Flaxseed Lodge (PFS1)

Game Master Redelia

1. My complaint: the OSP does not lower any of the barriers I have to GMing or playing.

It wasn’t meant to. It was meant to be a way for players and GMs to have opportunities at the same sort of boons that people playing face to face get with RSP.

RSP was a program to allow players and GMs to have an opportunity to get the same sort of boons that people get at supported conventions. There is a large section of the player base for whom it is impractical to attend a convention.

These programs were about giving the same sort of opportunities to more people.

As for your suggestions,

a. I know form-filled PDFs exist (having filled them out), but am not good enough with PDF writers to create them. Is this not possible, so that, say, data put in on a standard format on one page auto-populates into a printable Chronicle on another? This may take effort and access to a PDF writer, but this is one of those things that can be decentralized amongst many volunteers (10 people doing a season each could probably knock it off in a month or so).

This could cause problems as well, since you are supposed to use the unaltered chronicle sheet appearing in the scenario. Currently those sheets are not created as fillable PDFs, so it is questionable if it would be allowable to alter them to make them into fillable PDFs. I have not dug into the PDF format deeply enough to know how practical it would be to create an automated tool to do it.

There are a lot of tools out there that will allow you to edit a PDF. I have been using PDF Expert on the iPad but know there are plenty of others. If you want to help, find a tool you like and then produce a resource instructing people how to use it.

Make sure you include how to ‘flatten’ the PDF after you have filled it out.

Then be ready to find out just how many people do it a different way and have no interest in learning a new way.

b. There are three ways PbP games tend to start: a bunch of players get together and ask for a game to be run, a GM decides which scenario is run and then asks for players, and miscellaneous. Technology exists to combine the first two, and some kind of matchmaking algorithm can easily be implemented. By "easy," I mean that I could probably make an Excel sheet to do it; my assumption is that someone with Python capabilities could do it even better.

There are already tools out there, and I am not even sure there is a problem. Games and requests for games get filled here quickly, often within hours. Sorry, I’m not seeing a need for another tool to help arrange games.

c. Boons that extend a player's capabilities (e.g., access to races) make sense to experienced players, but are relatively useless to newer players (who created a human fighter as their first character and don't want to create a new character just to use a boon). But other types of boons are way more valuable to new players, such as the Welcome to Pathfinder boon (the only boon I have ever used is the "your -1 character gets a 'get out of death free' card). Examples of boons I think would be valuable for newer players that would be worthless to experienced players: retrain a Knowledge skill to another Knowledge skill (new players might pick engineering over religion thinking engineering is more useful), or retrain one Dex-based skill for another...

There are boons to help with retraining, but they are all dependent on the player having Ultimate Campaign and the retraining rules there.

Honestly, I don’t expect there to be much further boon support for PF1, but if you want to advocate for that I would suggest you do that as a different thread in a different forum.

It sounds like OSP is meant to provide a benefit equivalent to something that I don't get in F2F play either, and in order to get a 10% chance at an unknown reward, I have to submit the information to an inferior platform and wait an indeterminate amount of time, and I should check my spam folder in case something arrives.

The OSP is overloaded and we should be patient, whatever problems exist are someone else's fault, and also the only people who can help are VOs.

I hope there's no surprise if, next time someone asks, I'm just stopping at

I created my own event and just reported my own games. It's no more work than using the OSP.

I wish you the best gaming possible.

Creating your own event is perfectly acceptable. I had stated earlier that is what I currently do.

The OSP program is relatively new and is likely to go through growing pains. I do not know the details that are happening in the background, but because there is an NDA requirement, I believe it does have to be handled by the Online VOs.

If you are already under the NDA and want to help, I would suggest you contact one of the online VOs via a private channel (e-mail, PM on these forums, etc) and ask them if there is anything you can do,

It sounds like OSP is meant to provide a benefit equivalent to something that I don't get in F2F play either, and in order to get a 10% chance at an unknown reward, I have to submit the information to an inferior platform and wait an indeterminate amount of time, and I should check my spam folder in case something arrives.

