Announcing Ultimate Add-On Decks!

Excellent news.

Also, can we change the "Class Deck" subscription name to maybe "Character Deck" as there is more than just classes in that deck subscription?

That sounds awesome.

Awesome news! Looking forward to these decks.

I'm also wanting to hear how to play Season of Factions Favor at GenCon. I see tickets for Season of the Mummy and prior seasons, but nothing specific to Factions Favor.

These sound pretty awesome! Looking forward to seeing lots of new boons! Maybe even someday something as good as Find Traps!

jk. Find Traps is the best card ever.

Glad to see we're seeing some of the iconics we haven't seen yet! Though Quinn, Hakon, and Kess are still crying in the corner. Someday. Someday.

<3 <3 <3 <3 Zarlova 3 <3 <3

And books for Enora!

These seem awesome, a great enhancement to the origina class decks, a fun addition to new decks, and new characters besides. Win-win-win!

However, I'm really frustrated to see a "unlock" mechanic required in order to use these in organized play with other class decks.

I can see how unlocking a character can seem like a reward or a treasure hunt. But, as currently implemented, unlocking a character is a major time investment. Right now, to play certain characters, you need to put in a ton of time playing another character or season you may not even like.

If one of the purposes of these addons is to fix the original class decks, why not just let people use them for that purpose? Why do I have to jump through a hoop to use them and make characters I love more viable?

Sounds really interesting, and as a side note, when are we getting another AP?

This sounds like a cool idea. It's a shame that Flenta, from the fighter deck, already has Disintegrate. What else does she need?

However, I'm really frustrated to see a "unlock" mechanic required in order to use these in organized play with other class decks.

I can see how unlocking a character can seem like a reward or a treasure hunt. But, as currently implemented, unlocking a character is a major time investment. Right now, to play certain characters, you need to put in a ton of time playing another character or season you may not even like.

If one of the purposes of these addons is to fix the original class decks, why not just let people use them for that purpose? Why do I have to jump through a hoop to use them and make characters I love more viable?

I would hope that the unlock doesn't require playing the whole Season, so you could start with a character that could use some augmented lovin', and unlock all these extra cards part way through. That would be a seriously nice adventure reward, IMO.

I'm also wanting to hear how to play Season of Factions Favor at GenCon. I see tickets for Season of the Mummy and prior seasons, but nothing specific to Factions Favor.

There's plenty of tickets available for 9-00, if you want to play the ACG side at Gen Con.

However, I'm really frustrated to see a "unlock" mechanic required in order to use these in organized play with other class decks. ...

As the blog post says the details are still being worked out, perhaps some feedback here will help guide their availability.

Personally, I'd like to see it set up so that you permanently unlock all four decks for all future characters (or at least for all future characters using the first seven decks) with one play through Factions' Favor. I'm not going to, for example, replay multiple Adventures in Factions' Favor to unlock decks multiple times. Our group only gets through one Guild AP every year and a half as it is; those who get to play more often shouldn't feel like they have to choose to play only Factions' Favor for a year or more to be able to use the decks.

Sounds really interesting, and as a side note, when are we getting another AP?

Back at the start of the year they said it wouldn't be this year. Later on they said Starfinder wouldn't be for a while due to lack of artwork. Gen Con 2018 at the earliest for a new Pathfinder AP (perhaps with a different set of products than a base set, 5 story add-ons, and a character add-on) is an easy guess.

There's plenty of tickets available for 9-00, if you want to play the ACG side at Gen Con.

Already have a ticket to that. :) I might be playing that with a couple friends that aren't as familiar with the game; hopefully I can get them up to speed in time for the show.

Woo woo woo! Yea yea yea!

Thanks David and Tyler!

This sounds like a cool idea. It's a shame that Flenta, from the fighter deck, already has Disintegrate. What else does she need?

A wand of Disintegrate?

However, I'm really frustrated to see a "unlock" mechanic required in order to use these in organized play with other class decks.

I can see how unlocking a character can seem like a reward or a treasure hunt. But, as currently implemented, unlocking a character is a major time investment. Right now, to play certain characters, you need to put in a ton of time playing another character or season you may not even like.

