Introducing the Core Campaign

Monday, January 26, 2015


Illustration by Grafit Studio

As the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign and the Pathfinder RPG itself has developed over the last several years, players have expressed increasing concerns about the availability of replay, new players being overwhelmed or overshadowed by over-optimized characters, Chronicle sheet rewards not having much meaning, and other concerns related to the sheer amount of information and options available to PFS players. With the help of our dedicated venture-captains, the team here at Paizo has developed a solution designed to solve all of these problems—and more. We call this solution the Core Campaign, a new mode of PFS play that utilizes all of the campaign's current scenarios and resources—only with a significantly lower barrier to entry. Here are some of the highlights:

  • The current Pathfinder Society campaign remains unchanged with use of all of Additional Resources. It is still named Pathfinder Society Organized Play. The new option will be titled Pathfinder Society Core Campaign. Both campaign "modes" use the same scenarios, modules, and other sanctioned adventure resources.
  • Every new and veteran player may participate in both the current and Core Campaign at the same time.
  • For players participating in the Core Campaign, only the Core Rulebook, Character Traits Web Enhancement, and Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play may be utilized for character creation.
  • At no time may any trait, feat, equipment, magic item, skill, animal companion, familiar, or any other character option come from a source beyond these three resources unless it appears on a Chronicle sheet. Race boons found on Chronicle sheets may not be used in the Core Campaign.
  • If an item appears on a Chronicle sheet, a PC may purchase and use it regardless of the book it comes from, with the exception of a boon that opens up a different character race.
  • Just like in the current campaign, a player may receive credit once for playing and once for GMing a scenario in the Core Campaign; this credit is independent of player and GM credit in the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign. This means a player can play once in each of the two campaigns and GM for credit once in each of the campaigns (four credits total, two per campaign), not including any limited replay opportunities established in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play.
  • At any point a player wants to transition their character from the Core Campaign to the existing campaign, they may do so. However, they may not bring that character back to the Core Campaign. As set forth in the current rules, a character may not have two of the same Chronicle sheet assigned to him, regardless of whether it was earned in the Core or existing campaign.

  • Illustration by
    Jason Rainville
  • GMs may utilize whatever books a scenario, module, quest, Adventure Path, or other sanctioned adventure utilizes.
  • The Core Campaign offers limited replay opportunities for players who have already experienced an adventure in the standard campaign. There have been comments that veteran players have limited opportunities to play with new players and "show them the ropes." Opening up every adventure for replay an additional time allows for veteran players to play a scenario with a new player and still receive credit.
  • This initative allows for an immediate influx of four new play opportunities every month—two new senarios playable in the existing campaign and the same two scenarios avalable for play in the Core Campaign.
  • Game mechanics outside of the Core Rulebook, such as reposition and dirty trick, are not allowed unless a Chronicle sheet specifically opens it as a character option.
  • Retraining may be utilized as the rules currently allow, but only when a PC retrains to take an option from one of the allowed Core Campaign resources.
  • GMs will receive star credit for GMing a game, regardless of whether it was an existing campaign or Core Campaign game.
  • If a Core Rulebook option advises that something found in the Core Rulebook is clarified in the Bestiary 1, then the player uses that specific option out of the Bestiary 1 to meet the requirement set forth in the Core Rulebook. That would include, but is not limited to, animal companions, special abilities, summon spells, etc... Only the Bestiary 1 is available for these extra options outside of the Core Rulebook.

The next question I think people will ask is: when we will be able to start playing games in the Core Campaign? We're planning to have this system publicly available and ready for you to use later this week! When creating a new event, the new system will allow you to select if a scenario is being run in the existing campaign, Core Campaign, or both (for multiple tables of the same adventure). Likewise, when reporting data from completed sessions, the system allows the person entering data to choose to report which campaign the session was run in.

We hope that this new initiative, along with the new faction journal cards highlighted in last week's blog, will bring an exciting new energy to the campaign on a global scale. I look forward to reading thoughts about the new Core Campaign and how it will help your local Pathfinder Society community.

Mike Brock
Global Organized Play Coordinator

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Grafit Studio Jason Rainville Pathfinder Society
801 to 850 of 1,044 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>
5/5

This is awesome. I think this will really help those who want to or at least may be willing to try GMing. I look forward to running core only games.

This is coming from "one of those" that uses every option under the sun.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Soluzar wrote:
I'm seeing a problem here. I know that this has likely been discussed internally for months. We're seeing a lot of VO's and 5 stars gushing about this. Then there are people like me. I don't object to it but I do have some concerns. There is a condescending vibe coming off of some of these responses. Just because some of you knew this was coming and already may have discussed some of these points does not make them less valid.

With you homes and after talking with a lot of our local PFS players and VLs I'm feeling more with you than I did 24 hours ago.

I feel like this really only addresses the issue of replays in a very limited and band aid type of way that will peel off and take us back to square 1 in 6 months to a year. I feel like this lowers the number of options but doesn't address actual concerns of barrier to entry (offering better teaching tools to new players, promoting 1st timer play sessions, discouraging group think pressure situations, encouraging solidarity and veteran education at the table, etc.). I can already see the nightmare it will cause and is already causing to scheduling to any area that has a threshold lower than 3 tables an event. It feels as if it doesn't address large chunks of optimization considering that most of the greatest offenders on the min/max table are classes out of core while at the same time many of the most weak (but initially attractive) classes are stuff that is core legal and will present their own problems there in.

But my biggest worry already is what it will do to the community. I know in my own area we have players who look at the vast majority of content outside of a very narrow spectrum as cheese, cheating, or some other variation of derisive crap that somehow pollutes their game experience and look down at people who want to play with it for any reason and I worry that they are going to latch onto something like this with a passion and help further exacerbate the problem. I can already see tables that will have this mindset where if you aren't core your cheese and are somehow a lesser player than those of us who don't care or have less extreme viewpoints and that they will apply pressure to players both new and old to conform to their preferred style of play. I can already see new players hit the table and being asked, "Are you Core build?" and getting that glare from the rest of the table that signals you better be or we don't want you here and thanks to the fact that we've segmented the two modes off from one another at the same table many will be able to see at least part of this argument since if you don't have a table that's all one type you might just not have a game. I think that's the worst part of all of this, that to make this thing work we have to adopt a system that literally splits the party or plays with the ideas of separate but equal. By doing so we complicate far more things than we simplify.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Mike Lindner wrote:

This is awesome. I think this will really help those who want to or at least may be willing to try GMing. I look forward to running core only games.

