Changing Sanctioned Module Play

I know that there are several players in the NYC area that would love Pathfinder Society characters to advance past 12th level for sanctioned module play.

I am not sure if these steps are ideal for PFS play BUT having stated that I am quite happy that this topic is being addressed. You guys are obviously on top of things.

;)

We have 13 players who completed The Eyes of the Ten arc so I'll be linking this with our groups' muster and keeping an eye on it.

Thanks Mike!

Wow.

Great changes.

I like bringing consistency into the PFS campaign.

-Pain

I will go into more detail after work, But I will give you a Hint. I hate the changes. This removes all the reasons I was willing to run such a long Module in the first place and if these rules go into affect It will at least kill Module play here.

My reasons I will explain later.

Edit: I do like the 12+ rules.

Apologies, because this feedback is entirely off the topic of use of the modules in society play, but more a general comment on the modules line itself.

I'm not happy with it, generally.

I'm not particularly unhappy with it either - it's a fine product line, Paizo produces quality work and the adventures themselves are solid. They just aren't particularly sexy. I wish they had a purpose, function, or theme - that they plugged into the larger Paizo product line in some meaningful way.

They seem like an ideal opportunity for either (a) exploring an aspect of a prior AP (particularly one of the older APs) or (b) tying together some theme/plot of society play.

Or, the slot currently occupied by modules in the Paizo product line could be replaced with an entirely different category of book.

Anyhow, as I said, I don't actively hate or even dislike the modules line. I just feel like its functions are already served by the APs/Society modules and that I'd prefer something new and exciting in its place.

Hmmm...maybe a monthly puppy subscription...

I'm very happy with this. Thanks Mike for suggesting these changes! And to Hyrum and Mark for their work too.

Mike

I must say I'm not really liking the changes as presented.

It was my understanding that a good part of the reason the modules had a lower reward, both gold and prestige, than playing in 3 scenarios was to offset the lack of consumables being used and risk factor. If you're adding back in consumable cost and the risk factor for play, then would some thought be given adjusting the rewards as they are offered on the chronicles?

The post retirement play sounds like it could be a good way to allow advancement beyond the normal cap. However, as it stands now, there is only one track to go beyond (i.e. specific modules), and since those modules have been available for awhile, characters with retired characters may not have the opportunity to play on. I have no idea how big of a deal this maybe, or numbers involved, but it may raise the hackles of some. I know both modules have been run in Indy a time or two, and those players would now have this door closed to them post-retirement.

I don't mind bringing modules inline with the scenarios, but changing one side of a risk vs. reward decision without changing the other seems off to me.

Just my 2 cp.

Snigg

(As an aside, my only experience with module play in PFS is with Godsmouth Heresy and it is to date my only TPK)

I like these changes, but only since Dragnmoon decided he hates them. I will increase the number of modules I run in my region to compensate for any decrease from Dragnmoon's non-participation.

I like these changes, but only since Dragnmoon decided he hates them. I will increase the number of modules I run in my region to compensate for any decrease from Dragnmoon's non-participation.

I will Have to Un-run Stuff to make up for that!!!! ;)

I like these changes, but only since Dragnmoon decided he hates them. I will increase the number of modules I run in my region to compensate for any decrease from Dragnmoon's non-participation.

Wow DougDoug comes out of retirement to DM!

Mike

I must say I'm not really liking the changes as presented.

It was my understanding that a good part of the reason the modules had a lower reward, both gold and prestige, than playing in 3 scenarios was to offset the lack of consumables being used and risk factor. If you're adding back in consumable cost and the risk factor for play, then would some thought be given adjusting the rewards as they are offered on the chronicles?

The post retirement play sounds like it could be a good way to allow advancement beyond the normal cap. However, as it stands now, there is only one track to go beyond (i.e. specific modules), and since those modules have been available for awhile, characters with retired characters may not have the opportunity to play on. I have no idea how big of a deal this maybe, or numbers involved, but it may raise the hackles of some. I know both modules have been run in Indy a time or two, and those players would now have this door closed to them post-retirement.

