Introducing the Core Campaign

And wraithcannon's assertion that you can use Bestiary 2 for Elementals is incorrect. You can only use Elementals from the Bestiary.

That was established 3 hours ago by the post with the link to the nearly three year old year old post by Mark Moreland that hasn't been updated and apparently still stands, and re-affirmed by Mike B. an hour ago.

Andrew Christian wrote:

And wraithcannon's assertion that you can use Bestiary 2 for Elementals is incorrect. You can only use Elementals from the Bestiary.

That was established 3 hours ago by the post with the link to the nearly three year old year old post by Mark Moreland that hasn't been updated and apparently still stands, and re-affirmed by Mike B. an hour ago.

Yup, I got ninja'd.

This is awesome! Even as an experienced PFS player, I'm looking forward to going back to basics. Less cheese = bigger challenges = more fun!

And it will be good to see an influx of new players joining.

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

And the official titles to be used in the updated guide are Core Campaign and Normal Campaign.

Pathfinder Society Core Mode or Pathfinder Society Normal Mode

Blarg. Knew I should have double-checked the VO board.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

redward wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

redward wrote:

But if we get supreme pizza every week, and some people really want cheese pizza, I'd have to be a real jerk to ask the pizzeria to not offer cheese pizza just to ensure I get the pizza I want.

If you get 5 supreme pizzas every week, and then you announce that you're going to start ordering 2 cheese pizzas every week, I don't think it's an unreasonable concern (let alone jerkish) to think you might only be ordering 3 supremes from now on, rather than assuming you'll be ordering 7 total pizzas.

Especially if your venue is only ordering 1 pizza each week because you can barely scrape up the money for it.

That's why you ask what people want before you put in the order. Or to put the terrible metaphor aside, you schedule based on demand.

If your venue only has one table per week, I would assume you would determine Core or Original Recipe by:

• What your GMs are willing to run
  
• What the majority of players want to play

Roughly in that order. If one lonely player gets left out, that sucks, but why should everyone else have to suffer just to maintain the status quo for one person? Or two? Or three*?

*Because you know, once you've got 4 people on the same page, the solution should be pretty obvious.

This only works if the number of available GMs is large enough. If only one is ever willing and able to GM that logic won't work.

That said, I think that scenario is pretty rare, in my usual PFS group at least 4 people GM regularly, so most of us know the pains of sitting at the receiving end of a crit.

I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for players who are unwilling to GM. If they're intimidated by the multitude of rules I hear there's a new option that significantly lowers that bar.

Actually the amount of rules in the CRB, and PFS guide is still pretty massive compared to other RPGs, I think we should motivate people to GM, but forcing the issue obviously isn't an option.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

The Fox wrote:

I am 99% confident that Bestiaries 2-4 are off limits for all such effects. This will apply to GMs, too, for NPCs that use those spells. I don't have a link, but Mike said earlier that GMs can only use books outside of CORE for elements that appear within the scenario they are running. It seems only fair play that players face that same restriction.

This would prevent the use of anti magic Bandersnatches since they nest in Bestiary no 3 ^^

It would prevent PC's from creating them with Simulacrum, I dont believe GM's are similarly limited especially as they have to access non core material used in the actual scenario.

Also Mike specified only Bestiary 1 for PC use of spells like Planar Binding and Elemental Body and class abilities like Wildshape. It's earlier in the thread, somewhere in the first 5 or 6 pages I believe.

Well the Bandersnatch is a bit of a straw man argument, but the Bestiary 1 does have plenty of nasty choices.

EDIT: Of course core mode does prevent the combination of blood money and simulacrum, which should discourage players.

* I have seen, with my own eyes, a half-dozen examples of a new player coming to the local game-day table with a solid, Core-only PC, who watched as a couple of other players with an enormous number of resources and system mastery left the new player's PC in the dust. Core Mode levels that playing field and encourages those players to come back the next week.

I don't doubt it, I have made that experience, but it motivated me to "up my game", of course I am not your typical new player. I started PFS with an pretty large amount of system mastery.

The sentiment of leveling the playing field is a noble one, but since the classes in the CRB aren't exactly balanced, especially considering the challenges PFS tend to throw at the party... well I still think that self censorship is the way to go rather than limiting material.

I guess at this point we just have to wait and see, I am very curious about the chronicle sheets in the next months.

Chris Mortika wrote:

* I have seen, with my own eyes, a half-dozen examples of a new player coming to the local game-day table with a solid, Core-only PC, who watched as a couple of other players with an enormous number of resources and system mastery left the new player's PC in the dust. Core Mode levels that playing field and encourages those players to come back the next week.

I don't doubt it, I have made that experience, but it motivated me to "up my game", of course I am not your typical new player. I started PFS with an pretty large amount of system mastery.

The sentiment of leveling the playing field is a noble one, but since the classes in the CRB aren't exactly balanced, especially considering the challenges PFS tend to throw at the party... well I still think that self censorship is the way to go rather than limiting material.

I guess at this point we just have to wait and see, I am very curious about the chronicle sheets in the next months.

