The Flaxseed Pathfinder Lodge: Explore, Report, Cooperate!

Game Master Redelia

Alright... reviewing the 2 requests, I think I'll start with Fabric of Reality. Aldebert and Eadie have first dibs on spots for helping me make up my mind.

If I may ask Eadie, how are you still level 9? If sucessful, will this be the session to bring you to 10?

Sir Godfrey wrote:

I wouldn't mind tracking down some high level core, as this guy is only 5 games from 12 after he finishes his current.

Seconded, as I am only a game from retiring.

Thirded. Just got to level 11.

For people who can't check the forums constantly, how about a master waiting list? Set one up where people can add:

• Character name
  
• Class
  
• Level
  
• Date added to list
  
• General preferences (e.g. something in the Liberty's Edge storyline, something in Taldor, etc.)
  
• Some kind of idea of how strong those preferences are (e.g. there are things I'd particularly like to play, but if I'm on the list more than a week, pick me for anything!)
  
• Newbie or not
  
• Past PBP GM, prospective PBP GM, or not interested
  
• Anything else GMs are interested in knowing?
  

Players add themselves to the bottom of the list when they are immediately available and commit in advance to playing whatever they're picked for.

GMs looking for players start at the top of the list and work their way down looking for matches. It would need to be okay to skip over people for party balance as long as a strong preference for people higher up the list is maintained.

Having a list of preferences and levels would also give GMs better info on what there's demand for.

A major problem with a master list is that a GM needs to know if the player has played the scenario they are running. That can be a lot of data to shift through.

Normally the player has already run the GMs game through that data filter when they apply to game postings..

That's exactly what I was thinking too. It would be too hard to filter out which games a person has played.

Since we're all brainstorming about ideas, here's one that I had.

What if Paizo allows a player to pull a "game request" ticket and that gives the player a "game request number" (we can even call it a GRN). Each player can only have 1 active game request number at a time.

When responding to a game request, the player can provide the game request ticket number. When all other things are equal (i.e., level, party balance, etc.), the GMs would take players with a lower game request ticket number than others. Of course the GM would then tell Paizo that so-and-so's game request ticket number has been used.

This is kind of a loose get-in-line strategy. A player can request a ticket today and the keep watching for recruitment notices. When an interesting one comes up, the player submits the GRN along with pertinent character details.

I think that this scheme helps give a bias towards players who have been waiting a while to get into a game. It also mitigates some of the FCFS issues.

In my mind this would all be voluntary. GMs could honor GRNs or not. Maybe advertise a game as "FCFS with GRNs".

I haven't thought this all the way through and it would require Paizo support to implement the GRNs.

Nice idea, but really don't think the code can support that?

We've seen how rough it has been the past few weeks?

A major problem with a master list is that a GM needs to know if the player has played the scenario they are running. That can be a lot of data to shift through.

People could list all the scenarios they're currently eligible for that they've already played, then? Just the numbers would be enough. And for the GM, typing ctrl-F and a scenario number doesn't seem like too much trouble.

We've got a lot of creative thinkers in here, that's for sure!

But I think we're seeing a lot of "solutions in search of a problem." I still haven't seen a single post from a player bemoaning their difficulty finding a table to play at.

Nothing wrong with brainstorming, of course, but we seem to currently have a system that works well, with various GMs using a nice mix of FCFS/lottery/reservation/invites.

Keep up the good work, is what I say. :)

It's less 'solutions in search of a problem'.

More 'being forward-thinking and addressing possible concerns about favoritism/unfair advantage' in advance, so that the issue can be addressed in a respectful and honest fashion with transparency for all concerned parties.

I've seen insular elitist groups destroy different organized play campaigns, and I'd rather not see it happen here if it is possible?

If someone hadn't taken a chance on me three years ago on PbP, I probably wouldn't be playing in the Pathfinder Society right now.

I got to play Salvation of the Sages this weekend and loved the scenario. And I have the perfectly inappropriate medium I want to apply the chronicle to, so I'm going to recruit for and run a game of that probably next weekend or so as my gameday stuff wraps up.

I still haven't seen a single post from a player bemoaning their difficulty finding a table to play at.

Hi. I'm a player having difficulty finding a table to play at. The only recruitments I've seen around my character's level seem to have filled up in minutes.