I don't mind bringing modules inline with the scenarios, but changing one side of a risk vs. reward decision without changing the other seems off to me.

Just my 2 cp.

Snigg

(As an aside, my only experience with module play in PFS is with Godsmouth Heresy and it is to date my only TPK)

Mark and I created a chart for sanctioned modules based off wealth given in scenarios. All Chronicle sheets for all sanctioned modules will be updated with new wealth that fits right into the current wealth by level chart of scenarios. In most, if not all cases, the gold awarded in sanctioned modules will be higher if and when this initiative is put into place.

Also, I can't do anything about people who have already played some of the modules. But, I can try to make it better for the large percentage of players who have not, and for future modules yet to be released.

Thank you for the prompt response Mike. I assumed both ideas would have come up during discussions while putting this together, but wanted to make sure the points were heard.

Sincerely,
Snigg

I've got to be honest, not a fan. The thing I really liked about the modules was the ability to see how my character could be at higher level, and if it didn't work well, I could then make changes before he got to that level again. We're in the middle of a module now, and should this be implemented, I don't know that we'd run one again.

I'm not sure how I feel about the non-retirement option. My highest is 5th lvl, so it'd be a long time before I got that far.

We will be adjusting wealth for every sanctioned module, as well as extending the fame chart for 13+ levels. I just didn't want to make an already long blog post longer by adding charts that aren't needed here. They will be added to guide 4.1 when and if this change goes through.

I wanted to suggest that The Witchwar Legacy be the last module/scenario that PFS PC's be allowed to play. I know some in our group really like high level play but I think even that needs a cap to it. I think that's a logical end to a PCs progression.

Mike

Hmmm...maybe a monthly puppy subscription...

PRE ORDERED !

I've never liked the idea of sanctioned modules, so I don't care for even further integration of modules into PFS.

I also don't like the idea of changing play beyond level 12. If people like their PFS characters and want to continue to play them, why not just play them outside of PFS? Why is it necessary to shoe-horn additional rules in place to officially support playing past the level cap? ("Because some players want it" is a cop-out answer. Some players want psionics, savage species, spelljammers, epic rules, etc. Level cap at 12 and be done.)

-Skeld

It sounds like the ideas for high-level play using modules are reasonable, and a good way for people to continue playing their favorite characters.

However, I am disappointed at the idea of having to use an existing PFS character or pre-gen for the modules, rather than having the option of creating a new character or a level-X version of an existing character.

For me, one of the primary draws of the modules is that they provide an opportunity for a change of pace from regular society play, and I don't need to worry about my players needing to have an appropriate-leveled character for whatever tier the module is in. This also gives some players the opportunity to play together when they otherwise might be stratified by having different level PCs.

While I appreciate what you are trying to do in terms of continuity, I think the ability to run a module without having to worry about finding players with appropriately-leveled PCs is worth the slight disconnect.

Of course, there is still the option of playing a pre-gen, but in my experience, people very much prefer playing their own characters when there is any choice.

I've never liked the idea of sanctioned modules, so I don't care for even further integration of modules into PFS.

I also don't like the idea of changing play beyond level 12. If people like their PFS characters and want to continue to play them, why not just play them outside of PFS? Why is it necessary to shoe-horn additional rules in place to officially support playing past the level cap? ("Because some players want it" is a cop-out answer. Some players want psionics, savage species, spelljammers, epic rules, etc. Level cap at 12 and be done.)

-Skeld

If you don't ever play a sanctioned module, you can still enjoy the full depth of Pathfinder Society without ever having to worry about the integration of modules, or with playing with any character above 13th level. We are not looking to produce any 13+ level scenarios. We are looking to put more sensible rules in place to cover the modules that are already sanctioned for society play. These rules are not really shoe-horned like the current set. They are more seamless and in line with how scenarios already work. Do you think it's important to offer a better option for people than what already exists?

It sounds like the ideas for high-level play using modules are reasonable, and a good way for people to continue playing their favorite characters.