And the new person is not going to be left in the dust by all the pounce cats and jackpot barbarian builds? Jackpot fighter archers? I really think that core-only is just going to limit how new people can build what they want, and gulf between optimizers and non-optimizers will remain. But I guess we'll see.

I know M.Brock has said Bestiary 1 is a valid reference while the blog does not say that. Hopefully when the Core PFS rules come out that is clarified in the book.

I don't think this really stops optimization at all. It just limits what your optimization avenues are. Pounce druid is still going to pounce, barbarian is still going to smash, and wizards are still going to shut down encounters. I don't doubt this will encourage builds solely based on acquiring specific chronicle sheets either. On top of that, it's really going to split a pretty small community. I don't doubt my local store will start having a Core table in place of one of the normal tables. It'll limit the number of normal tables, and folks who don't play Core probably won't get to play with those who do again.

I'm not really sure I understand this move from a business standpoint either. What's the incentive for Core players to buy the Occult book when it finally comes out? The assumption that this doubles your options monthly is pretty absurd, since the reality is that Core players will likely be going back and replaying old scenarios, which doesn't really generate much for Paizo.

Real headscratcher.

I don't think this really stops optimization at all.

Nothing will. So this obviously isn't intended to.

What? Isn't this the equivalent of someone that's accused of a crime, responding with, "Oh, you thought that was breaking the law? Let me show you what breaking the law looks like!"? Instead of getting your back up about a perceived attack on your play style, how about we encourage self-examination and self-awareness? Maybe a thought of, "Why are they reacting to what I'm doing or saying in that way?"

The "breaking the law example" doesn't work for me. It's more like having a slider between enjoying role playing a character and enjoying the tactical approach, and building effective characters. Obviously players find themselves on all parts of that spectrum.

There is a world of difference between your neighbor knocking on your door and asking you to turn down the music please, and him complain about it, making claims of higher authority and threatening you with the police

One of those results in me getting my headphones, the other one results me making an effort to annoy him (Germany has quiet hours, but outside of those the limits are rather lax, and in theory I could blast music (up to a limit) all day long except in those hours. I would take the time to rig a timer and everything to ensure maximum service). Is that an immature response, oh absolutely, but in the case of powergaming and destroying scenarios, we have an issue where players are already condemned of the act, so they might feel empowered to actually do it.

And I actually started a thread about self awareness amongst other areas
feel free to participate.

o, you're inferring that most of the people that knowingly make extremely powerful characters and use them to steam-roll season 0 to 3 encounters are actually already practicing some form of restraint? And that if we threaten to 'take away their toys', then they go out of their way to make something even more broken?! So, we should just not threaten toy restriction, because, then, they'll show us what broken really looks like? Wow. Power gamer terrorism -- apparently it's a real thing now?

Aren't season 1-3 scenarios already a bit easy, my experience with them is actually nonexistant, but I heard that the very rarely posed a challenge to even marginally well built characters and experienced players.

This may shock you, but I would argue, that most players don't actually build those powerful characters to steamroll adventures, there are other reasons for that.
Some just enjoy the mental challenge associated with creating those characters, others really don't want to die and take every available option to decrease those chances, and sometimes killing the enemy fast is the best way to increase survive-ability.

The "taking your toys" example is an immature reaction, but when you feel accusation of power creep aimed at something you enjoy it is hard not to get defensive, after all it feels like a personal critique.
When someone tells me "what you do is terrible, and the way you do it damages the experience of everyone around you" that is a pretty tall order, not that anyone actually said that just yet.
We are on the internet, and while it has advantages, discussions like this rarely work the way they would in real life.

I am really not keen about discussing your terrorist suggestion, since nothing useful can come from it. Its like edition wars, pretty nasty in places and ultimately a waste of time.

So let me just say that those who enjoy building powerful characters and feel forced into, or want to participate in core, will not suddenly change the way they build and play their characters.
However, people should as always try not to antagonize them with "so happy to play core, so all those munchkins can't ruin it with those terrible [insert class I really like] ", that is just basic.

Oh and I have plenty of ideas for characters that do not require non-core sources and are effective enough to be fun for me. ^^

Build =/= tactics. Tactics are making sure you get the rogue a flank, make sure you're in the proper location to maximize the benefit of your channels, etc. However, I do agree with what I think your intended point was - that certain powerful builds will still exist in core (damage machine archers, conjurer's with enhanced summoning, etc). I encourage authors of future scenarios to more often use things that balance out such icons (windwall or gust of wind (forget which), giving baddies a way to dismiss or minimize the impact of summoned creatures, etc).

It is not quite as easy to separate build from tactics, since some tactics only really become effective with the right built. And some tactics are night impossible without rather specialized builds, quite a number of combat maneuvers are a pretty lackluster option without at least some investments.

Other classes like monks and rogues really do need a good amount of system mastery, just look at treantmonks guides. Like telling a monk player, that investing to heavily into Dexterity and eschewing the use of weapons or explaining to the rogue that two weapon fighting will not double his sneak attacks, or explaing to the wizard that 7 CON is a bad idea even if that novel character did it.

