Worried that PFS Core will split the community


Pathfinder Society

51 to 90 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Aaron Motta wrote:
Our VC whupped us into shape! ;-)
My ankles are still sore.

Nothing that a night with the ParaCountess can't excaberate.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

It's as high as he could reach.

Liberty's Edge 1/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
The Fox wrote:
it is the tone

Perhaps that is the crux of the issue. If anyone is reading tone into posts, they are making a mistake. ...

Certain word/phrase choices carry negative connotations, such as calling people Negative Nancys.

Quote:


The Fox wrote:
Possibly better would be "Your fears are justified and valid. There is every possibility that what you fear will come to pass. But none of us want that. We will do whatever we can to prevent that from happening. If your fears do, in fact, become the reality, then we will reverse course on this plan. We all care about the PFS community as much as you obviously do. We are here to support it, and to support you and your needs."

While not using those specific words that is exactly what we are trying to say.

After reading 1000+ posts over multiple threads and forums, the only conclusion I can come up with is that there is nothing we can say to appease the people with concerns, especially the ones who are die-hard against CORE. It seems the only solution is to let them vent and hope their fears will be assuaged when (hopefully) the program works. That doesn't mean I/we don't care about their concerns, it just means if there is nothing we can do or say to make a difference, then the best approach might be to remain quiet on the subject.

The initial posts in response to peoples' concerns were not sending that message at all. There was no acknowledgement in them whatsoever. It was all denial.

I see now that our concerns are being taken into account, but that is not even close to how the posts responding to peoples concerns were phrased. I'm sorry but that is how it was handled. I for one have had my concerns mostly handled. I am still disappointed in how certain VOs comported themselves in the intial Blog Thread and continuing to deny that there was a problem there does not help.

1/5 **

TOZ wrote:
It's as high as he could reach.

Oh NO you didn't...

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Aaron Motta wrote:
TOZ wrote:
It's as high as he could reach.
Oh NO you didn't...

You're just mad you didn't think of it first.

1/5 **

graywulfe wrote:

The initial posts in response to peoples' concerns were not sending that message at all. There was no acknowledgement in them whatsoever. It was all denial.

I see now that our concerns are being taken into account, but that is not even close to how the posts responding to peoples concerns were phrased. I'm sorry but that is how it was handled. I for one have had my concerns mostly handled. I am still disappointed in how certain VOs comported themselves in the intial Blog Thread and continuing to deny that there was a problem there does not help.

I'm sorry you had a bad experience. The take away for me is to always be cognizant of tone.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Global Organized Play Coordinator

14 people marked this as a favorite.
The Fox wrote:


I don't know exactly what I would say if I were trying to ease fears about this issue.

"There are risks and costs to action. But they are far less than the long range risks of comfortable inaction."

--John F. Kennedy

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
GM Lamplighter wrote:
That's interesting, since PFS has so many limitations compared to a home game! I assume the home game GMs in your area just choose to limit their campaigns?

Every home game I have ever played in is a lot more limiting then PFS, I always thought that as the norm.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Steven Lau wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
That's interesting, since PFS has so many limitations compared to a home game! I assume the home game GMs in your area just choose to limit their campaigns?
Every home game I have ever played in is a lot more limiting then PFS, I always thought that as the norm.

I would never ban item creation in a home game. Items have to come from SOMEWHERE, right? I've never played in a home game with as many restrictions as PFS. I would never play with a GM more limiting than the PFS campaign.

Grand Lodge 3/5

I am in the same boat as others who have never played a home game that gave players as many options as PFS.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Who are these GMs? The Stasi?

Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis

Not that it's related to CORE, but I am running RotRL AE for my group. I limited them to the CRB for classes and races, the ARG for race-based options (for the CRB races), the APG, and UM and UC for other options (feats, archetypes, etc., but they cannot choose classes from the APG, for example.)

That's pretty limiting, really.

They chose to play a party of all Dwarves. It's worked out quite well for them, and it's been a blast to run.

1/5

Mark Stratton wrote:
They chose to play a party of all Dwarves. It's worked out quite well for them, and it's been a blast to run.

To be fair dwarves are the master race. Especially in RotR.