However, I am disappointed at the idea of having to use an existing PFS character or pre-gen for the modules, rather than having the option of creating a new character or a level-X version of an existing character.

For me, one of the primary draws of the modules is that they provide an opportunity for a change of pace from regular society play, and I don't need to worry about my players needing to have an appropriate-leveled character for whatever tier the module is in. This also gives some players the opportunity to play together when they otherwise might be stratified by having different level PCs.

While I appreciate what you are trying to do in terms of continuity, I think the ability to run a module without having to worry about finding players with appropriately-leveled PCs is worth the slight disconnect.

Of course, there is still the option of playing a pre-gen, but in my experience, people very much prefer playing their own characters when there is any choice.

We are trying to eliminate all the subsets of rules and make it less confusing for players. Now that there are modules to cover every level from 1-15, as well as scenarios to cover every level from 1-12, it should be fairly easy to find something a group can play together.

It is almost impossible to allow people to create a new, whatever level character or use a pregen, and still have death and consumable use mean something. Feel free to offer suggestions if you can think of a way to make it work, without creating a ton of new paperwork and tracking that would be needed to do so.

I've never liked the idea of sanctioned modules, so I don't care for even further integration of modules into PFS.

I also don't like the idea of changing play beyond level 12. If people like their PFS characters and want to continue to play them, why not just play them outside of PFS? Why is it necessary to shoe-horn additional rules in place to officially support playing past the level cap? ("Because some players want it" is a cop-out answer. Some players want psionics, savage species, spelljammers, epic rules, etc. Level cap at 12 and be done.)

-Skeld

I have to say I think these changes are all great. I think PFS play should be as all-inclusive as possible. If some people are able to spend the time to get their characters up to that level, why not let them progress higher and higher? It makes no difference to my lower level characters what other groups of pathfinders are achieving as far as level gains go.

I do agree that you can't cater to everybody's whim, like psionics, savage species, etc. However when enough of a player base asks for something and in this case expanding the level cap (and in the past, sanctioning module play), if it is doable, why not? Doing something like expanding the level cap through sanctioned modules does not affect the rest of the PFS player base at all. If you don't like sanctioned modules, that's that. You'll never have to worry about these proposed rule changes. When and if I'm able to get a character into position to reach 12th level at least I'll be able to make the "what's next" decision, and not know automatically that his time is just about at an end.

@skeld — I don't get that sentiment. It seems like you are suggesting that since you don't like high level play it shouldn't be an option for others?

Personally, I think it's a decent compromise (and one I will likely never make use of for a variety of reasons).

Generally speaking, an improvement, Mike. And it's very clear, and it looks like you've already worked out a number of the corner-cases. Nicely done.

I have one concern, one complaint, and three questions.

The concern: The pre-generated characters are substantially weaker than normal player characters; that's a good thing, because we want to encourage players to build their own PCs, and who wants to build a cleric only to realize that you can't beat Kyra?

(Having said that, they're probably worse than they need to be. Take a look at 7th-level Ezren's spellbook. There's only one spell in there that he doesn't have prepared. Versatility is the hallmark of the wizard, and Ezren is less versatile than a sorcerer.)

Even if the stats for a pre-gen were adequate, they are drastically under-equipped. That 7th-level Ezren can't afford to just go off and buy himself some scrolls to fill out his spell-book. Re-reading your proposal, I'm not sure whether a low-level PC would use his own Fame score to buy equipment for the higher-level pre-gens, or if there would be some "default" Fame score. Without *some* fiddling, a player could take a pre-gen, link it to a beginning character, and not be able to buy anything during the adventure except Always Available items, because the linked PC would have a Fame score below 5.

Even if the pre-gens were up to snuff and well-equipped, they would be harder to play effectively, because they're all new to the player. Throw a 4th or 7th-level cavalier or gunslinger in someone's lap and see how well she can play it straight out of the gate.

Even if the pre-gens were up to snuff, well-equipped, and familiar to the player, they might be a level below the recommended starting level for the module. For example, if I'm offering to run Cult of the Ebon Destroyers, you'll be bringing a 7th-level pre-gen into an adventure built for characters who start out at 8th level and advance to 9th level before the end of the adventure. At best, the pre-gen will start out a level above the starting level and will be "at level" by the end of the module.