If one of the purposes of these addons is to fix the original class decks, why not just let people use them for that purpose? Why do I have to jump through a hoop to use them and make characters I love more viable?

To a certain extent, I get it. You want to make your characters work (and it's hard to make some of them work).

We don't know all of the details of the program yet. Without knowing, your concerns may be answered. Expressing concern is fine, but we'd have to see how the unlocks work before complaining about them.

Do you dislike the idea of unlocking characters in an AP period? Or is it the idea of unlocks being tied to specific scenarios? As these are characters that are "bonuses" so to speak, I'm okay with this. You can argue that the original 7 class decks need these to work so they may not be a "bonus".

Also, part of the reason this is being done is to incentivize reporting of scenarios - this is a way to do that. If you eliminate this as a way of doing that, you'd have to provide an alternative that makes sense - do you have an alternative?

Big thanks. Answering a request we made many times.

It's awesome the Samurai and Ninja will be available!
In particular, now that there is no Jade Regent deck, the chance of Jade Regent becoming a box set at some point has risen dramatically :)
Curious about Aric as well.

However, the best thing of this announcement for now is the Magus preview next week, since we won't have to wait long until we can get our hands on it :)

Regarding reporting and unlocking, it would be lame if you could only report sessions of specific seasons. I think that should be a mechanic that's part of the OP guide and doesn't care which season the reported sessions belong to.

Very cool. I like the idea. This sounds like a flexible solution that could benefit multiple decks with less product.

Any thoughts of doing something similar for the core boxes (Maybe skip Rise of the Runelords)? It would be nice if there were a deck per set that helped class decks fit better with a particular AP/Season. This is especially true for the earlier waves. It would also be a cool way to introduce the remaining iconic characters to the game.

Hakon - Skald - Skull and Shackles
Kess - Brawler - Wrath of the Righteous
Quinn - Investigator - Mummy's Mask

Then you could do Ultimate Wilderness and release the iconic Shifter.

This sounds like a cool idea. It's a shame that Flenta, from the fighter deck, already has Disintegrate. What else does she need?

She needs to stop pretending to be a wizard. :P

Seriously, though, this sounds fantastic.

Hopefully, the unlocks will be tied to single adventures. Maybe completing Adventure 1 could unlock an Ultimate deck of the player's choice, with subsequent adventures unlocking more. That way, someone doesn't have to play most of an adventure path to unlock the only Ultimate deck they care about.

Also, part of the reason this is being done is to incentivize reporting of scenarios....

If a group is already not reporting scenarios, then why would they bother with whatever rules are eventually used for unlocking these decks? For them it's no incentive at all.

Welcome to trying to run organized play with a card game that really only works when your group plays through an entire AP together in order.

Wikwocket wrote:

However, I'm really frustrated to see a "unlock" mechanic required in order to use these in organized play with other class decks. ...

As the blog post says the details are still being worked out, perhaps some feedback here will help guide their availability.

Yes, please! Just please note that we want to tie these unlocks to reporting sessions. Which means that the emphasis probably won't be on which scenarios you complete as much as it's likely to be on how many scenarios you report.

In particular, now that there is no Jade Regent deck, the chance of Jade Regent becoming a box set at some point has risen dramatically :)

Not really. Jade Regent has always been hovering near the top of the list.

Parody wrote:

Wikwocket wrote:

However, I'm really frustrated to see a "unlock" mechanic required in order to use these in organized play with other class decks. ...

As the blog post says the details are still being worked out, perhaps some feedback here will help guide their availability.

Yes, please! Just please note that we want to tie these unlocks to reporting sessions. Which means that the emphasis probably won't be on which scenarios you complete as much as it's likely to be on how many scenarios you report.

Hmmm... this is tricky... I see an immediate "ballot-stuffing" issue. How do we ensure people report actual sessions, rather than just typing out any old thing?

Doppelschwert wrote:

In particular, now that there is no Jade Regent deck, the chance of Jade Regent becoming a box set at some point has risen dramatically :)

Not really. Jade Regent has always been hovering near the top of the list.

