay strongly outweigh the advantages.

However, Vixeryz's idea of allowing replay for a scenario in which you had a character death is a good idea imo.

This negates the penalty of death. Don't we all want character death to mean something?

NO it DOESNT, because THAT character STILL DIED. The penalty is that you cant play it anymore and you have to make a new one.

What I MEANT was that if you didnt get to fully experience that scenario (in which the character died) then you should get the opportunity to experience it with a DIFFERENT character.

Osirion

Jack-of-Blades wrote:
Vixeryz wrote:
Drogon wrote:

To be clear: I am honestly jealous of anyone who gets to play that much, and I will never hold it against them. I truly wish I had that kind of time, and doubt I ever will.

Twice a week isnt that much... I'll bet if you tried hard enough you could find 2 5 hour blocks somewhere

And for those people who are saying we should play an adventure path- Adventure paths arent sanctioned by PFS altho- it would be nice to recieve 3 xp for each "module" in the set...

For those people who complain that the game would become broken or "mmo"-like... Its not like I'm asking for unlimited replayability- Like that other guy said, I'm advocating or lessening the restrictions a little. At the very minimum- if they only allow ONE replay for a scenario in which you had a character death, I believe most of us would be satisfied. I know that I would be eternally grateful.

The thing is, AP's aren't going to be for credit anytime in the foreseeable future because an AP is a completely different beast than PFS.

An AP is designed for you to be able to go and have fun in a home game with friends on your own schedules with your own rules. Not to find just one more thing to get credit for. It's not an arms race, man.

Not everything needs to be for PFS credit to be awesome, ya know? Heck, if I could reliably get into a home game I would, but considering the only reason I'm gaming twice a week with PFS is because I drive an hour and a half there and an hour and a half back every game night, save for 2 a month here locally. As it stands, the only reason I'm going to be doing Kingmaker here soon is because I'm running it for friends and family, 'cause otherwise it's just not gonna happen on its own.

Yeah...because the point of PFS is that game doesnt get cancelled just because the healer cant make it. If we could swap characters in and out just as easily without worrying about "continuity" and "building rapore" with other adventurers in character. So- Campaigns just arent feasible for most of these people-or so they claim. (nevermind that they consistently show up every week without fail)

**

Rogue Eidolon wrote:


Hmm, this doesn't mesh with my experience. I've been playing PFS at Gencon since Season 0, and starting at Season 3, I've done exclusively PFS at Gencon (though due to Gencon's horrible customer service, this past year is my last year). I also played a few sessions at Paizocon the past two years as well as last year going to Totalcon and PAX East exclusively for PFS. Additionally, I started a home PFS group that has meets about once every two weeks about a year and a half ago, and I'm the liaison for the flagship open gamestore game in the region, which meets once a week. Finally, I play once every other week at another gamestore, which only started less than 6 months ago.

I have 9 characters, soon to be 10. I am a 3 Star GM, with about 70 scenarios under my belt (it's hard to remember these days). I GM about half the time. I have not run out of scenarios to play. To put it even more strongly--I've never played or GMed a module except for We Be Goblins, and I've barely touched the vast resources of 7-11 scenarios (I played one of them once this past Gencon and GMed none, though that's about to change) due to player turnover making it impossible to gather a 7-11 group.

Sorry for the long preamble, but it leads to this: I have never had to replay (except...

I'm glad to hear running out of mods completely has proved to be difficult.

My other points were more practical than theoretical: running out of mods to play during a slot, or not being able to easily play with friends consistently at a con.

Say you take 2-3 regular PFS guys that want to play together at a con, say as a coordinated group of level 3s and 4s when playing 1-5 mods. Playing with your friends adds fun to the con from my experience. With the exception of cons playing brand new material, say gencon or paizocon, this is hard to do in PFS in my experience.

I've been playing for 4 months, and have DMed about half the time. So I really haven't played many mods. The next con I'm going to is offering a pretty good mix of early year 3 and 4 mods, and there was only 1 of 8 slots in which I could play both mods being offered in each slot. The friend with whom I'm going, whose has only played a bit more than I have, can only play with me about 50% of the time due to replay issues. That bothers me, because we're relatively new to this campaign and we'd prefer to play together. With that said, another con is offering older mods (years 0 to 2 mostly) and we can play together easily the entire con (as neither of us have played much of those years).

I'd like to be able to go to a con, outside of gencon and such, and not have to struggle to make sure I can play with my group of friends. I'd like to be able go to a con at the last minute and not worry about the number of PFS slots I cannot play due to replay.

I've played with people in organized play who wrote the mods, who edited the mods, who playtested the mods, who have DMed the mods, and who have played the mod numerous times before, and this has all rarely been an issue for me. Honestly, in LFR it was not unusual for half a table at a local con to have played a mod previously, say at a battle interactive at a local con. I honestly never saw anyone spoil the adventure. Hell, I failed an interactive at just such a table.

As for running PFS mods only for the loot, that would bother me. Honestly, other than dragonhide for druids, I've yet to see anything in a PFS mod that'd I would like to get that I already couldn't buy. But I'm sure there is something out there that is not normally available and is still affordable.

With that said, I've said my piece. It's a game. I am not going to worry further about it.

*****

As others have stated, this issue has been around since the beginning. I recognize that there are players here of other campaigns that had different rules, and other still (time and time again) have told their stories about how broken replay was in other campaign systems.