Lantern Lodge 5/5

dwayne germaine wrote:
I am in the same boat as others who have never played a home game that gave players as many options as PFS.

Agreed.

Our home games allow item creation, but we limit ourselves to CRB, APG, UM, and UC. Typically no gunslingers, no splatbooks, and no ISWG/ISG type stuff either (as it's usually not on Golarion if it's a home game).

Additional Resources is a multipage document full of options.

Silver Crusade 2/5

I find gunslingers to be a vital check on armor/nat armor builds. Throw in androids, and you have fantasy Ahnold.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

I'll be limiting people to Core for my run of the Council of Thieves AP, because that AP was written before other sources like the APG were published.

As a side note, in the AP there is a clause where it warns you as a GM about allowing your players to make tiefling PCs, stating that they are "more powerful than other races, and might unbalance the game." It goes on to suggest starting tiefling PCs out with one NPC level, like warrior or adept, before allowing them to take PC classes. This gave me a chuckle.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Aaron tried saying that about tieflings for his home game. We laughed at him. :) I do like the NPC level as a compromise, but I never require it.

Grand Lodge 3/5

Walter Sheppard wrote:

I'll be limiting people to Core for my run of the Council of Thieves AP, because that AP was written before other sources like the APG were published.

I expand this specific rule to be my general rule in the AP's I run: my players can only use books which were available to the designers of the AP I'm running.

Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis

Scribbling Rambler wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:

I'll be limiting people to Core for my run of the Council of Thieves AP, because that AP was written before other sources like the APG were published.

I expand this specific rule to be my general rule in the AP's I run: my players can only use books which were available to the designers of the AP I'm running.

Though I didn't follow that exactly, that was my rationale for limiting my RotRL group to the CRB for classes and races, and then using the other books to expand on those core choices.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Mark Stratton wrote:
Scribbling Rambler wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:

I'll be limiting people to Core for my run of the Council of Thieves AP, because that AP was written before other sources like the APG were published.

I expand this specific rule to be my general rule in the AP's I run: my players can only use books which were available to the designers of the AP I'm running.
Though I didn't follow that exactly, that was my rationale for limiting my RotRL group to the CRB for classes and races, and then using the other books to expand on those core choices.

Heh. I am running an RotRL AE game online, and my rules for PC generation were even more restrictive.

5 PCs.
20 point buy was my nice part.
CRB races only.
CRB classes only.
Please, no ACs, mounts or familiars. (Mainly because 5 20 point buy PCs is already more powerful than the AP was written for)
Anything outside of Core needs GM approval.
RotRL AE Player Guide traits are approved.
Web Enhancement traits are approved. Some are recommended against (Rich Parents, I am looking at you)
Modern languages OK, but no ancient languages to start, other than from a trait or linguistics.

Spoiler:
So far, we are still in book one, and they have been whomping most of the encounters handily. They had some problems with the BBEG for the current area, and I have t clarify something with them to make sure that camping in the room they forced her out of is actually going to work how they hoped, mainly whether the Wizard has his spellbook with him, and how not to add the CR 4 and CR 3 encounters together, since the party is only APL2...

Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis

One of the PCs is a druid with a velociraptor AC.

A couple of cool parts:

Spoiler:
When they fought at Thistletop, the druid lost control of his velociraptor to Gogmurt. :) Hooray for Charm Animal!!! But, the druid was able to chase him through the hedge, which was helpful.

And this!

Spoiler:
I use the critical hit and fumble decks. In the first round against Nualia, she crits the group's paladin. The result? Decapitation. Save or die. He saves on the exact number he needed.

I made them use 15 point buys, so the AC actually helps out a bit. They really tore through most of Burnt Offerings without too much trouble, except for

Spoiler:
the quasit
.

We are starting book 2 this weekend.

Spoiler:
One of the PCs is a necromancer/undead specialist. That's going to come in VERY handy. :)

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/5

I'm setting up a Carrion Crown Game online via Roll20 and I tend to limit things as well. Not as much as you guys though, but I hate special races, so I tend to say no to those.