I'd love to try being part of the solution, but I ought to actually play a couple games in PBP before I try GMing, right?

I expect what most people do when they can't find a table to play at is to give up and wander off without announcing the fact.

I think it's a fine idea for any GMs that would like to participate in that; however, I would prefer that not to be the primary way of handling recruiting in our Lodge. For me, it would be an issue of time. I am already devoting a lot of my own personal time to prep work (e.g. creating maps that can be edited by the players, creating the event/forums, reading through the scenario several times, getting Chronicle sheets ready, etc). I work full-time at a job that requires more than simply 40+ hours a week, I have a wife that also works full-time, and children. So, having to search through a list might seem innocuous to some... to others it sounds onerous.

Another issue I can foresee would be GMs potentially having to wait for players to get back to them once the announcement has been made. How long do we wait for that player? Days? What about the other folks that are ready to go at the time of the announcement?

These are all concerns that need to be taken into consideration with a Master List style recruitment. I agree with Zin that different styles have worked great now and while I think Nekome has a good idea, it should be available to those that want to participate, but not mandatory.

Another issue I can foresee would be GMs potentially having to wait for players to get back to them once the announcement has been made. How long do we wait for that player? Days? What about the other folks that are ready to go at the time of the announcement?

I'd expect it to be like when people get into a game now. 48 hours or whatever after notification.

I agree with Zin that different styles have worked great now and while I think Nekome has a good idea, it should be available to those that want to participate, but not mandatory.

Oh, I absolutely didn't mean to suggest it should be mandatory! Just another option alongside the ones that already exist.

GM Faelyn wrote:

Another issue I can foresee would be GMs potentially having to wait for players to get back to them once the announcement has been made. How long do we wait for that player? Days? What about the other folks that are ready to go at the time of the announcement?

I'd expect it to be like when people get into a game now. 48 hours or whatever after notification.

Quote:

I agree with Zin that different styles have worked great now and while I think Nekome has a good idea, it should be available to those that want to participate, but not mandatory.

Oh, I absolutely didn't mean to suggest it should be mandatory! Just another option alongside the ones that already exist.

Nor did I think you were. I was just adding my two coppers to the discussion. ;) I do think it would be a good idea for folks that cannot necessarily jump on at anytime during the day.

Speaking first as a GM, I want it to be easy to find players. I'd prefer to put my spare time into prepping and playing a scenario rather than hunting down players for it. And in this situation I'm lucky as there are (outside late gameday games) a surplus of characters over GMs. GMing also takes more effort (by a considerable margin) than playing.

I note that many GMs (including myself) have signup sheets that sometimes go a wee bit of time into the future - giving a bit of a roster of games available.

Speaking as a player with a character sitting idle, keeping the Flaxseed in business, I don't mind putting in a bit of effort to find a game. One of my first ports of call (outside of gamedays) is to go through the list of sign-up spreadsheets and see which have openings.
Now this is a bit of work, especially if there are sheets that are still listed but have not had games in them for several months.
And honestly, if I don't have time to do this little bit of work, am I going to have time to put in a post for the character?
Inside gamedays, the best way is almost certainly looking at the list of games listed with openings and hoping that you can find one that still actually has an opening.

I guess this is a bit of case of supply and demand. GMs can afford to be a bit lazy in recruiting players as there is generally (and especially for low level scenarios) many, many more characters than there are places.

Nekome, I sent you a private message, but then realized that if you're rather new to the forums, you might not know about the private message system. At the top of the screen next to your name is an envelope. If some one has sent you a private message, it will tell you how many new messages you have right next to the envelope.

If I may ask Eadie, how are you still level 9? If successful, will this be the session to bring you to 10?

"Slow track, baby!" ;)

I'll have to double-check, but I think after taking the Fabric to the cleaners Eadie will reach Level 10.

It looks like I have some catching up to do. I'm still two sheets away from 11.

"I was once on a slow track. Mostly because of those dirty Qadirans. Really because command thought that roads were too much of a lure for the enemy. So we tracked on forth through the wilds! And let me assure you that it was ghastly. But we did it. Because we were Taldane and because we were by definition superior. As for those who died, they weren't Taldane enough. That was also the time I ate my boots. Who could have imagined that supplies do not travel as fast through non-roady terrain?"

What an idiot …

Eadie puffs out her chest. “Well, according to the Master of Swords, I’ve been on slow track for years.”

