John and Tonya on Know Direction Podcast (April 6, 2016 at 5:30 pm PST)


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee 4/5 Pathfinder Society Lead Developer

7 people marked this as a favorite.

That's 8:30 pm EST or April 7th at 00:30 UTC

Approximately 24 hours from now, Tonya and I will appear on the Know Direction podcast, hosted by Ryan Costello, Jr and Jefferson Jay Thacker (aka Perram). We'll be discussing upcoming conventions from now through Gen Con and PAX West. We'll also tell you about the upcoming seeker-level trilogy and the special event debuting at PaizoCon. In addition, I anticipate having time to take questions from the audience about the organized play program, Pathfinder Society scenarios, the upcoming Pathfinder Society Pawns, and anything else you care to ask.

Watch the event live tomorrow on the Know Direction Twitch channel. Also, be sure to let us know you're interested in attending the event on the event's Facebook page and through your other social media.

We look forward to sharing exciting news and hearing from the audience!

Paizo Employee 4/5 Pathfinder Society Lead Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As a reminder, we're about 4.5 hours away from the beginning of the podcast. Hope to see everyone there.

Grand Lodge 2/5

I'll try to watch. I don't know how you're going to handle the Q&A process, but I'll go ahead and post a question here in case it has a chance to be answered. While I'm far more interested in rules stuff, that's probably not a good topic for a question so I'll post something that hopefully can be answered.

Is there anything you can tell us about the progress of pregens for iconics that don't have PFS-legal pregens?

Also one just for me.

I haven't had the chance to play a lot of season 7 games because my local lodge doesn't put up a lot of new stuff. The ones I have had a chance to do were good, overall, but much too skill heavy. Obviously I'm used to older scenarios (i.e. before season 7) where that is not the norm. I want to preface my question by saying that I in no way think this in and of itself is a bad thing. But I recently played a three part scenario (i.e. three separate scenarios with a continuing story arch) and between the three of them we had a grand total of two combats. And the last of the three took exactly 90 minutes. So between the entire lack of combat and the last scenario being a joke with regard to the amount of time it took us to succesfully demolish it, I believe the skill-heaviness is leading PFS the wrong way.

I've got nothing against combat vs. non-combat choices, but when combat is clearly presented as "the greater evil choice" that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth when it happens with almost every encounter. Especially when combat is further punished by negating a secondary success condition in a situation where combat should be a perfectly viable solution.

So regarding that, I guess my question would be.. Going forward, is PFS permanently taking the route that almost all combat can/should be avoided? (or should all my characters going forward just be investigators?)

p.s. My second question is a legitimate question, I tried to word in in the best way possible but due to my opinion and the nature of the question it still may appear more pointed than I intended.

4/5 5/5 * Contributor

claudekennilol wrote:
I'll try to watch. I don't know how you're going to handle the Q&A process, but I'll go ahead and post a question here in case it has a chance to be answered. While I'm far more interested in rules stuff, that's probably not a good topic for a question so I'll post something that hopefully can be answered.

Hi!

I'll try to make sure that Ryan and Perram get your question, but for safety you should register to our site's forms and post your questions to our Know Questions section. Specifically, we have a thread for tonight's episode.

Ryan references this list constantly and directly uploads it into our scripts, so asking questions here is the most surefire way to make sure your question is answered.

Hope to see you there tonight!

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Sorry, busy killing a witch queen tonight. Will listen later. :)

Silver Crusade 2/5 5/5

I'm going to be listening to the first half hour before I try to kill Steven with a witch queen ;-P

Paizo Employee 4/5 Pathfinder Society Lead Developer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Phylotus wrote:
I'm going to be listening to the first half hour before I try to kill Steven with a witch queen ;-P

I recommend the witch cast a spell of icy imprisonment that pauses the action for another hour to listen in.

Nah, go enjoy your game. This just means I can shout, "You had your chance" the next time Steven asks a question.

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The snows imprison my enemies, good man.

Paizo Employee 4/5 Pathfinder Society Lead Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Starting in just a few minutes!

Grand Lodge 2/5

I had to stop watching ~30 mins into it. Anyone know if they addressed either of those questions?

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Druma adventure

Get the kidnaped pathfinder back

We be aspis II

Seeker arc: Guard duty for the elixir of life.