This kind of discussion is always quite subjective, some argue that their level 7 dwarven paladin with 3 different weapon focus feats is a decent baseline (or just the old iconics), others feel that the system mastery of the new iconics is a good starting point.

And of course the system mastery of the GM is a big issue.

This is awesome! Even as an experienced PFS player, I'm looking forward to going back to basics. Less cheese = bigger challenges = more fun!

And it will be good to see an influx of new players joining.

Please stop being positive and using the word cheese, the combination makes it a terrible trigger for a number of people, even if the majority of them will gladly agree that a certain tactic is ripe for a fondue.

* I have seen, with my own eyes, a half-dozen examples of a new player coming to the local game-day table with a solid, Core-only PC, who watched as a couple of other players with an enormous number of resources and system mastery left the new player's PC in the dust. Core Mode levels that playing field and encourages those players to come back the next week.

The sentiment of leveling the playing field is a noble one, but since the classes in the CRB aren't exactly balanced, especially considering the challenges PFS tend to throw at the party... well I still think that self censorship is the way to go rather than limiting material.

Sure, but I'm not really talking about the relative strength of legal core builds. Heck, the new player can build a powerful barbarian just as easily as you or I. I'm talking about the new PC needing a move action to draw her wand, while the rest of the table uses spring-loaded wrist sheaths. (Want you character to do that? there's a copy of "Adventurer's Armory" you can buy.) I'm talking about the player building an Eldritch Knight, in the same party as a Kensai Magus. I'm talking about a new player being restricted from improving her character by her limited resources.

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.

Pahlok wrote:

I don't think this really stops optimization at all.

Nothing will. So this obviously isn't intended to.

Nothing will stop it, but greater system/class balance could make it less troublesome (as far as organized play, where the GM cant adjust things on the fly nearly as much). This would require greater playtesting and/or restrictions to materials, though. I call this beautiful dream, Pathfinder 2.0. /ducks

First, I want to say I'm excited about this announcement. I'm hopeful that it will lead to more opportunities to play, not fewer. I don't mind making a core only character. It'll still be my character, and getting a chance to play when I otherwise might not is a positive to me.

There is one thing I want to address, though.

The fact remains, for a lot of people 2 tables of play a month isn't enough for them, and it has lead to them leaving the campaign or throttling back their interest.

I think what BNW and others have been trying to say is, for a lot of people, 2 tables/slots a month is all that's offered in their area, and there's a worry that this change will jeopardize them even being able to get those two tables in. I know in my local area, attendance has been down. At one point we were able to offer 4-5 tables at once. Lately that's been down to 2, with 2 public game days per month. That's with the VOs organizing. I know they are working hard to get people there, but for whatever reason attendance has been down. And there's always the puzzle solving to make even those two tables happen. Being concerned that adding another variable into the mix might have a negative impact on an area that's struggling already to seat 1 or 2 tables per gameday -- or to find enough GMs to hold more than 1 or 2 game days per month -- is not unwarranted. Not every area can add additional game days and expect players or GMs to be able to show up consistently.

My hope is that it's the opposite effect, and having the option of running something core ultimately makes it easier to seat a table, but it's not hard to imagine a situation where that won't be the case.

I know, though, that our area has a few people who have played most of the scenarios. I've played a large majority of the 5-9s and lower prior to mid-season 5, so this should open up more opportunities for me to play.

Overall, I think this will be a good thing, but I think I understand the concerns of people who aren't so sure.

I don't think this really stops optimization at all. It just limits what your optimization avenues are. Pounce druid is still going to pounce, barbarian is still going to smash, and wizards are still going to shut down encounters. I don't doubt this will encourage builds solely based on acquiring specific chronicle sheets either. On top of that, it's really going to split a pretty small community. I don't doubt my local store will start having a Core table in place of one of the normal tables. It'll limit the number of normal tables, and folks who don't play Core probably won't get to play with those who do again.

I'm not really sure I understand this move from a business standpoint either. What's the incentive for Core players to buy the Occult book when it finally comes out? The assumption that this doubles your options monthly is pretty absurd, since the reality is that Core players will likely be going back and replaying old scenarios, which doesn't really generate much for Paizo.

Real headscratcher.

I think the issue or at least one issue was GM's running for characters with abilities the GM's had never heard of before. Some people don't like running something with a good understanding of how it works.

PFS Core also allows for people to start in PFS without having to consider every option. It removes option paralysis, which seems to be a bigger problem than I thought it was.

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.

That's not a problem.

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.

Those players are always welcome to GM themselves. Of course, being new GMs they will probably ask to run Core Mode.

;-)

talbanus wrote:

What? Isn't this the equivalent of someone that's accused of a crime, responding with, "Oh, you thought that was breaking the law? Let me show you what breaking the law looks like!"? Instead of getting your back up about a perceived attack on your play style, how about we encourage self-examination and self-awareness? Maybe a thought of, "Why are they reacting to what I'm doing or saying in that way?"

The "breaking the law example" doesn't work for me. It's more like having a slider between enjoying role playing a character and enjoying the tactical approach, and building effective characters. Obviously players find themselves on all parts of that spectrum.