In short, pre-gens die. A lot. (This is my experience, from watching several players struggle with the pre-gens at convention scenarios.) (And if you change the module rules so they don't "rezz," they won't have the equipment, prestige, or gold to afford to return from the dead.) And according to your proposal, that'll kill the linked PC, immediately.

I can't imagine why anyone would want to play a module with a pre-gen and link the experience to any current character. The penalties are disastrous.

And the compensation wouldn't have been adequate for that risk before, and it's worse under your proposal. The gold reward for a module, and the Fame reward, are below normal for 3 PFS scenarios. Worse, that gold would now be reduced by however much the character spent in the module. (And considering that a pre-gen might well spend a lot, just to get up to normal equipment levels, I'd be surprised if there's much gold left at all for the PC.)

So, why would I play a module, again? It can kill my PC instantly, it requires the PC to survive until that level to get any reward, and the reward he gets will be minimal.

That's my concern.

This option also allows for people who are not interested in playing Eyes of the Ten a different means to enter retirement and beyond. Under this proposal, you could play Academy of Secrets at 12th, Tomb of Iron Medusa at 13th, etc.... So, it offers other options than the only option currently available.

@Chris Thanks for the well thought out post. As mentioned earlier, the wealth for all modules will be adjusted, and most if not all, will be more in line with the same you would earn after playing 3 scenarios.

Also, we are looking at several options to improve the pregens, including adding the remaining classes that haven't been done, but that is a topic for another discussion.

Also, I wouldn't recommend playing sanctioned modules with a pregen but I did want to present that option so people could still play with their friends if they didn't have a level appropriat character. It isn't the best but at least it offers a choice.

I see what you are trying to do but I have issues with much of what you are proposing. I think you are trading one set of issues and dissatisfaction for a brand new set.

Let me start by saying I do all of my PFS GMing in home games and most of my PFS playing there too. I have made a few conventions and have some games under my belt as a player in those venues.

The biggest concern I have is that these changes will discourage rather than encourage people to run and play modules for PFS credit. The farther you get from 1st level, it is very difficult to get a group of characters in the proper band to have them participate in a module. Modules are published at different level ranges based upon the story. A GM might be interested in buying and running a module but if you had to work up characters to be high enough level to play before you could run it, you might not buy the module. I figure it would take 9 months, playing twice a month, to get characters to a minimum level to be able to play a 7th level module. That also assumes that you can get everyone to participate during that period so that they all get to that level around the same time. It would be easier to play scenarios or not play PFS at all if you want to run the adventure.

The pre gens that are available do not cover enough range to make the higher level games as interesting as they might currently be. Right now there are only 7 options (the 3 previously available APG pre gens have been MIA for quite a while now) and you have to play them as is. The player cannot customize them in any way. Also there are only pre gens at 1st, 4th and 7th. How would you play a pregen is the adventure level requirements does not fit the available pre gens? A real world example: One of my home groups is currently playing the Harrowing. The adventure is for 8th to 10th level legal PFS characters or a 9th level character that you create using the PFS rules. None of us had a 9th level character so we all built characters to be able to play. How would this work under the proposed changes? Some of the player also took this as an opportunity to try new builds to see how they play at higher levels. We also have a player where this is his first experience with PFS.

Pre gens do not have any money of significance and no fame/prestige. How do you propose to get them brought back from the dead? Is it fair to kill a real character because the proxy does not have all of the tools at their disposal?

Tracking the cost of consumables will be a book keeping nightmare. This will place extra work on the GM to record and police their use. I do not believe it is a requirement for the GM to track consumables in a normal PFS game. That is up to the player and on the honor system.

Waiting to apply the chronicle to the character once he is of appropriate level is also a pain. You could end up with situations where a legal character completes a higher level module but does not survive to actually have “played” it. I can see this possibly working for GM rewards but most players want instant gratification. I think they would rather play something else where they get credit now rather than 6 months from now. I also imagine that this could be an issue with the reporting tool.

