Changing Sanctioned Module Play

Here is what I don't get. When you are playing Ebon destroyers with no-one actually playing their character, are you even playing PFS?

It may not be your cup of tea, of course, but continuity in PFS is a bit flexible.

For instance, a PC could play in Before the Dawn (Pt. 1) at level 1 and Before the Dawn (Pt. 2) at level 7, with dozens of adventures in between, and yet those adventures are supposed to take place over the course of two days.

I don't find that particularly offensive, just like I don't find it particularly offensive to have a level 1 PC leap up to level 9 to play Ebon Destroyers and back to level 2 to play some other adventure.

I would consider it "actually playing" the PC in both examples. YMMV, naturally.

Let me explain further because I tend to be too brief.

When you sit down with an actual PFS character, you sit down with a character that is the sum of his experiences. He has 2 flasks of alchemists fire because those pesky swarms, he has a hand of glory because he ran into too many darkness effects. There is the ubiquitous potion of see invisibile because of the blasted TPK in *spoiler*. There are a couple cool boons on his character sheet from the Paizocon grand melee. You remember very distinctly when your character died and why he has nearly every item in his inventory.

When you sit down with a PFS character you sit down with the sum of all of that and all the memories you've made with that character.

When you sit down with a character for a module, it is the sum of 30 minutes of effort building that character. Even playing a 'future version' of an existing character none of your existing character experience/ chronicles/ boons/ whatever affect the character you sit down with when you play the module. It is at best a pale copy of the original. When you look at your character later that level you gained is a black hole in your character where some other character did something. It's lost forever.

There is another issue here as well and that is one of loyalty. A typical 8th level PFS character takes a fair amount of work and risk. Sitting down next to someone with an 8th level character who has never faced that same risk, devalues that accomplishment. That they ultimately have better access to items and spells due to shiny chronicles from adventures their character never had makes it worse. If PFS is going to grow and thrive, it needs to encourage the sort of player who is willing to work to get their character up to level. Out-of-character module play devalues that experience.

(for the tl;dr crowd)
PFS is about rich characters formed over time. Players have a lot of time and effort invested in it and their characters which are carved by the decisions and experiences they have to that point. As it stands, modules sidestep that entire experience and ultimately cheapens PFS play.

Dennis Baker wrote:

Here is what I don't get. When you are playing Ebon destroyers with no-one actually playing their character, are you even playing PFS?

It may not be your cup of tea, of course, but continuity in PFS is a bit flexible.

For instance, a PC could play in Before the Dawn (Pt. 1) at level 1 and Before the Dawn (Pt. 2) at level 7, with dozens of adventures in between, and yet those adventures are supposed to take place over the course of two days.

I don't find that particularly offensive, just like I don't find it particularly offensive to have a level 1 PC leap up to level 9 to play Ebon Destroyers and back to level 2 to play some other adventure.

I would consider it "actually playing" the PC in both examples. YMMV, naturally.

The concept of continuity implies that you are dealing with the same thing which isn't a requirement (and not even really possible) with module play.

When you sit down with a PFS character you sit down with the sum of all of that and all the memories you've made with that character.

When you sit down with a character for a module, it is the sum of 30 minutes of effort building that character. Even playing a 'future version' of an existing character none of your existing character experience/ chronicles/ boons/ whatever affect the character you sit down with when you play the module. It is at best a pale copy of the original. When you look at your character later that level you gained is a black hole in your character where some other character did something.

I don't know what to tell you. I don't see how playing a level 9 PC with no adventures under his belt is a "pale copy" or a "black hole" whereas playing a level 1 PC with no adventures under his belt isn't.

In the example I cited above, where a character plays Before the Dawn Pt 1 at level 1, some other modules at levels 2-6 and Before the Dawn Pt 2 at level 7, which is the "black hole"? The level 2-6 version, because those memories shouldn't exist in the first place (because they couldn't possibly have taken place between Pt 1 and Pt 2)? The level 7 version? All of the above?

There is another issue here as well and that is one of loyalty. A typical 8th level PFS character takes a fair amount of work and risk. Sitting down next to someone with an 8th level character who has never faced that same risk, devalues that accomplishment.

I can understand this point of view, although it edges too far into the realm of "Pathfinder Society is Serious Business" for my taste.

Let me explain further because I tend to be too brief.

When you sit down with an actual PFS character, you sit down with a character that is the sum of his experiences. He has 2 flasks of alchemists fire because those pesky swarms, he has a hand of glory because he ran into too many darkness effects. There is the ubiquitous potion of see invisibile because of the blasted TPK in *spoiler*. There are a couple cool boons on his character sheet from the Paizocon grand melee. You remember very distinctly when your character died and why he has nearly every item in his inventory.

When you sit down with a PFS character you sit down with the sum of all of that and all the memories you've made with that character.

When you sit down with a character for a module, it is the sum of 30 minutes of effort building that character. Even playing a 'future version' of an existing character none of your existing character experience/ chronicles/ boons/ whatever affect the character you sit down with when you play the module. It is at best a pale copy of the original. When you look at your character later that level you gained is a black hole in your character where some other character did something. It's lost forever.