If your local irl lodges do not use the Regional Support Program you can talk to your local VOs about that. Whether the program is right for an area is decided by the RVC for that region, with input from the local VOs, there are a host of reasons it may or may not be a fit for your local area, I have no idea, but the lack of RSP locally for you in no way interacts with how the OSP is provided for online lodges.

The reward is not in any way unknown however, if you peruse the OSP website you will find that all the boons available are listed on there with details (as soon as we receive the updated info for 2020-2021 that will be present on there as well), since this seems like something you really aren't happy with and is causing you frustration then I'd suggest that simply reporting games to your own event might relieve the concerns you have.

Anyone feel like running one of your old favorite 5-9 scenarios? Except for a Core group?

Doodle (level 8) has been parked for a bit and I’d love to get her in a game again, if anyone is feeling charitable.

Completely coincidental interest check for a Core run of scenario 6-17: Fires of Karamoss. Anyone else game for it? I would need up to a few days to get ducks in a row, but I could set up a thread before then.

I would certainly be interested...

Lasaraleen would be willing to travel with her friend Doodle one more time.

Yen Jinsa Taishin would love to join as well.

Well, you four and any other hopefuls can mosey on over here. We can discuss things further and fill out the party.

Basically, it's like the faction journal cards, it's not going to make or break anyone's experience but it's a nice little boost and a nice way to reward online GM's for consistently GMing.

Ironically, it is the reason why I stopped.

I'll do events where someone else has to do all the paperwork, but this sort of felt like the 'Very Last Straw Program' to me. I don't game to get stuff (probably not even 8% of the time). I game because I enjoy the game. It seems like all this energy could be better spent elsewhere, like writing, or designing open source material, streamlining processes, fixing old reporting problems, or getting the gosh-darned avatar page to work again. I mean I guess it is nice for GMs who know about it, and have time, but is this particular program really adding significantly to their ranks?

I'll do events where someone else has to do all the paperwork, but this sort of felt like the 'Very Last Straw Program' to me. I don't game to get stuff (probably not even 8% of the time). I game because I enjoy the game. It seems like all this energy could be better spent elsewhere, like writing, or designing open source material, streamlining processes, fixing old reporting problems, or getting the gosh-darned avatar page to work again. I mean I guess it is nice for GMs who know about it, and have time, but is this particular program really adding significantly to their ranks?

Interesting to hear, but as it happens that's not remotely the intent of the program. RSP and OSP are specifically there to offer new players and GMs, as well as those who don't get to go to cons the chance at some cool stuff for playing games publicly and helping others get into the hobby, that's it.

I'm not exactly sure who you think runs the programs or what they involve but you're very much misunderstanding it. The developers, designers, IT people at Paizo, etc don't have any input or interaction with these programs. They are run in their entirety by the volunteer venture officers with the boons (which already exist and are used in many other formats and so require no extra effort) provided by the OPM. So even if the entire program went away overnight there would be absolutely zero extra 'effort' or time available for those things you're talking about.

If it adds to the ranks of GMs and players, if it encourages new people to try out Pathfinder or Starfinder, awesome! If not, it still rewards all the current players and GMs, most especially those who aren't able to make it to cons for a whole host of reasons. Personally, I think that's certainly worth my time.

Have you talked to any new GMs and asked them if they feel supported by the program?

Have you talked to any new GMs and asked them if they feel supported by the program?

To me, as just a player and GM, the OSP mostly feels like a gesture. It says, “Hey, online play community, we see you. We value you.”

The rewards are nothing, it’s not worth the time, but it’s a sweet gesture.

Just ignore it. Enjoy the game.

I'm not a new GM, but I can speak a bit to the impact RSP/OSP has had.