Maybe there is a compromise in here somewhere. If you play a legal PFS character, may be the risk/reward is different (more gold and more fame/prestige earned but consumables and conditions persist) than if you play a pre gen or an artificially advanced character (less gold and less fame/prestige but comsumables and conditions do not matter). That way you remain flexible and get the best of both worlds.

Post retirement, hight level play may be fine but I have not reached that plateau. My highest character is 7th level and I have the highest level character of our home group.

It seems like an interesting idea. I have to admit, however, that I was unlikely to play high level modules before (not my bag) and I'm even more unlikely to play them now (I doubt I'll ever have a level 12 PC). But it makes more logical sense than "play the module, apply the credit to a low level PC", IMO.

I love the changes. My characters each write thier own stories with what mod/adventures they play. Death and consumables are part of the story as well as continuing past 12th level.

The idea of the mods as danger room senarios never sat well with me.

Thanks Mike keep up the good work

(now if I can just figure out how to get Mike to create regional specials for Local Cons........)

Ooops did I type that out loud ;-0

Up until now I have avoided playing the sanctioned modules. It seemed pointless to me. Yes, I would have fun playing the module, but part of my reason for playing PFS (or any long-term roleplaying event, e.g. a home group) is to see my character evolve. The current rules for sanctioned modules do not fit with that desire. They are just bolted on to the side, not integrated into the whole of the system. There is no real risk to my character and consequently no real reward and the character doesn't evolve. So, I like the proposed changes. It might make playing the modules more difficult if I don't have a character at or below the appropriate level, but that is a minor problem. The changes do make the modules more attractive to me.

I do have one concern relating to consistency. In the blog it states that when using a pregen the chronicle sheet must be linked to an existing character. I can accept that. (Heck, I might make a character just to link to and to outright play sanctioned modules. ^_^ ) I even like the idea that the chronicle can't be applied to the linked character until that character reaches the level of the module. It does strike me as inconsistent relating to death, however. If the chronicle cannot be applied positively until the linked character is at the level of the module, then it should not apply negatively until the linked character is at the right level. For example, if I have a 5th level character and I play a 9th level sanctioned module with a pregen while linking to my 5th level character, the chronicle shouldn't apply until that character is 9th level good or bad. Basically once my character reaches 9th level the chronicle applies and he dies. Why should I have to miss out on levels 6-8 of play with that character?

One of the best features of mods was the ability to play charecters created at apropriate level to try out. If consumable use is such a huge concern record any consumables used on the chronicle and subtrart them from the gp award or legal characters sheet when applied.

Well a quick observation.

I think with the change mod sales will go down, since there will be less of an audience to play the high level mods. I personally liked previous rules about play, that being said reworking chroncile sheets really helps with the new rules. I feel for these changes to work each mod should be examined. The difficulty in some is higher than expected see Cult of the Ebon Destroyer. Some mods also incorporate a level gain in the course of the mod. To offset these changes a level higher character requirement should be put in place. It may lead to a host of TPK's that may end careers. Cult of the Ebon Destroyer is a mod that I can see allot of deaths, I have only played this one if I GM'd it it would likely been a TPK, instead of a couple deaths.

For PFS play a player could have a non optimized character and live and enjoy adventuring with the society. Mechanically most PFS scenario's are a little easier to accommodate this. APL is usually set at the lower indicated level in tier versus a mod with fixed apl for the given mod. The differences mechanically could result in considerablly more deaths. If some PFS players start a given mod with less wealth or PA, than an indicated level range "should" have this may also create a bit of difficulty.

As far as high level play perhaps instead of restructing an old moduale new level 12+ mods could be made to be PFS legal from the ground up. Or a design platform to take characters past retirement may serve PFS a little better.

These changes all look good to me.

Keep up the great work Mike.

@ Michael Brock,

Ok, one bit of confusion on this: "The one exception is when a character remains dead at the conclusion of the module. In this case, the linked character is permanently dead and removed from play immediately."