Woo! 23 posts in a few hours?

So there is a great tool for tracking what a player has already played. I used it with my Murder of Crows group to try and find scenarios that they had not already played, I use it with my group that is going for Eyes of the Ten, and it’s used in several venues in Minnesota and all through the Netherlands to help GMs pick games by the players that they have.

It is awesome. So if you wanted to see what I haven’t played, you could look up Hmm (149000). Be sure to click the Pathfinder box, and whether you are looking to do scenarios or modules. Now you can search for other players who might be in there, like Wei Ji the Learner, and add them one by one (or all at once) to see what we might have in common.

Hmm

Does PFS tracker run off information we put in, or off our official tracked scenarios?

Does PFS tracker run off information we put in, or off our official tracked scenarios?

Each person has to enter their own information. Played game information is not exposed by Paizo for external use.

Yes, you have to enter your own information in the PFS Session Tracker. It’s a lovely database from the Netherlands, a place that creates many innovative databases and tools for PFS, but it is only as good as the data that you provide it.

Still, if a number of people do it, then it could conceivably used for GM planning.

What I have been hearing is that:
1) there are players that are looking for high level scenarios that aren’t finding them.
2) there is a dearth of new scenarios from Seasons 8-9.
3) that it would be nice if there were player wish lists along with GM sign-in sheets.

Is this correct? What am I missing?

Hmm

It also sounds like there may be a bigger demand for Core games as of late, yes? Or is it just higher-level Core games that are lacking?

Core is always hard to find. I think we are close to hitting a critical threshold - and for all the reasons that it was put in to begin with

1: A chance to "replay" some favorite scenarios and
2: More challenge
3: Because there is less a focus on exotic feats, spells and classes, I think the RP quality is slightly higher too.

But I am biased.

As for less high level scenarios, there are less characters for them as well. That said the 7-11 table I put up (albeit a season 0 one) a day ago still only has two takers for it at the moment, while the lower level tables are totally over subscribed.

As for less high level scenarios, there are less characters for them as well.

I started playing my first CORE character a little over a year ago. He's now level 2.

I'm trying!

I have a CORE sorcerer at L3 and a CORE fighter at L2*

The chance to play them doesn't come up very often, and the fighter is actually in a quantum state at the moment, as they haven't been solidified for their next play session yet...

However, I'm also kind of picky when I play CORE, and it's been all on the boards... there is no local CORE presence in physicality that I am aware of.

I have four core characters, who are 8,6,5 and 2, but the eight and the two are both running in slow progression. I would have more but I'm waiting to "finish" off one or two of my classic characters first, as I have way too many active characters on my roster at the moment.

There will be a couple of tables of Core in the upcoming Siege of the Diamond City!

Siege is one of those that goes outside of the traditional 1-11 bracket, right?

So if one is looking to preserve options to play past 12, they shouldn't play in it?

It goes to crazy high, but you might preserve it then never see it again.

Ok looks like the boards have stablized that I will start my next one. Time for some FIRE!

Siege is one of those that goes outside of the traditional 1-11 bracket, right?

So if one is looking to preserve options to play past 12, they shouldn't play in it?

I know this is a disingenuous comment, but I'll make it anyway: You could play it when it is offered and use a replay opportunity (star, boon, cheap expensive bribe to OPM,...) to play it again with a Seeker-Tier character.

It's something I'm half-tempted to do myself for the Season 4 special. Then again, I'm not 100% sure on that, so I can empathize with your situation.

If there is a Seeker table in the works, I have yet to play Siege myself...

I have a mixed view of the current recruitment system, Quite a few games I'd liked to have joined but can't cause of the First Come First Served System or other by invites only. There are other times when I happened to be online and I see a post up annoucing a game and I get in. So I guess that we may have a problem but it's a healthy one in that we do have players. We just need to encourage more to step up and GM.

I'm trying out multiple systems to see which work best but I think perhaps for me I'll add that applying players not be in more then 8 or some number PFS games at the same time?

Also I'd love to Run and Play Siege CORE.

In case, for interested players. I tend to run CORE more then classic games.

GM Hmm, Here is a Rough draft of optional PFS PBP on-line table muster method {link}. Your are welcom to take it and do what you will with it. Needs more review and polish.