There is a world of difference between your neighbor knocking on your door and asking you to turn down the music please, and him complain about it, making claims of higher authority and threatening you with the police

One of those results in me getting my headphones, the other one results me making an effort to annoy him (Germany has quiet hours, but outside of those the limits are rather lax, and in theory I could blast music (up to a limit) all day long except in those hours. I would take the time to rig a timer and everything to ensure maximum service). Is that an immature response, oh absolutely, but in the case of powergaming and destroying scenarios, we have an issue where players are already condemned of the act, so they might feel empowered to actually do it.

And I actually started a thread about self awareness amongst other areas
feel free to participate.

talbanus wrote:

o, you're inferring that most of the people that knowingly make extremely powerful characters and use them to steam-roll season 0 to 3 encounters are actually already practicing some form of restraint? And that if we threaten to 'take away their toys', then they go out of their way to make something even more broken?! So, we

...

Dude. How is responding in a jerky, immature way ever a reasonable response? Stop trying to justify bad behavior. Doing things with the prime motivation being either selfish ("it's about me!") or down right antagonistic ("I don't like what you said so I'm going to break this and I don't care if it annoys other people, in fact I hope it does!") is just that -- bad behavior.

Chris Mortika wrote:

* I have seen, with my own eyes, a half-dozen examples of a new player coming to the local game-day table with a solid, Core-only PC, who watched as a couple of other players with an enormous number of resources and system mastery left the new player's PC in the dust. Core Mode levels that playing field and encourages those players to come back the next week.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

The sentiment of leveling the playing field is a noble one, but since the classes in the CRB aren't exactly balanced, especially considering the challenges PFS tend to throw at the party... well I still think that self censorship is the way to go rather than limiting material.

Sure, but I'm not really talking about the relative strength of legal core builds. Heck, the new player can build a powerful barbarian just as easily as you or I. I'm talking about the new PC needing a move action to draw her wand, while the rest of the table uses spring-loaded wrist sheaths. (Want you character to do that? there's a copy of "Adventurer's Armory" you can buy.) I'm talking about the player building an Eldritch Knight, in the same party as a Kensai Magus. I'm talking about a new player being restricted from improving her character by her limited resources.

The writ sheat thing and wands actually bothers me, I can carry a bandolier and craw thrown weapons as I use them, but I can't manage to draw a wand in combination with a move action (like I can draw a weapon). I am tempted to start arguing that I draw the wand as an improvised weapon, but I digress.

Certain newer options are just better at what they do, if someone wants to go into melee and attack with a weapon magus is the way to go, if the just wants to use rays and high level spells eldritch knight is decent (and the higher HD is welcome too).

There are plenty of examples where new options are just a more interesting sidegrade rather than an upgrade, the arcanist is a decent example, since it allows players to make a choice when learning spells, without being stuck with them.

Sometimes I think that the exeption for sharing resources with your usual group should be used for any new player up to a certain character level. But even without such a rule, the ability to ask other players, filter the material online and find the character that your want to create really helps... and frankly spending 10 $ on the ACG is a really good investment. Until that time, the ACG pregens are very good.
Limiting the resources the player feels forced to familiarize himself with is a good idea, but that can be done by good advice.

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.

That's not a problem.

You don't think losing 4-6 players because a new mode came out is a problem?

Those players are always welcome to GM themselves. Of course, being new GMs they will probably ask to run Core Mode.

;-)

Why? Core mode doesn't effect GM's in any way except additional credits for already run adventures, and you don't think losing a GM would be a bad thing?

redward wrote:

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.

That's not a problem.

You don't think losing 4-6 players because a new mode came out is a problem?

Quote:

Those players are always welcome to GM themselves. Of course, being new GMs they will probably ask to run Core Mode.

;-)

Why? Core mode doesn't effect GM's in any way except additional credits for already run adventures, and you don't think losing a GM would be a bad thing?

I'm going to guess Redward means it's not a problem, because players can convert themselves into GM's. If 6 people want to play normal mode and the GM doesn't want to run it, you know what? Sounds like one of the 6 needs to prep the scenario in normal mode and run it for his/her 5 friends (rather than expect someone to spend 4+ hours PLUS prep time to do something they don't enjoy).

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Pahlok wrote:

I don't think this really stops optimization at all.

Nothing will. So this obviously isn't intended to.

Nothing will stop it, but greater system/class balance could make it less troublesome (as far as organized play, where the GM cant adjust things on the fly nearly as much). This would require greater playtesting and/or restrictions to materials, though. I call this beautiful dream, Pathfinder 2.0. /ducks

Pathfinder 2 will come at some point, for the time being Pathfinder Unchained will be a nice way to test some ideas, and obviously PF2 will need the mother of all playtest.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

talbanus wrote:

What? Isn't this the equivalent of someone that's accused of a crime, responding with, "Oh, you thought that was breaking the law? Let me show you what breaking the law looks like!"? Instead of getting your back up about a perceived attack on your play style, how about we encourage self-examination and self-awareness? Maybe a thought of, "Why are they reacting to what I'm doing or saying in that way?"

The "breaking the law example" doesn't work for me. It's more like having a slider between enjoying role playing a character and enjoying the tactical approach, and building effective characters. Obviously players find themselves on all parts of that spectrum.