So let's say I'm playing Tomb of the Iron Medusa using a Seoni linked to my sorcerer. Seoni dies. Now Seoni's gear doesn't have a raise dead scroll in it, so she doesn't 'get better' by the end of the adventure? Does this mean that my sorcerer is dead and gone? Even if he had the prestige/gold/faction resources to get better?

My complaint is related.

Right now, module play is the only way a PFS player can fix a broken character. (If the person also GMs, he could apply GM-credit to the character, but that's a much larger investment for a lot of players.)

By this, I mean that things can go bad for a character, leaving her disabled in some way (a witch with a dead familiar can't prepare spells; a fighter with four permanent negative levels can't compete effectively in a party; characters can be permanently blinded) without the resources necessary to get back on her feet.

(This isn't a problem outside of organized play, because the party can chip in to buy a new familiar or pay for the restoration spells, but player characters aren't allowed to buy stuff for one another like that in PFS.)

Show of hands: if you were getting ready to go on a notoriously deadly scenario, would you object if I brought a crippled PC to the table, knowing I couldn't pull my weight, and was just raisng the APL?

So, right now, the player's best option is to play a module. She plays a version of her character, raised to the appropriate level and fixed. Then she returns to her PC, with experience, prestige, and gold enough to call a new familiar or get a couple of restoration spells.

The proposal on the table eliminates this. She won't be able to play a levelled-up version of her PC, and if the pre-gen does swimmingly, she won't be able to apply any of the benefits to her PC until she plays enough scenarios with her crippled PC to reach that level.

---+---

"Well, that player should just volunteer to GM until she gets enough GM credit to fix the PC. That's easy."

That's easy for a venture-captain and a bunch of multiple-star GMs to say. It's not so easy for a player who has never GMed before, or hates to GM, or for whom there aren't easy GM opportunities.

---+---

One of the strongest positive aspects of module play is it serving as a means to help players who have beloved PCs who are really down on their luck. Losing that aspect would be a negative change to the PFS community.

@skeld — I don't get that sentiment. It seems like you are suggesting that since you don't like high level play it shouldn't be an option for others?

No and that's sort of putting words in my mouth. I never said I didn't like high-level play (far from it actually). I question the need for official rules that extend play past the level cap. The answer seems to be that there are some modules that are sanctioned and there are some modules that have level ranges above 12th, so we need seamless rules on how to handle characters officially playing beyond the level cap.

-Skeld

I really like these ideas, and I appreciate bringing the sanctioned module rules in line with the normal rules.

I do think that the available pre-gens will need to be increased, and probably made more "robust."

The pregens all got some major 'robusting' just a few months ago.

They're all pretty solid now. They're not quite fully optimized but they're pretty close.

I ran Tomb of the Iron Medusa for a group of tailored 14th level PCs.

It seemed like a less risky way for players to try out some different content.

With these new rules, I'd be nervous to run PFS PCs through Iron Medusa. It's meant to be nasty. It's meant to kill PCs who mis-step. Sure, death is fixable with a raise dead or resurrection, but spending the PP/gold for those things can be pricy for a PFS PC. The reduction in gold/PP gained because of a death seemed like an ok trade with the older rules.

In short, I'd be less likely to run sanctioned modules for PFS under these new rules, given how the modules can really swing in deadliness.

Also, I was hoping to try out the 11th level version of my ninja in the Ruby Phoenix Tournament mod. With these new rules, I'll be unable to. snif.

Do so many players run their PCs through sanctioned modules that this adjustment is necessary?

To answer Doug Miles' question below:
- I don't like the changes.
- I ran Tomb of the Iron Medusa
- I played in Godsmouth Heresy and Cult of the Ebon Destroyers

The pregens all got some major 'robusting' just a few months ago.

They're all pretty solid now. They're not quite fully optimized but they're pretty close.

This is Far from true...

Another Hint about my later post, My bisggest problem with the new Rules is going to be the Pregens.

