Improvements Are A-Comin'

Monday, November 17, 2014


Illustration by Taylor Fischer

Over the past several months, there have been some growing concerns with Pathfinder Society Organized Play. As we would like to take action to correct the concerns instead of let them grow and fester, we reached out to all 395 Venture-Officers a month ago to receive their feedback on what was wrong with the campaign, what was good about the campaign, and what we could do to improve or correct things to make Pathfinder Society even more awesome. Even though there were some difficult opinions expressed, most were true and it caused us to take a hard look at the organized play program.

After receiving feedback from the Venture-Officers, we formed a team of Paizo employees to work on solutions for the concerns that were expressed. This team included Lisa Stevens and Erik Mona, Mark Seifter and Mark Moreland, John Compton, and me. There were 327 responses from our VOs regarding thoughts and feedback on the current state of PFS. I went through each and every post and listed every one of the concerns expressed on a large white board in our conference room. The meeting took upwards of six hours, and through debate, discussion, and some give and take, we came up with some solutions to most of the concerns that were expressed.

The Venture-Officers are aware of many of the initatives we have set forth to accomplish the goals. There are still other topics we are continuing to discuss on the Venture-Officer message board to make sure they are the best we can make them for the campaign at large. I wanted to write this blog to bring the player base up-to-date on some of the initiatives we have set into motion with the awesome collaboration that took place between the VOs and the Paizo team.

Factions

First, let's talk about factions and their roles. After much discussion here at Paizo, specifically on some problems that were brought up in the long discussion with all of the Venture-Officers, we agree that factions currently don't play as important a role as we would like them to. We want factions to have meaning and substance. We think our factions help to set PFS apart from other organized play campaigns. We have strategized a four-pronged plan of attack which we think will help return factions to a more important role in the campaign.

  • The five new factions are receiving a professional makeover for their faction symbols. Grand Lodge and Silver Crusade faction symbols will remain unchanged. If you have suggestions on what they should look like, please start a different thread. The target goal for this to be implemented is by the end of 2014.
  • There will be revised and improved write-ups of each faction for both the PFS landing page at paizo.com and the Guide to Organized Play. We plan to implement these write-ups by the end of 2014.
  • We will be adding "The Story So Far" type of pages to the PFS landing page at paizo.com. John is assembling a team of writers to help him accomplish this goal for all past seasons. These will be spoiler-lite and help to sum up each season for new and old players alike. The target goal for this is end of February 2015.
  • We will be producing Faction Journal cards, similar to the PAXPort or the quests cards we provide at Gen Con. There will be one Faction Journal card for each of the seven factions.
    • The front of the card will list a series of goals (likely 10) to complete for the current season. These goals will be generic enough that they can be accomplished from playing not just the current season, but past season scenarios as well. For example, the Dark Archive Faction Journal may have one of their 10 goals be to find and recover five named manuals to bring back to the archives in Absalom. These could include the Inward-Facing Circle book from Silent Tide, the dozen black vellum scrolls in Voice in the Void, and any other documents or manuals that are found in sanctioned adventures. Each time you accomplish a goal, the GM will check off or initial a box on that particular goal.
    • The back of the card will include three award thresholds for accomplishing a set number of these goals. For example, if a PC completes three of the 10 goals, they will receive a small favor from their faction or a unique, faction-specific item. If they complete six of the ten goals, they could possibly receive a unique title that provides certain benefits or a better unique faction item. If they complete all 10 of the faction goals, their clout with their faction is sufficent to extend benefits to other PCs at tables where the character is present, while making their presence (and that of their faction) important to every character at the table. As a working example, a Silver Crusade PC who has completed all 10 of her faction's goals on her card might be able to use the her renown to call in a favor and reduce the prestige point cost of any PC's raise dead by 4 so long as she's there to flex her faction's muscles. Although this might not be the reward that appears on the Silver Crusade faction card when we finish this project, it gives a good example of the type of reward we're aiming for.
    • To reward GMs, we are considering adding an 11th optional goal that would be applied to the three different thresholds of rewards. For example, we may list 10 check boxes and for each scenario GMed in the current season, one check box could be completed. Once all ten are filled, one goal toward the a reward threshold would be met, leaving only two more to complete through playing the character.
    • The back of the card will also feature a form of the revised write-up of the faction described in bullet number two above, as well as a summation of season-long goals in descriptive text. This descriptive text will explain why the PC is trying to achieve the 10 goals for the faction and how it will aid the faction in the future—likely in the form of the faction head letters.
    • We realize that we are introducing this half way through the current season so everyone may not be able to complete the card for this season. On day one of Gen Con 2015, no more faction goals may be checked off from the Season 6 card. On the same day, a new Season 7 card will become available that may include a bonus reward depending on if the character completed five or more goals from the previous season. We hope this fresh approach will help to build the excitement in factions for future seasons as we plan to introduce updated faction goal cards every season at Gen Con.
    • These Faction Journal Cards will be provided as a free download on paizo.com, so anyone can print one off for a new or existing character at any time.
    • Every character may have one card assigned to him. If the PC changes factions any time in the future, he would lose all benefits from the card.
    • The Faction Journal card would not override the primary and secondary success conditions set forth in the scenario. Those are still in place to continue enforcing the importance of being a Pathfinder. The Faction Journal card will allow for more depth by adding greater meaning to the factions.
    • Use of the Faction Journal card is optional. A PC never has to take one, use one, or try to complete one.
    • The Faction Journal cards should be available by the end of January.