There is a world of difference between your neighbor knocking on your door and asking you to turn down the music please, and him complain about it, making claims of higher authority and threatening you with the police

One of those results in me getting my headphones, the other one results me making an effort to annoy him (Germany has quiet hours, but outside of those the limits are rather lax, and in theory I could blast music (up to a limit) all day long except in those hours. I would take the time to rig a timer and everything to ensure maximum service). Is that an immature response, oh absolutely, but in the case of powergaming and destroying scenarios, we have an issue where players are already condemned of the act, so they might feel empowered to actually do it.

And I actually started a thread about self awareness amongst other areas
feel free to participate.

talbanus wrote:

o, you're inferring that most of the people that knowingly make extremely powerful characters and use them to steam-roll season 0 to 3 encounters are actually already practicing some form of restraint? And that if we threaten to 'take away their toys', then they go out of their way to make

...

It is human nature, an accepting that something like this happens is the first step to disarm the situation. And let's not forget that it is all about them, they spend resouces (time, money) to get to those PFS events with the intent to have fun. Once their fun jeopardizes the fun of the other participants, we have a problem, but if a player doesn't have fun, he will not come back.

In other words, can't we all just stop antagonizing other for their preferred style of play, level of system mastery, interest in role playing their character and all the other things that divide us?

I doubt that things will end up even half as bad as some people have feared, I just wanted to add that some expectations of player behavior aren't realistic.

Walter Sheppard wrote:

I doubt that we will have a Core only messageboard, but who knows, such things might happen.

"Who's got two thumbs and just got made a fool of?"

This guy!

I don't normally rub things in or gloat, but this feels like an opportunity.

points finger

Hah, hah!

If 6 people want to play normal mode and the GM doesn't want to run it, you know what? Sounds like one of the 6 needs to prep the scenario in normal mode and run it for his/her 5 friends (rather than expect someone to spend 4+ hours PLUS prep time to do something they don't enjoy).

So if they have fewer players and one can't even step up to GM because there's not enough players left collectively to run they're just SoL.

Which is the attitude the 4 and 5 star GMs seem to have toward this. "Screw the people who are hurt I've been helped!" Few of them seem to exhibit much concern about PFS.

So if they have fewer players and one can't even step up to GM because there's not enough players left collectively to run they're just SoL.

You're saying that there are only four people then? As four is the minimum number for a table. GM, 3 players, pregen NPC.

talbanus wrote:

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Pahlok wrote:

I don't think this really stops optimization at all.

Nothing will. So this obviously isn't intended to.

Nothing will stop it, but greater system/class balance could make it less troublesome (as far as organized play, where the GM cant adjust things on the fly nearly as much). This would require greater playtesting and/or restrictions to materials, though. I call this beautiful dream, Pathfinder 2.0. /ducks

Pathfinder 2 will come at some point, for the time being Pathfinder Unchained will be a nice way to test some ideas, and obviously PF2 will need the mother of all playtest.

I hope that it receives the mother of all play-tests. That's not a panacea, but it would be nice if such happened and it helped initial release class (and other) balance. It's one of the things I thought that other product did well in their initial release of their 4th edition (that and the aggro mechanic -- didn't like too much else about it .. but I digress).

Anyhoodle, yes, I too, want us to 'all get along'. And I agree, some people are going to behave badly. However, agreeing the behavior will happen, and allowing it or lowering the behavior bar, I can't agree with. Calling them 'complicated' ... I think that's a disservice. We can't all be super social butterfly carebear ... but we should at least realize that what we're doing here is about THE GROUP having fun. It is, at MOST, 1/4th about you (you, the GM running an iconic, and 2 other players). This is a social game. You need to not behave in an anti-social fashion. If you do, you should be invited to leave. /endrant

talbanus wrote:

If 6 people want to play normal mode and the GM doesn't want to run it, you know what? Sounds like one of the 6 needs to prep the scenario in normal mode and run it for his/her 5 friends (rather than expect someone to spend 4+ hours PLUS prep time to do something they don't enjoy).

So if they have fewer players and one can't even step up to GM because there's not enough players left collectively to run they're just SoL.

Which is the attitude the 4 and 5 star GMs seem to have toward this. "Screw the people who are hurt I've been helped!" Few of them seem to exhibit much concern about PFS.

To give them the benefit of the doubt, I think they consider to benefits for the PFS as a whole rather than the possible downsides for individual players - which is frankly the only was to run such a big campaign.

Ideally this should increase the number of players, and thus giving everyone more chances to play, I guess we will see how it turns out. I would not be surprised if the rule against using a CORE character in a non-core game were to be changed pretty soon, since that makes it harder to schedule high level scenarios. (chances are that with characters switching to the normal campaign, even less people will have characters at the higher levels).

Which is the attitude the 4 and 5 star GMs seem to have toward this. "Screw the people who are hurt I've been helped!" Few of them seem to exhibit much concern about PFS.