This is coming from "one of those" that uses every option under the sun.

Not really. As a Player it reduces the number of source books you have to know but as a GM you still have to know all the rules that whatever scenario you are using references. In other words even if you are running a core table their is still a high chance you are going to have to know how to use feats, skills, spells, or classes from other supplements if that module makes use of them.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
doc the grey wrote:
Mike Lindner wrote:

This is awesome. I think this will really help those who want to or at least may be willing to try GMing. I look forward to running core only games.

This is coming from "one of those" that uses every option under the sun.

Not really. As a Player it reduces the number of source books you have to know but as a GM you still have to know all the rules that whatever scenario you are using references. In other words even if you are running a core table their is still a high chance you are going to have to know how to use feats, skills, spells, or classes from other supplements if that module makes use of them.

I strongly disagree.

As a GM who has not run a Society session since 2011, the sheer volume of new classes, races, archetypes, feats, spells, etc etc has been far too steep a hill to climb to get back into running a PFS game. And that's with my being comfortable with the books which had come out to that point (APG, Ultimate Magic (Ultimate Combat was new and not an issue yet)).
On the other hand learning a new monster, or the abilities of a specific NPC, is just basic GM prep.
The problem is not the rules for the scenarios, it's all of the combinations of abilities of the unknown characters who may show up.

A Core campaign is not for everybody, and it may not be for you, but it requires far less homework on the part of a GM.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Scribbling Rambler wrote:
doc the grey wrote:
Mike Lindner wrote:

This is awesome. I think this will really help those who want to or at least may be willing to try GMing. I look forward to running core only games.

This is coming from "one of those" that uses every option under the sun.

Not really. As a Player it reduces the number of source books you have to know but as a GM you still have to know all the rules that whatever scenario you are using references. In other words even if you are running a core table their is still a high chance you are going to have to know how to use feats, skills, spells, or classes from other supplements if that module makes use of them.

I strongly disagree.

As a GM who has not run a Society session since 2011, the sheer volume of new classes, races, archetypes, feats, spells, etc etc has been far too steep a hill to climb to get back into running a PFS game. And that's with my being comfortable with the books which had come out to that point (APG, Ultimate Magic (Ultimate Combat was new and not an issue yet)).
On the other hand learning a new monster, or the abilities of a specific NPC, is just basic GM prep.
The problem is not the rules for the scenarios, it's all of the combinations of abilities of the unknown characters who may show up.

A Core campaign is not for everybody, and it may not be for you, but it requires far less homework on the part of a GM.

But all those rules are things that you are going to have to learn as part of Core once you start GM'ing scenarios that take place after those rules came into effect. S3-S6 all use them in some capacity and if you plan to run those in Core you'll eventually learn them at the same rate.

As for what your players are using I know where we're at you can just ask them in advance (since many have to register beforehand) if you are really worried and an app or a google search will let you know what they are doing. Now I realize this might not be the case where you are or where even a lot of people might be located but with organization tools like facebook, cellphones, and strong communications networks between organizers (and more importantly GMs) this problem of unknown builds has been vastly mitigated. If someone in our region has some crazy ass build that uses a bunch of obscure rules at an event and is planning on using it again (and lets be fair most crazy stuff takes at least a few levels to start to actually play out) then most of the GMs here have heard about it or we can ask one another to know if their is some obscure rule they plan to rock.

But again I understand that their are likely regions not as blessed with a close GM base as my area but again that doesn't make that hurdle much higher. I've always found that if I'm really worried about something crazy from *insert new big book here* hitting the field I just hop on here and ask what's popular right now and try to just get a basic understanding of it. Works especially well if you have a VL or VO in your area who games a lot at your venue. Barring that maybe I hold off a week, hit the session I'm planning to GM, and ask the players what they play/what they will want to play if I play X scenario and then familiarize myself with that stuff so I don't get that clueless unease feeling I get when someone walks in with something crazy from a book that came out while I was away.

Now again, if you are in an area that has a lot of turnover, HIGH player volume (I'm talking events with turnout over 20+), constant large new player turnout (like half your group at each table is 50% players no one has every played with before), a lot of players who cycle through dozens of complicated character builds all the time, poor event scheduling, or very unconnected GM/player base this might not work for you but I've found this works better than anything else and still nets me out less work than having to just read every book from the last 3 years to try and comprehend everything my party could bring to bear at the table or having to create a whole new version of the game that has to be scheduled around to try and mitigate this problem.

But again I hope that all of my worries are entirely unfounded, that Core is an unmitigated success, and that even I'm playing a game or 2 here in a year. But the way that these worries have been addressed and worse how it feels fears have been dismissed rather than being assuaged by some of those most fervently championing has done nothing but increase my concern.


That was a lot of "what a stupid idea," "no, it's not. You're stupid!" that I had to read through to make sure my question hasn't already been asked.

I have a character who has one Chronicle, We Be Goblins. It was played before CORE. Can I turn it into a CORE character for CORE Mode?

Just wondering.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It was reported as normal mode, so no.


Thank you, Andrew.

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast aka heretic

I'd just like to chip in to reassure community members who foresee problems with the increase of choice core offers but who do not have current spare resources or the prospect of increasing them. Your concerns are real because they are founded on your real experience and should not be dismissed. Nor I hope should anyone be doing so.

I really do understand that the huge enthusiasm this change has been greeted with in some areas where the local PFS model is one of multiple venues, GMs and a large mobile player base can seem overwhelming! It seems far removed from areas where there is one venue and a slowly growing base that organisers are just about managing to resource with GMs and legally seated tables. Places where the problem of re engaging large numbers of players who've played everything seems impossbly remote!

I'll will go further: there will inevitably be a few more casual players who will drop out of PFS because they can't play the character they want at that usual (eg monthly event) they are actually able to attend because of the organiser's need to now resource both campaigns. Or conversely because the organiser is not resourcing both! However my guess is it will just be a few.