When the RSP program was instituted, it lead to several people in my region that don't/can't go to cons excitedly volunteering to GM so they could build their way up to a race boon. Everyone taking their turn at GMing has historically been an important part of the ethos of my region, and the RSP was a very helpful tool in that regard.

I've interacted with the OSP less as I have no VO responsibilities for the online region (and its launch coincided with an unrelated slowdown in my PbPing of public games). I think it's great, though, that an equivalent program to the RSP exists for online play, and I would be willing to bet that it has encouraged at least a few people to run more publicly-recruited games than they might otherwise have done. I think its impact in that regard on PbP might be suppressed a bit by our switch to three PbP conventions a year, but I would bet that it has caused at least a few people to run more publicly-recruited games.

I'd be curious to hear from folks (like Richard) who do more virtual tabletop games as well, as from what I've heard that makes up the majority of OSP-reported games.

All in all, I think you're hoping for more from the OSP than it is designed or equipped to deliver. It is only meant to be a way to give players and GMs access to boons that were previously only available at conventions. The reporting mechanism and all the other things discussed are all related to that intention.

Have you talked to any new GMs and asked them if they feel supported by the program?

Yes, lots! They've pretty much always been very happy with it, in as far as it is doing what it is intended to and not what some people have assumed it does. In addition I (and I imagine the other online VOs) often get messages out of the blue from newer GMs saying how much they appreciate the chance to get some cool stuff, along with all the other support the VOs offer for newer GMs. One group that stands out amongst those is people who are new to GMing and for various reasons cannot make it to cons, once they hear about race boons and such they tend to get excited for some neat stuff, but then learning that such boons often requires going to cons can be frustrating, getting access to neat stuff that lets them have fun just by GMing is always appreciated by them :)

Let me expound the Dennis Muldoon Support Program (DMSP).

I approached Dennis and said one of my convention signups had one player and no GM. He said there would probably be walkins but if there were one GM and 0 players, it would be more likely to go - and invited me to GM. I didn't accept right away, but took stock of benefits and barriers - I emailed him with my barriers, and he explained how to overcome them.

When I showed up to GM, he noticed me drawing the maps on my flip-mats, and brought over pre-printed maps. When I realized I forgot extra blank Chronicles, he literally pulled out a printer so I could make copies.

The DMSP got me to volunteer, reduced all the barriers, and didn't offer me a single incentive. I feel supported by the DMSP. A++++ would GM again, I feel like I can go into the process with unknowns and trust we'll work it out.

---

Now let me tell you about another Support Program, which I'll just refer to as the FUSP.

Last spring, there were 5 of us signed up to play a game with no GM. The VO emailed and asked for volunteers, I volunteered but said I had some questions because it was my first time ever GMing. There was no response to that Email but he did force-change me from a player to GM, so I know he got the message.

I prepped the scenario and showed up a bit early to setup, and the VO informed me that two people dropped out so there was no game. I elected to wait anyway in hopes for walkins. Two people showed, we started an informal game, two walkins showed up late, and we finished with a legal table. I asked the VO if we could get credit, he said no and we ended the evening.

Later, I discovered that the scenario (10-16) is specifically designed to give partial. The VO said there was nothing he could do because I didn't submit a signin sheet. Fortunately, I am resourceful, and got wveryone's name, E-mail, and I went and got them some PFS numbers. I also found out on my own that 10-16 has an erroneous Chronicle. After a few attempts at contacting the VO to make sure I did everything right, I ended up tracking the VC down in person at a convention and asking her to look over my Chronicles to make sure I filled them out correctly.

The FUSP got me to volunteer, but didn't help with any part of the process and as a matter of fact made the reporting part a horrendous ordeal. I don't feel supported by the FUSP, and would not volunteer to GM there again unless I was sure my capabilities exceeded requirements. I expect that any unknowns about the process will turn into a negative for me to sort out on my own.

---

The DMSP didn't need to offer me anything. The FUSP can't offer me enough.