Scenario Length

Over time, scenarios have become longer, both in terms of word count dedicated to the adventure (rather than to faction missions, for example) and in terms of run-time. To an extent, it's also tied to the increased number of lengthy role-playing scenes and tougher combats intended to match the six-player assumption (i.e. more PCs means more enemies means more time spent in combat). In most circumstances, the longer scenarios are, the harder they are to schedule and run.

We are taking the following steps to address this issue and bring the expected run time (time from mission briefing to the resolution of the final encounter, not including set-up and paperwork) to four hours:

  • Cut one encounter from Tier 5-9 and Tier 7-11 scenarios. These higher-level scenarios run over most often, and it's mostly a matter of high-level combat taking longer.
  • Revise encounter expectations for Tier 3-7 to minimize long, drawn-out encounters resulting from especially high challenge ratings. If necessary, we will cut an encounter from Tier 3-7 scenarios, but preferably these can still work under approximately the same model.
  • There are no changes expected on this front for Tier 1-5 scenarios, which generally fit the four-hour model without much trouble.
  • You should start seeing these changes implemented in scenarios in December 2014 or January 2015.

Scenario Difficulty

We have heard your feedback that scenarios have become harder to just pick up and run. In part this is due to a large number of scenario-specific subsystems that require the GM—and sometimes the players—to learn a new set of rules during the scenario. In part, it's also a result of the reliance on the Pathfinder Reference Document when providing only short stat blocks for encounters. There's also the matter of the increasingly involved stories that scenarios are telling.

We are taking the following steps to mitigate these issues:

  • Provide an appendix that includes the full Bestiary and NPC Codex pages referenced in the adventure as well as an un-tagged copy of any custom maps that appear in the scenario.
  • Cap the number of required GM resources at four books per scenario (including the Core Rulebook). This should be relatively easy if the Bestiary pages are already included in the back of the adventure, as in most cases approximately half of the books referenced are Bestiaries.
  • Include full stat blocks for creatures modified by the advanced, giant, or young simple templates. The exception to this would be modifications that appear in the "Scaling Encounter XYZ" sidebars. For example, if the adventure says that there should be an advanced otyugh, the full stats for an advanced otyugh will be there and ready to go. If the scaling notes say that a four-person group should instead face a young otyugh, those stats would not appear. This should at least cover the essential modifications and reduce the amount of on-the-fly adjustment that a GM needs to do.
  • Limit the number of rules subsystems in scenarios. Subsystems aren't going away entirely, but we need to avoid relying on subsystems and simply save them for the times that they'll have the greatest impact. Should an especially large subsystem such as mass combat appear in a scenario again for whatever reason, it would be advertised on the product page. Simple point-tracking mechanics that only the GM sees (for example, keeping track of how many clues the PCs uncover) are likely to show up a little less often but are still a useful tool.
  • You should start seeing these changes implemented in scenarios in December 2014 or January 2015.

