|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get that this is a volunteer job, and that the VOs have know about this longer than we have. But ignoring our concerns in this matter is only making it look worse for the campaign from my point of view.
And I would agree with you IF this was a case of a snap response. It is not. I spend hours watching/reviewing the forums after the announcement, and responding to various posters. I was getting a constant and unrelenting barrage of negative responses to my suggestions. No one's concerns were being ignored. Solutions and encouragement were being offered, but there is only so many times I'm beat my head against the "brick wall" before I stop. Where's the appreciation for the other side of the conversation? The side that didn't take a "sky is falling" approach to this topic. I guess they are permitted free reign to ignore or bash any idea that isn't their own.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get that this is a volunteer job, and that the VOs have know about this longer than we have. But ignoring our concerns in this matter is only making it look worse for the campaign from my point of view.
I've really tried to stay out of these accusations and back-and-forth, but I think I have finally figured out how to respond.
Venture-Officers aren't ignoring, dismissing, or belittling the concerns others have put forth. We/They are offering alternate viewpoints and reassurances. Just because they aren't agreeing with you does not mean we are being condescending.
A tourist (T) is waiting for a new model boat to be launched. He'll be boarding and heading overseas after it hits the water. Next to him is a shipwright (S) also watching the launch.
T: I'm worried. This thing hasn't been in the water yet. What if it springs a leak and sinks with me on board?
S: Don't worry. We pumped it full of water and nothing leaked out.
T: But you haven't actually put it in the water yet, have you? There's all kinds of things that could go wrong.
S: Well, the plan is to cruise up the coast for a few days before heading into open waters. If something does go wrong we can quickly pull it into a harbor.
T: OK, but the chop in the ocean is rough. Testing in sheltered waters and computer models is nothing like the real world.
S: The boat is going to make more than one crossing. We've got a waitlist so if you want a refund on your ticket we'll be back for another round trip next month.
T: I hear some of the furnishings are being loaded on the other side, and we won't have some of the things we were expecting.
S: That's true. The comfy chairs weren't ready in time to be shipped here. We're using plastic chairs until we can pick the good ones up and install them. Sorry for the inconvenience.
In my analogy the Shipwright is trying to answer the concerns of the Tourist. In fact he's countering most of the Tourist's statements. That doesn't mean he's belittling or ignoring them, just that he wants to offer assurances that they've already taken those concerns under consideration.
Or to use a building analogy:
How about "can't do it, that would take several days and we don't have the time to move it now?"
How about "it could be done but the architects all agree that the entryway would be a complete traffic jam over there, this location allows free flow?"
Just because someone else thought of it first does not mean you are being dismissed.
|
Choice of words is important. My issue was with the negative nancy comment. I'm not thrilled with this option, but I'm willing to wait and see how this works. But some of the comment here and in the other thread are indicating that some VOs feel that he standard pfs is roll-playing, and if we aren't interested in core mode then we are wrong, while hand waving the fear that people who only want to play one mode or the other will not be able to find games.
|
|
... But some of the comment here and in the other thread are indicating that some VOs feel that he standard pfs is roll-playing, and if we aren't interested in core mode then we are wrong, while hand waving the fear that people who only want to play one mode or the other will not be able to find games.
I don't mean this as confrontational, but could you do me a favor and directly pull out the quotes of VOs saying these things for me? I'd like to discuss choice of words with those VOs in a private setting.
edit: not the negative nancy, got that one. The ones I quoted from your posts above.
|
|
if we aren't interested in core mode then we are wrong
Granted I have not read every post in every thread, but I have not seen much of that. Most are doing what Kevin illustrated. Offering encouragement, how to incorporate CORE into your local areas, and suggestions to the concerns posters have levied. The problem is when someone(s) continuously refutes every suggestion as if their situation is soo grievous that there is no way CORE will work, all without a shred of actual data to support it.
No one is saying that CORE will work everywhere. Hell we're not saying it'll work at all. We're saying that it needs time to be implemented so we can determine if it will work, to what extent, and what adjustments might need to be made.
At some point it becomes ridiculous when the conversation is essentially, "What if?"
NO!
"What about?"
NO!
"Did you try?"
NO!
"Could you?"
NO!