Silver Crusade 2/5

I'm not afraid to massively modify fights in APs, though. I'll be as violent as the PCs demand of me. My usual MO is to add class levels, rather than numbers.

Liberty's Edge 4/5

Core is optional, so I am still trying to get my head around the issue you are having.

There are 8 players and you. The VO and one other always GM. 2 players always play high tier and 2 players always play low tier scenarios. You and the other 2 players play whichever tier is of interest, but are willing to switch tables in a 5 and 2 situation.

The VO adds a low tier Core game. The 2 low tier players sign up for it. You and 1 of the switch players sign up for the regular low tier and the high tier have their 2 players. You now have 3 tables of 2 each with one person choosing which table gets run that day. You have played the high tier and are not interested in playing for no credit or Core, your other regular switch players go high tier and Core respectively. 2 tables of 3 are run and you go home. Or all 3 switch players go high tier and the 2 Core players go home. Is this the situation that worries you?

Consider the situation where the VO offers a Core table and 2 new people sign up. They won't play regular because it is hard enough knowing the CRB rules. You now have 3 tables of 2 and 3 switch players. However you only have 2 GMs, so you are back to the previous situation, someone is going home and it is likely 1 or 2 of the old time players because the VO wants the new players to come back. The new players keep coming back and the VO stops offering Regular low tier. You find yourself waiting for a high tier game you can play in or biting the bullet and playing Core.

I believe Core was offered in order to trigger the second situation: Bring new players into the community. The potential problem is the first situation: Send home players that have supported Paizo with their time and wallets for years.

I personally believe the second situation is more likely with more new players coming and going.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
EricMcG wrote:
...and 2 new people sign up. They won't play regular because it is hard enough knowing the CRB rules...

Is this a realistic expectation? There's never been anything stopping a player from making a character out of the core book only. There might be some handful of players very experienced with PFRPG who have been avoiding PFS over too many sourcebooks, but my experience as a GM and store coordinator is almost all new PFS players are fairly new to Pathfinder in general if they've played it at all. (Had a guy show up to the store a couple weeks back carrying a 3.5 character with rolled stats and the Fourth Edition PHB. Seriously.) Might have a few that came in but didn't stick with it cause their characters were overshadowed by gunslingers[1] or whatever, but realistically they'll be just as overshadowed by 18-STR greatsword man or any number of other marginally-optimized builds.

Core might bring back some few players who quit over power creep[2], but I think the number of new players it brings in will be minimal.

[1] Not that the really abusive post-core stuff is that impressive at level 1 anyway.
[2] I'm excluding here the "already played everything" crowd - and I'm slowly starting to find myself in that boat - as replay is explicitly not the main purpose of Core and could be better provided by other rules changes.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Eric

Your always dm to player ratio of nearly half the people there is unrealistially high compared to my situation. I thin theres a reason that they upped the assumption from a table of four to a table of six

Going home is not a matter of just going around the corner for some its a fourty minute drive for me

Sovereign Court 1/5

Aaron Motta wrote:
TOZ and I were simply at the same meeting. Our VC whupped us into shape! ;-)

If it's anything like he treats the barkeeper's dogs, I'm glad I'm nowhere near these meetings.

4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
EricMcG wrote:

Core is optional, so I am still trying to get my head around the issue you are having.

Core creates the same set of problems as mixed high and low level characters create: It's not going to be an issue if you hit a certain threshold of players, but below that threshold you're at risk of getting stuck in a perpetual 1-2 loop.

You run into problems with a small group, say 3-4 regulars that show up every time and 6-8 people that show up, say, once a month. The regulars will relatively quickly level up to 3 or 4 or 5, but there are always a couple players showing up to round out the table but only have a 1 or a 2. So, unless you grow large enough to expand to two tables, your regulars are stuck effectively abandoning their PCs and starting over every time they level out of content.

Now, with Core, instead of 2 possibilities (high or low) you have 4: High or Low Classic and High or low Core. That means, if you're trying to run everything, the odds of having everyone at the table high enough to run something other than 1-2 are halved.

That's what people are worried about.

