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

Earning the right to play?


Pathfinder Society® General Discussion

51 to 100 of 270 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

I never notice any competitiveness in our area.

There is so far only one kid that is a nuisance because he constantly is annoying to people and then stealing dice and pencils (they do get returned). In game, he does some pretty stupid things that I don't even think people that don't optimize/power game would do (constantly use a weapon you aren't proficient is one... And have it as your bonded item.) He still seems to have fun as he comes back (which I guess is the ultimate goal, although I really wish he could have fun and not be that crazy.)

On the other hand, we have a small community and I'm not sure we are that anymore. We have a broad variety of player styles including, but not limited to: casual, roleplayers, power gamers, and someone that plays unusual characters (to great success.)

Really, the only issues I've had is with other people (and those have since been resolved), and then I left a home game because my characters "suck" to one person, but that's unrelated to PFS.

Spoiler:
"Your a water wizard, and you can't put out a fire? The crap is wrong with you?"
There's hardly any 1st level or cantrips for dealing with fires. My GM ruled Hydraulic Push wasn't good enough because the fire was in the air.
---
It was actually the next week, where he meta-gamed in a scenario I was running, and then the home game that night, he was saying someone else was meta-gaming that I left.

Even though we have a great community, there are still going to be those jerks somewhere.

Grand Lodge ****

Netopalis wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
Quote Pyramid
** spoiler omitted **

Would you consider deleting your spoiler?

That scenario is really new.

This isn't the GM discussion forums

To top it off your assumption is based on an incorrect assessment of the scenario in question.

Sovereign Court **** RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

sveden wrote:
Netopalis wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
Quote Pyramid
** spoiler omitted **

Would you consider deleting your spoiler?

That scenario is really new.

This isn't the GM discussion forums

To top it off your assumption is based on an incorrect assessment of the scenario in question.

That is why it is spoilered and clearly marked. Could you please PM me and explain how I am incorrect?

Dark Archive ****

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Modules Subscriber
Netopalis wrote:


Well, let me pose a hypothetical to you, then. A level 4-5 party is playing a particular scenario. The scenario does not indicate where a particular monster will start combat. As the scenario is written, you could legally put the monster at the far end of the room, raining ranged attacks on the player as they approach, or you could put the monster close to the door so that it only gets off one or two ranged attacks. The party has had a rough time on the dice rolls and is hurting. Do you put the monster close to the door or far away from it?

Depends on what's logical for the creature to be doing, whether the PCs have been noticed by the monster based on its senses and pre-combat tactics, and how threatening those ranged attacks are, and what purpose the encounter is supposed to serve in the story of the adventure.

There is, after all, at least one mid-level scenario where the twin 'archers' are actually built as dangerous melee combatants that start by using ranged to take advantage of the terrain.

These are all general, but: I don't adjust my GMing based on hot or cold dice. I don't adjust on how 'hurting' the party is. Dice happening is intentionally part of the game. Resource expenditure and management is intentionally part of the game. Using consumables to reduce the 'hurting' is intended as part of the game - thus the push to have CLW wands. I'm glad to give advice about stuff to cover, things to be aware of, ways to mitigate threats - when I'm not running the game. ... or even while running, if they're going shopping mid-adventure.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

Is it elitist to only offer high-level play to those with "real" PCs?

Is it elitist to expect to be able to jump right into what others had to work for?

Yes.

Its a game. Its not supposed to be work.

*****

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

Is it elitist to only offer high-level play to those with "real" PCs?

Is it elitist to expect to be able to jump right into what others had to work for?

Yes.

Its a game. Its not supposed to be work.

Right ... so let's just hand out lvl 12 characters to everyone and no one has to build a character from scratch .. cause making up a concept could be considered work right?

Grand Lodge ** RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

Is it elitist to only offer high-level play to those with "real" PCs?

Is it elitist to expect to be able to jump right into what others had to work for?

Yes.

Uh... Yes to which question? Both?

*****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

Is it elitist to only offer high-level play to those with "real" PCs?

Is it elitist to expect to be able to jump right into what others had to work for?

Yes.