I've been reading every post on every thread about Core. I haven't seen this attitude expressed by anyone, much less by the four and five star GMs.

talbanus wrote:

If 6 people want to play normal mode and the GM doesn't want to run it, you know what? Sounds like one of the 6 needs to prep the scenario in normal mode and run it for his/her 5 friends (rather than expect someone to spend 4+ hours PLUS prep time to do something they don't enjoy).

So if they have fewer players and one can't even step up to GM because there's not enough players left collectively to run they're just SoL.

Which is the attitude the 4 and 5 star GMs seem to have toward this. "Screw the people who are hurt I've been helped!" Few of them seem to exhibit much concern about PFS.

Well, people that are 4 or 5 star GM's ... those stars SHOW they have put a lot of time into this campaign. I am pretty sure they're not just 'takers'. XD

P.S.: except TOZ. That guy is such a selfish douche! ;-)

Undone wrote:

talbanus wrote:

If 6 people want to play normal mode and the GM doesn't want to run it, you know what? Sounds like one of the 6 needs to prep the scenario in normal mode and run it for his/her 5 friends (rather than expect someone to spend 4+ hours PLUS prep time to do something they don't enjoy).

So if they have fewer players and one can't even step up to GM because there's not enough players left collectively to run they're just SoL.

Which is the attitude the 4 and 5 star GMs seem to have toward this. "Screw the people who are hurt I've been helped!" Few of them seem to exhibit much concern about PFS.

Well, people that are 4 or 5 star GM's ... those stars SHOW they have put a lot of time into this campaign. I am pretty sure they're not just 'takers'. XD

P.S.: except TOZ. That guy is such a selfish douche! ;-)

Yeah, but TriOmegaZero's a pretty cool guy :P

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

talbanus wrote:

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Pahlok wrote:

I don't think this really stops optimization at all.

Nothing will. So this obviously isn't intended to.

Nothing will stop it, but greater system/class balance could make it less troublesome (as far as organized play, where the GM cant adjust things on the fly nearly as much). This would require greater playtesting and/or restrictions to materials, though. I call this beautiful dream, Pathfinder 2.0. /ducks

Pathfinder 2 will come at some point, for the time being Pathfinder Unchained will be a nice way to test some ideas, and obviously PF2 will need the mother of all playtest.

I hope that it receives the mother of all play-tests. That's not a panacea, but it would be nice if such happened and it helped initial release class (and other) balance. It's one of the things I thought that other product did well in their initial release of their 4th edition (that and the aggro mechanic -- didn't like too much else about it .. but I digress).

Anyhoodle, yes, I too, want us to 'all get along'. And I agree, some people are going to behave badly. However, agreeing the behavior will happen, and allowing it or lowering the behavior bar, I can't agree with. Calling them 'complicated' ... I think that's a disservice. We can't all be super social butterfly carebear ... but we should at least realize that what we're doing here is about THE GROUP having fun. It is, at MOST, 1/4th about you (you, the GM running an iconic, and 2 other players). This is a social game. You need to not behave in an anti-social fashion. If you do, you should be invited to leave. /endrant

Well playtests have become better, apparently in the innitial playstest for PF people already complained about high level monster survieabiltiy and a bunch of other things. The mythic playtest left me quite satly too, but with the occult playtest they seem to be getting better (their communication skills seem to improve, and I have faith in some new designers). The problem with PF2 will be that unless it is far better, many people will not switch right away, and wait for the first splatbook or two. Everquest and Lineage (mmos) hade the same problem, and it is the reason that we will not see WOW2.

talbanus wrote:

Undone wrote:

talbanus wrote:

If 6 people want to play normal mode and the GM doesn't want to run it, you know what? Sounds like one of the 6 needs to prep the scenario in normal mode and run it for his/her 5 friends (rather than expect someone to spend 4+ hours PLUS prep time to do something they don't enjoy).

So if they have fewer players and one can't even step up to GM because there's not enough players left collectively to run they're just SoL.

Which is the attitude the 4 and 5 star GMs seem to have toward this. "Screw the people who are hurt I've been helped!" Few of them seem to exhibit much concern about PFS.

Well, people that are 4 or 5 star GM's ... those stars SHOW they have put a lot of time into this campaign. I am pretty sure they're not just 'takers'. XD

P.S.: except TOZ. That guy is such a selfish douche! ;-)

Yeah, but TriOmegaZero's a pretty cool guy :P

You are both of course correct, but that Steven Schopmeyer fellow is the one you really need to watch, I think he is plotting to make alternative personalities mandatory ^^ and the voices in my head are not fit for public display (immagine Pinky from Pinky and the Brain and you have a disturbing insight).

redward wrote:

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.

That's not a problem.

You don't think losing 4-6 players because a new mode came out is a problem?

Quote:

Those players are always welcome to GM themselves. Of course, being new GMs they will probably ask to run Core Mode.

;-)

Why? Core mode doesn't effect GM's in any way except additional credits for already run adventures, and you don't think losing a GM would be a bad thing?

Core Mode drastically reduces the number of rules a GM needs to deal with. It will also likely allow them to provide a greater challenge to a given party (though that is not guaranteed, just as a Normal Mode party is not guaranteed to walk through a given scenario). Some (but not all) GMs grow resentful when they spend hours prepping a scenario only to find each combat end before the surprise round is over.