Awesome! Here's hoping it can make it to the top of the list by the time the next base sets is announced :)

Hmmm... this is tricky... I see an immediate "ballot-stuffing" issue. How do we ensure people report actual sessions, rather than just typing out any old thing?

The PFS reporting system has never prevented you from reporting whatever weirdness you want. The main deterrent is that it's annoying to do.

(I bet this same question has come up on the RPG side at times, like when the Scarab Sages-to-be were voting on their new leader.)

Vic Wertz wrote:

Parody wrote:

Wikwocket wrote:

However, I'm really frustrated to see a "unlock" mechanic required in order to use these in organized play with other class decks. ...

As the blog post says the details are still being worked out, perhaps some feedback here will help guide their availability.

Yes, please! Just please note that we want to tie these unlocks to reporting sessions. Which means that the emphasis probably won't be on which scenarios you complete as much as it's likely to be on how many scenarios you report.

Hmmm... this is tricky... I see an immediate "ballot-stuffing" issue. How do we ensure people report actual sessions, rather than just typing out any old thing?

Most of organized play has a major honor system component... At some point you have to say "is it really fun for you to cheat? If so, just don't make it not fun for others."

Thanks Vic for the extra info on unlocking. I won't jump to conclusions, at least until we hear more details. :)

Here's my perspective in more detail, in case it helps.

Halfway through playing Season of the Righteous, our fighter decided she was tired of the fighter deck's lack of upgrades for Vika, and that she'd like to run Alain. So we decided to complete the season, with her switching to a pre-built Sajan (whose deck is awesome btw).

I'm glad there was a way to play Alain, and a way to expand the paladin deck beyond its original characters. But her having to play a character other than the one she really wanted, through a bunch of high-difficulty adventures, was kind of onerous.

I guess I see the point about wanting to encourage people to play the seasons and report them. My point is more like, when World of Warcraft comes out with a new character class they don't require you to get an existing class to max level before you can try the new one. :)

I actually see tying unlocking the new decks to reporting games as being counterproductive if the goal is to get more people to report their games.

Most people who aren't reporting their games aren't going to care - they'll just use the new character options anyway, and continue to not report their games. The only people who will be annoyed by the restriction are people who are already reporting games now.

Some of us would be happy to report more of our games, but can't do so because we're not adhering 100% to the rules of Organized Play. I'll give you a couple of examples:

• My wife and I would like to play PACGG more often than we do, but we have problems finding other long-term players in our area. It took us three attempts, finding new players, before we got a group that stayed together long enough to play through the whole of SotS. Our current (SoPT) group can only meet once every two weeks, and we're already having problems with players dropping out (and new players wanting to start at the beginning). This means that my wife and I will play through some storylines (SotG, for one) ourselves. But our preference is for four-character tables, so we play two characters each. We could report four-character tables if we were playing in solo mode (one real OP character and three pregens), but not tables with two reportable characters. So we simply play the scenarios the way we like, but can't report them.
  
• Other groups (including those of at least one other contributor to this thread) like to adjust the difficulty, typically looking for more of a challenge. you can't do that in OP either, so that's another set of games that are going unreported.
  

I actually see tying unlocking the new decks to reporting games as being counterproductive if the goal is to get more people to report their games.

Most people who aren't reporting their games aren't going to care - they'll just use the new character options anyway, and continue to not report their games. The only people who will be annoyed by the restriction are people who are already reporting games now.

Some of us would be happy to report more of our games, but can't do so because we're not adhering 100% to the rules of Organized Play. I'll give you a couple of examples:

• My wife and I would like to play PACGG more often than we do, but we have problems finding other long-term players in our area. It took us three attempts, finding new players, before we got a group that stayed together long enough to play through the whole of SotS. Our current (SoPT) group can only meet once every two weeks, and we're already having problems with players dropping out (and new players wanting to start at the beginning). This means that my wife and I will play through some storylines (SotG, for one) ourselves. But our preference is for four-character tables, so we play two characters each. We could report four-character tables if we were playing in solo mode (one real OP character and three pregens), but not tables with two reportable characters. So we simply play the scenarios the way we like, but can't report them.
  