There is another issue here as well and that is one of loyalty. A typical 8th level PFS character takes a fair amount of work and risk. Sitting down next to someone with an 8th level character who has never faced that same risk, devalues that accomplishment. That they ultimately have better access to items and spells due to shiny chronicles from adventures their character never had makes it worse. If PFS is going to grow and thrive, it needs to encourage the sort of player who is willing to work to get their character up to level. Out-of-character module play devalues that experience.

(for the tl;dr crowd)
PFS is about rich characters formed over time. Players have a lot of time and effort invested in it and their characters which are carved by the decisions and experiences...

So am I correct in thinking that you would do away with pre-gen play as well based on your reasons behind disliking leveled-up PCs?

I sympathize were you are coming from and it would be awesome if everyone could have the time and experience to have a PFS game feel like a home campaign, but I'm also not sure playing modules is going to destroy that.

Well, I'm just gonna say my piece so it's on the record.

as it goes so far, I like the module rules as they are. It allows players from multiple levels to sit down and play the same game. With the people I play with that can be really important. I really don't have issues with having death and expenses carry over, but I think the rules are good the way they are.

As for the 13+ change, I'm all for it, and hoping that it goes all the way to level 20. one of the problems I had with PFS was that I'd never get to use the endgame powers.

Dennis Baker wrote:

When you sit down with a PFS character you sit down with the sum of all of that and all the memories you've made with that character.

When you sit down with a character for a module, it is the sum of 30 minutes of effort building that character. Even playing a 'future version' of an existing character none of your existing character experience/ chronicles/ boons/ whatever affect the character you sit down with when you play the module. It is at best a pale copy of the original. When you look at your character later that level you gained is a black hole in your character where some other character did something.

I don't know what to tell you. I don't see how playing a level 9 PC with no adventures under his belt is a "pale copy" or a "black hole" whereas playing a level 1 PC with no adventures under his belt isn't.

When you sit down the next time, one of those characters has experience, the other has... nothing.

In the example I cited above, where a character plays Before the Dawn Pt 1 at level 1, some other modules at levels 2-6 and Before the Dawn Pt 2 at level 7, which is the "black hole"? The level 2-6 version, because those memories shouldn't exist in the first place (because they couldn't possibly have taken place between Pt 1 and Pt 2)? The level 7 version? All of the above?

I suspect few players have that big of a jump but it happens. I played one of them with one character and the other with another character. When you are done with the adventure, your character gets a chronicle for what he actually did though, not for something some other character did.

Dennis Baker wrote:

There is another issue here as well and that is one of loyalty. A typical 8th level PFS character takes a fair amount of work and risk. Sitting down next to someone with an 8th level character who has never faced that same risk, devalues that accomplishment.

I can understand this point of view, although it edges too far into the realm of "Pathfinder Society is Serious Business" for my taste.

I've been chastised many times for suggesting that people take the game too seriously. This might be the first time someone has accused me of the opposite :D

So am I correct in thinking that you would do away with pre-gen play as well based on your reasons behind disliking leveled-up PCs?

I sympathize were you are coming from and it would be awesome if everyone could have the time and experience to have a PFS game feel like a home campaign, but I'm also not sure playing modules is going to destroy that.

To be honest, I would be fine with a lot of compromises. I do feel strongly that the current rules undermine the core values of PFS and that any change should keep those ideas in the forefront.

My feeling on the pregens is they are an ugly solution that allows for some flexibility. Essentially, something that allows you to fill a hole in a pinch, but that doesn't make people want to go out of their way to run the modules out of sequence.

so, a thought occured to me. maybe it's a compromise that's been brought up already, i don't know (there are a LOT of posts to wade through).

one of the complaints about the proposed rules change is that the rules as they stand help lower level characters get up in level faster to catch up with the others so everyone can play together. i'm not sure that i totally agree with that, as low than module level characters have to wait to get those chronicles...

anyway, what about a compromise that would allow players to temporarily de-level an existing PFS character by up to four levels in order to play a module that they would otherwise be too low to play. no leveling upward, no making a new character of an appropriate level and linking it to an existing character.

while i would like to see people be ok with the idea of playing mods at the levels intended, i personally wouldn't mind this as the beginning of a compromise. just my two cents.

Dennis

My flaws sadly do not lie in being too brief ;-). I will try to keep the verbosity down.

I picked no applicable suggestions up from your posts. Feel free to point me at them!

Your coherent and even impassioned argument for why it is best to play characters from the ground up with no funny business rings true. Thing is that in pursuit of the best you are sacrificing the good and leaving many ppl with the worst.

When we played Ebon Destroyers I and two others played a levelled up version of the character who will get XP. One other played their actual PFS character because they could, one guy who is levelling a renamed Valeros actually played the Valeros 7th Pre Gen.
There was dramatic linkage as the characters were themselves just a little older and wiser but the same ppl nonetheless.

The upshot of this is that some 2nd level characters are now third at a time when the games days for the next couple of months are all about first steps and low tier stuff. The plan was that with another mod under our belts and if the recruitment drive works we have wonderful alignment of enough ppl of right levels to play a mix of tiers with all momentum that I hope brings.

W

I suspect few players have that big of a jump but it happens. I played one of them with one character and the other with another character. When you are done with the adventure, your character gets a chronicle for what he actually did though, not for something some other character did.

Dennis,

Doesn't the proposed new system still do this?

If I play 'Ezren Seven' in an adventure, and tie him to Rey, Rey will eventually get a sheet for, "something some other character did."