The sky is not falling though!

The many benefits and opportunities that Core offers will improve the PFS experience. A better experience will make playing PFS more attractive to the majority of players old & new. Imagination and flexibility from players, GMs and organisers should minimise problems.

Remember too that there are Venture Officers here with a wealth of experience who will be very pleased to give you the benefit of it should you run into problems in your area.

W


Jiggy wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I just tell people to use as many books as they are comfortable with. Core-only PCs are still usable in the standard campaign, and are still better than pregens most of the time. It's hard for me to see how the number of books warrants this offshoot campaign. Maybe I'm not seeing everything, though.
I think the idea is that, to someone who hasn't tried Pathfinder yet, it's hard to believe that they really can get by with just the CRB, and so they don't bother joining up. Additionally, the prospect of beginning to GM can be daunting for those who want to know how all their players' characters work, when those characters collectively use 10 different books. So, kind of an "entry point" for those who might be intimidated by the (perceived) need to absorb thousands and thousands of pages of rules to get going.

Also, there are a lot of players (even in these couple threads) that will give new players the impression that they must purchase umpteen books to really play. I've seen it happen.

Last year I was working with a couple that wanted to start PFS since I was there about an hour early. The guy had actually purchased the CRB and I was working with him on a couple of characters for their first game. They were not min-maxed twinkies. But they were better than the pregens and stuck with fairly simple mostly static bonuses so it was easier to learn.
Two other players came over to see what we were doing. They jumped in with "totally unplayable... can't run a sorcerer without... the only worthwhile weapon... etc..." requiring a list of at least and additional $150 worth of materials just to start playing. After their input he walked back to the counter and returned the CRB. I've never seen him again.

That couple had already purchased the book and decided to play. The impression that it is impossible without an extensive financial investment chased them away. I think an option that guarantees a relatively minimal financial investment would have help to keep them involved.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 Venture-Captain, Indiana—Northern

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fellow Pathfinders:

Having read every item in this thread, and others, I would take a moment to remind us all that, at the end, we're all talking about a game, a game that we like, and a game that we share. The game is OUR game (collectively), and when changes come along, we might sometimes react viscerally if we perceive that our game, the one we enjoy, is threatened, or if we somehow feel it will no longer be the same game.

Pathfinder is never the same game as it was - every time a new book or supplement comes out, every time there is a new entry in the FAQ, the Guide, or whatever, the game changes. However, at its most basic level, it's all still Pathfinder.

What is being implemented here takes nothing away from Pathfinder. It adds, for those areas that want it and can support it, a real option. This option has the potential to do many things, some of which address concerns people have raised for years. Each of us can tell horror stories in our respective areas, things that don't work, things that cost us players, and so on.

I have listened to the concerns of the players in Central Indiana; I have listened to (by reading) the many, many concerns raised in this thread (and others); I have listened to the concerns of my fellow Venture-Officers. What I can tell you is that your concerns have been heard. Until CORE is fully deployed and we can obtain the results, no one really knows what will happen. I do think it poses a greater challenge for smaller player bases or areas with limited venues or limited tables. I think that is a realistic possibility. I also am reasonably certain that CORE will be a huge benefit to other areas and if it is, then it's a good thing.

I am only asking, rather than fighting and insults and the like, that we move ahead in the deployment of CORE, keeping the concerns in front of us so we can continue to address them should they manifest into the problems some think they will become. We can then ask Campaign Management to work on fixes should CORE need them (and it may very well need fixes at points.)

CORE is an option. If it doesn't work in your area, don't run it. If you can't stand the thought of playing CORE, for whatever reason, then don't - stick with the traditional PFS game. No one is forcing anyone to play a campaign mode that he or she does not wish to play.

In the end, it's a game. We should keep that perspective, because over hundreds of posts, I fear it is a perspective we seem to be losing in this discussion - not because people are posting their concerns, but rather in the tone of many of the comments both in support of and opposition to CORE.

Explore. Report. Cooperate. Let's all keep those before us.

Liberty's Edge

David Bowles wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I've never understood why anyone is ever upset by this. The GM didn't write the scenario. The GM can't control the match up of PCs vs pre-generated NPCs.

Attitude. It's one thing for the player to engage with the party, stay in character, and carry the victory.

It's another entirely for his contribution to be "roflstomp the NPCs, lol, learn 2 play or qq".

There's nothing for the GM to learn, though. They are even bound by pregenerated tactics.

I believe the "learn to play" would be aimed at the other players.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Speaking only for myself, this "Core" option has motivated me to finally step up from just playing in PFS to possibly GMing. Only having to learn ONE book of rules really does make a difference.

(Plus, I never liked that as a PFS GM I would've had to allow--shudder--gunslingers at my table. Now, with Core, they're specifically banned! Hooray!)

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm a new player to Pathfinder, just spend a small fortune buying most of the books that can be used for PFS. I hope that PFS doesn't start going the route of just the core book. Doing this to introduce new players/dms is understandable and great.
But if it becomes more and more the norm for all of society play, then I'll be selling off all the books I've bought and not buying anything more from Paizo or playing.

I'll be holding off buying anything else until I see how this goes.

Sovereign Court 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Missouri—Cape Girardeau

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jerrum Mallex wrote:

I'm a new player to Pathfinder, just spend a small fortune buying most of the books that can be used for PFS. I hope that PFS doesn't start going the route of just the core book. Doing this to introduce new players/dms is understandable and great.

But if it becomes more and more the norm for all of society play, then I'll be selling off all the books I've bought and not buying anything more from Paizo or playing.

Jerrum; You don't have to sell any of your books. CORE is not replacing Regular Society, it is supplementing it.

If you don't want to play CORE, no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to.
I doubt there is a single organizer that is planning to completely replace regular play with CORE.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas aka kinevon

Jerrum Mallex wrote:

I'm a new player to Pathfinder, just spend a small fortune buying most of the books that can be used for PFS. I hope that PFS doesn't start going the route of just the core book. Doing this to introduce new players/dms is understandable and great.

But if it becomes more and more the norm for all of society play, then I'll be selling off all the books I've bought and not buying anything more from Paizo or playing.