At some point, it becomes clear the conversation is pointless because one side refuses to even consider the possibility of the suggestions working.
|
|
I'm willing to give it time to see how it will pan out. I think most of the other posters who share my concerns are willing to do the same. However I still think it's worthwhile to voice these concerns.
PFS is already competing against 5e for players and game slots. It competing against itself with core mode is a valid concern for scheduling, especially when local tables are routinely cancelled for normal pfs due to not having gms sign up or show up.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
This one uses the term cheese weasel, and this one uses roll playing.
You should read the two posts you cited again. In both cases, the posters placed their comments in a specific context, and in the case of the "cheese weasel" comment, the poster said that he didn't know if he could even exclude himself.
If you are intent on just picking out a word or two or using them out of context, I can't help you.
Many people here are raising the same concerns a couple of players in my area are raising, and here is how I responded:
1. We are going to try introducing CORE, a little at a time, in our area.
2. I tightly regulate the gaming schedule, and it will take a bit of planning to introduce CORE into the rotation.
3. We will see how CORE does, what it's impact on PFS in general is and, based on that review, determine whether or not CORE is best for us.
CORE won't be best for everyone. It is likely possible that smaller player bases will be challenged. I don't have that issue.
I have read every post on this thread, and on the other. I haven't seen anyone be dismissive of concerns. I have seen a number of people (some VOs, some non-VOs) exhibit a great deal of patience while trying to reassure, assuage, or otherwise attempt to lessen the fears that some have. I'm not sure that some people saying they are being ignored are also willing to really listen, which is precisely what they are asking others to do.
So, I have a suggestion, and I have found that I have had to do this on occasion. Maybe some of the posters who are most agitated, on either side, take a day off from this conversation. Get away from it, clear their heads, and then maybe come back a day later. That often times works for me.
But, speaking only for myself, I do take some of the concerns raised here as serious (others just don't apply to my area.)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I keep hearing people saying things are being taken away and it baffles me.
It baffles me how it can baffle you.
The concern that people have expressed is that the Core campaign will draw resources away from the PFSBase campaign. So that people who are only interested in PFSBase will have less opportunities to game.
I'm personally optimistic that this will have a positive effect and that the influx of new or returning players will mean that the PFSBase campaign will grow as well as the new Core campaign.
But the concern that people have expressed IS valid and extremely comprehensible.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Mark Stratton. I agree that the "cheese weasel" was in jest, but there was the hand waving over concerns. However the roll playing one was clearly anti-optimization.
Regardless, I'm going to step back for now and sleep on it.
As I said before, while I'm not overly enthused about core, I'm willing to give it a chance. I'll likely play a scenario or two and wait and see how it affect classic pfs games. I don't know how it's going to affect the player base long term. There is potential for several negatives, and as someone who isn't that excited for a core only game, the potential gains don't seem that great.
Hopefully I'm wrong, and this will be a success.
|
|
I for one think the Core is a brilliant idea. Now I can only speak for myself.
I have done allot of GMing, served as a VC for Vermont, I have played almost everything. Luckily I have been invited into a couple of home games I was beginning to lose some interest in PFS. For me this has perked my interest in PFS again.
I think and It may have been mentioned up thread.....that this will provide a way for veteran players to get together with new players and play together at the same table.
With the Core campaign, it puts veteran and new players on much more of a level playing field.
From the GM's perspective the core campaign is much more manageable. And its optional.
So all in all i think the core campaign is a good idea, and I am interested in it.
|
|
It baffles me how it can baffle you.
The concern that people have expressed is that the Core campaign will draw resources away from the PFSBase campaign. So that people who are only interested in PFSBase will have less opportunities to game.
I'm personally optimistic that this will have a positive effect and that the influx of new or returning players will mean that the PFSBase campaign will grow as well as the new Core campaign.
But the concern that people have expressed IS valid and extremely comprehensible.
We're not talking about the same thing. You are referring to CORE potentially dividing PLAYERS, thus taking potential players away from both campaigns. I agree that this is a possible effect and needs to be carefully managed by local organizers to reduce/eliminate its affect on their community.