I don't think players are entitled to a GM. I do think a GM should be allowed to run a game he wants to play.

Responsible organizers will be sure to advertise which tables will be Core and which will be Normal.

If there are no longer enough GMs to run Normal mode then someone else will have to step up.

If the players' response is "but I don't want to GM" then they now know how that GM feels with respect to Normal mode.

As I said before, if between one and three people are left in the cold, that is indeed unfortunate, but they are not entitled to a table, especially if it means forcing a GM to run a table in their preferred mode.

---

---

EDIT: Since this is now in the Core Campaign forum and I actually have no interest in Core, I'll be seeing myself out.

I'm confused and need to ask for some clarification about the Core pregens, Specifically, level 1 Sajan.

At first level he has a temple sword. That seems to be outside of the Core universe (I may be missing something here).

If it is the case that the temple sword is not Core legal, should we expect a new Sajan pregen for Core only? Do we just remove it from the sheet? Do we let the player use it as is even though it may not be legal for another level 1 monk that built their own character?

Little help please and thanks.

You don't think losing 4-6 players because a new mode came out is a problem?

Quote:

Those players are always welcome to GM themselves. Of course, being new GMs they will probably ask to run Core Mode.

;-)

Why? Core mode doesn't effect GM's in any way except additional credits for already run adventures, and you don't think losing a GM would be a bad thing?

It was a joke. Thus the winky face. But your rather bold assertion makes me feel obliged to reply.

In reality I expect many of my brand new GMs will request to start with Core tables because it eliminates the intimidating scenario we have now for GMs who think they should know all the new books at least well enough to know what the players can do. I have at least a few GMs in my area that have been holding off for a year or more because they don't feel they have enough system mastery to GM yet.

In another example, My brother recently said he would be very reluctant to rejoin PFS (he has several stars from the early days) because he has fallen way behind on all the complexity and options. Core could be a way to lure an awesome GM back into the game.

It seems a bit rich to say that core doesn't affect GMs when you clearly haven't fully considered their perspective.

Core Mode drastically reduces the number of rules a GM needs to deal with.

I'm just going to have to disagree. There are a limited number of options. You can claim more options on a character requires more reading but the truth is once they sit down at the table there are only X rules at the table. It's hard to come up with more rules than a druid/cleric/wizard compared to other classes.

I don't think players are entitled to a GM. I do think a GM should be allowed to run a game he wants to play.

Why are GM's entitled to this mode existing? If it didn't exist there would be no conflict.

Responsible organizers will be sure to advertise which tables will be Core and which will be Normal.

When 2 people show up? How many core only tables do you think will just not make because it's Core because one of our nights the GM wants to convert to core only. Less than half the people who normally go have signed up.

If there are no longer enough GMs to run Normal mode then someone else will have to step up.

Or PFS dies... which is my entire point.

If the players' response is "but I don't want to GM" then they now know how that GM feels with respect to Normal mode.

Which they wouldn't feel if this didn't exist.

As I said before, if between one and three people are left in the cold, that is indeed unfortunate, but they are not entitled to a table, especially if it means forcing a GM to run a table in their preferred mode.

You don't think it's unfair of 1 person to impose their will on the rest of them?

A rant on player entitlement, not directed towards anyone in particular:

Just because the GM controls the enemies does not mean he is your enemy.

Many GM's I know seem to think otherwise.

There is a certain pervasive player attitude I've seen on the boards here that a PFS GM is required to endure any legal build a player brings, no matter how many ambiguous rules it uses or how disruptive it is to the rest of the table.

Rules as written say they are. That doesn't mean you should be a jerk about it but disruptive is relative. There are plenty of GM's who would claim +20 diplomacy is disruptive (There's even a thread that lists it as one of the traits of an over powered character for pete's sake.) it's super subjective so yes I expect PFS to follow the rules and tolerate builds because otherwise every single player would have to abide by every single GM's home rules.

If your local GMs seem to be salivating at the opportunity to switch to Core Mode, it's worth asking them why. They might just be tired of being pummeled with splat books.

My almost core only character (One feat and a +1 init ioun stone) was my first character and he was a druid. He was by far my most powerful character and I can replace the feat with II and he's stronger. Pummeling them to death with the core is literally easier than doing it with splat books because it drastically limits the characters I'd enjoy playing to druid, cleric, wizard, and barbarian. All of which will one shot encounters all day long. Heck my least powerful characters are the splat characters with classes that are far weaker than those 4.

It seems a bit rich to say that core doesn't affect GMs when you clearly haven't fully considered their perspective.

You still have to read B2, B3, B4, ACG, APG, and several other books worth of classes to GM various adventures.

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.

This is a coordinator issue. Game Day coordinators will have to deal with the logistics of organizing a game day. Will adding this extra element add a complexity to the logistics? Yes.

Will it be insurmountable? No.

You are both of course correct, but that Steven Schopmeyer fellow is the one you really need to watch, I think he is plotting to make alternative personalities mandatory ^^ and the voices in my head are not fit for public display (immagine Pinky from Pinky and the Brain and you have a disturbing insight).

