This is a recruitment thread to see if anyone else is willing (I know the guildhall has a one going) & interested.
Sign here if you are willing to GM an (& which one) encounter.
If you are willing to play in one of them, post here. Basically, we'll hook up a GM with the next four or five players).
For the sake of simplicity and consistency, I recommend the free PFS pre-gen character (feel free to do it how you want to).look to the right of the page.
Finally, provide a link of your thread, so others can watch the progress.
We'll have more details soon, but these are the options so far.
CR 05, CR 07, CR 08, CR 08,
CR 08, CR 09, CR 10, CR 11,
to start:
I'll GM the CR 7.
Use level 7 pregens.
Also keep in mind that the APL/CR system assumes a 15 point buy, and the PFS pregens are 20 point buy. Not much of a difference, but worth noting.
Good points (I forgot about 15 pt buy). So we will drop the APL buy adding 4th level pregens (assuming I get any takers :)
Curaigh, I'll be happy to be one of your players.
I'm in too! Which one's the CR 7?
I'll join in too.
All right - I'll run a PbP playtest for one of these. I'll put up a recruitment thread in the Online Campaigns section and link it here. If I finish the playtest before the voting deadline, I may run another, time permitting.
Now, to make things fair, I'll determine randomly which entry to playtest:
1: Thorn Manor
2: Mienka's Cauldron
3: The Vise
4: The Lumber Consortium's Laboratory
5: Wignalzik and Sons Lumber Camp
6: Feer's Crossing
7: The Pools of Iridescence
8: Ssel Asha - Ancient Naga Temple
- Thorn Manor, by Clay Blankenship.
I'll cook up a recruitment thread and post the link here.
UPDATE: Recruitment thread.
Jacob
I have a thought. I don't want to tell you what to do, so it is just a suggestion.
I appreciate the random way you picked the encounter to run, but I have a different idea. You can use it or not, it's up to you.
The voters already have the judges' comments. Playtesting one of the submissions that is very unlikely to advance doesn't seem to be too helpful to the voters. I know you don't want to seem to judge the submissions as unlikely to advance so you did it randomly and I appreciate that.
But my thought is this: Sean and I recommended Feer's Crossing (Wolf didn't), but not the Vice. Wolfgang liked the Vice (Sean and I didn't). Those are the two that the judges are split on. Now, you simply aren't going to have many more qualified voices than ours from a development standpoint. BUT what might be good is playtesting those two.
To me, it would be really super helpful for the voters if you guys playtested those two. That way the voters would have some really great community voices (you guys are well thought of) helping the voters with actual playtest information. Playtesting may show one better than the other and that could be really valuable.
So I'm not asking you to judge other submissions as likely or unlikely to advance. Instead, maybe you could focus on helping the voters choose between the ones the judges split on. Then just randomly pick between those two which to do. That way it isnt your call, you are selecting from the ones that the judges split.
Just a thought. I think it might help the community. It's up to you, of course.
I will take Clark's advice and run The Vice in the gameplay. Sean, Ziv, Jacob, Anthony (& other jacob?) Post in the gameplay thread the PFS pre-gen character you want to use. Use the 7th level version (though one of you might want to use the 4th (see above). I dinnae care if you make an alias for them or not.
Jacob
I have a thought. I don't want to tell you what to do, so it is just a suggestion.
I appreciate the random way you picked the encounter to run, but I have a different idea. You can use it or not, it's up to you.
The voters already have the judges' comments. Playtesting one of the submissions that is very unlikely to advance doesn't seem to be too helpful to the voters. I know you don't want to seem to judge the submissions as unlikely to advance so you did it randomly and I appreciate that.
But my thought is this: Sean and I recommended Feer's Crossing (Wolf didn't), but not the Vice. Wolfgang liked the Vice (Sean and I didn't). Those are the two that the judges are split on. Now, you simply aren't going to have many more qualified voices than ours from a development standpoint. BUT what might be good is playtesting those two.
To me, it would be really super helpful for the voters if you guys playtested those two. That way the voters would have some really great community voices (you guys are well thought of) helping the voters with actual playtest information. Playtesting may show one better than the other and that could be really valuable.
So I'm not asking you to judge other submissions as likely or unlikely to advance. Instead, maybe you could focus on helping the voters choose between the ones the judges split on. Then just randomly pick between those two which to do. That way it isnt your call, you are selecting from the ones that the judges split.
Just a thought. I think it might help the community. It's up to you, of course.
Based on the wisdom of the honorable judge Peterson and Curaigh's decision to playtest The Vice, I'm going to playtest Feer's Crossing instead of Thorn Manor.
I have already found five players who are hopefully all willing to make the switch.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm new thread idea forming... Enounter deathmatches!
Reviews in perspective of against competition.
Something like:
The Flannel and Axe Showdown
The Lumber Consortium's Laboratory VS Wignalzik and Sons Lumber Camp
Watering Hole Throwdown
Mienka’s Cauldron VS The Pools of Iridescence
Battle of the Judges Bubble
Feer’s Crossing VS The Vise
Church and State cagematch!
Ssel Asha - Ancient Naga Temple VS Thorn Manor
Will this both entertain and be useful?