I like the proposed changes as (a) I enjoy high level play because one has more vested in a higher level character and (b) I think that the current rules of no consequence for character death or use of consumables is nonsensical in a game where people die and spend gold on potions, scrolls and wand charges that normally disappear when used. These new rules will allow players to extend the careers of their favorite characters as adventurers after their days as Pathfinders. Good job!

Mike, three questions:

1) Should players plan to raise their "retired 12th-level PCs" who have gone through Eyes of the Ten to 13th level?

2) Would pre-gens be able to access and spend the linked PC's prestige at all? If so, it's possible for a PC to reach the matching level and suddenly find himself with negative gold and/or negative prestige. How would that work?

3) If a pre-gen is linked to a PC who dies before matching level, can the player reassign those rewards to another PC?

I ran Tomb of the Iron Medusa for a group of tailored 14th level PCs.

It seemed like a less risky way for players to try out some different content.

With these new rules, I'd be nervous to run PFS PCs through Iron Medusa. It's meant to be nasty. It's meant to kill PCs who mis-step. Sure, death is fixable with a raise dead or resurrection, but spending the PP/gold for those things can be pricy for a PFS PC. The reduction in gold/PP gained because of a death seemed like an ok trade with the older rules.

In short, I'd be less likely to run sanctioned modules for PFS under these new rules, given how the modules can really swing in deadliness.

Also, I was hoping to try out the 11th level version of my ninja in the Ruby Phoenix Tournament mod. With these new rules, I'll be unable to. snif.

Do so many players run their PCs through sanctioned modules that this adjustment is necessary?

When I ran Tomb of the Iron Medusa for 14th lvl charecters I killed two charecters 3 animal companion and almost had a TPK on more than one occasion, and that was with an full party.

I would be interested if everyone who is commenting like/dislike could state how many of the modules they have played or GMed under the current OP rules.

I do not like
green eggs
and ham!

Say!
I like green eggs and ham!
I do!! I like them, Sam-I-am!

---+---

"Well, that player should just volunteer to GM until she gets enough GM credit to fix the PC. That's easy."

That's easy for a venture-captain and a bunch of multiple-star GMs to say. It's not so easy for a player who has never GMed before, or hates to GM, or for whom there aren't easy GM opportunities.

---+---

To add to Chris Mortika's eloquently-articulated issue:

A GM who runs a module may likewise apply the Chronicle sheet to one of her Pathfinder Society characters. The GM must decide which of her characters will receive the Chronicle sheet when the module is completed and the Chronicle sheets are filled out.

Emphasis added.

So, to illustrate a real example: at this point, if I GM Realm of the Fellnight Queen, I don't presently have a level-appropriate PC to which I can apply the GM chronicle (my highest PC is level 6). But I have to pick one at the time the module is completed?

I have to ask whether this is the intent of the rule, and whether it's the way p. 16 of the current Guide is supposed to read. Cos, if so, that's likely to eliminate the incentive for at least three PFS GMs I know, and it certainly dampens my own enthusiasm to GM.

@Doug Doug: Ran 1 played 2 and will be running another 1 over holiday break.

What I would like to see in the comments to this blog are what you do and don’t like about the below proposal.

With consumables, I prefer the way modules currently work.

First of all in modules, consumables work exactly like how pregens characters work; you can use consumables and they don't cost you anything. That's the upside to using a non-optimized PC. The downside being you can still die.

Second, it's going to be really rough for the GM to track every single consumable item spent in the module. How many spent consumables are tracked and recorded on chronicles currently? In my experience, none, no GM has ever recorded anything on any chronicle I've seen regarding consumables, basically it all goes by the player honor system. So I don't think the GM will have the opportunity to track all consumables for modules when he can't (or won't) get it done in scenarios.

Third, modules are often a lot harder than scenarios and often contain "killer encounters". In home games, this is ok since the GM will know his players and adjust the encounter. In PFS, it often isn't possible to know the PCs beforehand, in addition we're not supposed to fudge dice like in home games! So having strong penalties for dying in modules is a strong deterrent from using modules.