Likewise, if Ezren Seven dies, Rey dies at level 2.

And if Rey at level 2 has to tie his fate to someone at level 7, and wait for level 7 to benefit, why shouldn't he tie his fate to a level 7 Rey? Level 7 Rey is just as 'real' as Level 7 Ezren.

More or less.

Points up a couple posts where someone asked nearly the same question (link).

I'm not in love with any particule policy and not with the pregens in particular.

The big thing to me is the solution should encourage people to play their own characters at level and with consequences. I also don't care for players gaining PA and experience with no risk. The current module rules fall down on both these ideas.

Mikes proposed solution has the additional benefit of being very close to playing scenarios which means less confusion over conflicting sets of rules.

Maybe Mattastrophic's suggestion isn't so bad. I just don't like the no-risk aspect to it.

Again, my main concern with the change isn't the loss of the No Risk All Reward concept. Really doesn't matter to me. While I'm not thrilled about changing the ability to temporarily level up a character to play the scenario, Mike stated a way that lower level players can still play. My issue comes into play, again, with the fact that if we run a module across multiple sessions (because in all honesty, we can't always play for 9 hours straight that some of these modules would require), the fact that some of the players that I play with would be unable to use their chosen character until a chronicle sheet is handed out.

Let me give you an theoretical situation that can come up in my area.

I'm running Ebon Destroyers. There's a player that is a regular at another location that hears about it, and comes to the location that I'm running the module out of. After a 5 hour session, we decide to break until the next weekend.

During that time, the store that he's a regular at is running their monthly session the next day, and then he has a bi-weekly session that he plays at a few days after that at the same location. He can't use the character that's tied to the module for those two sessions. (Keep in mind, everyone else can't play their characters at my location's weekly session.) So he loses out on 2 sessions with his character.

For some reason, he doesn't make the session where we are finishing the module. Mind you, he's not a regular at our location. We finish up the module, pass out the chronicles, and have to hold his until we are able to get it to him. Now, we add a burden to the GM (me in the case) to try and find a way to get in touch with the player. Easier said than done sometimes.

Another week passes, we haven't been able to get him his chronicle, he still can't play that character in his bi-weekly session. That's now 3 sessions he's lost out on because of how the new rule is worded. At this point, you may have just effectively removed the player from the game.

This is my problem with the new module rule.

@Dennis. Ok, so I missed it. 360 posts the eyes begin to glaze :P

I don't mind the 'risk/reward' option if the benefits weren't deferred but all the penalties are immediate. (Well still grumbling over the 'can't make characters, use an iconic, but one hill at a time.)

In a way, if Erzen 7 survives linked to Rey 2, and Rey won't get the rewards until he's Rey 7 is more annoying as there's nothing that says Rey will ever see those rewards. He might die at Rey 5 and not be able to get reysed. (Sorry, failed will save vs pun) so effectively I'll never get credit for the play.

@John

I think it would be less disruptive as well if the sheets all 'hit at once' as it were (if a bit more book keeping for the player). So for example I go to the Wednesday game and play Rey 2 for the first half of the adventure (we'll say I have 5 XP on Rey). Then I go Saturday and play a scenario with Rey, so he now has enough XP to be level 3. When I go back Wednesday for the second half of the adventure, Rey's still second level. He doesn't get the benefit of the scenario (putting him at third) and completing the module (putting him at 4) until the module is over. Then when I go to the game that following Saturday, he's Rey 4, not Rey 2.

I hope that makes sense.

@Matthew

I don't have a problem with that. But how the revised rule is worded states that Rey starts Module on Wednesday, but module doesn't finish, he CAN NOT be used Saturday.

This is what I have a problem with.

@Dennis. Ok, so I missed it. 360 posts the eyes begin to glaze :P

Wasn't trying to be prickly, just didn't want to repeat myself.

As for the rest of your post. It's a good point and I don't disagree.

I'll give you a problem in return though. I suspect the majority of module chronicles are applied to low level PCs because that's where the biggest 'payoff' is*. You get earlier access to good items, spellcasters get more spells, without paying for scrolls, etc.

How do you reconcile a low level character getting a fairly significant chronicle, early access to items, etc... when they have so little on the line? Does the threat of death even matter if you are applying the chronicle to a 1st level character?

Does the threat of death even matter if you are applying the chronicle to a 1st level character?

Yes! That's my name on the line, dammit! It took three whole weeks to come up with that character name.

Hehe, sorry. I'll go back to hiding now.

@John I agree with your concerns, I was proposing an alternative.

@Dennis. Two thoughts. First is that it would level out (pun intended) as the character leveled up. Also the prestige caps would help slow that.

Second If i understand the module rules, for example. If I played a high level Rey through Tomb of the Iron Medusa today and survived, Rey 2 would 'only' get 1250 GP, right? He might have access to the items on the sheet, but the cheapest (potion of cure critical) is 1400 GP. He's not getting that without at least 1 other adventure under his belt.

It's also my understanding that when Rey is level appropriate 'in real life' He can't play the adventure again for credit. So instead of gaining 1250 for 'someone else's work' he actually loses 18,000 GP (level 9 for TotIM, right?)