Suli boon on its own, no need to voltron it

Not telling us what races will be legal next season till paizocon

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Caught the end of it, at least.

1/5

claudekennilol wrote:
I had to stop watching ~30 mins into it. Anyone know if they addressed either of those questions?

They did.

Dark Archive 4/5 5/5 ****

So, how long the podcast is posted? I missedth e first 3/4, and would like to get to see it.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

shouldbe up in a few minutes

Paizo Employee 4/5 Pathfinder Society Lead Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

That was a lot of fun. Thanks to Ryan and Perram for hosting, and thank you for tuning in and providing all of the great questions.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Witch queen update: My wife's cavalier/paladin got bit on the butt by a horse demon thing, then my oracle tagged the witch with Destruction on the third try.

Paizo Employee 5/5 Contributor—Canadian Maplecakes

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Druma adventure

DRUMA LODGE.... that is all.

Grand Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thurston Hillman wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Druma adventure
DRUMA LODGE.... that is all.

Is that the Clerics' trying to Druma up business?

Silver Crusade 5/5

Martin Weil wrote:
Thurston Hillman wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Druma adventure
DRUMA LODGE.... that is all.
Is that the Clerics' trying to Druma up business?

That's sure to increase their Prophets.

Project Manager

DRUMA LODGE!

Shadow Lodge 4/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Suli boon on its own, no need to voltron it

C'mon, it took me almost 3 years to get it done.

ughhh

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/5

Does anyone know when the MP3 audio version is expected to be available for download? 1:30am is a bit of a late start time for me...

4/5 5/5 * Contributor

Jessica Price wrote:
DRUMA LODGE!

Hopefully John will be able to reprise his Serpent's Rise table this year for Serpent's Ire. ;-P

3/5 **** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

claudekennilol wrote:


I haven't had the chance to play a lot of season 7 games because my local lodge doesn't put up a lot of new stuff. The ones I have had a chance to do were good, overall, but much too skill heavy. Obviously I'm used to older scenarios (i.e. before season 7) where that is not the norm. I want to preface my question by saying that I in no way think this in and of itself is a bad thing. But I recently played a three part scenario (i.e. three separate scenarios with a continuing story arch) and between the three of them we had a grand total of two combats. And the last of the three took exactly 90 minutes. So between the entire lack of combat and the last scenario being a joke with regard to the amount of time it took us to succesfully demolish it, I believe the skill-heaviness is leading PFS the wrong way.

I have a feeling that the amount of time part isn't a response to skills but the fact that people are starting to gripe about how most of the season 7 modules don't really follow the standard length of time in regards to PFS which is going to hurt it more than being skill heavy. Also, what scenarios are you talking about? I can't think of any three parter that fits the description.

Grand Lodge 2/5

It was faithless and forgetten 7-16,18, and 20. There may have been 3 or 4 combats between the 3 scenarios, but the last one we definitely over-succeeded with no combat.

Grand Lodge 4/5

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I am now super excited to play that with my groups Raptor Squad. A series of adventures lacking much combat sounds like a great way to get into character at the start of their careers. I wish more PFS scenarios were exploratory rather than battlefields.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There was one question in the chat that I think could be addressed...

Is there a plan to update the 0 season scenarios up to PFS in the works along with the one scenario being brought back from retirement?

(is the retired scenario just a game day event or will it be available for PFS play from that point forward?)

3/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Re: "Season of the skill check"

I agree that Pathfinders should be skillful characters. Unfortunately, a lot of the classes just don't have enough base skill points. 2 + Int, 4 + Int just don't cut it, often times. Hell, some times I struggle to get all the skills I feel like I'll need for a character with 6 + int skills.

And with the random nature of parties in PFS, assuming the skills will all be covered is foolish.

If you want skillful pathfinders, the classes (especially the skills lite classes) need more base skill points, imo.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

5 people marked this as a favorite.