The key to running a successful PFS game day will be careful scheduling by the coordinators. Coordinators will need to schedule their games more carefully to ensure that people can level their characters and see higher level content. That's going to be tough, because there will be some players who don't care about higher level play, there will be some who want the simplified game Core offers, there will be some who want to continue growing their current characters.

Coordinators will be tempted to try pleasing everyone. The set of cases where that isn't possible has just increased because the set of options has increased: In order to please players who want Core games, coordinators will either need to run more games or convert some Classic games to Core. Not everyone will be able to expand the number of tables they offer, due to time, personnel, space, and any number of other constraints. Not everyone is capable of stepping up and coordinating extra games. If you offer Core games but do not expand the number of tables you schedule, you have to offer fewer Classic games.

Offering Core tables will not reduce the opportunities for Classic players everywhere. Plenty of places have plenty of resources to add some Core tables without impacting players who want to go to Classic games. Some places will have new players come in to swell the ranks, or new coordinators and GMs stepping up. That's great.

But offering Core tables without paying close attention to the effects can be detrimental in some cases. Again, the same problem that crops up with single table groups who can never get out of 1-2s will show up with small groups that try to do both Core and Classic games. What's the magic number to be big enough to support both campaigns? Nobody knows.

Core can be good for the group overall but still negatively impact individual players. Core could be a huge success, you could double the number of players and re-energize the existing player base. But if too many people switch to Core games that there aren't enough people at the right level to kick off Classic tables, there will be people left out in the dark. I'd hate to see my Harrower get stranded at 7 because everyone switched over to Core for a year, for example.

I'm sure that Core is going to be good for the campaign as a whole. But coordinators need to be careful with their scheduling, especially coordinators with smallish groups, or they might end up getting stuck in a loop where the consistent players can't advance because the inconsistent players are scattered with too many characters and too few chances to catch up in level.

Here's what I mean by "coordinators need to be careful with their scheduling." I currently schedule and GM 6 game days a month, most of them are two tables: One at 1-2 for new players and one alternating between 3-7 and 5-9 to keep experienced players advancing and sophomoric players on track to becoming experienced. I don't have the time to offer more game days, and don't currently have enough GMs to add a table without burning people out. So, if I were to start running Core games as part of my normal game days, I'd have to convert one of my Classic tables to Core. Core will only be 1-2 for a while, but I can't completely replace my 1-2 table because that would strand my newer players who are just getting a chance to advance. I can't replace the higher level table because that would end advancement for my most loyal players. So what do I do? Alternate 1-2s between Core and Classic? That doubles the amount of time a new player takes before they get a chance to play with the "big boys." Alternate Core with the higher level table? That disincentivizes people from leveling up and stretches the big goal, Eyes of the Ten, much farther into the future. Run Core in place of low one week and high the next? Then we're playing more Core than either Classic.

The best I can do as a coordinator is talk to my players, explain the options that I see, and solicit feedback. Maybe someone will step up and start running Core themselves. That would be awesome. Maybe we'll just run Core at the big once a month event our game store puts on, as an advertising thing as much as anything else. I don't know, and the attitude I'm taking into it is "First, do no harm." If I were a player, I think I would prefer for my coordinator to have that attitude than "Check out this awesome new shiny, it's gonna be awesome!!1!"

1/5 **

Quadstriker wrote:
If it's anything like he treats the barkeeper's dogs, I'm glad I'm nowhere near these meetings.

All records of that incident were sealed by the court! :P

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The potential problems with core were dismissed with the exact same attitude and arguments (nearly the same words sometimes) as people seeking a non convention path to race boons.

Its one thing to say that most of pfs happens in cities so thats what you favor. It s quite another to accuse people of sloth and indolence for not implementing solutioms based on someone else's reality and resort to outright insults when someone points out the difference.

The solutions being offered for peoples concerns are so vague as to be non existant. I cannot reach any conclussion other than such individuals being considered an acceptable loss.

If you want to know how i feel about that check my faction icon.

Shadowlodge for life!