Season Plotline

Over the past four seasons, the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign has based its season-long plotline on the most recent Adventure Path products. In some ways this has worked well due to the new campaign setting content available to players, GMs, and authors, but nearly as often, this decision has caused problems—either by binding the story of the campaign to that of a different product (and the continuity difficulties that can arise), driving the Society to do things that don't necessarily fit its mandate, or subjecting the community to a long storyline when many participants begin losing interest after the first several months. As the list of scenarios grows longer, the list of metaplots grows as well, providing a barrier to newer players getting involved.

To combat these trends, we are taking the following steps:

  • Stop tying the campaign's story to those of the Adventure Paths. Player responses suggest that the Destiny of the Sands model of using a current Adventure Path as inspiration for a three-part series is about right, and even then it's not mandatory that every Adventure Path receives this treatment.
  • Provide Pathfinder Society its own storyline using its own existing plot threads and creating new ones.
  • Expand the number of stand-alone scenarios that explore a wide variety of locations rather than get tied down in one location with an ongoing story that is tough to follow if one misses a few pieces.
  • Provide a "The Story Thus Far" handout that provides a low-spoiler summary of each season's storyline so that a player can quickly catch up on the critical plot concepts when sitting down to an adventure that deals with ongoing metaplot elements. The working length for each handout is about four paragraphs or 300-400 words. There would be one such document for each season and perhaps one for a few of the most complex ongoing metaplots (Grandmaster Torch, for example).
  • You should start seeing these changes implemented at the beginning of Season 7, though some like "The Story Thus Far" handouts are likely to appear sooner.

Quests

From our feedback about the success of the Silverhex Chronicles quest line, we are aware we need more Quests and Quest-like events. Since we already have nine different Beginner Box quests broken up into parts one and two, this was topic was a no brainer.

We have added two Chronicle sheets to the development schedule for the Beginner Box Demos. One will be for the four demos in part one and the other will be for the five demos in part two. These should allow for you to draw more interest from players wanting to try the system out, as well as give you another two sets of quest-style adventures to run, bringing the immediate total of quests to three sets with the inclusion of the Silverhex Chronicles quests. Look for these two Chronicle sheets by the end of 2014.

We have quite a few more changes and additions in the works, and I can't wait to tell you about them. However, some are more ideas than polished action plans, so we need a bit more time to make sure we get the other exciting changes to PFS in order before we release the rest of this information publicly.

As always, we look forward to trying to create the best Organized Play experience we can for all of you. Please read our collected thoughts above and let us know what you think, how we might improve upon the ideas, and what we could change to make them better. Thanks again for being the best fanbase any game company out there has. Without your input, as well as that of the awesome Venture-Officer corp, we certainly could not make PFS the best organized play campaign available anywhere in the world.

Mike Brock
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Factions Pathfinder Society Pathfinder Society Quests Pathfinder Society Scenarios Taylor Fischer
101 to 150 of 299 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Illinois—Champaign-Urbana

All very good news, folks -- thank you! As a player I'm happy to see the renewed emphasis on factions, since their reduced role has been my least favorite part of the campaign's evolution. From the GM/organizer perspective, I (and my FLGS owner) appreciate changes that make scenarios fit into 4-hour play slots. Overall I like PFS exploring more of Golarion in one-shots and having its own campaign focus separate from the APs. Kudos!

The Exchange

Nice! Thank-you for getting those long high level combats under control! :)

Paizo Employee 4/5 Developer

Nefreet wrote:

Love the blog. Most of it sings to me. I noticed changes that some prominent posters have wanted for some time, and that makes me happy.

But (there's always a "but"), the change I was most hoping to read about was nowhere to be found.

Are there plans to release a new retirement arc?

I believe this is the latest any of us have said about another level 12+ arc.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to be the dissenting voice here. I'm waiting for someone to just say 'Screw it' to this Gordian knot of a mess of PFS and then say 'Let's start over... from the ground up'.

1/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Perry Snow wrote:
I'm going to be the dissenting voice here. I'm waiting for someone to just say 'Screw it' to this Gordian knot of a mess of PFS and then say 'Let's start over... from the ground up'.

I wouldn't expect that unless/until there is an edition change. Just my opinion. of course.