OTOH, I was referring to the people who describe that CORE is taking CHARACTER options away. As I said, CORE is not taking any game mechanic options from players. Every rule that was legal yesterday is still legal today. Its just that now there is a companion campaign to PFS that has more restrictive rules. If that is not your "thing" then just play in "normal" mode. No crime, no foul.
|
|
We're not talking about the same thing. You are referring to CORE potentially dividing PLAYERS, thus taking potential players away from both campaigns. I agree that this is a possible effect and needs to be carefully managed by local organizers to reduce/eliminate its affect on their community.OTOH, I was referring to the people who describe that CORE is taking CHARACTER options away. As I said, CORE is not taking any game mechanic options from players. Every rule that was legal yesterday is still legal today. Its just that now there is a companion campaign to PFS that has more restrictive rules. If that is not your "thing" then just play in "normal" mode. No crime, no foul.
Ah. Fair enough. Sorry for misinterpreting you.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The peasants have no bread
Let them eat cake!
No cake? What about croissants?
What about the caviar? No?
Damn peasants are just being unreasonable and don't want to eat. I'm being very patient and thoughtful dealing with this unwashed rable whats their malfunction?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bob,
I'm going to take one last stab at this.
I get that this is a volunteer job, and that the VOs have know about this longer than we have. But ignoring our concerns in this matter is only making it look worse for the campaign from my point of view.And I would agree with you IF this was a case of a snap response. It is not. I spend hours watching/reviewing the forums after the announcement, and responding to various posters. I was getting a constant and unrelenting barrage of negative responses to my suggestions. No one's concerns were being ignored. Solutions and encouragement were being offered, but there is only so many times I'm beat my head against the "brick wall" before I stop. Where's the appreciation for the other side of the conversation? The side that didn't take a "sky is falling" approach to this topic. I guess they are permitted free reign to ignore or bash any idea that isn't their own.
Here is one place where I see a fundamental disconnect between our views. I have seen no "sky is falling" attitude. What I have seen in these threads has been concerns raised by side A. Side B then trivialized those concerns. Your view, based on what you have posted, of my side is, "OH MY GAWD PFS IS DOOMED ITS ALL GOING TO END THE WORLD IS OVER!!!!!!!" When in fact my side has been, "There are some minor issues that we think this could cause."
The only solutions I have seen offered have been along the lines of, "The VOs will do everything than can to deal with those problems." Or they rely on a player base that is larger than the local player base in question is.
Also I am not looking for solutions yet. I am looking to not be insulted when I point out a potential issue. And yes I consider being called a "Negative Nancy" an insult.
if we aren't interested in core mode then we are wrongGranted I have not read every post in every thread, but I have not seen much of that. Most are doing what Kevin illustrated. Offering encouragement, how to incorporate CORE into your local areas, and suggestions to the concerns posters have levied. The problem is when someone(s) continuously refutes every suggestion as if their situation is soo grievous that there is no way CORE will work, all without a shred of actual data to support it.
No one has claimed what you say they are claiming.
No one is saying that CORE will work everywhere. Hell we're not saying it'll work at all. We're saying that it needs time to be implemented so we can determine if it will work, to what extent, and what adjustments might need to be made.
No one is saying that CORE won't work either. You seem to have a completely distorted view of what is being said.
At some point it becomes ridiculous when the conversation is essentially, "What if?"
NO!
"What about?"
NO!
"Did you try?"
NO!
"Could you?"
NO!
At some point, it becomes clear the conversation is pointless because one side refuses to even consider the possibility of the suggestions working.
Meanwhile, again from my perspective, it has become clear to me that the conversation is pointless because the other side refuses to even consider the possibility that our concerns have merit.
You say you are saying "it needs time to be implemented so we can determine if it will work, to what extent, and what adjustments might need to be made" What I have read comes off more like, "Oh my god you people are so stupid, those concerns aren't real. Don't you understand we have hashed this out for weeks and there is nothing you can come up with that we have not already thought of."
Just some food for thought, my original intention was to wait and see. I tend to give the PFS organizers the benefit of the doubt. What caused me to start posting my concerns were posts by you and certain others that were quite frankly insulting. Posts that took reasonable and polite posts regarding concerns and claimed they were "sky is falling" panic. Prior to VO's getting insulting and condescending I saw no posts that even asked for solutions, rather I saw posts stating some minor issues that could arise from the change.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This one uses the term cheese weasel, and this one uses roll playing.You should read the two posts you cited again. In both cases, the posters placed their comments in a specific context, and in the case of the "cheese weasel" comment, the poster said that he didn't know if he could even exclude himself.