Many times I've sat down at with my little character to replay a scenario (for no credit) simply because I was needed to complete a table so that others could have the fun of playing the scenario for the first time. I know others that have also done this. I'd already received my credit for being a plyer (and probably the GM credit as well) it was more rewarding for me to see newer players enjoying themselves.

The rules as they currently stand are fair. Everyone gets the credit for being a player, if you're willing to step-up and judge then you get the reward of a 2nd chronicle. If you're not willing to step-up and judge for that reward then you shouldn't get it; (see dictionary for definition of the term reward).

Regardless of how much a person plays, simply put Paizo has yet to give into the power gamers (those with multiple gamedays in a month)and I seriously doubt they ever will. They have a developed stratedgy that so far has been working well for the majority of players and keeps them with a steady but adequate supply of games to play.

Suggestions have been made for alternatives and while I'm with you on the loyalty of running only PFS, if you're honestly spending that much time playing PFS then maybe it's time to switch things up.. there are APS, made a custom homegame using the pathfinder world.. etc.. but please, for the love of all that is good and holy, do not attempt to screw things up for the rest of us that fit in with the way Paizo is doing things. You are the exception not the rule. Let's leave it at that.

**

Vixeryz wrote:


As I noted earlier, *that* is a level of play which, barring unlimited replay, no single OP campaign, current or past, could cope with (with the possible exception of Living Greyhawk, and even then, it would have necessitated a player to travel to out-of-region conventions to pick up adventures from other regions...I know people who did just that, and, yes, frankly, they *did* "game non-stop".)

2-3 times a week isnt nonstop either. I play in PFS twice a week, which means 5 WHOLE DAYS of NOT gaming. I dont have the money to attend conventions, not even the local ones.

You wanna talk "nonstop gaming"? When I was a teenager I had to keep a day planner because I gamed 6 days a week, and on 2 of those days I had one game in the morning (11am-6pm) and another game at night (7pm-midnight or later)

I don't want to speak for Mike, but we live in an area that back in LG days was within easy driving distance of numerous regions. Some of the players were playing at cons virtually every weekend, without any replay. During their "offtime," they would write and playtest their kingdom's mods. It was a crazy schedule.

This might be a partial explanation of why we still have so many local cons packed tightly together.

Osirion

Purplefluffybunnygnome- Quit calling it "Judging" The only time there is a "judge" for RPGs is at a con where they have alot of table and the GMs need an officiate to oversee them all. When you say "step up and judge" you mean to say "step up and GM" (or "Run") but at a local pfs game being held in-store, there are no judges. And PLAYERS SHOULD get rewarded for having to replay something JUST for the purpose of making a legal table.
On the other hand, for a table that is already legal and they want to play the "5th wheel" just to "try out a new build" Then NO they should not get credit for that.

Otherwise...Its the RARE player who is willing to waste their time to fill a group for no credit.

Edit: Also quit saying "spending that much time playing" You are implying that, that is all I do.

2x a week isnt that much! Its only one additional time.

*

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vixeryz wrote:
2-3 times a week isnt nonstop either. I play in PFS twice a week, which means 5 WHOLE DAYS of NOT gaming. I dont have the money to attend conventions, not even the local ones.

I think what people are telling you is that, while it feels like a small amount of time per week to you, for most of them, that's a lot more time than they have available to spend gaming on a weekly basis. Compared to most of us, you do play a lot!! And, as I've noted several times already, PFS (or any OP campaign) really isn't structured to accommodate the needs of a gaming group that's capable of playing 100-150 one-round scenarios in a calendar year. You may not want to acknowledge it, but you and your group are, frankly, out on one end of of the bell curve, as far as frequency of play.

You may find this difficult to believe, but a lot of adult gamers find their schedules to be stretched pretty thin, between their jobs, family responsibilities, etc. One free evening, or a few hours on a weekend, may well be all they have for their favorite hobby.

I have a home campaign which has been going on for over a decade. I'm the DM, and I have five players in the group. Our goal is to play once a month (we usually play on Sunday evenings). We have played a grand total of three times this year, despite the fact that we all love the game, and we're all very good friends...schedules get full with other things, work trips happen, work deadlines crop up at the last minute, players' kids get sick, etc., etc.

*****

Vixeryz wrote:

Purplefluffybunnygnome- Quit calling it "Judging" The only time there is a "judge" for RPGs is at a con where they have alot of table and the GMs need an officiate to oversee them all. When you say "step up and judge" you mean to say "step up and GM" (or "Run") but at a local pfs game being held in-store, there are no judges. And PLAYERS SHOULD get rewarded for having to replay something JUST for the purpose of making a legal table.

On the other hand, for a table that is already legal and they want to play the "5th wheel" just to "try out a new build" Then NO they should not get credit for that.

Otherwise...Its the RARE player who is willing to waste their time to fill a group for no credit.

Judge vs. GM minor difference from my perspective and kind of a small issue to nitpick on really

You'll very rarely see tables ok with (and honestly it shouldn't happen)with someone sitting down to replay when it's already a legal table.

The rules are 2 credits, period, you get one for playing and one for judging/GMing (happy?). There were days of past where you could replay once for each faction.. that didn't work so well as after the first time people started cherry-picking characters and factions for different scenarios..

It's better now.. why can't we just leave it at that?

1 to 50 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / General Discussion / Replaying scenarios for credit. 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.