I'm sorry you had such issues with your local Regional Support Program, but please note that we're talking about the Online Support Program here. Whilst they both offer the same benefits it seems like your problems with the program are entirely in how it has been run in your local area and not at all with the Online Support Program (since you're clearly talking about in person games), as such I think it is at best incredibly unfair and misleading to complain about issues with the OSP when it is in fact RSP and specific local Venture Officers that has caused you concern.

I would certainly recommend you take those concerns to someone, it sounds like the VC you're referring to might be in a position to help and ensure things run more smoothly in future, but please, don't direct the frustrations you have (understandable as they may be) at an entirely different region and different set of Venture Officers who have no input or effect on your local area.

I was trying to be polite and not make the explicit comparison.

Misleading stories & unclear scenarios don't help anyone, they provide no actual information of use and simply confuse the issue. If you have had problems with the OSP I strongly recommend you contact the appropriate Venture Captain or if you truly feel it's truly necessary the RVC, if no-one tells people there's a problem then it's quite obviously hard to know.

@Watery Soup - it sounds like you are in my current physical local area. I'd be happy to provide whatever local support I can. Please feel free to PM me.

I'd also be happy to provide any online support I can.

Most of my experience with Organized Play has been very supportive, a few instances have not been. I choose where I GM and play based in part on those experiences.

Most of us wish to support new GMs. I am sorry you had an experience that was otherwise.

I have found all the online VOs to be very supportive and doing the best they/we can to make this a safe, enjoyable space for all.

Watery Soup, the sort of support that you're talking about is the sort of support that each region/area SHOULD naturally be offering to folks - answering questions, providing things like maps or a copy of the scenario (if the person running doesn't already own it) to folks who are signed up to GM, keeping extra things like blank chronicles or Inventory Tracking Sheets (ITS) on hand, etc. To make it as easy and painless as possible for anyone who wants to GM or is asked to GM to be able to do so. Those responsibilities are an essential and stated part of being a Venture Officer.

The Regional/Online Support Programs weren't designed to meet that need because it *should* be getting met already by the Venture Officers responsible for a particular area. The RSP/OSP were designed with a different goal in mind - an added incentive to encourage people to GM and/or a way for someone who GMs at public venues but can't travel to conventions to still earn something for their efforts.

As Richard said above, issues with your local Regional Support Program or your local region in general would be best addressed by bringing them to the attention of the Venture Officers assigned to your region.

As regards the Online Support Program, the best place to direct questions or concerns would be the Org Play Discord server which was linked several posts back.

As regards Flaxseed Lodge in particular and general support to help new GMs find their feet and get started running games of their own, are there any issues that you've had? Ways that we can improve? This is a serious question on my part as one of the Venture Agents for Flaxseed Lodge. While we try to offer GM schools periodically as well as answer questions (and our community here in general has always been good about helping new arrivals as well), if the community here does not feel that they're getting the support they need, it's something the Online VO folks need to know about!

Thanks for the offers, but honestly trying to change the system is something I'm not going to put a huge effort into.

I've made my constructive suggestions for what would have helped me (earlier). I have pointed to positive examples who were really helpful and hope people emulate them (I didn't mention this, but EbonFist volunteered to screen share with me to double check I submitted to OSP correctly - that was a big favor that I ended up not using). I'll throw a shoutout to numbat in there because I think her "GM school" idea was top notch (numbat - we've played together several times, twice at Pacificon and once at GKMV). A+++ to you all, I strive to be like you.

In the end, I'm an experienced GM now, PF1 and PF2, convention and non-convention, PbP and F2F. I have my little routine of self-reporting my PbP games and I'll probably start GMing regularly at conventions (I can't make the weekly games regularly enough to commit to GMing in advance). I'll sink my efforts into making my games better, and leave stuff that VOs want left to VOs to VOs.