I'll be holding off buying anything else until I see how this goes.

Sigh. Core Mode is an additional option, not a direction the while campaign is going to be going in.

So, unless you are in one of the backwoods areas, where they can only get one table going, at rare intervals, with only experienced players and GMs, the odds favor there continuing to be plenty of tables of Normal Mode PFS, where all those books you bought, and the ones you haven't bought yet, will continue to be usable.

Now, in my opinion, this concern, as so many of the other ones on this thread, are things you should discuss with your local game coordinators. If they don't know that someone wants Normal Mode or Core Mode, they cannot take that person, or those peoples' preferences into account.

For a large venue, like Drogon's, you'll just see additional options, as they add tables of Core Mode to their extant offerings of Normal Mode games. For smaller venues, like my area, it will either remain Normal Mode, or, unless the coordinator(s) hear otherwise, might transition over if the coordinator does not receive feedback.

Me, I coordinate. But, and this is one of my major complaints, I seldom hear back from people saying what they would like to see run. So, for instance, I had real life get in the way last week, and didn't get my game up until too late to get players. As a coordinator, as well as a GM, coordinating in a vacuum can lead to coordinator burnout, just like too much GMing leads to GM burnout.

I would love more feedback. Any feedback would usually be infinitely more than I receive. :(

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't speak for everyone, but I know the VOs in Arizona are absolutely committed to responding to player demand. We'll schedule what people say they want -- both directly and via sign-ups. In other words, my personal affinity for Core as a GM or player has no bearing on my actions as a coordinator.

If I had to venture a guess, I'd say Core will likely remain secondary to Normal when it comes to scheduling, but time will tell.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't even want to play Core, but if one of our players wants to GM, and finds that easier, I'll gladly roll up to support them learning the ropes.

1/5

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
...if one of our players wants to GM, and finds that easier, I'll gladly roll up to support them learning the ropes.

This. Encouraging new GMs is one of the most important things we can do to ensure plenty of play opportunities for everyone, whatever their Core/Regular preference.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tim Statler wrote:
Jerrum Mallex wrote:

I'm a new player to Pathfinder, just spend a small fortune buying most of the books that can be used for PFS. I hope that PFS doesn't start going the route of just the core book. Doing this to introduce new players/dms is understandable and great.

But if it becomes more and more the norm for all of society play, then I'll be selling off all the books I've bought and not buying anything more from Paizo or playing.

Jerrum; You don't have to sell any of your books. CORE is not replacing Regular Society, it is supplementing it.

If you don't want to play CORE, no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to.
I doubt there is a single organizer that is planning to completely replace regular play with CORE.

First off you tell me I don't have to sell my books off and then say "If you don't want to play CORE, no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to."

I thought this board was for discussing things. I'm not looking for or trying to start a fight/flame war but I don't appreciate that comment, I'm not stupid, so please don't talk to me like I am.

So far I'm been lucky to have some really good gm's, who have used all the things allowed in society play, as I've learned so far.
I just stated that if core goes the way of the norm in my city then what "I" will do.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 Venture-Captain, Indiana—Northern

Jerrum Mallex wrote:
Tim Statler wrote:
Jerrum Mallex wrote:

I'm a new player to Pathfinder, just spend a small fortune buying most of the books that can be used for PFS. I hope that PFS doesn't start going the route of just the core book. Doing this to introduce new players/dms is understandable and great.

But if it becomes more and more the norm for all of society play, then I'll be selling off all the books I've bought and not buying anything more from Paizo or playing.

Jerrum; You don't have to sell any of your books. CORE is not replacing Regular Society, it is supplementing it.

If you don't want to play CORE, no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to.
I doubt there is a single organizer that is planning to completely replace regular play with CORE.

First off you tell me I don't have to sell my books off and then say "If you don't want to play CORE, no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to."

I thought this board was for discussing things. I'm not looking for or trying to start a fight/flame war but I don't appreciate that comment, I'm not stupid, so please don't talk to me like I am.

So far I'm been lucky to have some really good gm's, who have used all the things allowed in society play, as I've learned so far.
I just stated that if core goes the way of the norm in my city then what "I" will do.

Jerrum:

Really, for all of us, the issue is just one of choice. Some people will choose to play regular PFS because it has all (or most or many) of the options they want. Some will play regular PFS because they have invested a lot of money in books and supplements and want to make use of them so they get some return on their investment. Some will choose to play CORE because they don't want all of those options in the game they play, or they can't afford all the books and so don't want to feel left behind. In my own case, I prefer CORE because I am something of a "teaching GM" and get low-tier tables and new players (which I prefer.) In that case, CORE works better for me, but I'll still run regular PFS tables to.

In your case, you just have to decide which style you prefer, or if both are offered, you could choose to play both and alternate, or whatever. So, if you don't want to play CORE, that's totally cool - you can choose Regular PFS instead.

I hope you find the campaign style that works best for you. Pathfinder is an incredibly awesome and fun game, and Pathfinder Society is great! So, here's hoping you find whichever flavor is most to your liking!

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Jerrum Mallex wrote:
I thought this board was for discussing things. I'm not looking for or trying to start a fight/flame war but I don't appreciate that comment, I'm not stupid, so please don't talk to me like I am.

And it certainly is for discussing things. Tim was just cautioning you not to sell your books unnecessarily. Core Mode is not becoming the standard, it is an added option. We absolutely understand your concern that locally, no one will want to play Normal Mode. It's something that every lodge will have to address. The best I can recommend is make sure your local VO knows you are not a Core player and will be looking for Normal games. I hope that you have enough likeminded members of your community to support your preferences. Don't be afraid to go looking for more players. The easiest way to make sure that you can play what you want is growing your player base so that there are enough people for both types of games.


Jerrum Mallex wrote:
Tim Statler wrote:
Jerrum Mallex wrote:

I'm a new player to Pathfinder, just spend a small fortune buying most of the books that can be used for PFS. I hope that PFS doesn't start going the route of just the core book. Doing this to introduce new players/dms is understandable and great.

But if it becomes more and more the norm for all of society play, then I'll be selling off all the books I've bought and not buying anything more from Paizo or playing.

Jerrum; You don't have to sell any of your books. CORE is not replacing Regular Society, it is supplementing it.