If you are intent on just picking out a word or two or using them out of context, I can't help you.
For one of those posts you are correct. For the other, you are the one who needs to re-read it, because it absolutely was what it was made out to be.
Either that, or maybe explain the "context" that makes it mean something other than what it very plainly says?
Again, you're right on the "cheese weasel" post; I actually remember that one and was going to jump in with a correction, but saw you beat me to it. But it really undermines your position to claim that the other one is in the same category.
|
|
This one uses the term cheese weasel, and this one uses roll playing.You should read the two posts you cited again. In both cases, the posters placed their comments in a specific context, and in the case of the "cheese weasel" comment, the poster said that he didn't know if he could even exclude himself.
If you are intent on just picking out a word or two or using them out of context, I can't help you.
To the first post, including yourself in an insult does, in fact, not make it any less insulting.
To the second post, I fail to see any specific context there. He directly correlated wanting more options with not being a roleplayer but rather a rollplayer. Perhaps there is a language barrier there I am failing to see past.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This one uses the term cheese weasel, and this one uses roll playing.You should read the two posts you cited again. In both cases, the posters placed their comments in a specific context, and in the case of the "cheese weasel" comment, the poster said that he didn't know if he could even exclude himself.
If you are intent on just picking out a word or two or using them out of context, I can't help you.
For one of those posts you are correct. For the other, you are the one who needs to re-read it, because it absolutely was what it was made out to be.
Either that, or maybe explain the "context" that makes it mean something other than what it very plainly says?
Again, you're right on the "cheese weasel" post; I actually remember that one and was going to jump in with a correction, but saw you beat me to it. But it really undermines your position to claim that the other one is in the same category.
I know the second one is a bit harsh...but the poster is also not a native english speaker, and his terminology doesn't always translate perfectly. I give obvious non-native speakers a wider leeway for tone and word choice.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
This one uses the term cheese weasel, and this one uses roll playing.You should read the two posts you cited again. In both cases, the posters placed their comments in a specific context, and in the case of the "cheese weasel" comment, the poster said that he didn't know if he could even exclude himself.
If you are intent on just picking out a word or two or using them out of context, I can't help you.
For one of those posts you are correct. For the other, you are the one who needs to re-read it, because it absolutely was what it was made out to be.
Either that, or maybe explain the "context" that makes it mean something other than what it very plainly says?
Again, you're right on the "cheese weasel" post; I actually remember that one and was going to jump in with a correction, but saw you beat me to it. But it really undermines your position to claim that the other one is in the same category.
Sure...the post to which you refer reads:
"Brilliant idea!! As say David Haller many people leave the PFS because many characters become overpower with the optimization, and some we want more role playing than Roll Playing. This is Awesome initiative!!
I want to applause the minds that thoght this!!! Many thanks team!!!"
The VC who made that post, for whom I am not sure that English is his first language (and that's a presumption on my part, as he is the VC for Barcelona, Spain, and the sentence construction makes me think that English is a second language for him), says TWO things in the sentence:
1. He talks about people leaving because many characters become overpowered with optimization; and
2. Some "we want more role playing than Roll Playing.:
On the first, he is not talking about all players, nor is he talking about all optimization - it's clearly in the context of characters who become overpowered with optimization (which connotes that there are characters who can be optimized but not overpowered).
One the second, he again is talking about "SOME" people, not all. There are MANY people who view PFS as "roll-playing" but not "role-playing." Here, he is talking about SOME people - I think it's clear that he includes himself in that statement - but not all. As such, one shouldn't presume that he is somehow denigrating PFS as merely "roll playing" because that's not what his sentence says.
At any rate, you can certainly read it however you want, but I am not convinced, for the reasons I've stated above, that his comment was meant as an insult to those who prefer PFS. I see how it might be read that way, yes, but I think in the context of his entire statement, it wasn't meant to be an insult.