Uh... Yes to which question? Both?

gawwwd Jigster .. don't make him say more, that'd be work and we're conversing about a game sheeeeeeeesh

Shadow Lodge ***

Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:


Right ... so let's just hand out lvl 12 characters to everyone and no one has to build a character from scratch .. cause making up a concept could be considered work right?

How about we try to have this conversation without the pointless sarcasm?

I think the drawbacks to running a pre gen are sufficient enough that most people won't do it if there's another option.

Shadow Lodge ***

Jiggy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

Is it elitist to only offer high-level play to those with "real" PCs?

Is it elitist to expect to be able to jump right into what others had to work for?

Yes.

Uh... Yes to which question? Both?

Yes.

*****

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

Is it elitist to only offer high-level play to those with "real" PCs?

Is it elitist to expect to be able to jump right into what others had to work for?

Yes.

Uh... Yes to which question? Both?
Yes.

sarcasm has it place.

Perhaps you could give more of an explanation, one word answers don't really convey or opinion or position and instead make it seem like you're of the generation that feels everyone deserves a trophy for just showing up ... please prove me wrong as I have read posts of yours that are insightful even if I disagree with the position you take.

*** Contributor

Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
Right ... so let's just hand out lvl 12 characters to everyone and no one has to build a character from scratch .. cause making up a concept could be considered work right?

Okay, I'll bite. Yes. I think we should hand those out for people that want them.

Not everyone wants to create an in-depth concept and play for years before seeing what the high levels of Pathfinder are all about. Those players want to be able to pick up a high-level character, and take it for a drive. Maybe they just joined up with friends who all have high-level PCs that they prefer to play. Maybe they just want to see what a fighter with a mountain of feats plays like. Who knows? But there seems to be a lot of "badwrongfun" splashed around in this thread.

I ran into this problem all the time in LG--new players had a hard time joining in with established players. When LFR provided the opportunity to make up a high-level PCs, I was really glad; personally, I was able to play with a lot of people I wasn't able to before. I got to see how some classes and builds played out at high levels. I probably wouldn't still be playing LFR today if that option didn't exist. I don't see why we want to shut out the "jump in at a high level" option from PFS.

Lots of people prefer to build their characters up from scratch, chronicle by chronicle--heck, I'm one (I dislike even applying GM chronicles because I see it as a missed play opportunity)--but we aren't the only players, and I think PFS should cater to a wider crowd.

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ron Lundeen wrote:
Not everyone wants to create an in-depth concept and play for years before seeing what the high levels of Pathfinder are all about.

Counterpoint: These people should play something other than standard PFS scenarios where the vast majority of players do enjoy the journey. Perhaps we should develop an alternate system for accommodating those types of players w/o negatively impacting the existing player base.

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4

I will say this. My location and schedule generally prohibits me from playing. In fact, I've never played. Hopefully next spring some situations at home will allow me to drive to Boise regularly on the weekend.

Tomorrow, I am going to play for the first time, as John McConnell of the Eugene OR PFS community is going to Skype me in for a game.

It's mid level, not high level, but without that option I would not be able to play.. or meet folks in the PFS community and get to experience the game from their perspective.

This might be a tangent to the original topic, but me playing tomorrow is only an option for me through the grace of Pre-Gen characters.

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ron Lundeen wrote:
Not everyone wants to create an in-depth concept and play for years before seeing what the high levels of Pathfinder are all about.

Counterpoint: These people should play something other than standard PFS scenarios where the vast majority of players do enjoy the journey. Perhaps we should develop an alternate system for accommodating those types of players w/o negatively impacting the existing player base. The first way the modules were introduced accomplished that a bit by allowing people to make a 12th level version of their character for a 12th level module.

Sovereign Court **** RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

Kyle -
How would you feel about allowing players whose characters die roll a new character at a similar or reduced level, with the restriction that the must pick a different class, race and name? With reduced access to gold reserves? This might make the higher tier scenarios more accessible to those who don't have the time to play as much as some of the forum-goers, but it would still add in a significant need for caution.