If you don't want to play CORE, no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to.
I doubt there is a single organizer that is planning to completely replace regular play with CORE.

First off you tell me I don't have to sell my books off and then say "If you don't want to play CORE, no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to."

I thought this board was for discussing things. I'm not looking for or trying to start a fight/flame war but I don't appreciate that comment, I'm not stupid, so please don't talk to me like I am.

So far I'm been lucky to have some really good gm's, who have used all the things allowed in society play, as I've learned so far.
I just stated that if core goes the way of the norm in my city then what "I" will do.

I think the response is basically that it's very unlikely that CORE will dominate so much that you won't be able to find Normal games. There are quite a few people who've bought plenty of books and love using all the options.

Anything's possible, but the chances are slim enough I wouldn't worry much about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
I don't even want to play Core, but if one of our players wants to GM, and finds that easier, I'll gladly roll up to support them learning the ropes.

this

just help new people learn the game and be an ambassador of the hobby if you really want to see it grow

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Calybos1 wrote:
Speaking only for myself, this "Core" option has motivated me to finally step up from just playing in PFS to possibly GMing.

Noted :)

I'll mention you as a possible GM in our PFS core scheduling conversation for local games.

-TimD

Grand Lodge

Yea!!

There is a fine line about to get thicker between imagination and ridiculous. Perhaps now we can concentrate on what gaming is for:

practice for real situations
Social for the awkward
story telling
mini vacation
hidden agenda of homicide


1 person marked this as a favorite.

the other thing to keep in mind during all of this is that your area and your PFS experience is not everyone else's area and experience

some areas are super small
some are huge
some have hundreds of players
some have less than 10

some have dozens of LGS options
some have none

some have tons of GMs
some have one

Some have tons of organizers and a solid amount of VOs
for some the VC is the organizer and the whole deal

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
doc the grey wrote:
But again I hope that all of my worries are entirely unfounded, that Core is an unmitigated success, and that even I'm playing a game or 2 here in a year. But the way that these worries have been addressed and worse how it feels fears have been dismissed rather than being assuaged by some of those most fervently championing has done nothing but increase my concern

However, your response to my anxiety about trying to return to the campaign is also quite dismissive.

The current rules hurdle for new or returning GM's is real and monolithic. I'm a GM with 35 years experience, a former VC, somebody who has been a Tier 1 GM at Gen Con multiple times (as well as a room captain in Season 1), and helped to run the first ever PFS session. Yet I find the onus of catching up to run a current scenario overly stressful and off-putting. If I were somebody who had never GM'ed it would be even worse.
While I may have to learn something new for a specific scenario (assuming I GM a scenario which has something new, many do not), at least it has been reduced to smaller portions. And more importantly, it is something I can learn as part of my preparation in advance, rather than after somebody shows up with a character I don't understand.
And once I have progressed on that slower learning curve, maybe I will feel ready to once again return to the primary campaign.

Is it a legitimate concern that there may be conflict between the campaigns, especially in less active regions?
Is it a legitimate concern that some players will drop out?
Is it a legitimate concern that store owners will move less product via the Core Campaign.
Yes to all.

However, this idea also will bring in new (and returning) players and get new (and returning) GM's to step up. It will help to re-invigorate the back library of scenarios. And, it allows limited replay for those folks who are running out of options.

Only time will tell if the concerns outweigh the positive opportunities. For now, we're only looking at opinions and speculation.

My opinion and speculation is that this is a great option which will eventually grow the Society as a whole.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm a VO in Jerrum's area. Core is by no means going to replace the current games being offered. As it stands right now, we are adding a new day and time for a Core.

This particular day and time is specifically setup around a few people's college and work schedule. Monday at Noon. All the regular people usually available for that slot are interested in replay and trying out Core for the challenge.

Towards the end of February we might start adding Core options to the regular schedule, while the majority of the local area here is supportive of Core as an idea, there are many people not currently interested in playing it.

With 3-4 play opportunities a week available for Normal PFS play, and adding a Core Option will give us 5-6 available sessions can't be too bad.

Silver Crusade

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
I don't even want to play Core, but if one of our players wants to GM, and finds that easier, I'll gladly roll up to support them learning the ropes.

I feel the same way. I don't really have much interest in playing CORE, but one of the venues that I play at has a large number of beginner players. I will make a CORE character and offer to GM some CORE games if they want to play in that campaign.

I also understand the fears that some people have expressed. I am fortunate that I have two weekly game days plus two home games available to me. If one weekly PFS table was my sole gaming outlet, I would be pretty apprehensive.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville aka thaX

ok, not part of the current thread, but I was able to delete my current character that was going to be Core for the local groups and made her into a Core Character. (There is now three choices for making a new character, though one is the Card game) Luckly, she is/was my last character I had/have registered, so the character number stayed the same.

Thank you, again, Mike for this wonderful choice!

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Thanks for the headsup thaX, I need to go register my Core character. :)

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am sad that you can't buy vanities in Core. :(

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Aaron Motta wrote:

I can't speak for everyone, but I know the VOs in Arizona are absolutely committed to responding to player demand. We'll schedule what people say they want -- both directly and via sign-ups. In other words, my personal affinity for Core as a GM or player has no bearing on my actions as a coordinator.

If I had to venture a guess, I'd say Core will likely remain secondary to Normal when it comes to scheduling, but time will tell.

Ditto.

Liberty's Edge

Aaron Motta wrote:

I can't speak for everyone, but I know the VOs in Arizona are absolutely committed to responding to player demand. We'll schedule what people say they want -- both directly and via sign-ups. In other words, my personal affinity for Core as a GM or player has no bearing on my actions as a coordinator.

If I had to venture a guess, I'd say Core will likely remain secondary to Normal when it comes to scheduling, but time will tell.

I can't speak for everyone, but I know all the VOs in the Phoenix area, and they all SHOULD BE committed! ;-)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
doc the grey wrote:
Mike Lindner wrote:
I think this will really help those who want to or at least may be willing to try GMing.
Not really.