• Other groups (including those of at least one other contributor to this thread) like to adjust the difficulty, typically looking for more of a challenge. you can't do that in OP either, so that's another set of games that are going unreported.
  

The best way to get more games reported is to put less restrictions on what counts as a reportable game, not to add yet another limitation.

This, exactly this! Also I have heard it is just annoying to have to type it out. I have never hosted a session so the one that does usually will try to post it but doesn't do it too often since it is an annoyance. From what I can gather make it easier to fill out by allowing you to copy details from previous reported playthroughs. I also agree with getting rid of certain restrictions. Why constrain one player to only playing one character to report? The only reason I see is due to other people in the group but if everyone is fine with it then it should be allowed to be reported on.

• My wife and I would like to play PACGG more often than we do, but we have problems finding other long-term players in our area. It took us three attempts, finding new players, before we got a group that stayed together long enough to play through the whole of SotS. Our current (SoPT) group can only meet once every two weeks, and we're already having problems with players dropping out (and new players wanting to start at the beginning). This means that my wife and I will play through some storylines (SotG, for one) ourselves. But our preference is for four-character tables, so we play two characters each. We could report four-character tables if we were playing in solo mode (one real OP character and three pregens), but not tables with two reportable characters. So we simply play the scenarios the way we like, but can't report them.
  
• Other groups (including those of at least one other contributor to this thread) like to adjust the difficulty, typically looking for more of a challenge. you can't do that in OP either, so that's another set of games that are going unreported.
  

The best way to get more games reported is to put less restrictions on what counts as a reportable game, not to add yet another limitation.

Quality of data is just as important as quantity of data (*internally grumbles about the reporting interface for this reason*). The second point isn't compelling to me because the groups won't bother to explain how they adjusted the difficulty, thus making the data much less useful (the first thing is fine in terms of data reporting). If they added locations, which ones did they add? If they adjusted check difficulty, how? And if you start putting the restrictions on how you adjust the difficulty, you go back to groups not wanting to use the adjustments they're given and rather just doing their own thing.

This, exactly this! Also I have heard it is just annoying to have to type it out. I have never hosted a session so the one that does usually will try to post it but doesn't do it too often since it is an annoyance. From what I can gather make it easier to fill out by allowing you to copy details from previous reported playthroughs. I also agree with getting rid of certain restrictions. Why constrain one player to only playing one character to report? The only reason I see is due to other people in the group but if everyone is fine with it then it should be allowed to be reported on.

Actually, I find that I like to report x number of sessions at a time (like 4-10, so once every month or two) - but there's no bulk reporting interface :( so I have to rely on google autocomplete :(

If your reporter has annoyances with the reporting interface, website feedback is a great place to post it.

I actually see tying unlocking the new decks to reporting games as being counterproductive if the goal is to get more people to report their games.

Most people who aren't reporting their games aren't going to care - they'll just use the new character options anyway, and continue to not report their games. The only people who will be annoyed by the restriction are people who are already reporting games now.

Some of us would be happy to report more of our games, but can't do so because we're not adhering 100% to the rules of Organized Play. I'll give you a couple of examples:

• My wife and I would like to play PACGG more often than we do, but we have problems finding other long-term players in our area. It took us three attempts, finding new players, before we got a group that stayed together long enough to play through the whole of SotS. Our current (SoPT) group can only meet once every two weeks, and we're already having problems with players dropping out (and new players wanting to start at the beginning). This means that my wife and I will play through some storylines (SotG, for one) ourselves. But our preference is for four-character tables, so we play two characters each. We could report four-character tables if we were playing in solo mode (one real OP character and three pregens), but not tables with two reportable characters. So we simply play the scenarios the way we like, but can't report them.
  
• Other groups (including those of at least one other contributor to this thread) like to adjust the difficulty, typically looking for more of a challenge. you can't do that in OP either, so that's another set of games that are going unreported.
  