This seems to be getting out of hand. If you get stuck playing a Pregen
you should get one XP and the gold amount equal to the tier that you apply the chronicle sheet too you should get access to the junk items that appear on the chronicle sheets of the correct tier that the chacter that you apply the chonicle sheet too. {Ignore my hostile comment on items that appear on chonicle sheets. IMO Pazio should only put items on chonicle sheets that cannot be normally bought with PA/Fame gold but that s just my hostile rant]

Pazio should end the meaningless distingtion between PFS seaarios and sanctioned Modules. Pazio should make chonicle sheets for the sanctioned module and count them as a super senario with the approate awards Just played feast

of ravenmore and had a great time and had no problems ad I just played a 3-4 game and had to use a Pregen as all of my characters were beyond 5th and I did not have the approtunity to start a new character as I Gm'edfor a few weeks as a fill in.

I' going to open up a whole new can of worms, I do not see the utility
of running 1 to 3 level characters of you have several characters that are either retired or beyond 5th level you should just be able to start
a ew character with base gold apprioate to his lebel and 0 fame and prestige so you would not be ever forced to play a pregen if you did not want to.

Having access the items on a higher level chronicles at low levels can be pretty nice. At least one has a couple dozen scrolls which gives a character access to a bunch of spells they would have to purchase otherwise. There are also more than a couple items which are nice to have early access to (before you have enough PA to purchase them normally).

How do you figure he's losing any gold? While he can't play that module again, he is going to play *something* at 9th level and get gold for it. Or are you talking about the new rules? I'm confused.

@Matthew ...your alternative is a great idea

I can certainly see the desire of Paizo to encourage purchase and play of their modules by making them eligible for PFS rewards. However, the reason that I am no longer playing Living Forgotten Realms is because characters should begin at level 1 and advance from there. If you are playing a "PFS" module for level 7 characters, then you should have a level 7 character - whether from PFS scenarios or PFS approved Paizo modules. If you advance a character to 7th or play a pregen, the rewards from the module should not benefit your character because you didn't earn them.

I for one hope that Paizo never allows players to start characters at higher than 1st level. This break a fundamental component of the game for me. That is that there is continuity and if you are playing at a higher level you have worked your way to that point.

In my observations being able to make a character at higher than first level weakens the understanding of and bond to that character. It, to me, kills something infinitely precious. It breaks the continuing story though line that runs through each and every play experience and turns the game into a souless thing of just numbers.

Just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

I am not sure how starting characters at other then first level became part of the discussion, but so we are all aware I have played a few characters the first time that was past 1st level the first time I played them.

GM Credit.

So it is already possible.

Edit: My Alchemist is level 8 and I have only played him once.

I am not sure how starting characters at other then first level became part of the discussion, but so we are all aware I have played a few characters the first time that was past 1st level the first time I played them.

GM Credit.

So it is already possible.

Edit: My Alchemist is level 8 and I have only played him once.

My Gunslinger (start the boos now) has only been played 3 times, and he's level 6. But I think that they mean that a character shouldn't be created to be used in a higher level module at creation, unlike a GM's character that gets past the lower levels through GM credits where as we should already have the character created.

My Gunslinger (start the boos now) has only been played 3 times, and he's level 6. But I think that they mean that a character shouldn't be created to be used in a higher level module at creation, unlike a GM's character that gets past the lower levels through GM credits where as we should already have the character created.

Ok I see that, but not really the same thing... It is only for the Module, The character is actually still on the level he is based on his xp for all other play.

Right now, prior to this rule change, it was set up that way for part of the reason of, Hey all of us can play together even if we don't have a PC of the right level just for this Game. That was one problem in the PFS rules that it was not possible to do that, the Modules filled the hole slightly.

Of course with Mike, He does not see that as a problem that needs to be fixed so he is changing it to the new rules.

Different Philosophy, Different rules.

I can't help but wonder,

If the proposed rules had been the original rules would there still have been this upset over a system?

People whined and were given sanctioned modules yayyyyy

Paizo now has several different rules set for ONE game

Paizo makes change to streamline things and make it easier in the long run

People whine because their toy is being taken away

Paizo - bang head on desk

I didn't see what the issue was before the change; The only issue I could see with now with the change is for some parties is the fact that a PC doesn't level up whilst mid-module. Now this isn't a deal breaker, as whenever we have done modules (I have run one or two before they have been inducted into PFS) our parties and characters have always approached the challenge with caution.

I don't agree with the no risk, no reward line of arguments as character death under the old rules; resulted in lower XP and gold completed for the module. (And I have personally had a death which would have likely resulted in a much loved character being removed from play as the funds just weren't there for raise dead).

That said, I am looking forward to playing under the new rules. The possibility of getting the full reward (even with a death is nice) and the ability to play past the cap is awesome too.

My two cents on other issues raised;

Everyone should start at level 1 - experience should be earned.

Keep a restriction to the races and boons - support of events and PFS needs to continue to grow the community. Making the effort to support store owners and community events is good for the game and our hobby.

Other then the +12 rules, I don't like these changes at all, sure the way they are now there is no risk of anything bad that happens to your character while playing through a module will pass on to your actual character but if the changes are made then if your character dies then you lose the character when the modules done if you can't raise him, sure that's what happens when you play an actual scenario, but if you use a pregen and it dies you still lose your character that there just doesn't seem right to me.

I'm 100% cent sure if these rules changes go through it will kill the module play at the game store I go to for sure.

Dennis, a couple of things.