I can tell you this, from my own experience: there are many in my area who optimize their characters and still take a great deal of care to role-play. I have others whose only objective is to smash/kill/win, with characters so extremely optimized that nearly no other player at the table is either necessary or has an enjoyable experience. If they role-play, it's only lip service. Everyone has his or her own play style, and while this latter one is not my preferred type, it's out there, it's within the rules, and so there is nothing to be done (accordingly, when I sit as a player, I choose not to play at tables with those players, unless I need to so the table becomes legal.)
CORE doesn't solve this last problem. What it DOES do is more tightly limit the ability of that type of player to do those things. As well, it places all players on a level-playing field in terms of accessible materials. Regular PFS, while making most of the PF material available, isn't as level a field, because some people can't afford all of the books with all the options. As such, those who have access to all of those things do have an advantage over someone who only has, say, the CRB. CORE helps to level that field more.
At any rate, I don't mean to drag this out. I'm sorry if you and others think your concerns are being glossed over or trivialized - I know many of the VOs who are posting, and I don't think they are trying to do that. Rather, I think they are hearing your concerns and trying to respond with suggestions to help address them.
The only thing we all can agree on is that no one knows how this will play out until we start seeing real deployment of CORE and the results that come from that.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure which is the better thread for this comment so I am posting it in both.
I play PFS exclusively on line and although I like the concept of CORE, my main concern is that it will reduce the number of game offerings for the non-CORE campaign, at least in the beginning. Whether or not that happens, and then evens out over time, remains to be seen.
Well, I can promise that, for my part at least, it will only expand the number of offered tables. I plan on adding 10 tables to my stores' monthly schedule, all of them Core. I have no plans to take away any tables of Classic.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would recommend that GMs take particular care in running CORE mode games. Please double-check that everything is legal in that environment. If, halfway through the last encounter, you realize that a PC has inadvertently taken a feat or a character option ("my gnome rogues always take Taunt. What do you mean, it's not in the CRB?") then it's potentially a mess.
(For example, a GM under those circumstances might rule that the character is legal, but not CORE, so the session isn't CORE. Particularly if she used Taunt earlier in the session, without the GM realizing it, and that helped the party during an encounter.)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would recommend that GMs take particular care in running CORE mode games. Please double-check that everything is legal in that environment. If, halfway through the last encounter, you realize that a PC has inadvertently taken a feat or a character option ("my gnome rogues always take Taunt. What do you mean, it's not in the CRB?") then it's potentially a mess.
(For example, a GM under those circumstances might rule that the character is legal, but not CORE, so the session isn't CORE. Particularly if she used Taunt earlier in the session, without the GM realizing it, and that helped the party during an encounter.)
If that happens, then the entire table just got all of their characters permanently moved to normal PFS. I'm sure no one would be happy with that, when they didn't do anything wrong and were legally playing a CORE only game.
|
|
It's also the only Core Only legal choice to react to a player having a non core rule for half the session.
If that happens, then the entire table just got all of their characters permanently moved to normal PFS. I'm sure no one would be happy with that, when they didn't do anything wrong and were legally playing a CORE only game.
It really isn't, there is also the TPK to safe the day :P
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I would recommend that GMs take particular care in running CORE mode games. Please double-check that everything is legal in that environment.
(For example, a GM under those circumstances might rule that the character is legal, but not CORE, so the session isn't CORE. Particularly if she used Taunt earlier in the session, without the GM realizing it, and that helped the party during an encounter.)
If that happens, then the entire table just got all of their characters permanently moved to normal PFS. I'm sure no one would be happy with that, when they didn't do anything wrong and were legally playing a CORE only game.
I agree. Moreover, since some players may have already played the adventure (under standard mode), it might be the case that the table suddenly has too few legal PCs to be a legal game under either rulesystem.
Again, be careful.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Well, I can promise that, for my part at least, it will only expand the number of offered tables. I plan on adding 10 tables to my stores' monthly schedule, all of them Core. I have no plans to take away any tables of Classic.I'm not sure which is the better thread for this comment so I am posting it in both.
I play PFS exclusively on line and although I like the concept of CORE, my main concern is that it will reduce the number of game offerings for the non-CORE campaign, at least in the beginning. Whether or not that happens, and then evens out over time, remains to be seen.