Speaking for yourself, I hope. For me: yes really. I've run 9 PFS games in Normal mode, and I'm dying to run in Core mode. I have the Core classes mostly memorized and understood. I know nothing from Advanced Class Guide, and I'm dreading the Occult book classes. I simply feel out of control when I have 5 out of 6 players using classes I've never heard of, and abilities that I don't understand and cannot double-check easily without slowing down the game. That is just my personal brain at work. We can all be derogatory of people like me and suggest that slow people shouldn't GM or something, but until they actually bar me from GMing, I will GM, and I will extremely value a Core game that sets my mind at ease.

Even if you think my mind being set at ease in a Core game is irrational, it doesn't change the fact that that's how my brain works and I'm fine with it, and I want to embrace the Core game. It's delightful to me. So I'm thankful to management for creating it, and I hope my Core games pull in a new player or two (or three).

(I think the concept of a Core game has merits and is easily defensible, but my point here is that there is no need to defend it with merits -- entirely subjective comments such as "I like it for no legitimate reason and irrationally feel good when I do it" is a 100% good enough reason for a person, since each person is fully entitled to decide for themselves. They don't even have to defend it or assert the good qualities of a Core game. They can simply say, "But I want it" and that's legitimate. If the detractors are right and the idea is terrible and yet people still respond to it anyway, then we have still met the target of pulling people in. So that's how I'm going to handle people telling me that I'm wrong to like this or that it will ruin PFS: I'll say, "OK, but I'm having fun even though it doesn't make sense to you. Thanks.")

Grand Lodge

Mark Stratton wrote:


Jerrum:

Really, for all of us, the issue is just one of choice. Some people will choose to play regular PFS because it has all (or most or many) of the options they want. Some will play regular PFS because they have invested a lot of money in books and supplements and want to make use of them so they get some return on their investment. Some will choose to play CORE because they don't want all of those options in the game they play, or they can't afford all the books and so don't want to feel left behind. In my own case, I prefer CORE because I am something of a "teaching GM" and get low-tier tables and new...

I agree that the Core sounds like it could be a great way to bring more people into the game, whether it be player or dm. I said it previously ={Doing this to introduce new players/dm's is understandable and great.}.

I really hope it does bring more players, who then end up getting into the rest of the Society stuff.

My apprehensiveness comes from past experience with other game systems that tried to get more players but instead drove off their key customers and ultimately killed the game.

Now some of you are going to say this isn't going to happen, I really hope doesn't, because I'd like nothing more than to play for many many years, but I've got shelves and shelves of rpg games as far back as the late 70's that say something else.

If this Core thing had happened just a few weeks earlier, I wouldn't have even bothered buying all the Pathfinder books I have now.

All I can do is wait and see.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kevin Willis wrote:
Can we ask everyone to consider the upsides of simplicity before they try to start picking apart the blog to make their characters more powerful?

Torn between "That's just crazy talk!" and "You must be new around here..." *chuckle*

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
outshyn wrote:
doc the grey wrote:
Mike Lindner wrote:
I think this will really help those who want to or at least may be willing to try GMing.
Not really.

Speaking for yourself, I hope. For me: yes really. I've run 9 PFS games in Normal mode, and I'm dying to run in Core mode. I have the Core classes mostly memorized and understood. I know nothing from Advanced Class Guide, and I'm dreading the Occult book classes. I simply feel out of control when I have 5 out of 6 players using classes I've never heard of, and abilities that I don't understand and cannot double-check easily without slowing down the game. That is just my personal brain at work. We can all be derogatory of people like me and suggest that slow people shouldn't GM or something, but until they actually bar me from GMing, I will GM, and I will extremely value a Core game that sets my mind at ease.

Even if you think my mind being set at ease in a Core game is irrational, it doesn't change the fact that that's how my brain works and I'm fine with it, and I want to embrace the Core game. It's delightful to me. So I'm thankful to management for creating it, and I hope my Core games pull in a new player or two (or three).

(I think the concept of a Core game has merits and is easily defensible, but my point here is that there is no need to defend it with merits -- entirely subjective comments such as "I like it for no legitimate reason and irrationally feel good when I do it" is a 100% good enough reason for a person, since each person is fully entitled to decide for themselves. They don't even have to defend it or assert the good qualities of a Core game. They can simply say, "But I want it" and that's legitimate. If the detractors are right and the idea is terrible and yet people still respond to it anyway, then we have still met the target of pulling people in. So that's how I'm going to handle people telling me that I'm wrong to like this or that it will ruin PFS: I'll say, "OK, but I'm having...

Sometimes it's worth slowing down the game. There is no PFS police that are going to haul you away for slowing the game down. More to the point, you'll never learn any non-core material just running CORE. If you think a PC build is dubious, make them explain to you for 5 min. 5 min that can save 30 min is time well spent.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mimo Tomblebur wrote:
Clearly clerics and paladins will be limited to the core 20 deities. I presume that other characters can worship non-core deities that appear in other resources as long as there are no mechanical benefits?

Waitaminute... that means... that means no more tiefling paladin-inquisitors of Ragathiel.

WOOHOOOO! That alone completely justifies this change and makes any headaches or complications wortwhile.

Silver Crusade

Jerrum Mallex wrote:
Mark Stratton wrote:


Jerrum:

Really, for all of us, the issue is just one of choice. Some people will choose to play regular PFS because it has all (or most or many) of the options they want. Some will play regular PFS because they have invested a lot of money in books and supplements and want to make use of them so they get some return on their investment. Some will choose to play CORE because they don't want all of those options in the game they play, or they can't afford all the books and so don't want to feel left behind. In my own case, I prefer CORE because I am something of a "teaching GM" and get low-tier tables and new...

I agree that the Core sounds like it could be a great way to bring more people into the game, whether it be player or dm. I said it previously ={Doing this to introduce new players/dm's is understandable and great.}.

I really hope it does bring more players, who then end up getting into the rest of the Society stuff.

My apprehensiveness comes from past experience with other game systems that tried to get more players but instead drove off their key customers and ultimately killed the game.

Now some of you are going to say this isn't going to happen, I really hope doesn't, because I'd like nothing more than to play for many many years, but I've got shelves and shelves of rpg games as far back as the late 70's that say something else.

If this Core thing had happened just a few weeks earlier, I wouldn't have even bothered buying all the Pathfinder books I have now.