Liberty's Edge *****

Kyle Baird wrote:
Ron Lundeen wrote:
Not everyone wants to create an in-depth concept and play for years before seeing what the high levels of Pathfinder are all about.
Counterpoint: These people should play something other than standard PFS scenarios where the vast majority of players do enjoy the journey. Perhaps we should develop an alternate system for accommodating those types of players w/o negatively impacting the existing player base.

We already have a system for that. It's called 'play in a home game'. :P

Seriously though, I agree with Kyle. Ron, if you think it is something worth pursuing, then I suggest coming up with how you think it should work and then suggesting it to Mike/Mark.

Grand Lodge ****

Netopalis wrote:

Kyle -

How would you feel about allowing players whose characters die roll a new character at a similar or reduced level, with the restriction that the must pick a different class, race and name? With reduced access to gold reserves? This might make the higher tier scenarios more accessible to those who don't have the time to play as much as some of the forum-goers, but it would still add in a significant need for caution.

What?!

No.

*****

Netopalis wrote:

Kyle -

How would you feel about allowing players whose characters die roll a new character at a similar or reduced level, with the restriction that the must pick a different class, race and name? With reduced access to gold reserves? This might make the higher tier scenarios more accessible to those who don't have the time to play as much as some of the forum-goers, but it would still add in a significant need for caution.

Unfortunately this isn't an aspect that I don't think would be able to work in an OP system. To me, the system has a defined beginning (level 1) and a variable ending -- death, stop playing the character, level out of the OP level range.

edit to add:

The player already gets to roll a new character if their current one dies... they just also have to start back at the beginning at level 1, they don't get to reroll at the higher level as that character hasn't worked its' way up to that level yet.

Sovereign Court **** RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

sveden wrote:
Netopalis wrote:

Kyle -

How would you feel about allowing players whose characters die roll a new character at a similar or reduced level, with the restriction that the must pick a different class, race and name? With reduced access to gold reserves? This might make the higher tier scenarios more accessible to those who don't have the time to play as much as some of the forum-goers, but it would still add in a significant need for caution.

What?!

No.

Your replies are so shockingly verbose and thorough.

*****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
sveden wrote:
Netopalis wrote:

Kyle -

How would you feel about allowing players whose characters die roll a new character at a similar or reduced level, with the restriction that the must pick a different class, race and name? With reduced access to gold reserves? This might make the higher tier scenarios more accessible to those who don't have the time to play as much as some of the forum-goers, but it would still add in a significant need for caution.

What?!

No.

This.

Organized Play isn't for everyone. PFS specifically isn't for everyone. If you want to jump to the "end" of a Pathfiner's career without going through all the trials and tribulations, go play something else.

Sovereign Court **** RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

I'm not saying jump to the end, I'm saying jump to the middle. There are a limited number of scenarios available for first level play. Additionally, I have heard no complaints that there are too MANY high-level players in this game. Therefore, what is the harm in letting a level 7 player who dies restart at level 3?

*** Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kyle Baird wrote:
PFS specifically isn't for everyone. If you want to jump to the "end" of a Pathfiner's career without going through all the trials and tribulations, go play something else.

Some might consider this sentiment to be elitist and exclusionary. It sounds a little bit like that to me, and I generally agree with you.

*****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Netopalis wrote:
I'm not saying jump to the end, I'm saying jump to the middle. There are a limited number of scenarios available for first level play. Additionally, I have heard no complaints that there are too MANY high-level players in this game. Therefore, what is the harm in letting a level 7 player who dies restart at level 3?

What's the definition of limited? Jiggy, do the math for me, I'm feeling lazy. :-) My estimate would be that over 40% of available scenarios, modules and quests are available to 1st level characters.

The HARM is that someone is being given something for nothing. Call it elitist, call it unfair, call it not giving everyone a gold star for participating. Call it whatever you want. The majority of people who play PFS dedicate hundreds of hours their life to achieve what you want to give away.

A level 7 character has more than enough resources to recover from death, usually at least twice. More so if other players chip in. The best way to avoid having to pay to recover from death is to play cautiously and, well, not die.