I will be encouraging this in my areas as well. Tonight we will announce the Core option at our game day and we will make tables available for it this coming Sunday. We are not removing PFS listings from Warhorn to make room.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One the second, he again is talking about "SOME" people, not all. There are MANY people who view PFS as "roll-playing" but not "role-playing." Here, he is talking about SOME people - I think it's clear that he includes himself in that statement - but not all. As such, one shouldn't presume that he is somehow denigrating PFS as merely "roll playing" because that's not what his sentence says.
At any rate, you can certainly read it however you want, but I am not convinced, for the reasons I've stated above, that his comment was meant as an insult to those who prefer PFS.
Uh... I think you misunderstand what the offense was. It's more that— actually, you know what? Let's not even go there. Though I'm not convinced it was the product of a language barrier (or of ignoring context), let's just go ahead and give him the benefit of the doubt and say he meant no offense.
Now, how does that factor into how best to respond to those who were offended?
|
|
I highly doubt that people who cry about over powered characters will have a fun time in any season 4-6 high tier stuff (6-7, 7-8, 8-9, 10-11) because they will highly probably die.
I think that you're wrong about this. There are a very small number of scenarios that perhaps can't be handled by a group of decently built core characters.
While clearly not precisely Core, the characters that I played several of those scenarios with were mostly Core (including a nearly Core cleric in Waking Rune) and all contributed their share.
I think the bigger issue may be a more subtle one than raw power. Core characters have a greater tendency to have a fairly well specified niche and so the group composition is likely to be more important. For example, first aid gloves, wands of infernal healing, etc reduce the need for a healer. A lot of the ways to make a character more versatile are missing.
But if (and I stress "if") that becomes a significant issue one possible solution is obvious. At the appropriate level, switch your character to BasePFS.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, how does that factor into how best to respond to those who were offended?
There are a number of VOs here who have tried, as I wrote previously, to listen to the concerns raised and tried to suggest ways to address them. The record here is replete with examples where that has happened.
How is that an example that the VOs were dismissive of those concerns? I maintain that by offering solutions they weren't being dismissive, and were in fact listening to the concerns, and trying to help address them.
As to the people who were offended:
I think I have caught three examples that people have pointed out as offensive/insulting:
1. Referring to others as "Negative Nancys"
2. "Cheese Weasel"
3. "Role-Playing vs. Roll Playing."
It really doesn't matter what words someone uses, Jiggy - people can find offense in anything. And, from time to time, I'm sure people use words or phrase deliberately to offend. I think each of us, now and then, might say, "you know, if I could have phrased that differently, maybe I would have."
So, really, the solution here is to figure out how to address the challenges or perceived challenges that the CORE Campaign will introduce (as I said before, I am not convinced that some of the things that have been raised are really an issue), and focus less on being offended or being right or whatever the various positions are. If we continue to bring up offensive comments, etc., then the very people who do are doing a disservice to their own position of "some people aren't listening to our concerns." So, focus on those concerns, and if someone makes an insulting comment (or one taken as insulting), address that with them privately, and publicly continue to find ways or to seek solutions to the concerns.
I promise you this: if a person comes to me with a concern and I say, "well, you can try X" and they say, "that won't work," and then I say, "well, how about Y" and they say, "that won't work, either" there are only so many suggestions I can make before I conclude that perhaps this person really isn't serious about finding solutions. And, rather than make that judgement, my preference would be for each area to establish CORE that wants to, take it for a spin, see what works and what doesn't, make adjustments, and then continue on. That's what we should be spending our time talking about.
As Bob often reminds us, "Explore! Report! Cooperate!" Right now, we need everyone to really work on the last of those charges.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's also the only Core Only legal choice to react to a player having a non core rule for half the session.
If that happens, then the entire table just got all of their characters permanently moved to normal PFS. I'm sure no one would be happy with that, when they didn't do anything wrong and were legally playing a CORE only game.
I disagree. Just do what you currently do if halfway through a session you discover a character is illegal. If it is a minor glitch then fix it (disallow the spell/item/whatever, change the stat, whatever). If it is a major problem do whatever you currently do.
I very seriously doubt that automaticaly changing all the characters is the correct solution.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I feel that the disconnect between people under NDA who have been discussion this issue for quite some time (and as professionals now present a unified front) and everybody else.