All I can do is wait and see.

If you like the material in the new books, don't play CORE. Tell your VOs you won't be playing CORE because you just bought all these new books. Paizo needs this input, even though it's indirect. They claim to be paying attention, so that should theoretically do something.

Your post about not buying their books because of this should raise red flags in and of itself, though.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 Venture-Captain, Indiana—Northern

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
They claim to be paying attention, so that should theoretically do something.

They are paying attention, David, and the implication that they aren't (which is what this statement is), or the subtle suggestion that such a statement may be doubtful or questionable, is really unnecessary. Can we please avoid these types of statements? It's this sort of thing that can inflame this conversation, and we should avoid doing so, if we can.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
Here's the other problem no one has addressed. GM's who will refuse to GM anything but Core Only when players want Normal games.

Well - this accounts for me. But it's not that I've refused - it's that I haven't volunteered. And for the reasons that Core-Only seems built to address. I shouldn't have to have mastered the equivalent of the Library of Congress in order to run this game. It's not that I'm a poor DM - it's that I simply don't have the hours to spend pouring over every book to familiarize myself with all of the possible combinations and interactions of classes, skills, feats, spells, and specialized mechanics. And if I had the time, I don't have the money to buy everything. It's simply not possible.

There comes a point where it just becomes a contest to see who has the bigger ... collection of books and the time to read them all.


outshyn wrote:
doc the grey wrote:
Mike Lindner wrote:
I think this will really help those who want to or at least may be willing to try GMing.
Not really.
Speaking for yourself, I hope. For me: yes really. I've run 9 PFS games in Normal mode, and I'm dying to run in Core mode. I have the Core classes mostly memorized and understood. I know nothing from Advanced Class Guide, and I'm dreading the Occult book classes. I simply feel out of control when I have 5 out of 6 players using classes I've never heard of, and abilities that I don't understand and cannot double-check easily without slowing down the game. ...

I completely understand what you are saying. I consider myself a reasonably intelligent and well read guy. I like to make characters. And I use a fair number of books when I do. But there is no way I can ever hope to know all of it that is possible. Especially some of the rarer-uber-twinkie-corner options.

My approach has been to basically ignore it most of the time. I just figure out what the NPC's are doing. The players tell me what they are doing. I pretty much have to rely on the fact that the players are more expert on their particular build than I am.

The common newbie errors. Yes of course I catch those. Sometimes they are trying to do something that I have researched and know it doesn't work. A few times, the result has been so out there that I made them show me (they were wrong once).
But if I don't know about, I pretty much let them do it. If it seems too far out, I check it on my own time later. If it isn't allowed, I let them know at the next event.

So yeah, I also don't know it all. But I no longer try.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:
Sometimes it's worth slowing down the game. There is no PFS police that are going to haul you away for slowing the game down. More to the point, you'll never learn any non-core material just running CORE. If you think a PC build is dubious, make them explain to you for 5 min. 5 min that can save 30 min is time well spent.

If ONLY it only took 5 minutes and didn't totally derail the flow/momentum of the game.

You see, what I've found is that not only are certain type of players very good at pouring through the various available sources to find synergistic combinations that can be extremely powerful, a good portion of the same group often has different interpretations of how some of the feats/class abilities/etc work.

I found after the Ultimate series was published, I'd encounter issues with players' rules interpretations, where I, as table GM, ended up saying, "Well, I know that is how you would LIKE it to work, but that's not my interpretation. You can appeal to the gameday coordinator/convention coordinator or we can just go on with my interpretation, since I'm GMing this particular table."

As time went on, I resorted to this 'solution' less and less. I just hated the way it ground table momentum to an absolute standstill.

Anyway, with even more materials becoming available, my knowledge has lagged further behind all the possible combinations of what might require rules interpretation -- so the amount of times I would just hand wave and tell the player, "Whatever you say" increased. I hate doing this, but I'd rather just go that direction than bring the game to a grinding halt while we have a discussion that often ends up with a disagreement of the interpretation of the rules. My point is that this has increasingly led me to feel that I'm doing a 'bad job' at GMing (I know, I know, it's all relative).

My current 'solution' is to limit my GMing to low tier (1-5, occasionally 3 to 7) tables. While this satisfied my desire to GM, it just meant others increasingly shoulder the burden of GMing high tier scenarios.

I think *maybe* with the institution of the core campaign, I can now run higher tier tables where the players can be satisfied that I'm spending enough time sorting through rules with them and I can feel like the flow of the story I'm trying to tell isn't shot through the head and rolled into a roadside ditch.

Silver Crusade

Mark Stratton wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
They claim to be paying attention, so that should theoretically do something.
They are paying attention, David, and the implication that they aren't (which is what this statement is), or the subtle suggestion that such a statement may be doubtful or questionable, is really unnecessary. Can we please avoid these types of statements? It's this sort of thing that can inflame this conversation, and we should avoid doing so, if we can.

I'm not saying they aren't. I'm not implying that they aren't. I'm saying that they ARE, and so something should theoretically happen if that's true.

Silver Crusade

talbanus wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Sometimes it's worth slowing down the game. There is no PFS police that are going to haul you away for slowing the game down. More to the point, you'll never learn any non-core material just running CORE. If you think a PC build is dubious, make them explain to you for 5 min. 5 min that can save 30 min is time well spent.

If ONLY it only took 5 minutes and didn't totally derail the flow/momentum of the game.

You see, what I've found is that not only are certain type of players very good at pouring through the various available sources to find synergistic combinations that can be extremely powerful, a good portion of the same group often has different interpretations of how some of the feats/class abilities/etc work.

I found after the Ultimate series was published, I'd encounter issues with players' rules interpretations, where I, as table GM, ended up saying, "Well, I know that is how you would LIKE it to work, but that's not my interpretation. You can appeal to the gameday coordinator/convention coordinator or we can just go on with my interpretation, since I'm GMing this particular table."

As time went on, I resorted to this 'solution' less and less. I just hated the way it ground table momentum to an absolute standstill.