*****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Also, if there's nothing for you to play, why not grab all the other walk-ins and GM something? Then they get to play something and you get GM credit to apply to a character. Win-win.

Sovereign Court **** RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

Sure, there are an awful lot of them. You can gain credit from each of them twice. You can play a limited number of them over and over, but not for all characters.

There is still a limit.

I have a friend who has been playing or GMming roughly 3 games per week for a few years. He is severely limited in the number of scenarios that he can actually gain credit for.

Sometimes, death cannot be recovered from. I know at least 2 deaths in PFS that require the use of a miracle or a wish. It's not always that easy to recover. Other times, the body may not be in a state that is raisable.

Finally, this isn't something for nothing, it's recouping your losses. Starting with, say, -3 levels or half your levels or whatever is hardly game-breaking.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The ability to play in a level 7 scenario is like knowledge. Its not diminished by giving it away.

*****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The ability to play in a level 7 scenario is like knowledge. Its not diminished by giving it away.

I spend most of my life working hard to gain knowledge. I take great pride in the things that I've learned. No one "gave" me knowledge. I had to want it. I had to earn it. In a lot cases, I had to pay for it. I had to work to acquire it. No one plugged me into the matrix.

A 7th level scenario is more like every other Paizo product. It has a value that people are willing pay for (and by extension work for in order to pay for).

*

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Netopalis wrote:
I have a friend who has been playing or GMming roughly 3 games per week for a few years. He is severely limited in the number of scenarios that he can actually gain credit for.

That's a situation which has been discussed in other threads. In short, it's extremely challenging, if not impossible, for any OP campaign to cope with that extremely high frequency of play, for any length of time, unless said campaign allows unlimited replay. That amount of game play (going through potentially 100 to 150 adventures per year) is just going to be unsustainable for any length of time, if you're sticking to one campaign...and it very likely puts your friend out at one extreme end of the bell curve, as far as frequency of plays goes.

Sovereign Court **** RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

Mike Mistele wrote:
Netopalis wrote:
I have a friend who has been playing or GMming roughly 3 games per week for a few years. He is severely limited in the number of scenarios that he can actually gain credit for.
That's a situation which has been discussed in other threads. In short, it's extremely challenging, if not impossible, for any OP campaign to cope with that extremely high frequency of play, for any length of time, unless said campaign allows unlimited replay. That amount of game play (going through potentially 100 to 150 adventures per year) is just going to be unsustainable for any length of time, if you're sticking to one campaign...and it very likely puts your friend out at one extreme end of the bell curve, as far as frequency of plays goes.

Oh, I'm not saying that it's a new situation, or that my friend isn't a very, very rare situation. I'm just saying that it gives additional reasoning behind allowing dead characters to start with a portion of their previous experience.

Dark Archive **

I don't see how the value of my expereinces leveling up a character from 1 to 12 are in any way diminished by another character starting at level 3 or 7 or 12. Whether or you you think it is fair, it doesn't diminish the good times you've had playing your character.

Getting to start with more "experience" than 0 when your high level character dies is pretty common practice in living RPG campaigns.

Paizo gets more value out of a 7th level scenario the more people that play it. The more times it is run roughly equals the more times it's paid for and downloaded.

Grand Lodge ****

Victor Zajic wrote:
Getting to start with more "experience" than 0 when your high level character dies is pretty common practice in living RPG campaigns.

Thank dog this living campaign is different.

***

3 people marked this as a favorite.

With the number of stars floating around, I feel vastly under qualified to comment, but...

My biggest problem with people jumping in with a high level PC is the risk to the other players. My first game at DragonCon two years ago, I accidentally signed up for a 7-11 slot. After going upstairs, Mike Brock told me I was welcome to play but recommended that I play first steps instead. Knowing what I know now is was very possible I could have gotten that whole party killed, not because I am an inexperienced player (I have been playing RPGs since 1980)but because I had no idea of the powers or potentials for that particular character. I am not sure that getting rid of the 7th level completely is the answer (since some time you need them to make a table,) but they should be strongly discouraged as a replacement for time spent.