Shifting notes:
The method used to muster tables for GD6 was pretty good too, only the long lag time between signup and start of game play was an annoyance. It at least put the game signup in one place.

The method used to muster tables for GD6 was pretty good too, only the long lag time between signup and start of game play was an annoyance.

Second. Could the announcement of the next GameDay possibly be made closer to the date? I think having to keep characters free for two months in order to get into games is a bit excessive.

Sodium, thanks for your feedback.

Most games take around six weeks to finish. By announcing the next gamesday two months ahead we allow everyone to participate with their favorite character, even if that character just started a new scenario. It also allows the GMs to finish their games, which is needed so they don’t burn themselves out.

I recognize your issue, I solve it by having multiple characters. Some of them can be signed in for a specific upcoming game while I continue to play with some of the others. As an example: my 9th lvl harrowing bard has had her last game in 2016, she is now waiting for when I get around to planning a run of the Harrowing that my local VC has promised me.

Edit: added second section

An unintended but beneficial side-effect of having such a large window is by not having a given character 'available', it made selection of an 'alt' to play various things at a local convention much easier.

...and in one case, helped the decision process to not go to a given convention, because there was nothing that was appropriate for my characters being offered.

GM Glyn,

Thank you for your suggestions. We appreciate the effort you put into them. The online VOteam will go through them and get back to you.

I'm mixed on the early announcements of GameDays. There always seems to be a dearth of games in the 3-4 weeks ahead of a GameDay. As much as I like the advanced notice and flexibility it gives, anything that reduces the number of active games seems a bit problematic.

GM Hmm, Here is a Rough draft of optional PFS PBP on-line table muster method {link}. Your are welcom to take it and do what you will with it. Needs more review and polish.

I kind of like this idea. It puts you in a queue to get a game in a timely manner. I personally would not want to manage it, but it would be interesting to see how it works. I would be happy to use it to fill tables.

Also I like that you can see requests so if there is something that I like to run, and specific calls for it, then I am more likely to prep it.

We had a VERY good reason for booking way in advance for 8-99 and 8-00, the two most recent specials. We had to book way in advance to know what tables we would need, because we could not buy those scenarios. The only way to get them is through Tonya (submitted weeks in advance). Sometimes it can be challenging to get scenarios for GMs that are added later — it requires emails back and forth to Campaign management, and sometimes the OPC is too swamped to handle your request when you need it. So the goal is to get everyone’s scenarios in one shot, and hope that you have everything covered!

The same will be true for 9-00, Assault on Absalom.

On the other hand, for early specials we should be able to just purchase scenarios to cover gaps, and so the booking can be both less in advance AND more flexible.

Hmm

Yeah, it's not the specials that I'm worried about, just the regular scenarios. Not being part of the Venture Crew, I really don't know what all goes into setting this up so it may well just be a necessary evil for opening up this type of convention support to the online community. For specials, I'm definitely on-board with giving tons of notice, especially for the GMs. I'm just a bit more concerned about the gap where people are waiting for boon support before they start a new game.

I do have a possible proposal for that issue, but I think I'll contact you via PM. Being a Venture Nothing (this term trademarked by Shifty, prior to his Venture-Ninja status) I'd rather not throw monkey wrenches without knowing the gory details about convention organization.

I've never had any use for CORE, but I might like it if there was a "CORE+" league that incorporated the Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, *maybe* Occult Adventures, and nothing more.

Thoughts (without flames or condescension) on that?

@GM Hmm/Magabeus: I recently completed GM'ing The Confirmation and have a question about the Welcome boon. Three were playing PFS for the first time; two were playing with their -1 characters. The other was playing with her -2 but, while she created a -1 character, she's never played it...is there any way she can get the Welcome boon as well?

I've never had any use for CORE, but I might like it if there was a "CORE+" league that incorporated the Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, *maybe* Occult Adventures, and nothing more.

Thoughts (without flames or condescension) on that?

I think it's very unlikely to have a third official campaign.

I've thought about making my next Classic character take the "Non-Core Challenge" though. No feats, spells, races, classes, equipment, or items from the Core Rulebook unless it forces it upon you (like an oracle getting all cure or inflict spells). I guarantee that's WAY more tough than playing Core. ;)

Thoughts (without flames or condescension) on that?

Completely ruins the idea of a more restricted campaign.