Scarab Sages

bugleyman wrote:
Perry Snow wrote:
I'm going to be the dissenting voice here. I'm waiting for someone to just say 'Screw it' to this Gordian knot of a mess of PFS and then say 'Let's start over... from the ground up'.
I wouldn't expect that unless/until there is an edition change. Just my opinion. of course.

I think you're right :)

1/5

rknop wrote:
One other thing occurs to me- how will the faction cards be handled for online play? With chronicle sheets, it's mostly one-way transmission (GM to player), but these sound like they'd need back and forth, which could be a nightmare of software and format incompatibility and image degradation and such.

Here's an idea:

A player completes x,y,z, and the GM can note it on the Chronicle sheet and the player can mark it on the Faction card. The faction chard should list the chronicle the task was completed in or any chronicle that there was progress made.

Would that work?

1/5

I have to say I like the changes.

I'm rather found of the Faction Card changes and hope they work out well for PFS.

I did want to make a comment on this:

Quote:
Limit the number of rules subsystems in scenarios. Subsystems aren't going away entirely, but we need to avoid relying on subsystems and simply save them for the times that they'll have the greatest impact.

I really enjoy the way subsystems have been introduced. I even enjoy chases in scenarios. The subsystems are a welcomed break from the routine of most scenarios, especially when they provide players an opportunity to leverage skills in new ways. What I would recommend is that you simply notate that:

THIS SCENARIO USES A SUBSYSTEM - DO NOT GM THIS COLD

On the front cover. This way GMs can know to avoid this scenario if they aren't prepped.

Sovereign Court 5/5 5/55/5

Are the faction cards exempt from the general rule that you receive no mechanical benefit from replaying? Also, can you tick off boxes on a faction card when you apply GM credit to a character?

4/5 **

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Can we at least wait until they exist before we start looking for loopholes to min-max benefit from them?

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Can someone ask a question about a new announcement without having perjoratives like "min-max" and "loophole" thrown at them?

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

Chernobyl wrote:
I played LG for the last 4 years of the campaign, and most of the games we played were at cons or game stores. Two-rounders can easily be scheduled at cons (many are running 3 round modules all day long now anyway) and when we scheduled them at game stores at night, we would simply schedule it for two sessions, one week following the other, or some other arrangement. You just don't play the character in something else until you finish the two-rounder. worked for years, no reason it can't continue to do so.

Just because it worked for you doesn't mean it works for everyone else. If I gave my players the choice of either you must play in two consecutive play days or you can't play, a lot would simply not play because they can't guarantee they could make both nights. Many simply don't know more than a few days in advance if they will be able to make it to a particular game day.

Sovereign Court 5/5 5/55/5

GM Lamplighter wrote:
Can we at least wait until they exist before we start looking for loopholes to min-max benefit from them?

Actually, I was asking to see if the new faction card system was even viable for those of us who have already played and GM'd the majority of the scenarios referenced on the cards.

EDIT: Removed a sentence. Because let's not make the forums a more hostile place.

4/5

I am curious to see how the new changes work out. I must admit I like that you are giving the faction icons a little bit of polish. Other than that I have been enjoying PFS and the various changes that have been made so far. Especially changing factions from being "find the saucy teapot" for Zarta

1/5

Quote:
First, let's talk about factions and their roles. After much discussion here at Paizo, specifically on some problems that were brought up in the long discussion with all of the Venture-Officers, we agree that factions currently don't play as important a role as we would like them to. We want factions to have meaning and substance.

I don't know exactly how the Faction Cards will be implemented, but in the last ten or so games I've played or GM'd, faction missions have involved so little direct effort that it's like they don't exist. The majority of the scenarios they didn't seem to come up at all or briefly.

Regardless of how you address this, I believe it invariably will result in more real time devoted to faction missions. I expect there may be a lot of initial GM backlash that may be directed unfairly (or maybe fairly) at the Faction Card system when it really results from factions missions having an expanded role in every scenario. If characters are actually going to be able to do things for their factions ine every scenario, PFS may need to help GMs manage the workload. The reduction of future scenarios will help, hopefully there may be some similar support for existing scenarios that are already on the long side.

1/5 **

Illeist wrote:
EDIT: Removed a sentence. Because let's not make the forums a more hostile place.

+1 DKP! :P

4/5 **

Illeist wrote:
EDIT: Removed a sentence. Because let's not make the forums a more hostile place.