More on topic, any "living world" is going to become somewhat more elitist as time goes on. That is because now you have a group of people that have become "experts" on the subject having spent 100s of hours "working" in that environment. Just look to World of Warcraft, or hell even academia, and in some aspects they deserve the arrogance that come with that time spent, they have earned it. That being said, I don't think anyone is implying that is the end all goal, Ultimately, I don't think to can combat this on a global, or in this case PFS organizers level. In the end you can only prevent by how you act in your local area, whether in be with your VC, at your local store, or at your table.

My two coppers.

On a side note, Kyle has killed one of my characters and it was glorious. :)

*

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Victor Zajic wrote:
Getting to start with more "experience" than 0 when your high level character dies is pretty common practice in living RPG campaigns.

I'm not sure how accurate that statement is, and I've played quite a few OP campaigns (both RPGA and other). That said, I've not played every single OP campaign, so if there are other examples of which I'm unaware, please share. :-)

Living Greyhawk never allowed a player to start a character above 1st level, even if "replacing" a dead character. I don't believe that Living City (the very first OP campaign) ever allowed it, either.

Living Forgotten Realms began allowing players to start new characters above 1st level (at 5th, at 8th, and at 11th) after the campaign had been running for several years, but the primary reason for this was to make it easier to make tables happen at various tiers -- and, it's a decision which caused no small amount of uproar when it was made.

I know of several campaigns (Living Arcanis, Living Force, and Living Death) which allowed players to create new characters at higher levels in the latter days of each of those campaigns. However, that was specifically because each those campaigns had finite durations, and, in the late stages of each of those campaigns, the adventures which made up the core of the story arcs were only being written at higher "tiers" -- in other words, it was impossible to play a lower-level PC in those late-campaign adventures.

In short, LFR is the only major OP campaign of which I'm aware that has allowed creation of an "advanced" character, beyond the extenuating circumstances of a campaign's end-game (as detailed in the previous paragraph). If there's one which has specifically let you replace a dead PC with a new one at an advanced level, I'm not aware of it.

***

Mike Mistele wrote:
In short, LFR is the only major OP campaign of which I'm aware that has allowed creation of an "advanced" character, beyond the extenuating circumstances of a campaign's end-game (as detailed in the previous paragraph). If there's one which has specifically let you replace a dead PC with a new one at an advanced level, I'm not aware of it.

Mark of Heroes?

***

i havent read this entire thread but after reading the first 30 or so posts i would like to just add my input on the idea that the attitude on the forums differs from the actual community you play at.

in my area, i would be surprised if more than 10% of our players even knew these forums existed. just fyi.

*

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Timothy McNeil wrote:
Mark of Heroes?

Good point, though Mark of Heroes (and the other "D&D Adventures" campaigns that the RPGA did) had a very different structure from a Living-style campaign.

Each adventure was written for a specific character level, and there were automatic level bumps which happened ever few months -- if your character was below level X when the "bump" happened, you were automatically advanced to level X, and if you joined the campaign at that point, your character automatically started at level X.

Also, those were very much limited-duration campaigns (in a way, they were longer versions of the D&D Encounters programs), and the expectation was that any player would only have one PC (though, that may have changed with the final of those campaigns, Xen'drik Expeditions, where there were four different factions).

Liberty's Edge *****

Netopalis wrote:
I'm not saying jump to the end, I'm saying jump to the middle. There are a limited number of scenarios available for first level play. Additionally, I have heard no complaints that there are too MANY high-level players in this game. Therefore, what is the harm in letting a level 7 player who dies restart at level 3?

There are plenty of low level opportunities. There are enough low level opportunities, last I checked, to get 4, maybe 5 now with the modules and Thornkeep) to level 12. You can double that if you GM everything as well.

So far I have two characters at level 12, and a third at level 9.

I have three characters at 4th as well.

One or two deaths is not going to preclude you from high level play.

Liberty's Edge *****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is already a function by which you can start with a high level PC in Pathfinder Society.

Its called GM credit.

And I have two experiences with this: Neither entirely positive.