The best way to get more games reported is to put less restrictions on what counts as a reportable game, not to add yet another limitation.

I really don't understand the argument of "we break the rules but you should still let us play organized play". The whole point of organized play is that everyone has similar experiences so that you can sit down at a table with anyone in the world and play together and your characters should be around the same power level. If you make things more difficult for yourselves because you don't find the game to be enough of a challenge, then you're going to be optimizing your characters in ways that others probably aren't. So, just don't play organized play.

This would be equivalent to a group running their RPG characters through a whole adventure path where the enemies were all increased by 2 CR and their treasure was also increased, and then that group wanting to take those characters with all the loot that they earned and sit down at a PFS table with like-level characters. That's not how organized play works.

If you play organized play the way it's meant to be played, then this new program will incentivize to have games reported. If you don't, then your games don't matter, from an organized play perspective, so you shouldn't be reporting them. Period. So just play the game and HAVE FUN!

The scenarios are available for non-organized play, as well. So while a group might want to play the scenarios using something very similar to organized play (enough to follow almost all of the rules), then _not_ take those characters to play at conventions anyways, that doesn't invalidate a desire to get their results.

At least, I'm guessing Vic would also find it useful to have a better idea how often people play which scenarios and which class decks, from a marketing data perspective.

So, Ultimate Combat will have MORE weapons that use your Acrobatics? You have CD-Sajan's attention...

At least, I'm guessing Vic would also find it useful to have a better idea how often people play which scenarios and which class decks, from a marketing data perspective.

Speaking of marketing, the Ultimate Add-On decks are unusual enough that hopefully Paizo can find a way to make their purpose clear to new players. Mostly: Who should/might buy these expansion decks, and why.

There are frequent requests on BGG asking for clarifications about the Character Add-on decks and Class Decks, for example, and I'm concerned that people are avoiding the game (or certain products) because the interrelationships in the product line aren't completely clear. (The opposite is also true, where purchasers get upset because they purchased an Add-on deck or Class Deck that wasn't actually needed.) My guess is that the Ultimate Decks will fall into the same "somebody explain this to me" category for new players.

The Pathfinder ACG reminds me of Cryptozoic's DC Deck-Building game in terms of the sheer number of products (base games, regular expansions, co-op expansions) and its ability to potentially confuse new or would-be players.

DC has:

4 separate base sets - (confuses new players because they think that some are expansions that require previous products, but they aren't)

lots of small-box expansions - these can be paired with any box set (which confuses new players, since they don't fully understand this)

Crisis co-op expansions - can technically be paired with any base set, but they're generally designed for a particular set (which confuses new players)

Other stuff - 2-player DC Rivals (standalone) and other upcoming stuff: Multiverse box (expansion), Confrontations (standalone)

What Cryptozoic needs to do is put together a single web page that shows all of the DC Deck-Building products and how they're related (or not). I've heard people complain that the DC product line is so confusing that they avoid buying into the game system at all.

Anyway, sorry for the long aside. This is just a way of suggesting that Paizo might also benefit by having a single page that briefly describes all products (emphasizing that all base sets are independent and can be done in any order, e.g.), explains who the various products are intended for (home players? OP? both?), and explains how exactly the products are meant to be used. Otherwise you may have people afraid to buy into Pathfinder for the same reasons that they're afraid to buy into DC.

I really don't understand the argument of "we break the rules but you should still let us play organized play". The whole point of organized play is that everyone has similar experiences so that you can sit down at a table with anyone in the world and play together and your characters should be around the same power level. If you make things more difficult for yourselves because you don't find the game to be enough of a challenge, then you're going to be optimizing your characters in ways that others probably aren't. So, just don't play organized play.

This would be equivalent to a group running their RPG characters through a whole adventure path where the enemies were all increased by 2 CR and their treasure was also increased, and then that group wanting to take those characters with all the loot that they earned and sit down at a PFS table with like-level characters. That's not how organized play works.

If you play organized play the way it's meant to be played, then this new program will incentivize to have games reported. If you don't, then your games don't matter, from an organized play perspective, so you shouldn't be reporting them. Period. So just play the game and HAVE FUN!