Sorry - the use of the word "exception" is something that often is a precursor to the loopholing I had already jumped to in my mind. I apologize for having assumed intent.

Dark Archive

"Stop tying the campaign's story to those of the Adventure Paths."
You couldn't have waited until after the laser shooting machine gun firin' grenade blastin' adventure?!

Grand Lodge 4/5

The do what now?

4/5

Hey, I like the lasers.


Ease of use and length.
These two things are great, making the material easy to use; by limiting the number of books needed, and keeping the adventures short, linear and progressive to an over all goal is awesome, but I feel that there are some flaws in it as well.
When you make the material too easy to use then who actually learns how the game works and what it all has to offer? I used to spend days pouring over books and referencing and cross referencing things. Yes, it took time, but my over all understanding of the rules and how things correlated to each other grew exponentially. Doesn't too much ease leave a gap in what the DM knows and where to reference it as well as how the rules can be bent at certain points to allow a more enjoyable play experience?
As far as length goes it's kind of a toss up. If I had a very limited time schedule for playing then four hours is about right, but the most memorable games were the ones that took more than one session to play; my favorite being one that took us three months to complete while playing 16 to 20 hours a day every weekend, stopped to sleep and sometimes to eat the story was THAT good. Storytelling is just as much if not more important to a table top game than combat is. If the players are getting bored with the campaign maybe it's how it's written that's more of the problem than the actual length of the scenario. Why is my char here? What is my objective? How does this affect the story as a whole? Just like any fantasy or science fiction novel needs to provide this to it's reader so too does the DM need to provide this to the players. I think that cutting every scenario down to four hours is going to have a negative impact on the storytelling aspect of the game.

Silver Crusade 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hopefully we also see an improvement in the time it takes them to sanction the modules Paizo releases, amirite?

Grand Lodge 4/5

Archmic wrote:

Ease of use and length.

These two things are great, making the material easy to use; by limiting the number of books needed, and keeping the adventures short, linear and progressive to an over all goal is awesome, but I feel that there are some flaws in it as well.
When you make the material too easy to use then who actually learns how the game works and what it all has to offer? I used to spend days pouring over books and referencing and cross referencing things. Yes, it took time, but my over all understanding of the rules and how things correlated to each other grew exponentially. Doesn't too much ease leave a gap in what the DM knows and where to reference it as well as how the rules can be bent at certain points to allow a more enjoyable play experience?
As far as length goes it's kind of a toss up. If I had a very limited time schedule for playing then four hours is about right, but the most memorable games were the ones that took more than one session to play; my favorite being one that took us three months to complete while playing 16 to 20 hours a day every weekend, stopped to sleep and sometimes to eat the story was THAT good. Storytelling is just as much if not more important to a table top game than combat is. If the players are getting bored with the campaign maybe it's how it's written that's more of the problem than the actual length of the scenario. Why is my char here? What is my objective? How does this affect the story as a whole? Just like any fantasy or science fiction novel needs to provide this to it's reader so too does the DM need to provide this to the players. I think that cutting every scenario down to four hours is going to have a negative impact on the storytelling aspect of the game.

1) What stops you from doing the same kind of research? While the material used on the scenario is going to be a bit more limited, there is always the information on potential PCs to research.

2) The four hour limit is for running the basic scenario, you or your GM can always add more RP to the game, if time allows. Every scenario includes a source listing of "where to find more information about this area of Golarion." for the GM. Obviously, some scenarios are better suited for additional RP than others, but some of that is based on GM and Player actions. I have not seen as much RP done in Accursed Halls as it would support, believe me, as I have never seen any of the players in my games do anything with captured or defeated opponents, besides just killing them.

And, in truth, many PFS scenarios include a wealth of information on the stuff going on, now and before, that the PCs could find ways to discover, and really deepen their involvement with the scenario and related events.

Scarab Sages 2/5

If I may add my 2 cp, and its not pretty commentary, then here we go.

I like the changes proposed, but on a larger scale I would much rather see way less cumbersome tomes of rulesets, and more in the way of modules, APs, and more society scenarios.