1) Your so-called PFS "constant" PC player is either not paying attention to his PC, and buyiong items he does not need, or you just named things without checking what they are (cf. Hand of Glory and the non-existent potion of See Invibility).

2) I think you are having a problem or maybe the people who see the samne things I see are not being clear.

Your issue is that one shouldn't play the modules without risk. Okay, I don't disagree with that. That part may need more discussion, because the risk and reward are, under the proposed rules, not commensurate with each other.

3) What I would like to see still allowed, because NONE of the various proposed solutions I have seen in this thread, or any other, would work for my particular situation, would be to continue to allow the leveled version of an out-of-tier PC to play a module.

At present, I will probably be able to run the module at the end of next month with "approriate" PCs, but it is going to probably increase the risk, since, like many modules, it probably is designed with the idea of the PCs gaining a level during the course of the module, rather than being static, effectively, for the whole 12 hour stretch. YMMV.

So, currently, you object to risk without rewards, and feel that temporarily-leveled PCs negate the foundation of PFS.

Me? I think that the only way to add risk is to make sure that the rewards are in proper proportion to the risk. Hard to tell, since we are only hearing about the rewards increasing, but being delayed if you assigned them to an out-of-tier PC, instead of having all-tier appropriate rewards, as they currently offer.

On the subject of PCs "remembering" where they got X chronicle, not as many chronicles are currently presented. No insult to the current campaign management, but a lot of chronicles have very little on them to help in remembering what the heck happened during that scenario.

As an example, I remember more from the time I ran the Heresy of Man series than I do from when I played it. And some experiences dono't deserve being remembered. "Yet another scenario with swarms, and some sort of BBEG using Darkness/Deeper Darkness." Your milage may vary, but waaaay too many scenarios that I have played seem to have that stuff in them.

And the should-be-memorable scenarios frequently don't have anything on their Chronicle to help make the memory stick. Even Frostfur Captives has only one item, which could easily be marked off the chronicle, to help make the player remember which scenario that was.

Even with Module play, under the current rules, you can have players saying, "I remember when Kenaldin was involved in taking down X. It was a heroic battle, half of us were down by the end of the fight, and the Barbarian, with 1 hit point left!, barely managed to take out the BBEG before he fell over."

That kind of memory, which is what you are referring to, is truly independent of level, scenario, module or special, and it doesn't matter that player X played that with a leveled up version of his PC or not, if it was memorable, it is part of his PC's history. If it wasn't, it won't be.

By the way, unless I missed something somewhere, I could have sworn the core tenet of PFSOP was to have a fun time playing Pathfinder RPG together. I would find that the new "only level appropriate" part of the module rules to be something that reduces, if only in a small way, my enjoyment of PFSOP. Again, YMMV.

@Rolen, I think that having dead is dead helps keep modules in line with rules of scenarios. Right now, modules are no risk all reward. You complete a scenario, you get at least 1 xp and 1 pp. If your character dies, doesn't matter, he shrugs it off and carries on.

I'm not a big fan of that personally. Because it allows players (including lower level players with artificially buffed characters) to go into a session being kamikaze, instead of trying to develop a strategy to get through it or worrying about the consequences of their actions.

@Rolen, I think that having dead is dead helps keep modules in line with rules of scenarios. Right now, modules are no risk all reward. You complete a scenario, you get at least 1 xp and 1 pp. If your character dies, doesn't matter, he shrugs it off and carries on.

I'm not a big fan of that personally. Because it allows players (including lower level players with artificially buffed characters) to go into a session being kamikaze, instead of trying to develop a strategy to get through it or worrying about the consequences of their actions.

Ya know, I would love to see where this is coming from. I haven't seen anything like it, in all the modules I have played & run in. Even the notably insane We Be Goblins games I have played & run haven't tended toward this level of callousness.

Heck, locally, people do usually their best to keep the pregens alive, and seldom do anything that consitutes abuse of thewir consumables, and I have never seen the "Let's give the pregen's permanent equipment to X to use."

Maybe it is the local attitude that, in general, having your character die is "losing" has an effect. YMMV.

John W Johnson wrote:

@Rolen, I think that having dead is dead helps keep modules in line with rules of scenarios. Right now, modules are no risk all reward. You complete a scenario, you get at least 1 xp and 1 pp. If your character dies, doesn't matter, he shrugs it off and carries on.

I'm not a big fan of that personally. Because it allows players (including lower level players with artificially buffed characters) to go into a session being kamikaze, instead of trying to develop a strategy to get through it or worrying about the consequences of their actions.

Ya know, I would love to see where this is coming from. I haven't seen anything like it, in all the modules I have played & run in. Even the notably insane We Be Goblins games I have played & run haven't tended toward this level of callousness.

Heck, locally, people do usually their best to keep the pregens alive, and seldom do anything that consitutes abuse of thewir consumables, and I have never seen the "Let's give the pregen's permanent equipment to X to use."

Maybe it is the local attitude that, in general, having your character die is "losing" has an effect. YMMV.

Sadly, I have seen it.

(Sorry, folks long weekend of computers dying and being reborn. I swear the roomie has an entropy curse. Renewed my wards just in case.)

@Dennis, yeah my 'losing 19K GP' example was flawed on review mea culpa.