And for the things that I'm opinionated about but are within my control, like recruitment of my own games, I've tried to change things by example. For instance, I haven't seen anyone openly recruit for 1-12 and it's a newish scenario, so in my latest recruitment I'm explicitly prioritizing GMs so more people can play before they GM (my preferred order).

One other shoutout: OG3. Last year at a convention there were three of us standing around gameless, and he whipped out The Confirmation and ran an impromptu game. I thought that was so cool, I literally carry around What the Helms Hide and Lost on the Spirit Road so I can do the same.

For years, everytime I went to a convention I carried the maps and minis for Phantom Phenomena, a quest packet with excellent bones for a roleplaying GM like me. If there was a lull, or players not playing, I'd start up a quest on the spot.

Removing GM barriers is something many of us try to do if we have time. Locally, I share maps and other resources at Dreamers whenever I can, and did a lot of lending at Con of the North. I've also shared slideshows with other GMs here in Flaxseed, and asked other GMs -- hey, have you run this game? Can I borrow your prep?

I am not a VO of any kind any more, but I still like to help out, as do many of the community here. Let us know what you need, and we can try to support you if we have the bandwidth to do so.

Hugs,
Hmm

I am not a VO of any kind any more

Hey, many of us are still appealing your completely sane and understandable decision. That's right, in local court system around the world, regardless of jurisdiction and/or reason, throngs of your dedicated fans are filling briefs and notarizing chronicles in an effort to overturn your self-declared retirement.

GM Hmm wrote:

I am not a VO of any kind any more

Hey, many of us are still appealing your completely sane and understandable decision. That's right, in local court system around the world, regardless of jurisdiction and/or reason, throngs of your dedicated fans are filling briefs and notarizing chronicles in an effort to overturn your self-declared retirement.

Sorry, she gave it in filk. I don’t think any court can overturn that!

Outpost III: Putting on the Ritz GM's please check out the announcement link below.

Outpost III Announcement Link

Question about burning replay credits.

Can you use a replay credit(s) to replay a module? If so and the GM is giving PFS credit, can you gain the Xp and PP from the rerun when using said credit?

Thanks.

@Gerald - To the best of my knowledge yes, you may use a replay on a module provided you replay with a different character. You should also earn the regular rewards for doing so. That said, for multi-part modules such as Gallows of Madness you'd have to use a replay for each part.
______________

Well done on meeting the demand for CORE.

Pulling this over from Recruitment and I'm curious - in general, how much demand is there for CORE games right now? What levels? Would more folks play CORE if such games were offered more frequently?

I enjoy Core games from time to time. In my trying to conserve bandwidth, I'm a little more likely to run one than to play. But they're always fun, and there could be a scenario particularly suited for a character.

By that vein, I have a level 7 wizard I'd like to play in this special. I'm going to hold off on signing up until sometime tomorrow (if there're still spots), as I only have one other Core character strong enough to be aid. Other people could have more fun there if they have 3.

Quick question about that, though; the wizard isn't marked as Core. Either I mistakenly registered as Standard from the get-go, or a piece of reporting changed it along the way. That hasn't proven a problem in most games. But with a big multi-table special, should I abstain or try to get the problem fixed? I haven't made any headway in my previous attempts at that.

Hello everyone,
I do not want to be pessimistic regarding CORE but I am thinking about taking all my CORE characters to STANDARD mode because we have to stay together to let PF1 live on for pbp and I have the feeling that CORE does not help to achieve this goal.

Core allows us to all play together, even on scenarios we have already done in standard. How does that not achieve continued 1E play?

Regardless, what you do with your own Core characters is entirely up to you. Do what you think is best for yourself and the community.

Having both core and 'standard' characters gives you options for the future.

I've only got four CORE characters and they will stay CORE all their lives.
To be honest, I only actually play CORE PFS these days, as my play bandwidth is much more limited than it used to be - and I've got some SFS and a PFSv2 character I'm also vested in that have a longer potential future in front of them.