5/5 5/55/55/5

Aaron Motta wrote:
Quadstriker wrote:
If it's anything like he treats the barkeeper's dogs, I'm glad I'm nowhere near these meetings.
All records of that incident were sealed by the court! :P

Lassie was on the jury. She told timmy everything

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:


The solutions being offered for peoples concerns are so vague as to be non existant. I cannot reach any conclussion other than such individuals being considered an acceptable loss.

it's really hard to offer solutions when all you have for a problem, with no significant data behind it, as is the usual panic reaction anytime a change is put up.

If Core becomes that much more popular than standard PFS. (Something I see as very unlikely as players LIKE their new shinys for the most part), than it follows that many who were playing PFS Main were playing it because the option they wanted wasn't available. I'm pretty sure that Paizo would not be launching a Core-only campaign if they really thought the bulk of their PFS players would abandon main (and the reason to buy more Paizo books) for Core.

I suspect that there will be a fair amount of players who will do both, try Core out for the novelty, and the bulk of those will retreat to PFS Main once the novelty wears off and they find out how many of their power shinies that Core won't let them play with, (no magus, gunfighter, alchemist, witch, samurai, etc.. etc..)

Scarab Sages 5/5

LazarX wrote:


.....

I suspect that there will be a fair amount of players who will do both, try Core out for the novelty, and the bulk of those will retreat to PFS Main once the novelty wears off and they find out how many of their power shinies that Core won't let them play with, (no magus, gunfighter, alchemist, witch, samurai, etc.. etc..)

I think a fear is also out there that a bunch of people who had nothing left to play and thus could only GM except for 2 games a month, now have a whole lot more they can play, and so the GM pool may be less for a while (or a long time).

I can see it happen for me - if Core is offered along with Normal, I'm more likely to sign up to play - though if the call needing GMs goes out I can switch.

Liberty's Edge 4/5

Dave Setty wrote:

Is this a realistic expectation? There's never been anything stopping a player from making a character out of the core book only. There might be some handful of players very experienced with PFRPG who have been avoiding PFS over too many sourcebooks, but my experience as a GM and store coordinator is almost all new PFS players are fairly new to Pathfinder in general if they've played it at all. (Had a guy show up to the store a couple weeks back carrying a 3.5 character with rolled stats and the Fourth Edition PHB. Seriously.) Might have a few that came in but didn't stick with it cause their characters were overshadowed by gunslingers[1] or whatever, but realistically they'll be just as overshadowed by 18-STR greatsword man or any number of other marginally-optimized builds.

Core might bring back some few players who quit over power creep[2], but I think the number of new players it brings in will be minimal.

People are people and their reasons are varied and not always logical. I am putting forward a situation that is unlikely, but still describes the concerns of the original poster.

I remember this one guy last year who came in with a Beginner Box Fighter. All but one of the encounters ended before his action. On the one where he went first, he missed and the creature died before the next round. He may have come back, but I don't remember seeing him again. He certainly did not enjoy himself.

Power creep is another issue. The standard business model is to release a new edition, maybe Paizo is looking to try a de-power solution within the existing product line. This is to bring back GMs rather than players in my opinion. I have stopped spending a lot of effort prepping an encounter that I know will end in one round. BTW the 2 people that always GM... that is typical, even if they want to play they rarely have the option.

Regardless of the solution offered, the problem is declining attendance.

4/5 *

BNW, I'm sorry a few people dismissed these concerns out of the gate. But that was a week ago, and since then there has been a huge amount of effort by a lot of people to understand the issues and find solutions. Until the hypothetical problems Core Campaign may bring become actual, discrete problems, we can't really "solve" them. In the meantime, here are a few things that may help.

At the size our Lodge is at now, with 35+ tables a month, we can definitely accommodate Core Campaign and hopefully reap the benefits. But, I started my Lodge with 2 other people, and I went through every growing pain you can imagine. So, I understand that smaller group dynamic as well.

One option: you could choose not to offer Core. Frankly, this is what I would do if I only had one table - until I have demand from my GMs or my players for it, either for replay or simpler rules sets, why add it? If someone does bring a core PC, it's no different than if someone brings an out-of-tier PC that night and has to switch. It's just the way small group dynamics works out.

Or, you could designate some fraction of games to be Core Campaign and try and schedule them. You may find that your group's *first choice* seems to split the group, but that's not really true; it just means that sometimes people have to play their *second* choice instead. And that's OK - that is the nature of an OP campaign.