Under the current system, Rey 2 is sitting at home when a space warp opens. Rey 7 or Ezren 7 steps through, and gives him a goodie bag of XP, gold and buyable items. In exchange, Rey 2 will never get to go through that module.*

Under the proposed system, Rey 2 is sitting at home when he dies of an anyurism (Ezren 7 dies in the adventure) or he gets a paper slip saying "Good for one free power up when you grow up." (Ezren survives)

The first was no risk for some reward. The new method is high risk for possibly no reward. (If Rey dies at level 6, he'll never get to use his coupon)

I could possibly even live with Rey gets the rewards and penalties at level 7. This would give Rey 4 levels to save enough gold for Ezren 7's delayed annyurism to be over come "Oh, I died, but I banked enough gold to pay for it."

As to the 'but he gets scrolls early' So? This long term benefits three classes (witch, wizard, magus). We already have imbalances in the system coded in. I'm never going to get to Paizocon (and likely not to GenCon for a few years)** so I'm never going to get a 'tiefling boon' or a 'planetouched boon.' I'm going to be teaching the godkids with the beginner's box scenarios, but they're not going to get a 'get out of hell free' card because there were no bashes in our area. A kid in Cincinnati who goes to Origins and my godkids could have played the exact same scenarios and be exactly the same, but when Emaleigh loses her character she's dead, while Cincinnati boy gets to play his get out of hell free card and keep going. That's life. Life's not fair. So I don't see an issue with Rey 2 having access to scrolls.

The other thing that bothers me is worries about people exploiting the system. So? Any system can be exploited. As was mentioned in the "Do I punish a player for a GM mistake" thread, we work on the honour system. So why do we assume the worst about each other?

*

I can't help but wonder,

If the proposed rules had been the original rules would there still have been this upset over a system?

People whined and were given sanctioned modules yayyyyy

Paizo now has several different rules set for ONE game

Paizo makes change to streamline things and make it easier in the long run

People whine because their toy is being taken away

Paizo - bang head on desk

In many walks of life design decisions have unexpected consequences. These side effects can be good or bad. I am 100% sure that if I had been asked 2 years ago. I would have applied the traditional home game mentality that you start at first and work your way up. No exceptions , no way no how! (Shakes fist in LFRs direction)

It was not until I saw how useful allowing players to use mods to level their real PCs that I gained a new perspective.

I would like under all circumstances to allow players to play characters in modules and scenario's simultaneously, with death in either being fatal. It just works better that way as modules require the same ppl for several sessions, scenarios don't

I would like the rules on modules to allow the XP to be applied to the linked PC at the players discretion for all the reasons I have mentioned here.

Having slightly different rules for slightly different cases (modules are not just longer scenarios, they cannot be reasonably played in one go) is pretty unavoidable. Throwing out babies with bath water just to make these differences slightly more streamlined makes little sense. Though clearly I am seeing rather more baby and less bath water than other ppl posting here!

Even if going forward we are moving away from this, allowing a limited number of modules to used in the manner I support would be some help.

W

hmmm, I am curious with what Mike's Blog is going to be this week... Another almost 400 posts?... ;)

Under the current system, Rey 2 is sitting at home when a space warp opens. Rey 7 or Ezren 7 steps through, and gives him a goodie bag of XP, gold and buyable items. In exchange, Rey 2 will never get to go through that module.*

Under the proposed system, Rey 2 is sitting at home when he dies of an anyurism (Ezren 7 dies in the adventure) or he gets a paper slip saying "Good for one free power up when you grow up." (Ezren survives)

This cracked me up.

I think it's safe to say that almost no-one would choose the pregens except in a pinch. Which means modules are changing so they play just like scenarios where people play them at-level or just playing in the modules for fun. All that time travel is messy anyhow.

What if there were no risk and a chronicle that didn't have experience or PA on it? So Rey 2 dreams of future awesomeness and wakes up to discover he speaks Vudrani and knows the name of some guy in Jalmaray he can use for a local hookup.

hmmm, I am curious with what Mike's Blog is going to be this week... Another almost 400 posts?... ;)

I thought about posting changes to 5 star GM requirements and maintenance in today's blog but I think one 400 post blog per month is good......

By the way, we've taken all the suggestions from these 384 posts and will be tweaking the way sanctioned modules work from the original blog post. I don't want to go into too much detail yet, but we won't be using linked characters so rest easy with that knowledge. Pregen use will change from what is currently being used, however, and articifally-leveled characters (whether up or down) will be going away.

I thought about posting changes to 5 star GM requirements and maintenance in today's blog but I think one 400 post blog per month is good......

Damn! I have been waiting for that Post... I fully blame the lack of the Blog solely on myself..;)

And ok on the other stuff.

By the way, we've taken all the suggestions from these 384 posts and will be tweaking the way sanctioned modules work from the original blog post. I don't want to go into too much detail yet, but we won't be using linked characters so rest easy with that knowledge. Pregen use will change from what is currently being used, however, and articifally-leveled characters (whether up or down) will be going away.

Can't wait.

Matthew Morris wrote:

Under the current system, Rey 2 is sitting at home when a space warp opens. Rey 7 or Ezren 7 steps through, and gives him a goodie bag of XP, gold and buyable items. In exchange, Rey 2 will never get to go through that module.*

Under the proposed system, Rey 2 is sitting at home when he dies of an anyurism (Ezren 7 dies in the adventure) or he gets a paper slip saying "Good for one free power up when you grow up." (Ezren survives)

This cracked me up.