One of the things that players have been clamoring for a number of years is more opportunities to use their skills, especially to avoid combat. All too often the combat encounters are a must-do situation because you're dealing with real monsters, or just unrelenting bad guys. Players have said they would at least like the chance to talk their way out. So, a concerted effort has been made over the past year plus to provide more opportunities to skill check you way out of grinding combat. Maybe the pendulum has swung to far, maybe not. If you want to experience all the combats, I would encourage you to tell your GM not to let you skill-check your way past an encounter. There is nothing that says you have to socialize with the "bad guys". If you're not interested in talking, then just get on to the combat. Everyone enjoys the game a different way. The authors/developers are not going to be able to please all the players all the time. Take what they give us and make it work for you and your style.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So far in Season Seven it's been an 'even blend' for tables I've sat at.

Everyone's saying that it's the 'Year of the Skill Check' but based on my play experience thus far it's been more 'Year of Things Breaking or being Broken'.

The Exchange 4/5 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
claudekennilol wrote:
I haven't had the chance to play a lot of season 7 games because my local lodge doesn't put up a lot of new stuff. The ones I have had a chance to do were good, overall, but much too skill heavy. Obviously I'm used to older scenarios (i.e. before season 7) where that is not the norm. I want to preface my question by saying that I in no way think this in and of itself is a bad thing. But I recently played a three part scenario (i.e. three separate scenarios with a continuing story arch) and between the three of them we had a grand total of two combats. And the last of the three took exactly 90 minutes. So between the entire lack of combat and the last scenario being a joke with regard to the amount of time it took us to succesfully demolish it, I believe the skill-heaviness is leading PFS the wrong way.

A lot of this comes down to how involved the players and - especially - the GM get involved in the role-playing aspects of scenarios. A lot of the Season 7 scenarios have more role-playing encounters than previous seasons. If players don't want to interact with the NPCs and just say "I'm going to use diplomacy" (roll dice) some of the time anticipated for that encounter is not used. Since the GM sets the expectation, it will definitely shorten things if she says "There are two guards at the gate. Give me a sleight of hand to hide your McGuffin or a diplomacy check to bribe them." while the scenario has several paragraphs on possible interactions, information, and character for the guards; that's going to drastically shorten the scenario. Yes they are "skill-check encounters" but there's potentially a lot more to them than just dice rolling.

I overheard one table being run at a convention by a GM who clearly didn't enjoy the role-playing parts. What was supposed to be a very involved interaction between players and NPCs taking quite a long time was simplified to "Player A, choose one to talk to. Now give me Knowledge Arcana or Diplomacy. OK, that's successful. OK, now Player B...OK, three successes, you can't get any better. At the end of the reception, there's a commotion [box text]."

Not saying this is what has happened at your tables. But I have noticed that my tables this season have often run an hour or two longer than others playing the same scenario.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kevin Willis wrote:


A lot of this comes down to how involved the players and - especially - the GM get involved in the role-playing aspects of scenarios. A lot of the Season 7 scenarios have more role-playing encounters than previous seasons. If players don't want to interact with the NPCs and just say "I'm going to use diplomacy" (roll dice) some of the time anticipated for that encounter is not used. Since the GM sets the expectation, it will definitely shorten things if she says "There are two guards at the gate. Give me a sleight of hand to hide your McGuffin or a diplomacy check to bribe them." while the scenario has several paragraphs on possible interactions, information, and character for the guards; that's going to drastically shorten the scenario. Yes they are "skill-check encounters" but there's potentially a lot more to them than just dice rolling.

I overheard one table being run at a convention by a GM who clearly didn't enjoy the role-playing parts. What was supposed to be a very involved interaction between players and NPCs taking quite a long time was simplified to "Player A, choose one to talk to. Now give me Knowledge Arcana or Diplomacy. OK, that's successful. OK, now Player B...OK, three successes, you can't get any better. At the end of the reception, there's a commotion [box text]."

Not saying this is what has happened at your tables. But I have noticed that my tables this season have often run an hour or two longer than others playing the same scenario.

There were two runs of a particular scenario at a local convention back around November. Both at the 'high' tier. One almost went over on time, the other was done two hours before the end of the slot.

The one that almost went over was a full table, the one that was done early was a 3+1 table, so mileage may vary.

Also can't speak to the roleplay for the larger table, but our table had plenty of roleplay despite finishing earlier.

Grand Lodge 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bob, I believe the pendulum has swung too far. I have nothing inherently against avoiding combat. What I do have an issue with is when the scenario wrote a combat encounter but it's overtly obvious that the scenario frowns upon you engaging in this combat, and the next combat, and the next combat...