Call me a pariah or troll, but i am not trying to be mean. Once mythic came out, ACG, and a psionics book are looming, I just do not want more core assumption to be exploited. I quit gming society because I am uncomfortable not being familiar with 1500+ pages of stuff, and miss it for the sense of adventure and wonder the new people bring.

I guess what I am saying, is I really liked stemming the flow of aasimar and tiefling. Changes along that line might bring me back to open storytelling, but I doubt arcanists, brawlers and the upcoming psychic types cannot be put back in the genie's bottle.

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

Shasfowd wrote:

"Stop tying the campaign's story to those of the Adventure Paths."

You couldn't have waited until after the laser shooting machine gun firin' grenade blastin' adventure?!

Some of us like an occasional twist in our standard fantasy fare. It's not like this is a permanent new feature and the tech that is purchasable is not very cost effective so will only be purchased by those wanting the flavor.

4/5

Thanks to everyone involved in the process in making things better for all.

I do have a question or two;

Could we see chronicle sheets to open up more content for society play?

Also the are some of the older modules (3.5) that could be converted for extra material (I'll put my hand up to help if you like). Can we see some of those updated and added to offer even more variety?

Grand Lodge 4/5

Signs point to yes.

Michael Brock wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

Since you asked... ;-)

Please update the rest of season zero to PFRPG. I know it's a resource constraint issue, but even one scenario a quarter would get us there eventually.

That and conversion document pdf for the 21, 3.5 modules. Check.

4/5

Awesome!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Quote:

From our feedback about the success of the Silverhex Chronicles quest line, we are aware we need more Quests and Quest-like events. Since we already have nine different Beginner Box quests broken up into parts one and two, this was topic was a no brainer.

We have added two Chronicle sheets to the development schedule for the Beginner Box Demos. One will be for the four demos in part one and the other will be for the five demos in part two. These should allow for you to draw more interest from players wanting to try the system out, as well as give you another two sets of quest-style adventures to run, bringing the immediate total of quests to three sets with the inclusion of the Silverhex Chronicles quests. Look for these two Chronicle sheets by the end of 2014.

(Emphasis mine)

Possibly off-topic, but where can I find this 'part two' of the beginner box quests? I've got some new players that are enjoying the beginner box at the moment, so some new quests would be excellent. I've got the four 'Beginner Box Bash' quests, and the Silverhex Chronicles, but I wasn't aware that there were others...

4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like these ideas. It's getting tough to run scenarios in four hours. I run scenarios on weeknights from 6pm to 10pm at a game store. The store closes at 10pm so we can't run late. It's just not an option, so I usually omit the optional encounters no matter what time it is.

When you provide an encounter map intended to be printed, please include the zoom factor needed for the grid to be exactly 1". I can figure it out, but it takes one printing at 100% zoom, and a second printing (often of part of the map) at the calculated zoom factor to check and make the small adjustment needed for perfection. That's a few minutes and two pieces of paper that can be eliminated by simply including a single line like "Zoom to 437% when printing" by the map.

Along the same line a Teberous's comment, I'd like to see PFS staying true to its fantasy theme. IMHO SF and psionics have no place in PFS. Can we get rid of them? I'll neither play nor GM a scenario involving either because they're as inappropriate in a fantasy game as dragons would be in a Twilight 2000 campaign.

All it would take to fix the problem is for the dramatic, season-concluding adventure to reveal that Season 6 was simply a nightmare of Kreigton Shaine (similar to how season 9 of "Dallas" was a dream of one character).

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

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Romanowski wrote:
I'd like to see PFS staying true to its fantasy theme. IMHO SF and psionics have no place in PFS.

Tell that to Gary Gygax, co-author of Dungeons and Dragons and author of Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.

Quote:
I'll neither play nor GM a scenario involving either.

I understand your dislike of this. You have a right to your opinion. But so do the people who like a small element of tech in their game, including those in your local player base who may now be denied that ability to enjoy this because you refuse to GM such adventures. While it is your right to not play or GM such scenarios, I would urge that you please consider others in making your decisions.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Romanowski wrote:
I'd like to see PFS staying true to its fantasy theme. IMHO SF and psionics have no place in PFS.

There are those of us who see no difference between science fiction and fantasy. We'd like to have our view incorporated too.