I think it's safe to say that almost no-one would choose the pregens except in a pinch. Which means modules are changing so they play just like scenarios where people play them at-level or just playing in the modules for fun. All that time travel is messy anyhow.

What if there were no risk and a chronicle that didn't have experience or PA on it? So Rey 2 dreams of future awesomeness and wakes up to discover he speaks Vudrani and knows the name of some guy in Jalmaray he can use for a local hookup.

Good to know I'm good for a laugh. :P

I don't think it would be so bad, though I'd still like the option to play Rey when he 'grows up' through the adventure.

By the way, we've taken all the suggestions from these 384 posts and will be tweaking the way sanctioned modules work from the original blog post. I don't want to go into too much detail yet, but we won't be using linked characters so rest easy with that knowledge. Pregen use will change from what is currently being used, however, and articifally-leveled characters (whether up or down) will be going away.

While I will likely still grumble about something, thank you for listening to the pleas of the horde ;-)

@Rolen, I think that having dead is dead helps keep modules in line with rules of scenarios. Right now, modules are no risk all reward. You complete a scenario, you get at least 1 xp and 1 pp. If your character dies, doesn't matter, he shrugs it off and carries on.

I'm not a big fan of that personally. Because it allows players (including lower level players with artificially buffed characters) to go into a session being kamikaze, instead of trying to develop a strategy to get through it or worrying about the consequences of their actions.

I get what your saying, it's not fun to run a game where your group just runs on at full steam even if that means running to there deaths because they know that there characters won't actually die and they will just get back up and continue there adventure.

But what I can see in the rule changes if your character dies while in a module then you have a new character to play that is at the right level for the module in order to keep playing or you have to wait until its finished so you can play with that group again, that there seems to go against what PFS is all about.

Now that is how I'm seeing it but if I'm misreading it and am wrong about that then fine I'll accept that but if not then it should be looked over and changed so that it doesn't remove the fun from playing the modules for PFS.

People whine because their toy is being taken away

Thea, that is the crux of it.

Some people are losing more than gaining. If not Mike could say ok if you play a character who you leveled up or a pre gen to play a MOD then you get...NOTHING and when your player is level appropriate you can play the mod again for credit.

Thea Peters wrote:

People whine because their toy is being taken away

Thea, that is the crux of it.

Some people are losing more than gaining. If not Mike could say ok if you play a character who you leveled up or a pre gen to play a MOD then you get...NOTHING and when your player is level appropriate you can play the mod again for credit.

This thread was created to gather opinions on a proposed rules change. I suspect I may dislike the rules that emerge, probably even less than I liked the initial proposal but I am satisfied that the opinions expressed here are valid and in many cases expressed by people with decades of GMing experience both in & out of OP environments. As such surely it was a worthwhile exercise?

I don't want to be holier than thou and don't want to get into a pointless row but the line of thought expressed by Thea and Shivok saddens me.

It is depressing if rather tellng when ppl choose to characterise those who express a contrary position as whining. Or if someone does not agree with a proposal they should simply be grateful that they didn't get something worse. How does treating anyone with such scant regard help encourage a constructive environment?

Surely our shared aim is to make a stronger OP campaign. Concluding that opinions which start from a different premise or reach a different conclusion to oneself can just be dismissed as whining or childish is a trait I have seen often amongst gamers. IMHO it is not our noblest characteristic.

W

This thread was created to gather opinions on a proposed rules change. I suspect I may dislike the rules that emerge, probably even less than I liked the initial proposal but I am satisfied that the opinions expressed here are valid and in many cases expressed by people with decades of GMing experience both in & out of OP environments. As such surely it was a worthwhile exercise?

I don't want to be holier than thou and don't want to get into a pointless row but the line of thought expressed by Thea and Shivok saddens me.

It is depressing if rather tellng when ppl choose to characterise those who express a contrary position as whining. Or if someone does not agree with a proposal they should simply be grateful that they didn't get something worse. How does treating anyone with such scant regard help encourage a constructive environment?

Surely our shared aim is to make a stronger OP campaign. Concluding that opinions which start from a different premise or reach a different conclusion to oneself can just be dismissed as whining or childish is a trait I have seen often amongst gamers. IMHO it is not our noblest characteristic.

W

Heretic,

I'm sorry if you took offense to me saying that the views presented here by people were whining. Yes, there were a lot of valid points made .. in the first couple of pages of the thread. IMO after the first couple pages of any thread a messages looses it's meaning when it's repeated and repeated and repeated and people break down to being spiteful.

In my opinion, Had these proposed rules been the original rules we would not have had this thread. For the simple reason people would have been happy getting the sanctioned modules after having "commented" that they were running out of scenarios. They would have been happy with the ruleset as it was presented.

If you want (what in my opinion) is a perfect example of this, search for the old threads on the replay rule. You'll note that one of the same people that complained that the original replay rule was to harsh and unfair towards judges... later complained that the new ruleset was hurting his store business. That is where part of my comment comes from.

As a society (as a whole not just gaming) can never just be happy with what we are given, we have to find a way to tear down what we are given and then b&&+* and moan about it.

I will always stand by my statement: This is a game, let it be a game.

Like with other things in life, if you don't like the rules set forth don't participate. That may seem harsh, but personally I would rather play with people that are in it to enjoy the game then those that are looking for ways to tear the game apart and nitpick little nuances of it.