I want it to be an actual choice, not an implied decision

Silver Crusade 4/5 5/55/55/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
claudekennilol wrote:

Bob, I believe the pendulum has swung too far. I have nothing inherently against avoiding combat. What I do have an issue with is when the scenario wrote a combat encounter but it's overtly obvious that the scenario frowns upon you engaging in this combat, and the next combat, and the next combat...

I want it to be an actual choice, not an implied decision

In the real world violence is frowned upon... the three "Good" alignments could generally be interpreted as less violent, generally, than the other six, and things like paladin codes and clerical vows could all reasonably push players towards some sort of reasonable restraint, at least in certain situations.

Pathfinder is fantasy, but it's not unreasonable to expect that some of our social norms would translate, at least occasionally. So I personally don't think that it's a bad thing if some scenarios imply consequences for using violent solutions. If there were no scenarios that did this, in fact, I'd be pretty down about it! I like my party faces and skill monkeys to actually be fully effective and in PF, effective usually means has some sort of impact on combat in some way--bypassing battle should be tough but, ideally, feasible.

We all know not everyone's into that. It'd be a problem if every scenario in season 7 was like that, but they're not. There are a lot of scenarios that are perfectly fine with violent solutions. One scenario in particular goes so far as to suggest restraint but then provide extra benefits if you murderhobo a particularly distasteful NPC.

I think three scenarios--particularly when they're in a series focused on archaeology and reestablishing ties with a nation--is just too small of a sample size and it's distorting your view of what the overall season is like.

Paizo Employee 4/5 Pathfinder Society Lead Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As I noted in the podcast interview, my standard is to include at least one encounter that the PCs might bypass with creative thinking, wordplay, and/or skill checks.

It's pretty rare that the team creates an adventure that a group can't just punch their way through; they exist, but it's the exception rather than the norm. More common are the encounters that the PCs cannot talk/skill check their way past, inevitably resulting in combat. That doesn't mean that every scenario has such a bypass-able encounter; some are all combat, but others have a few more skill-friendly backdoors.

Everybody comes to the table with slightly different desires, be that in-depth roleplaying, steam-venting by killing monsters, or just the desire to experience a fun story to escape the travails of the real world for a few hours. When addressing the needs of the negotiator-style players out there, I base it on what I would enjoy; I play a considerable number of skill-invested and "diplomancy" characters, giving me a solid (albeit not all-encompassing) understanding of what helps those players/characters feel accomplished. For me, that's being able to use my character's skill to bypass (or significantly ease) one encounter in an adventure—or use such skill to earn a key secondary success condition or piece of treasure.

If you feel that Season 7 has invested a little too heavily in the Skill Focus feats, that's valuable feedback that I can take into consideration while working on Season 8. I think you'll also find that the rest of Season 7 has plenty of opportunities to punch villainy in the face—while also having some roleplaying moments to experience even more of Golarion's flavor.

Liberty's Edge 1/5

All I know it was very informative. Lots of reveals. especially with regard to Aspis agents and dealing with them. The Seeker Arc sounds fun. I think though the thinking that high level combat lasts hours is a fallacy. Players by that time know their characters inside out, the reason they last long is the GM does not know how those characters work.
Case in Point My Paladin has Oath against Fiends. I played him in King Xeroes of Old Azlant. He almost broke the scenario at one point. The GM had to stop the game and let us take a break while he tried to work around my ability. Same when he was in Bonekeep,. I always tell before the game any of my characters funky abilities or gear. I do that because I GM and hate when a play springs things on me.

4/5 5/5 * Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Compton wrote:
If you feel that Season 7 has invested a little too heavily in the Skill Focus feats, that's valuable feedback that I can take into consideration while working on Season 8. I think you'll also find that the rest of Season 7 has plenty of opportunities to punch villainy in the face—while also having some roleplaying moments to experience even more of Golarion's flavor.

I started playing an investigator this season, and I was worried that my character was going to be useless because investigators take a while to build up their combat effectiveness.