Clorrup Finglefingers: Gnome Alchemist 7/Cavalier 5. I played him like 2 times before he hit 6th level. And it took me like 3 to 5 scenarios before I figured out how to play him most optimally.

Sssstryxsss: Nagaji Druid (saurian shaman). Started him at 5th level with all GM credit. Took me 3 scenarios, again, before I figured out how to play him.

I'm an extremely experienced player and GM. I've played almost every class and race combination available from the old Blue Box up through 1st, 2nd, Players Option, 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder, some 4th, Shadowrun 2 versions, White Wolf (Masquerade, Awakening, Apocalypse, Kindred of the East), West End Star Wars, Alternity, Star Wars d20, Deadlands, Blue Planet, Dragonstar d20, Call of Cthulu, Stormbringer, Paladium, TMNT, Heroes Unlimted, RIFTS, Champions, Hero System, Marvel, Gurps (several different genre).

And if I have trouble getting used to a new character for a couple sessions starting at a higher level, then that means a newby is going to have more trouble.

It is an extremely bad idea to allow someone to start a character at a higher level.

That being said, PFS already has that function built in. GM Credit babies. You want a 12th level character without playing it? GM 33 sessions.

Sovereign Court **** RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

Andrew Christian wrote:
Netopalis wrote:
I'm not saying jump to the end, I'm saying jump to the middle. There are a limited number of scenarios available for first level play. Additionally, I have heard no complaints that there are too MANY high-level players in this game. Therefore, what is the harm in letting a level 7 player who dies restart at level 3?

There are plenty of low level opportunities. There are enough low level opportunities, last I checked, to get 4, maybe 5 now with the modules and Thornkeep) to level 12. You can double that if you GM everything as well.

So far I have two characters at level 12, and a third at level 9.

I have three characters at 4th as well.

One or two deaths is not going to preclude you from high level play.

Well, OK, let's say that for whatever reason, you have a player who has been playing high-level, but their high-level character dies and they don't have a backup. Have they not "earned" the right to play at this level already? What is so terrible about allowing them to continue? How does it hurt anybody else?

Not allowing it, however, does. If local groups can't organize high level scenarios, those scenarios don't get played and players later tend to drop off because they can't use their new shinies.

Finally, if it's not been done in previous living campaigns, and if these previous living campaigns have had a very limited shelf life, perhaps this is part of the problem.

But really, this idea is entirely extraneous to the underlying problem, which was the point of this thread.

Liberty's Edge *****

Netopalis wrote:


Have they not "earned" the right to play at this level already?

With the character that hit 12th level, certainly. And permanent death with that high a level of character is nigh impossible. Just the cash from the scenario itself is usually enough for a raise dead. Unless that character has already died several times, chances are it isn't a huge deal, and then they are not left out, because that character will still be around.

Netopalis wrote:
What is so terrible about allowing them to continue? How does it hurt anybody else?

Risk/reward. What you are proposing is reward for no risk. I understand GM credit babies do this already. But why create yet another system by which you can get all the rewards with no risk? That's where it hurts others and the campaign.

I have a character who has played from level 1 to 9, and you jump in with a brand new level 9 character. I have a story, experience, running that character. I know deep in my bones how he works and who he is. You don't. It isn't elitist. Its meritorious.

Netopalis wrote:
Not allowing it, however, does.

B.S. This campaign has only grown by huge leaps and bounds every year for 4-1/2 years with its current structure. If what you say is true, then PFS should already be dying out.

Netopalis wrote:
Finally, if it's not been done in previous living campaigns, and if these previous living campaigns have had a very limited shelf life, perhaps this is part of the problem.

What do you consider limited shelf life? Living City ran from like 92 or 93 through early 2000's (not sure when it finally went away). That's over 10 years. Living Greyhawk also lasted nearly that long if not longer. I forget whether Living Greyhawk started before 3.0 came out, or right when it did in the summer of 2000. Many other campaigns had shorter lifespans that had little to do with this particular set up.

Some failed because the parent company discontinued that line of books (Living Dragonstar), others had bad campaign management, others too much cliquishness, favoritism and politics.