This is pretty much what I was thinking, with the added addendum that if you're not playing with organized play rules, then you are similarly not burdened by organized play rules when it comes to which cards you want to use from the new decks.

So, Ultimate Combat will have MORE weapons that use your Acrobatics? You have CD-Sajan's attention...

I'd actually expect a Monk to find better overlap with the 'Ninja' deck - Ultimate Equipment.

Since Ultimate Combat features the Iconic samurai (not historically renown for their feats of acrobatics) - I'd wager we're more likely to see some "heavy"/2-handed weaponry there - naginata polearms, tetsubo maces, the occasional daikyu longbow...

Which is probably besides the point, as most core playerbase is likely to get both decks regardless, what with the debut of Ninja and Samurai. I must admit, my wallet currently hates Paizo, and I can't blame it.

As someone who plays mostly solo OP, occasionally with one other person, reporting irregular sessions is a bit of a pain when you have to go through the whole "create an event" interface to report a few individual games. Usually I store up an entire adventure then report all the scenarios at once, but the interface is certainly clunky and unintuitive for that, and the recent interface change has made me relearn nearly everything from step one.

I really don't understand the argument of "we break the rules but you should still let us play organized play". The whole point of organized play is that everyone has similar experiences so that you can sit down at a table with anyone in the world and play together and your characters should be around the same power level.

I agree 100%, and have made precisely that argument in other threads. But, like Keith Richmond, I was assuming that the push to get more games reported was a primary motivator, and possibly knowing about those other games could be useful.

To get back to my first point, how about the games my wife and I played? Let's take a concrete example:

We played through "Season of the Goblins" with the classic four-goblin party (Reta, Mogmurch, Chuffy & Poog). We played 100% to the OP rules, up until it came time to do the reporting. We could have reported the games as solo games for my wife (with Reta, say, as the 'real' character, and the other three as NPCs). Or we could have reported the games as solo games for me (playing Poog). Both of those would have been OP-legal reporting options, as would have been the case if we had been able to find two other players to run the other characters. The one thing we can't do is report a four-character table if we want the reporting to include two actual OP characters. So we just didn't report those games.

Being able to give both Reta and Poog credit for playing a scenario doesn't break anything - the characters are no more powerful that they would be in the one-player or four-player versions of the exact same table.

Allowing NPCs/pregens at more than just solo tables would solve our problem, and would at least allow other small groups to experience the challenges of a six-player table (which, if not necessarily harder, at least requires a different tactical approach).

cartmanbeck wrote:

I really don't understand the argument of "we break the rules but you should still let us play organized play". The whole point of organized play is that everyone has similar experiences so that you can sit down at a table with anyone in the world and play together and your characters should be around the same power level.

I agree 100%, and have made precisely that argument in other threads. But, like Keith Richmond, I was assuming that the push to get more games reported was a primary motivator, and possibly knowing about those other games could be useful.

To get back to my first point, how about the games my wife and I played? Let's take a concrete example:

We played through "Season of the Goblins" with the classic four-goblin party (Reta, Mogmurch, Chuffy & Poog). We played 100% to the OP rules, up until it came time to do the reporting. We could have reported the games as solo games for my wife (with Reta, say, as the 'real' character, and the other three as NPCs). Or we could have reported the games as solo games for me (playing Poog). Both of those would have been OP-legal reporting options, as would have been the case if we had been able to find two other players to run the other characters. The one thing we can't do is report a four-character table if we want the reporting to include two actual OP characters. So we just didn't report those games.

Being able to give both Reta and Poog credit for playing a scenario doesn't break anything - the characters are no more powerful that they would be in the one-player or four-player versions of the exact same table.

Allowing NPCs/pregens at more than just solo tables would solve our problem, and would at least allow other small groups to experience the challenges of a six-player table (which, if not necessarily harder, at least requires a different tactical approach).

I actually agree with you on that, and said as much to Keith earlier today. It sounds like there might be a solution in the works for your situation, but we'll see how it shakes out.