Grand Lodge 5/5

Scott Romanowski wrote:

I like these ideas. It's getting tough to run scenarios in four hours. I run scenarios on weeknights from 6pm to 10pm at a game store. The store closes at 10pm so we can't run late. It's just not an option, so I usually omit the optional encounters no matter what time it is.

When you provide an encounter map intended to be printed, please include the zoom factor needed for the grid to be exactly 1". I can figure it out, but it takes one printing at 100% zoom, and a second printing (often of part of the map) at the calculated zoom factor to check and make the small adjustment needed for perfection. That's a few minutes and two pieces of paper that can be eliminated by simply including a single line like "Zoom to 437% when printing" by the map.

Along the same line a Teberous's comment, I'd like to see PFS staying true to its fantasy theme. IMHO SF and psionics have no place in PFS. Can we get rid of them? I'll neither play nor GM a scenario involving either because they're as inappropriate in a fantasy game as dragons would be in a Twilight 2000 campaign.

All it would take to fix the problem is for the dramatic, season-concluding adventure to reveal that Season 6 was simply a nightmare of Kreigton Shaine (similar to how season 9 of "Dallas" was a dream of one character).

Does this not depend on the native resolution of your printer? Through trial and error, I have figured out that if I print an image at actual size it takes 96 pixels to equal 1 inch. I dont think that is the same for all printers.

1/5 **

trollbill wrote:
I understand your dislike of this. You have a right to your opinion. But so do the people who like a small element of tech in their game, including those in your local player base who may now be denied that ability to enjoy this because you refuse to GM such adventures. While it is your right to not play or GM such scenarios, I would urge that you please consider others in making your decisions.

I personally avoid GMing tech scenarios. Not because I dislike tech in my fantasy (though I kinda do), but because I think that the implications of the technologist feat are both poorly communicated and needlessly punitive. Thankfully, I have always been able to GM a different scenario, allowing others to GM the tech stuff, so there is no negative impact on the player base.

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

bugleyman wrote:
trollbill wrote:
I understand your dislike of this. You have a right to your opinion. But so do the people who like a small element of tech in their game, including those in your local player base who may now be denied that ability to enjoy this because you refuse to GM such adventures. While it is your right to not play or GM such scenarios, I would urge that you please consider others in making your decisions.
I personally avoid GMing tech scenarios. Not because I dislike tech in my fantasy (though I kinda do), but because I think that the implications of the technologist feat are both poorly communicated and needlessly punitive. Thankfully, I have always been able to GM a different scenario, allowing others to GM the tech stuff, so there is no negative impact on the player base.

Fair enough.

Grand Lodge 4/5

bugleyman can usually foist those tables off on me when we're at the same event. Of course, with all the different game days we have now, I'm not always around when he's running. :)

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Demoyn wrote:
The power creep is definitely the biggest problem I've noticed with society play.
I think you'll enjoy our solution once we finish hammering out the creases.

*spit-take*

Powercreep is being addressed? Say whaaat?

-Matt needs details.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

These are all excellent changes. I'm excited for factions to have more meaning. Currently, it doesn't seem to matter which faction I pick, it has no relevance to anything. I was also glad to hear that the new faction missions won't break the unity that you find in the scenarios. It's announcements like this that make me love Paizo.

Grand Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mattastrophic wrote:
-Matt need details.

Matt should apply as a VL so he can sign the NDA and read all about it. :) Or wait for it to be announced on the blog like everyone else.

3/5

Can we at least get a time-frame for this powercreep-addressing? I'd love to know when I can consider GMing and playing again.

-Matt

Grand Lodge 4/5

Being new to this NDA bit, I'll err on the cautious side and let Mike and John comment on that.

I'm pretty sure I can say 'we're working on something but not ready to announce it', but anything more is above my pay grade. :)

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Mattastrophic wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Demoyn wrote:
The power creep is definitely the biggest problem I've noticed with society play.
I think you'll enjoy our solution once we finish hammering out the creases.

*spit-take*

Powercreep is being addressed? Say whaaat?

-Matt need details.

Between the cryptic comments about addressing perceived power creep and the other cryptic comments about addressing the topic of GMs feeling like there are more rules than they can keep up with; I'm going to speculate that they're working on some kind of "table-ban" option where a GM can decide not to allow X at their tables, whether because of the perceived power level or because of discomfort with unfamiliarity with it.