A campagin with a very limited rules set seems like a good idea to draw in more people (I personally don't agree, but I understand, that it is a popular idea) but I suspect, that they quickly learned, that such a campaign needs GMs and players. Since a lot of players would not willingly give up all the choices they have grown accustomed to, they added the incentive to replay.
I could be dead wrong, but this feels right.
So those who are happy about this seem to fall in two camps:
- A chance to replay and/or to play more PFS since even if your have not played a normal scenario, this might result in more PFS events.
- A chance to play/GM PFS without class/spell/race/item XYZ and being tired of players roflstomping their scenarios. And are willing to lose a number of welcome options.
Obviously there is some overlap, but I suspect, that the "we want to replay " group, is far bigger.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
I highly doubt that people who cry about over powered characters will have a fun time in any season 4-6 high tier stuff (6-7, 7-8, 8-9, 10-11) because they will highly probably die.There are a very small number of scenarios that perhaps can't be handled by a group of decently built core characters.
I hope that is not the case. There should never be a non-hardmode PFS scenario that cannot be handled by a table of nothing but Core Iconics, let alone one that is composed of well built Core characters.
|
|
I think people saying rogues are losers in Core don't understand what rogues aren't supposed to revolve around their sneak attack.
In a world where rogues are the kings of skills and are the only ones with access to trapfinding... that's a world in which they'll shine.
Not really. Even in core only, anyone can detect and disarm mundane traps. Dispel Magic or Summon Monster 1 can get rid of magic ones.
|
|
Just because a core only PC contributes doesn't mean they solve the major problem of the adventure. Black tentacles for instance. Freedom of movement solves it but so does the teleportation sub school and a ton of other minor (liberating command exct) options gone which means everyone needs to bring a solution or someone has to solve it for the party. That's ONE SPELL that isn't uncommon in later seasons at high tier. Heck any halfway decent PC ( dump his casting stat or 7 STR 7 dex fighter is bad) will contribute but they don't solve the "Solution or die" encounters which are prevalent in higher level play.
My disagreement with this sentiment is that it implies that relying on crutches from post CRB publications absolves a player from remembering the fundamentals.
Even in PFS Vanilla you should be able to escape from Black Tentacles (or other situations) even without your optimized/munchkin trick.
In Core players will have to rely on the fundamentals, and maybe, just maybe, have to play smartly. I don't consider that a horror. Quite the opposite, I think that's phenomenal. I relish that kind of play more than ROFLSTOMP.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a world where rogues are the kings of skills and are the only ones with access to trapfinding... that's a world in which they'll shine.
I think the problem is the number of times you encounter traps in PFS (before you actually trigger them), compared to the number of times you encounter combat, puts a pretty big limit on how much a rogue can shine. It takes a special patience to play a second fiddle combatant until you encounter one of those rare moments when your character gets to shine.
|
|
In a world where rogues are the kings of skills and are the only ones with access to trapfinding... that's a world in which they'll shine.I think the problem is the number of times you encounter traps in PFS (before you actually trigger them), compared to the number of times you encounter combat, puts a pretty big limit on how much a rogue can shine. It takes a special patience to play a second fiddle combatant until you encounter one of those rare moments when your character gets to shine.
The rogue class offers the tools to at least be relevant in any circumstance. Combat, Social, Trap, whatever the encounter is, the Rogue can contribute in a meaningful way or even bear the primary burden. Only if you make bad decisions with your character is a Rogue ever caught twiddling his thumbs. (outside Vanilla play, of course, but that's the context of this thread and shouldn't need to be clarified)
Math disagrees with this. Statistically even barbarians will only have about a 50/50 shot to escape once grappled. It's not fundamentals, it's math.
Pretty bad application of fundamentals then, to rely on tactic that has a 50/50 chance of success. Much better to use a potion of gaseous form and up your chances significantly. (by the time grappling is a death sentence, you can afford them, and it's only your own fault if you don't have them) That's just one example. One could also use that smart play I hinted at earlier, and actually use some teamwork in tough situations rather. Much more fun to struggle to overcome a hardship than to never face the hardship in the first place, no? If you don't agree, then that's fine. Stick to vanilla, and stop telling people who like Core they're BadWrong?