Season 7 has been delightful for the character as a result; I actually wouldn't play a scenario on him if it wasn't Season 7 or one of the famous, "Skill Focus" scenarios if I could help it. Count me in the group that's glad (and prefers) the variance. Only Twisted Circle and Infernal Inheritance 1 are a little extreme on the "talk'em down" end of things, in my opinion, but I give those two a bye because I've been scheduling them for newer players as "mittens-on" scenarios to get folks a little more comfortable with how Pathfinder plays.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
captnchuck67 wrote:

All I know it was very informative. Lots of reveals. especially with regard to Aspis agents and dealing with them. The Seeker Arc sounds fun. I think though the thinking that high level combat lasts hours is a fallacy. Players by that time know their characters inside out, the reason they last long is the GM does not know how those characters work.

Case in Point My Paladin has Oath against Fiends. I played him in King Xeroes of Old Azlant. He almost broke the scenario at one point. The GM had to stop the game and let us take a break while he tried to work around my ability. Same when he was in Bonekeep,. I always tell before the game any of my characters funky abilities or gear. I do that because I GM and hate when a play springs things on me.

With all due respect, those are not the high level adventures we worry about. Try something like Eyes of the Ten III or Spires of Xin-Shalast and get back to me.

High level adventuring involves ridiculous amounts of rolling and abjudication: 3 huge creatures(two of them flying above), a boss, three different cloud effects, having to check mirror image, blur, dr and ac against the barbarian's seven attacks, two immediate actions when those attacks provoke contingency effects, the bard having 3-4 buffs and of course everyone's on different elevation or on air. Having table tents and quick learners of course helps a ton, but rounds do take a lot of time in general.

Liberty's Edge 1/5

Muser I will give you that.I think one of the things that makes PFS in general get longer to run combat wise as the characters advance is the fact that the GM almost never knows what he is facing game to game, esp when you are dealing with conventions. Would it be feasible for the players of the big cons to submit their characters before the event so the GMs can make sure they are legal and know what they are facing? In the world of internet should not be too hard. I don't know how Pazio does it at cons but I think to make things faster game wise players should have to have their characters approved at HQ a slot or so before their game removing that from the GM.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Our final battle last night with the witch queen was 16th level, with a party that has been playing for the past year together. The two fights we had took three hours.

1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really don't think seeker level play should ever be pick up games at cons. The GM really should have time to prep for the specific party he will be dealing with. Knowing to expect a grapple fighter or a what specific flavor of caster will let the GM figure out how to have the NPC's act in combat because honestly there is little chance that any pre written tactics can hope to survive contact with 5 or 6 12th+ level PFS characters.

1/5 Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really like John Comptons take in the Catfolk introduction, wish that effort had been made for some other races out there too. Some could profit heavily from it and it might be good to keep things a bit more Golarion Lore friendly.

Pathfinder Academy is surely a good idea, but to an european, some things like safecleaning the scenarios sounds very american^^
Now i don´t know every scenario, but i think Paizo keeps most things between the lines and safe anyway, so it seems more as an GM thing to me. I saw some of the "Deathpool" outcries though and it´s probably better to be on the safe side.

No capital "E" races^^
I´m glad for all the people who are so concerned about Drizzt clones hehehe. However i am very sad about the hobgoblins. A hobgoblin samurai or geisha or something similar from Dhucharg would have been something awesome to play. Consider that for a special please, it includes some TianXia too!

As for the avoidable encounters, i would really enjoy it when diplomacy and bluff aren´t the only options, but you could use climb, acrobatics, stealth, etc to avoid some encounters, like by taking another more difficult way or sneaking around etc.

4/5 5/5 * Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Benjamin Falk wrote:
I really like John Comptons take in the Catfolk introduction, wish that effort had been made for some other races out there too. Some could profit heavily from it and it might be good to keep things a bit more Golarion Lore friendly.

It was a pretty great answer from John considering that my Venture Captain only asked it to mess with me on-air. :-P

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

1 person marked this as a favorite.

(Is there a transcript of this? The recording is 2 hours apparently - I'm kinda impatient with podcasts and would rather skim through text.)

Anyway, claudekennikol's question seems to have become the main issue in this thread. It's a good question, though I don't quite agree with his standpoint.

It does seem that S7 is the Year of the Skill Check. You can see it in the scenarios; and we can expect even more, because John will probably be tempted to dip into Ultimate Intrigue a couple of times to show off the new stuff. I'm looking forward to see if debate rules make it into a scenario. (Maybe they already have?)