But that's just my uninformed speculation, because I find speculation to be fun in and of itself. :D

Shadow Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wild speculation is always entertaining. :)

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Wild speculation is always entertaining. :)

I think my history as an MtG player instilled in me a deep appreciation for spoilers and speculation. I mean, that game has "spoiler season" four times a year, and it's almost as fun as the game itself! :D

3/5

*cracks his knuckles*

Well, Pandora's Box is already open when it comes to things like the Summoner, Gunslinger, Slumber Hex, whatever silly stuff has been printed in the softcovers, etc. So it's probably too much to hope for any removal from the Additional Resources list, barring a campaign reboot, a 2ndEd announcement, or an announcement saying that Paizo is dropping its own system and moving to 5E.

So with no wholesale removal, I can speculate on a sort-of "low-power mode," a set of standards that entire tables can adhere to. All players who want to participate would have clear boundaries for their PCs, and can safely expect that their tablemates won't be engaging in any one-man facerolling.

Hot? Cold?

-Matt

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 *

Mattastrophic wrote:

*cracks his knuckles*

Well, Pandora's Box is already open when it comes to things like the Summoner, Gunslinger, Slumber Hex, whatever silly stuff has been printed in the softcovers, etc. So it's probably too much to hope for any removal from the Additional Resources list, barring a campaign reboot, a 2ndEd announcement, or an announcement saying that Paizo is dropping its own system and moving to 5E.

So with no wholesale removal, I can speculate on a sort-of "low-power mode," a set of standards that entire tables can adhere to. All players who want to participate would have clear boundaries for their PCs, and can safely expect that their tablemates won't be engaging in any one-man facerolling.

Hot? Cold?

-Matt

Blue...no red!

(Sorry, you'll have to wait on Mike, John and the minions)

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Between the cryptic comments about addressing perceived power creep and the other cryptic comments about addressing the topic of GMs feeling like there are more rules than they can keep up with; I'm going to speculate that they're working on some kind of "table-ban" option where a GM can decide not to allow X at their tables, whether because of the perceived power level or because of discomfort with unfamiliarity with it.

That would be a pretty tough concession. One of the lynchpins of organized play is that a character that is legal at one table is legal at all tables. Certainly I would have second thoughts about paying air fair, hotel costs, food costs and other con costs to attend something like GenCon if I could not be assured I would get to play the character I wanted to play when I got there.

Silver Crusade 4/5

Mattastrophic wrote:

*cracks his knuckles*

Well, Pandora's Box is already open when it comes to things like the Summoner, Gunslinger, Slumber Hex, whatever silly stuff has been printed in the softcovers, etc. So it's probably too much to hope for any removal from the Additional Resources list, barring a campaign reboot, a 2ndEd announcement, or an announcement saying that Paizo is dropping its own system and moving to 5E.

So with no wholesale removal, I can speculate on a sort-of "low-power mode," a set of standards that entire tables can adhere to. All players who want to participate would have clear boundaries for their PCs, and can safely expect that their tablemates won't be engaging in any one-man facerolling.

Hot? Cold?

-Matt

Matt, has there been any recognition of "power creep" on Paizo's behalf? If they don't see there's an issue, there would be nothing to address.

Dark Archive 4/5 5/55/5 ****

The interesting thing to me in the power creep debate, is that at times the ultra powerful gunslinger, magus, summoner, zen archer, or even cleric, makes the scenario somewhat trivial for the rest of those playing it. However, there are other scenarios where unless you have the at least one of those, you are almost certainly going to lose at least one if not more party members. Though I'm wont to complaining a bit about it myself in jest, especially about a couple swashbucklers I frequently play with, the balancing of scenarios to accommodate both parties that have scoured the rulebooks for ultra powerful builds and those who just built something decent for fun, seems incredibly difficult. I'm hoping that whatever is being planned does a bit better job of addressing that and potentially giving players more warning if they should expect this to be an especially dangerous mission without requiring them to meta-game how things work.

1/5 **

3 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Wild speculation is always entertaining. :)

I'm calling it now -- they're adding PFS hardcore mode. Anything that happens to the character happens to the player. Solves GM shortages overnight!!! :P

101 to 150 of 299 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Paizo Blog: Improvements Are A-Comin' All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.