I personally am a Little bit suspious to these ultimate add on decks.
They add cards to some deck and not anothers, don't know how this will be balanced I the long run. I would have preferred exact fixes to spesific character decks. Now I have to all the time switch cards from deck to another based on what decks Are opened. Oh, I need these cards in Seonis deck and Harsk deck and Valeros deck... damn...
the good thing is that it makes them more modular. Well have to wait and see how these will work.

However, I'm really frustrated to see a "unlock" mechanic required in order to use these in organized play with other class decks.

I can see how unlocking a character can seem like a reward or a treasure hunt. But, as currently implemented, unlocking a character is a major time investment.

Why do I have to jump through a hoop to use them and make characters I love more viable?

I agree I hate grinding in games, it only serves to make you not want to play. I would rather spend that time playing as the new character I wanted to play.

To get back to my first point, how about the games my wife and I played? Let's take a concrete example:

We played through "Season of the Goblins" with the classic four-goblin party (Reta, Mogmurch, Chuffy & Poog). We played 100% to the OP rules, up until it came time to do the reporting. We could have reported the games as solo games for my wife (with Reta, say, as the 'real' character, and the other three as NPCs). Or we could have reported the games as solo games for me (playing Poog). Both of those would have been OP-legal reporting options, as would have been the case if we had been able to find two other players to run the other characters. The one thing we can't do is report a four-character table if we want the reporting to include two actual OP characters. So we just didn't report those games.

Being able to give both Reta and Poog credit for playing a scenario doesn't break anything - the characters are no more powerful that they would be in the one-player or four-player versions of the exact same table.

Allowing NPCs/pregens at more than just solo tables would solve our problem, and would at least allow other small groups to experience the challenges of a six-player table (which, if not necessarily harder, at least requires a different tactical approach).

I 100% agree, smaller groups playing multiple characters should be able to progress through OP with all of their party characters.

JohnF" wrote:

Allowing NPCs/pregens at more than just solo tables would solve our problem, and would at least allow other small groups to experience the challenges of a six-player table (which, if not necessarily harder, at least requires a different tactical approach).

I 100% agree, smaller groups playing multiple characters should be able to progress through OP with all of their party characters.

That's not what I am suggesting. I'm only asking that players be allowed to supplement their party with non-reportable characters (up to the maximum number allowed) just as in solo play, not that any player be allowed to have multiple reportable characters participating in the same scenario.

My concern with tying it to reporting is that not everyone gets a chance to report scenarios, and there isn't any one "true" GM. Back when I actually had an in-person OP group I ended up reporting the majority of the scenarios because we were playing out of my box set (when we had two tables going due to having 9 players, I reported one table and the other person whose box was used reported the other table). So, this would let me unlock these decks but it wouldn't help any of the people playing at my table.

My wish is that all players in the reported table benefit from the reporting, as opposed to just the person who reported it.

I'm pretty sure that's how it would work - you get the benefit if you played at a table that was reported, not just as a 'GM' benefit for reporting the table.

I'm pretty sure that's how it would work - you get the benefit if you played at a table that was reported, not just as a 'GM' benefit for reporting the table.

I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, it seems rough to say that only organizers get access to additional decks for their characters. But on the other hand, as someone who has set up organized play in two stores and then passed that organization on to someone else, running organized play is not zero effort and does deserve some reward.

When you organize, it's not just running the box. It's making sure you have a space to play. It's making sure you have all the materials OP requires, sometimes including extra class decks decks for new players. It's being asked to adjudicate rule disputes. It's keeping going even when that one annoying player is driving your other players away. It's talking to the player who violates the rules or code of conduct. It's all this and more. GMing in the RPG comes with rewards, and organizing the ACG should too.

As I wade into this discussion more and more, I feel like the first 7 class decks should be exempted from the requirements, mainly because they're the ones who need it the most.

But, they should only be exempted from the requirements for the deck they're most suited for.

eg. Bard - Ultimate Intrigue
Cleric - Ultimate Magic
Fighter - Ultimate Combat
Ranger - Ultimate Combat
Rogue - Ultimate Equipment
Sorcerer - Ultimate Magic
Wizard - Ultimate Magic

If you want to use any other add-on with any other deck, you're subject to the reporting requirements. It's a "bonus" after all.