I think to some degree S7 is mirroring a gradual change in PF as a whole. Starting subtly with Ultimate Campaign, but much more clearly with Occult Adventures and dashing out of the closet with Ultimate Intrigue, Pathfinder is venturing into a new territory. Before, the game was strongly focused on "classic" D&D themes: dungeons, caves, fortresses, forests; and confronting monsters therein. But now we get something new: adventures in the middle of settled society. City stuff. Of course you could always do that before, but these products give you a lot more tools to make adventures that really build on it. The city isn't just a place with more NPC clerics than average and less dungeon walls than average - it's a place with intrigue possibilities, with monsters hiding among the populace like wolves among sheep. Occult Adventures already posited a theme of "what ordinary people don't see" and Intrigue takes off from there.

So this is a new dimension to PF. It was always possible, and was used here and there. But now there's a lot more scaffolding for it. And we can expect that to show up in scenarios.

I think the Faithless and Forgotten trilogy is great. 1-5 adventures have a responsibility to show new players what's expected of them. If low-level adventures teach you that only combat is what's important, then it's gonna be hard to write high-level adventures where you suddenly need other things as well. Bottom-tier adventures play an important role in setting expectations, and PF nowadays isn't the same as seven years ago. It's become a lot more. Broader. More possibilities for adventure. PFS has been experimenting with the concept of the "few combat" adventure for a while now - look at The Disappeared and Library of the Lion for example. If you read those reviews, you'll also see people frustrated that there was not enough combat there. But also people delighted that combat wasn't the right way to do these adventures.

But. There's a bit trap that we need to beware of. Non-combat isn't by definition better. We play this game for fun. And sometimes we just want to fight. We want to fight canny wizards with vicious contingencies. Horrible monsters in evil fortresses of DOOM. No more talky guy; THIS villain is just plain bad and he's not gonna go down easy. Oh, finally getting through all his layers of defense, defeating all his guards, cornering, and then beating him, it's gonna be so satisfying...

So let's try to keep a balance. Social, clever stuff is fun. It's great. And brutal combat stuff is also fun and great.

1/5

Something tells me Serpent's Fall will not be a lot of skill checks.

Paizo Employee 4/5 Pathfinder Society Lead Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jessex wrote:
Something tells me Serpent's Fall will not be a lot of skill checks.

Probably enough to remind a high-level group that skills are still relevant.

...Then we're gonna punch some Aspis in the face.

John Compton wrote:
I think you'll also find that the rest of Season 7 has plenty of opportunities to punch villainy in the face—while also having some roleplaying moments to experience even more of Golarion's flavor.

Paizo Employee 4/5 Pathfinder Society Lead Developer

Lau Bannenberg wrote:
(Is there a transcript of this? The recording is 2 hours apparently - I'm kinda impatient with podcasts and would rather skim through text.

Hmm...I don't know that the podcast team does transcripts. That's a good question.

Paizo Employee Developer

John Compton wrote:
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
(Is there a transcript of this? The recording is 2 hours apparently - I'm kinda impatient with podcasts and would rather skim through text.
Hmm...I don't know that the podcast team does transcripts. That's a good question.

That also sounds like a lot of work for a human to do. Maybe someone could run it through a voice-to-text program, but then some human would have to go through and format it and attribute the things said to each person.

3/5 **** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

Benjamin Falk wrote:

Pathfinder Academy is surely a good idea, but to an european, some things like safecleaning the scenarios sounds very american^^
Now i don´t know every scenario, but i think Paizo keeps most things between the lines and safe anyway, so it seems more as an GM thing to me. I saw some of the "Deathpool" outcries though and it´s probably better to be on the safe side.

Im kind of surprised your a four star GM and you haven't come across that stuff yet. Admittedly, a lot of the wonky stuff you'll never see on the player side (ie. Modules like Godsmouth) but the weirdest thing I've ever come across is the fact that as a Dark Archive member you can complete an objective by recovering Zarta's BDSM toy. When I ran that scenario I was so happy that it didn't come up because well there was a young kid at the table.

1 to 50 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / John and Tonya on Know Direction Podcast (April 6, 2016 at 5:30 pm PST) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.