Lastly, the rewards for module play are significantly (25%) reduced compared to scenarios. It makes no sense to have all of the penalties that a scenario has (and more difficulty) without any of the benefits.

A player who uses a pregenerated character must apply the Chronicle sheet to his linked Pathfinder Society character when that character reaches the starting level of the module.

I STRONGLY prefer the way it currently works. As I understand it, you can play a pregen in a module and apply the module chronicle to any PFS PC you have, and the rewards are tiered by level. This is a really nice way for me to level new players (who might be at 3rd level) while also allowing other players to level secondary PCs (1st-2nd level).

If the PC has to wait until level 7-9 until they can apply the chronicle, it defeats the purpose of using modules to level up lower level PCs.

Since sanctioned modules can be multi-session events, Pathfinder Society characters may not be used in other Pathfinder Society events until they receive a Chronicle sheet for the module.

I think we could do without this rule. I think the only thing that matters, when playing a "copy" of your character or a pregen, is the current level of your PC, whatever that is.

Retirement and Beyond

I don't have a problem with opening up other options for players who want to play their PCs again, however I'd prefer to see some level 13 scenarios (and/or specials) in the future rather than seeing PFS PCs level up with modules (which have absolutely nothing to do with PFS).

How will this proposal affect your game in both a positive and negative way.

I haven't used modules yet, but I plan to do so if I need to level the PCs of a few players up. Changes involving large penalties for death and consumables will mean I'm going to alter the module instead of smacking some pregens around, which I'd prefer. The current rules of giving a PC less XP/gold/PA when dying in a module is deterrent enough, you're wasting your time and you get reduced rewards anyway.

Mike,

Nice changes in the right direction. That being said....

My one suggestion is revamping the Pre-gen's on the optimization scale they're somewhere around a 2 or 3. Most players play with a future character concept in mind while leveling so their characters are pretty optimized.

You cant make everyone happy, some GM's/Players will disagree some will agree.

Ultimately - I see this as a COMPROMISE, a middle of the road change thats not great for either party. It also comes with an eight months heads-up prior to the start of Season 4, so the kinks(and suggestions) can be worked out.

@DougDoug - Ran 2/Played 1

Pygon, Alchemist & Shivok, thanks for your answers and thank you for supporting the Pathfinder Modules in your area! They are a lot of work to prep (esp Tomb of the Iron Medusa).

@Doug: I've run 1 sanctioned mod (and have offered to run two others); and I've played three with a fourth on deck.

I have just begun running for PFS in the last eight months or so, honestly, though I've run Pathfinder with my home group since the Beta rules.

I admit, I'm disappointed. I agree that the 'no consequences' of module play wasn't an ideal situation, but I think that these new rules limit some of the most fun modules to only retired characters.

I ran Tomb of the Iron Medusa under the old rules, and it was a nail-biting, skin-of-their-teeth blast. I was also really looking forward to running Acadamae of Secrets for some of my crew.

Under these new rules, it's retired characters or nothing, and I don't know about everyone else, but I'm in no hurry to reach retirement. I enjoy playing PFS scenarios, and I'm actively dragging my feet on getting any of my characters to 12th.

I don't know how common an attitude that sort of thing is, but for me, I'm not a fan of the new rules.

Actually, I'll clarify that - the rules for leveling beyond 12th are great. That I approve of. But the limiting of high-level modules to retired characters makes me somewhat sad.

EDIT: In answer to Doug's question, I've run The Godsmouth Heresy, Tomb of the Iron Medusa and Feast of Ravenmoor. (finished that one yesterday, in fact!)

I've also playtested Shore to Sea, played Carrion Hill and run Realm of the Fellnight Queen and Crypt of the Everyflame in non-PFS games, before the sanctioned module thing turned up.

Doug: Run multiple. Played 2 (both Godsmouth Heresy and Crypt of the Everflame, both with 2nd-level PCs.)

"We be Goblins" is a fun module. Part of the wackiness is the disposable quality of the PCs. Once players understand that getting your goblin killed will also kill the PC that you've linked it to, I imagine that people will be much more conservative in that module.