Or you can run Core Campaign only at special events designed to attract new players - cons, game days, library events. Keep the standard campaign for the regular group chugging along, and then run Core so your GMs can re-GM for credit, at a place where you can attract and hook new players.

I hope some of these ideas will work for smaller groups that are worried about Core. The important thing is for coordinators to observe what their group's reactions are, and plan accordingly. Don't be afraid to change course if you need to. Don't be fooled into thinking that everyone has to get their way every time. And if you do need to split your group to accommodate everyone's wishes, try and find times when you bring everyone back together again.

Core Campaign helps a lot of people, and should not hurt anyone unless they let it. Don't let it. Use it as you see fit.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Lazar, read zachs post. Core doesnt have to get more popular than pfs to start splitting tables.

On kindle for a few days till the new desktop gets here. No qoute and paste thing available


3 people marked this as a favorite.
EricMcG wrote:
Dave Setty wrote:

Is this a realistic expectation? There's never been anything stopping a player from making a character out of the core book only. There might be some handful of players very experienced with PFRPG who have been avoiding PFS over too many sourcebooks, but my experience as a GM and store coordinator is almost all new PFS players are fairly new to Pathfinder in general if they've played it at all. (Had a guy show up to the store a couple weeks back carrying a 3.5 character with rolled stats and the Fourth Edition PHB. Seriously.) Might have a few that came in but didn't stick with it cause their characters were overshadowed by gunslingers[1] or whatever, but realistically they'll be just as overshadowed by 18-STR greatsword man or any number of other marginally-optimized builds.

Core might bring back some few players who quit over power creep[2], but I think the number of new players it brings in will be minimal.

People are people and their reasons are varied and not always logical. I am putting forward a situation that is unlikely, but still describes the concerns of the original poster.

I remember this one guy last year who came in with a Beginner Box Fighter. All but one of the encounters ended before his action. On the one where he went first, he missed and the creature died before the next round. He may have come back, but I don't remember seeing him again. He certainly did not enjoy himself.

Power creep is another issue. The standard business model is to release a new edition, maybe Paizo is looking to try a de-power solution within the existing product line. This is to bring back GMs rather than players in my opinion. I have stopped spending a lot of effort prepping an encounter that I know will end in one round. BTW the 2 people that always GM... that is typical, even if they want to play they rarely have the option.

Regardless of the solution offered, the problem is declining attendance.

I can absolutely assure you that power level disparities will not be remedied by the introduction of Core play. Encounters will still be smashed with little difficulty, it's just that instead of being smashed by a wide variety of characters it'll just be almost entirely Druids.

4/5

If my lodge has a Core day and a PFS day, that'd make me feel a whole lot better about all this. I'm just worried organizers will feel pressured to include Core options at the same time as non-Core, which will make it harder to fill tables.

Sovereign Court 5/5

Game Master wrote:
If my lodge has a Core day and a PFS day, that'd make me feel a whole lot better about all this. I'm just worried organizers will feel pressured to include Core options at the same time as non-Core, which will make it harder to fill tables.

As a store coordinator in my area, I don't view this concern as invalid.. but I do see it as being a challenge no more daunting than scheduling incompatible level tiers has been inside Vanilla PFS. Either way it's a one dimensional problem, and we've been dealing successfully with one dimensional scheduling problems for a good long while. For example, we have managed to get by without seperate 'low level' nights and 'high level' nights.

Of course, if/when Core becomes so popular that it too has characters beyond level 5, then we'll have two dimensions (mode AND tier) to work through.. but until then, I see incorporating mode OR tier as mox nix. And of course by then, coordinators will have some inertia to provide at least some direction as to what's been popular lately.

Verdant Wheel 4/5

In Brazil we face a harsh reality. Most potential players can't read english, a lot of potential GMs don't read english good enough to GM. There is not a portuguese translation of the core yet, but maybe there is one. So core is a natural choice for us. But most or actual regulars are collectors that bought books only to play in pathfinder society. So is a tough choice until we have more GMs.

51 to 90 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Worried that PFS Core will split the community All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.