Surely it isn't THAT bad...

Chris Mortika wrote:

Chris Mortika wrote:

* I have seen, with my own eyes, a half-dozen examples of a new player coming to the local game-day table with a solid, Core-only PC, who watched as a couple of other players with an enormous number of resources and system mastery left the new player's PC in the dust. Core Mode levels that playing field and encourages those players to come back the next week.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

The sentiment of leveling the playing field is a noble one, but since the classes in the CRB aren't exactly balanced, especially considering the challenges PFS tend to throw at the party... well I still think that self censorship is the way to go rather than limiting material.

Sure, but I'm not really talking about the relative strength of legal core builds. Heck, the new player can build a powerful barbarian just as easily as you or I. I'm talking about the new PC needing a move action to draw her wand, while the rest of the table uses spring-loaded wrist sheaths. (Want you character to do that? there's a copy of "Adventurer's Armory" you can buy.) I'm talking about the player building an Eldritch Knight, in the same party as a Kensai Magus. I'm talking about a new player being restricted from improving her character by her limited resources.

The writ sheat thing and wands actually bothers me, I can carry a bandolier and craw thrown weapons as I use them, but I can't manage to draw a wand in combination with a move action (like I can draw a weapon). I am tempted to start arguing that I draw the wand as an improvised weapon, but I digress.

Certain newer options are just better at what they do, if someone wants to go into melee and attack with a weapon magus is the way to go, if the just wants to use rays and high level spells eldritch knight is decent (and the higher HD is welcome too).

There are plenty of examples where new options are just a more interesting sidegrade rather than an upgrade, the arcanist is a decent...

Not sure why Core Mode changes how a wand is drawn. Unless you put them in your backpack, Wands can be drawn as a weapon-like object.

A shortsword in your backpack, is recovered as a move action that provokes. A shortsword in its sheath on your belt is drawn as a move action that doesn't provoke.

Replace the word shortsword with wand, and the sentence is still true.

I still am a little miffed that my first character couldn't draw Wands out of an Efficient Quiver as he would if it was an arrow. It was the whole reason I bought the thing, so I wouldn't have them in my Handy Havorsack.

I'll run all the normal mode you want.

"Some (but not all) GMs grow resentful when they spend hours prepping a scenario only to find each combat end before the surprise round is over"

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.

redward wrote:

Core Mode drastically reduces the number of rules a GM needs to deal with.

I'm just going to have to disagree. There are a limited number of options. You can claim more options on a character requires more reading but the truth is once they sit down at the table there are only X rules at the table. It's hard to come up with more rules than a druid/cleric/wizard compared to other classes.

redward wrote:

I don't think players are entitled to a GM. I do think a GM should be allowed to run a game he wants to play.

Why are GM's entitled to this mode existing? If it didn't exist there would be no conflict.

redward wrote:

Responsible organizers will be sure to advertise which tables will be Core and which will be Normal.

When 2 people show up? How many core only tables do you think will just not make because it's Core because one of our nights the GM wants to convert to core only. Less than half the people who normally go have signed up.

redward wrote:

If there are no longer enough GMs to run Normal mode then someone else will have to step up.

Or PFS dies... which is my entire point.

redward wrote:

If the players' response is "but I don't want to GM" then they now know how that GM feels with respect to Normal mode.

Which they wouldn't feel if this didn't exist.

redward wrote:

As I said before, if between one and three people are left in the cold, that is indeed unfortunate, but they are not entitled to a table, especially if it means forcing a GM to run a table in their preferred mode.

You don't think it's unfair of 1 person to impose their will on the rest of them?

redward wrote:

A rant on player entitlement, not directed towards anyone in particular:

Just because the GM controls the enemies does not mean he is your enemy.

Many GM's I know seem to think otherwise.

redward wrote:

There is a certain pervasive player attitude I've seen on the boards here that a PFS GM is required to

...

I can't bring myself to respond to this ... not sure what to call it. All's I can say is I think you did an excellent job of reinforcing many of Redward's points. Carry on.

Quote:
You still have to read B2, B3, B4, ACG, APG, and several other books worth of classes to GM various adventures.

So your claim is that learning the handful of options contained in a scenario is the same to a new GM as having to learn hundreds of different abilities, feats, spells etc that your players may bring to the average PFS table? Note that this is generally how they feel- I don't think they absolutely have to know every option as I certainly don't.

Can't say I agree, as my real world experience as an organizer is at odds with that perspective and I gave specific examples of GMs in my own experience that will likely be happier with Core, but you are entitled to your opinion.

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.

I'm not sure "upset" is the right word, but I personally have less fun as a GM and as a player if the combats are walkovers where my tactics and play are irrelevant due to the power imbalance.

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".

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.

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.

I'm not sure "upset" is the right word, but I personally have less fun as a GM and as a player if the combats are walkovers where my tactics and play are irrelevant due to the power imbalance.

That's on the author, though. At least, that's how I view it. I just try to run as error-free as possible. The actual results of the combats are fairly out of my control as a GM, paradoxical as it sounds. That's why I don't even like the term "GM" for PFS, but rather "referee".