The main issue with CORE from Nowruz's perspective is that fewer people are playing 1e, and the people still playing 1e are far more likely to be playing standard and not CORE. This is, of course, an accurate statement of the state of CORE; it simply is not as popular and never has been meaning you're far more likely to find a standard game instead of a CORE game.

Claiming CORE helps us all play together, even on scenarios we have already played, does not mean anything if no one actually plays or runs these scenarios. That's not even mentioning the problem of high-level CORE, where many people would have to play pregens due to the lack of play to level up personal characters.

So it’s an issue of splitting the community? I don’t see how converting characters addresses that. It just increases the number of character vying for the same number of available tables.

Isn't that the point? Doesn't that mean more people are playing together and means we can run more games? I'd much prefer to have the problem of too many people wanting to play than not enough people able to play. The former is addressable, and the later is not.

I like having a core option. Granted at this point I only have one core character having converted two of my other characters over to standard play. There are a lot of advantages to core including defined niches, much harder play, increased value of chronicle sheets and free replay of all the scenarios.

Isn't that the point? Doesn't that mean more people are playing together and means we can run more games?

Not if the community has already played everything available. Then you need new players, while the old players stop playing and start GMing. Converting core characters doesn't effect that in any way.

I wasn't saying converting characters does affect anything at all. I'm just saying that it's even more difficult to play CORE now and will only become increasingly so. I'm also not saying we should all jump ship and abandon CORE, but it does split the ever decreasing player base and it's far more likely poeple are going to find games for classic mode.

It's just...hidden a bit too well - and not formatted the same way as the other Player Signups page (you'd think that would be a biggie, even f - I'm Hiding In Your Closet, godsdammit! You think I'm accustomed to things having very much WIDTH?!?).

Pulling this conversation over from Recruitment. To give a little background on the new form, we are trying to build a single simplified sign up sheet which is what you see now. This sheet will be used across all conventions as in the past we have built a new form for each convention. The VO team is working on streamlining our processes behind screen to make this a smoother process for all involved.

First feedback: reduce empty space on the scenario fields when possible. Even on my work computer at high res, the player signups for Siege aren’t on screen without scrolling.

Because we're pulling data in from multiple sheets to automate some of the data gathering, it's just a lot simpler to have everything in a single row.

It' probably less noticeable by me as my primary display is a 32" screen with 1080p resolution, so my default zoom shows columns A through N.

I'm open to suggestions.

Yeah, can’t make it perfect for everyone. Maybe make a note to scroll right for those who don’t have experience with the setup previously.

Then you need new players, while the old players stop playing and start GMing.

I think that's the catch for those of us not moving to PF2 and sticking with PF1...most new people to PF will probably go PF2 as opposed to a 'retired' system with no more new content...at least that's my guess...

For my part I plan to keep playing approximately one CORE and one non CORE PFS game, well, indefinitely

Personally, I like having Core as an option. I mostly play and GM Classic, but I like that it gives an option to replay or re-GM a scenario that I really liked without having to burn a replay. And I like how the build limitations change the feel of the game (in core).

I never tried core because I don't like having my character options limited that much. Plus since I mostly play by post, I still haven't run out of things to play.

I never tried core because I don't like having my character options limited that much.

That's a mechanics, and preference issue. The reason there is a CORE is because the hobby (or at least its "official" face) is prohibitively expensive, and not every 12 or 13 year-old can by a whole suite of $30-$50 books just to build their gun-slinging, half-grippli telekineticist with.

CORE is there to expand the hobby, not to limit it. The more folks who can afford to play the game (which is mostly open source anyway) the bigger the game grows. Eventually, CORE players branch out (when they are old like us).

I find that playing inside the lines creates an added challenge, and forces people to see what is possible within the rules, and strive for differentiation in other ways. There are lots of ways to play the game cutting off one of the easiest, and least expensive ways does not, in my opinion, help the hobby.

Stay thirsty my friends.