None failed because they didn't allow you to create a high level character from scratch. That is a leap of logic that goes way too far.

B

Paizo Employee ***** Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

Andrew Christian wrote:


What do you consider limited shelf life? Living City ran from like 92 or 93 through early 2000's (not sure when it finally went away). That's over 10 years.

The first LC event was Caravan offered at Gen Con XX in 1987. I was lucky enough to play in it. I'm not sure when the last event was. I stopped playing sometime around 1998/1999 when I started playing Heroes of Rhibus.

Liberty's Edge *****

Michael Brock wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


What do you consider limited shelf life? Living City ran from like 92 or 93 through early 2000's (not sure when it finally went away). That's over 10 years.

The first LC event was Caravan offered at Gen Con XX in 1987. I was lucky enough to play in it and still haev my "Chronicle" sheet from it. I'm not sure when the last event was. I stopped playing sometime around 1998/1999 when I started playing Heroes of Rhibus.

wow, so even longer than I thought. First I heard of it was in 92 or 93 when I was in the Army stationed at Fort Mead, MD, and was at the major convention they held down at a University near DC. Don't remember the University (was definitely not Georgetown, but might have been Universtity of Maryland)

Sovereign Court **** RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

Andrew Christian wrote:
Post

Ok, a couple of things:

1) In regards to the deaths at level 12 being easily recoverable...how do you feel about deaths that require a wish or miracle to recover from? I know of two in PFS. Both of them are newer, so I imagine that this is something we will likely see again. Does that change the analysis?

2) The point about other living campaigns was in regards to the discussion on here about whether or not they were successful. I am a newbie, by admission, and I do not claim to know the details of any of them. I was just speculating, because it was said in this thread that most living campaigns die out over a certain period of time.

3) I am not talking about new players starting with characters of that level. I'm talking about somebody who DOES have a Level 12 die be able to come back with something in the realm of 6-7, or somebody who dies at level 6 to come back with, say, level 3. This is hardly a huge reward with no risk. This is a mitigation of the damages from a risk taken. It would logically follow that if the level 12 player who died came back at level 6, he'd be bumped down to 3 and so on and so forth. As I also said in my other post in the matter, the player would start at that level with no PP, limited gold, no equipment, a different class and a different race. I am solely concerned with XP here, because in regions where there is only one game per week, it can take some time to get players to level 5.

4) If PFS scenarios are to become more deadly, as many have espoused and as recent scenarios would indicate, then the lack of players for mid and high level tables will become a rowing problem. If faction missions become harder, as recent scenarios indicate, resurrection becomes even more inaccessible at level 5-7. Yes, it would be ideal if parties would chip in. I'd really like that, and would always volunteer to do so if possible. I don't know that I can trust a random table I sit down with at a con to do so for me.

Liberty's Edge *****

Netopalis wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Post

Ok, a couple of things:

1) In regards to the deaths at level 12 being easily recoverable...how do you feel about deaths that require a wish or miracle to recover from? I know of two in PFS. Both of them are newer, so I imagine that this is something we will likely see again. Does that change the analysis?

2) The point about other living campaigns was in regards to the discussion on here about whether or not they were successful. I am a newbie, by admission, and I do not claim to know the details of any of them. I was just speculating, because it was said in this thread that most living campaigns die out over a certain period of time.

3) I am not talking about new players starting with characters of that level. I'm talking about somebody who DOES have a Level 12 die be able to come back with something in the realm of 6-7, or somebody who dies at level 6 to come back with, say, level 3. This is hardly a huge reward with no risk. This is a mitigation of the damages from a risk taken. It would logically follow that if the level 12 player who died came back at level 6, he'd be bumped down to 3 and so on and so forth. As I also said in my other post in the matter, the player would start at that level with no PP, limited gold, no equipment, a different class and a different race. I am solely concerned with XP here, because in regions where there is only one game per week, it can take some time to get players to level 5.