Anyway, with even more materials becoming available, my knowledge has lagged further behind all the possible combinations of what might require rules interpretation -- so the amount of times I would just hand wave and tell the player, "Whatever you say" increased. I hate doing this, but I'd rather just go that direction than bring the game to a grinding halt while we have a discussion that often ends up with a disagreement of the interpretation of the rules. My point is that this has increasingly led me to feel that I'm doing a 'bad job' at GMing (I know, I know, it's all relative).

My current 'solution' is to limit my GMing to low tier (1-5, occasionally 3 to 7) tables. While this satisfied my desire to GM, it just meant...

If a combo can't be explained in 5 min, then there's probably something fishy going on. I use the boards the keep up on which combos are truly YMMV and which ones have been ruled on. I find this makes this process go much faster.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
outshyn wrote:

Speaking for yourself, I hope. For me: yes really. I've run 9 PFS games in Normal mode, and I'm dying to run in Core mode. I have the Core classes mostly memorized and understood. I know nothing from Advanced Class Guide, and I'm dreading the Occult book classes. I simply feel out of control when I have 5 out of 6 players using classes I've never heard of, and abilities that I don't understand and cannot double-check easily without slowing down the game. That is just my personal brain at work. We can all be derogatory of people like me and suggest that slow people shouldn't GM or something, but until they actually bar me from GMing, I will GM, and I will extremely value a Core game that sets my mind at ease.

Even if you think my mind being set at ease in a Core game is irrational, it doesn't change the fact that that's how my brain works and I'm fine with it, and I want to embrace the Core game. It's delightful to me. So I'm thankful to management for creating it, and I hope my Core games pull in a new player or two (or three).

(I think the concept of a Core game has merits and is easily defensible, but my point here is that there is no need to defend it with merits -- entirely subjective comments such as "I like it for no legitimate reason and irrationally feel good when I do it" is a 100% good enough reason for a person, since each person is fully entitled to decide for themselves. They don't even have to defend it or assert the good qualities of a Core game. They can simply say, "But I want it" and that's legitimate. If the detractors are right and the idea is terrible and yet people still respond to it anyway, then we have still met the target of pulling people in. So that's how I'm going to handle people telling me that I'm wrong to like this or that it will ruin PFS: I'll say, "OK, but I'm having fun even though it doesn't make sense to you. Thanks.")

This is perfect. Thank you Outshyn.

David Bowles wrote:
Sometimes it's worth slowing down the game. There is no PFS police that are going to haul you away for slowing the game down. More to the point, you'll never learn any non-core material just running CORE. If you think a PC build is dubious, make them explain to you for 5 min. 5 min that can save 30 min is time well spent.

David, this response misses the point of Outshyn's beautiful post. Even if it's "worth it" for you to participate in a such-and-such a way, it might not be "worth it" for others, by their own lights and in their own circumstances, to participate in a similar way. Core Mode might be something they prefer.

In other words—"OK, but I'm having fun even though it doesn't make sense to you. Thanks."

:-)

Silver Crusade

David Bowles wrote:
If a combo can't be explained in 5 min, then there's probably something fishy going on. I use the boards the keep up on which combos are truly YMMV and which ones have been ruled on. I find this makes this process go much faster.

And it's great that that works for you. But that doesn't work for everyone.**

And that's all that matters here.

(** Why not? Some possibilities—though again, it doesn't matter—: more limited time, less invested in learning the ins and outs of every titchy little rule, lower tolerance for some of the nastiness that can pervade the discussions here ...)

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Central Europe aka Thamius

1 person marked this as a favorite.
outshyn wrote:

Speaking for yourself, I hope. For me: yes really. I've run 9 PFS games in Normal mode, and I'm dying to run in Core mode. I have the Core classes mostly memorized and understood. I know nothing from Advanced Class Guide, and I'm dreading the Occult book classes. I simply feel out of control when I have 5 out of 6 players using classes I've never heard of, and abilities that I don't understand and cannot double-check easily without slowing down the game. That is just my personal brain at work. We can all be derogatory of people like me and suggest that slow people shouldn't GM or something, but until they actually bar me from GMing, I will GM, and I will extremely value a Core game that sets my mind at ease.

Even if you think my mind being set at ease in a Core game is irrational, it doesn't change the fact that that's how my brain works and I'm fine with it, and I want to embrace the Core game. It's delightful to me. So I'm thankful to management for creating it, and I hope my Core games pull in a new player or two (or three).

(I think the concept of a Core game has merits and is easily defensible, but my point here is that there is no need to defend it with merits -- entirely subjective comments such as "I like it for no legitimate reason and irrationally feel good when I do it" is a 100% good enough reason for a person, since each person is fully entitled to decide for themselves. They don't even have to defend it or assert the good qualities of a Core game. They can simply say, "But I want it" and that's legitimate. If the detractors are right and the idea is terrible and yet people still respond to it anyway, then we have still met the target of pulling people in. So that's how I'm going to handle people telling me that I'm wrong to like this or that it will ruin PFS: I'll say, "OK, but I'm having...

Great post!

No one has every single rule and character option memorized! I've run over 250 PFS games and I doubt I've scratched the surface on more than 10% of the stuff out there. I've asked Jason Bulmahn rules questions at conventions and he has to look some of them up to try to remember how they were intended, and he literally wrote the book! (Of course, I tend to only bother him with the most obscure rules questions since no one else can really answer those. Well, not always, "How were haunts intended to work mechanically?" isn't really obscure, just confusing.)

The burden of proof is on the PLAYER to understand and be able to explain/prove how his character's various options work, as the GM I have the plot, all NPCs and monsters, and the rest of the world to worry about. As David said, if it takes longer than a few minutes I start to get suspicious. When I have time (and I remember) I ask the players to tell me up front some of the less common things their characters have or can do.

I'm really looking forward to promoting the Core Campaign locally as a way to help new GMs ease into big chair! The opportunities for new players to start the game easier, or people to replay their favorite scenarios in a different mode, and all the other positive things people have said are just icing on the New GM cake.

If you only take one thing from my post, it's that we GMs have to stop holding ourselves to the unrealistic expectation that we have to know everything that the players might pull out. Prep the scenario to the best of your ability and make the players explain their abilities if and when they come up. It took me a long while to accept this.

801 to 850 of 1,044 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Paizo Blog: Introducing the Core Campaign All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.