Surely our shared aim is to make a stronger OP campaign. Concluding that opinions which start from a different premise or reach a different conclusion to oneself can just be dismissed as whining or childish is a trait I have seen often amongst gamers. IMHO it is not our noblest characteristic.

I think we're all here to make a stronger community and expressing differing viewpoints is one way to do that.. but let me ask you this, how does 400+ comment threads where people are bickering and arguing make our community stronger? How does nitpicking threads where one person asks an innocent question that result in all out word wars make our community stronger? How does posting questions on gaming sessions that you've had issues with (instead of going to the judge) make our community stronger.

If I made one person actually think about how they were saying what they said then my post was a success in my opinion.

We have several well spoken people (Thod is the one coming to mind) that can get his point across without slinging mud. Which is a feat considering all the slinging that goes on in some of these threads.

I, for one, appreciate the fact that Mike gives us the opportunity to give our opinions on things, I'd much rather have that then surprises sprung on me about a change. However, how long to we think that's going to last when all his threads about rules changes turn into giant mudslinging parties? We're all entitled to our opinion, I just wish that people would remember that we're all adults and some of our actions are childish.

Given that Mr. Brock seems to have read through a '400 post' thread, I find the 'signal to noise' argument rather hollow.

I don't think there are many who are arguing from bad faith. Most people who post on this thread have feelings on what makes the game better* to dismiss someone's opinion as 'whining' because the thread is so long is, to me, intellectually lazy.

Especially when you don't comment until page 8.

Though I will appriciate your honesty

I'm sorry if you took offense to me saying that the views presented here by people were whining. Yes, there were a lot of valid points made .. in the first couple of pages of the thread. IMO after the first couple pages of any thread a messages looses it's meaning when it's repeated and repeated and repeated and people break down to being spiteful.

In admitting you're being spiteful.

*

I don't think there are many who are arguing from bad faith. Most people who post on this thread have feelings on what makes the game better* to dismiss someone's opinion as 'whining' because the thread is so long is, to me, intellectually lazy.

Especially when you don't comment until page 8.

Though I will appriciate your honesty

Thea wrote:

I'm sorry if you took offense to me saying that the views presented here by people were whining. Yes, there were a lot of valid points made .. in the first couple of pages of the thread. IMO after the first couple pages of any thread a messages looses it's meaning when it's repeated and repeated and repeated and people break down to being spiteful.

In admitting you're being spiteful.

*** spoiler omitted **

I don't think I was admitting I was spiteful.... spiteful is calling someone intellectually lazy (imo). But thank you for making my point.

If it makes you feel better to call me lazy than I hope it worked.

I didn't comment as I didn't have anything to add that hasn't already be said. As for waiting until page 8 to comment .. sorry busy with real life and I don't have time to sit and refresh the forums all day.

I'm sorry if you took offence to the comment of 'intellectually lazy' Thea. But thank you for proving my point.

After 8 pages all 'you had to add' was that you thought anyone who disagreed with you was 'whining'. Coy words won't change that.

I just pointed out that, by your standards, you had nothing to add to the thread except insulting people by saying they were whining.

Lots of valid discussions, and lots of posts without people hurling insults. I'm sure if you try, you might be able to contribute both.

Well, I'm just gonna say my piece so it's on the record.

as it goes so far, I like the module rules as they are. It allows players from multiple levels to sit down and play the same game. With the people I play with that can be really important. I really don't have issues with having death and expenses carry over, but I think the rules are good the way they are.

As for the 13+ change, I'm all for it, and hoping that it goes all the way to level 20. one of the problems I had with PFS was that I'd never get to use the endgame powers.

+1

Since we play in the same modules as well as scenarios with a dozen and growing different players and there hasn't been any problems so far, it makes no since to make changes. It's not broke and I feel that higher-ups forget its a game, it’s supposed to be fun and entertaining, and it doesn't need to have a permanent kill count every time you play and they don't need to control all the minutia of everybody elses game. The low PP and lack of XP if you do die, more than makes up for expenses that need to be constantly tracked or expensive deaths due to a pregen that nobody wants to play anyway.

Why would anybody want to play a character that they have absolutely no attachment to, so they could lose a character that they have an attachment to?

Modules always have a hard-to-kill boss and the kill counts have always been there. People don't gain much from playing the module except, "I better do something different with my build." The boons can be nice and maybe we get lucky and gain a level too.

I believe with the suggested rule changes that the sells of Modules will crumble. I don't believe anybody I play with will want to play a pregen and then die because they're not knowledgeable in all their abilities or even because of a lack of caring about some character they have no attachment to.

I know if Chris (one of our DMs that runs Modules) told us about these New Rules for a Module when he first suggested running them, a few, if not all of us would have told him not to bother.

1) If you must have changes, then at least let players play their characters leveled up. 2) If you must have permanent deaths, then have the player lose the XP and miss the next section (maybe the final section) of the Module or maybe pay a PP as well to play that session too. 3) I'd suggest not forcing DMs and players to track items they buy for a Module but maybe limit them in the amount of items, by cost, they can have on them for said level.

These are comments and suggestions as I see them. As well, games are about people getting together and having a good time. It's not about some DM's idea of a good time for himself by getting a phenomenal kill count or beating people into virtual poverty.