Also, if you want the ACG organizers to get a bit extra, why not have them get a reporting bonus? So players at the table get 1 credit and a GM gets 2? (or something else that makes sense)

(also, sometimes reporters aren't the people who get the GM credit and the reporting system doesn't have a good way to reflect this yet. We play catchup scenarios and often I'm the one to bring the box during those.)

I do not yet see the most important question, which is:

These being part of the main subscription, will there be promo cards sent out to Paizo subscribers?

Lem the Survivor, who poked his short little head up just as the rest of his party was eviscerated at the Family Tomb, thinks that this idea is great, as - by the end of Season of the Righteous - he was about as useful as lump of lard due to the Bard deck's terrible spell selection.

This also makes me wish that my Cosmic Captive sessions from that "Save Against Fear" event last fall had been reported. I suppose there's no hope of that happening now...is there anything we can do to remedy an event coordinator who didn't report sessions (and by all accounts simply won't care)? Self-report, or something? My Heggal was really looking forward to getting that Special under his belt.

Self-reporting works (although you need to be sure that the event doesn't end up being reported twice).

You can also talk to your local VOs if your games aren't being reported; there are several things they can do to help you out. If the person not doing the reporting is your local VO, take it to the next level up the chain.

I think the issue in this case is that when reporting happened for the con, Cosmic Captive wasn't reportable. It became reportable later, but asking for retroactive reporting for a con that was 9 months ago now may be a lost cause.

If you've got a chronicle sheet (and at least some indication of when the table took place - for some reason there's nowhere on a PACGG chronicle sheet that asks you to fill in a date) then either a reporter for the convention or your VC can create a session for the table.

Mind you, until now there was nothing I can think of that depended on games being reported - the paper chronicle is the definitive record, so as long as you have that you're not missing out on anything concrete. It's an annoyance if your games aren't reported, but that's about it. Just make sure you keep backup records in case your chronicles get lost/stolen/destroyed/whatever - I suggest scanning them (which is a good idea in any case).

JohnF wrote:

I'm pretty sure that's how it would work - you get the benefit if you played at a table that was reported, not just as a 'GM' benefit for reporting the table.

I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, it seems rough to say that only organizers get access to additional decks for their characters. But on the other hand, as someone who has set up organized play in two stores and then passed that organization on to someone else, running organized play is not zero effort and does deserve some reward.

When you organize, it's not just running the box. It's making sure you have a space to play. It's making sure you have all the materials OP requires, sometimes including extra class decks decks for new players. It's being asked to adjudicate rule disputes. It's keeping going even when that one annoying player is driving your other players away. It's talking to the player who violates the rules or code of conduct. It's all this and more. GMing in the RPG comes with rewards, and organizing the ACG should too.

GMing in the RPG comes with rewards because without that the players are getting something the GM isn't. That's not true in ACG games - the GM can play at the table, so they already get that chronicle. I think that running ACG tables should probably count towards something akin to the RPG stars, but nothing more than that.

I say that despite the fact that my wife and I are the main PACG organisers in our neck of the woods - we ran Season 0 out of our personal Skull and Shackles box, and we have a complete set of class decks that we take along to the FLGS or conventions in case we get walk-up players. Not to mention that we've sleeved everything we use for OP, and have Broken Token inserts in the game boxes ...

I'm firmly convinced that even giving PACG organisers, let alone reporters, exclusive access to certain play options would be a terrible idea. But I can't see Paizo doing that - why would they do anything to make it less likely that people would purchase these new decks?

The only exclusivity for players I can think of in current organised play is the few scenarios that can be played only at conventions (and the even rarer opportunities to play a retired scenario if a Paizo OP staff member is the GM). Even that level of exclusivity engenders some number of complaints.

I agree with JohnF, anyone at a table that's reported should get the benefits, especially because as of now, when you report a game, it doesn't treat you as any different than the other players.