4) If PFS scenarios are to become more deadly, as many have espoused and as recent scenarios would indicate, then the lack of players for mid and high level tables will become a rowing problem. If faction missions become harder, as recent scenarios indicate, resurrection becomes even more inaccessible at level 5-7. Yes, it would be ideal if parties would chip in. I'd really like that, and would always volunteer to do so if possible. I don't know that I can trust a random table I sit down with at a con to do so for me.

One of the primary differences when playing a table top RPG vs. a computer game, is the risk of permanent death. There are some computer games where permanent death is possible true (I believe the final mission of Mass Effect 2 could have ended in permanent death).

So if an effect requires Wish or Miracle to bring you back. Sorry, your character is permanently dead.

I'm not expecting this to become particularly prevalent, even at higher level play.

And yes, there is no risk if you start the character again at 6th level. There is also no good story reason to do so.

If a person in Golarion dies, they die. They don't come back at 1/2 their level.

This is not a new conversation. This is not a new issue. The way it currently works is a sufficient way to handle it and has worked fine for 4-1/2 years. There is really no reason to change it.

Playing a roleplaying game includes risk to your character. And sometimes that risk is permanently fatal. That's the risk we take playing the game.

Purchasing the spellcasting services to cast a wish or miracle

Sovereign Court **** RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

Andrew Christian wrote:
Post

1) Funny thing, I thought the primary difference was the ability to engage in creative problem solving and acting. To me, that is far, far more important than any perceived risk engaging in a game.

2) Sure there's a good story reason to. The player characters are not the only pathfinders. You are playing a hitherto unmentioned one. You are not playing the same character, you have the ability to create a new character at a different level of experience.

The Exchange ****

honestly, what is the problem with playing through the early levels again? It's not about some status of "hah I got to 18th!" Granted i'm trying very hard to do that... It's about the journey.

Why is playing more a bad thing? I have one character that is going to get up there in levels without being played very much (group of 5 of us, playing a lot of modules I'm GMing about 8 levels and a couple of the others each picked a module to run), and I have another one that has almost no GM credit assigned to it.

Honestly, if the worst possible thing happens and you literally run out of scenario's to play/run for credit. Just make a new number. I don't think anyone is going to care (maybe i'm wrong) if you start replaying scenario's with a new number because it's literally the only way you can play for credit.

*****

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:
So if an effect requires Wish or Miracle to bring you back. Sorry, your character is permanently dead.

Not quite true. A banshee killed a player at my table in a certain special scenario. Unfortunately for that player, he had played a module where he signed some sort of devil contract that sent his soul directly to hell when killed. That player required a wish to bring his soul back. Lucky for him (heh), he had a luck blade with one wish. Expensive? Yep. Permanent? Nope.

Sovereign Court **** RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

Benrislove wrote:

honestly, what is the problem with playing through the early levels again? It's not about some status of "hah I got to 18th!" Granted i'm trying very hard to do that... It's about the journey.

Why is playing more a bad thing? I have one character that is going to get up there in levels without being played very much (group of 5 of us, playing a lot of modules I'm GMing about 8 levels and a couple of the others each picked a module to run), and I have another one that has almost no GM credit assigned to it.

Honestly, if the worst possible thing happens and you literally run out of scenario's to play/run for credit. Just make a new number. I don't think anyone is going to care (maybe i'm wrong) if you start replaying scenario's with a new number because it's literally the only way you can play for credit.

Well, the problem is that, as I understand it, my region has several people who stopped playing because we could never get an appropriately-tiered table for their characters. I hear other people on this forum complaining about not having enough players for tables of higher tiers. I don't mind playing lower levels - in fact, it's all I've played - I just am looking at this from a community organization standpoint. People want to play higher levels too.

Grand Lodge *

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The ability to play in a level 7 scenario is like knowledge. Its not diminished by giving it away.

Not true. It's the difference between giving a person a fish and teaching them to fish. Things are learned best by doing. That would include fishing and high level play.

I have lazy college students that expect to be handed all powerpoint slides and take open book tests every time. Some teachers have done them a real disservice by doing so. Some students are sorely disappointed when they get to my class. The rest say thanks and give a very genuine handshake on the way out the door,

51 to 100 of 270 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder Society® / General Discussion / Earning the right to play? 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.