Aaron Tysen's page

-2001 Ouat Dwarf. (Though no benefits from the ethnicity)

Saves on shampoo. That's a benefit in my book!

Yo Joe! (Blomquist) Can't wait to see what you cooked up for us!

The P2 Rulebook was designed by a secret cabal of chiropractors. Because ow my back.

My players and I are all digging how much more fluid battles have become. Between the new action economy and limitations on AOOs, we're moving around a lot. It's more fun and feels more tactical. No more "locked in place and five-foot shuffling for flanks."

I'll bring the arsenic. I take two lumps of rat poison with my tea.

Congrats to all you deserving folks, with special shiny ones to our local yokels: Heather, Ivis and Sean.

Worth noting that it's possible in PFS2 to decouple loot drops from treasure points, so the optional could hand out useful-for-boss-fight items without mucking up the chronicle rewards.

Re: secret rolls and misinformation; Muhahaha! Muhahahaha! Mwahahahaha! *slinks back to evil GM bunker*

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

And she's got the prestige.

Every time you run the Confirmation, Janira gets Prestige. And I think most of the time she survives it.

She always survives. She and her sidekick, Angus, stage the battle. I think their fishy friend is in on it, too.

On that note: GMs, please don't be shy about volunteering for PF2 because you're nervous about Rules-Fu. We'll all be feeling our way along together! I know I'll make mistakes at my tables, no matter how much prep I squeeze in, but it'll be a sight better than not offering the tables at all. It's an adventure!

I’m glad that this thread has finally emerged! I’m definitely in the “Qualitative Aspect” camp—not so much as a gatekeeping function than as a means to spur us to get better at what we do. So, cheers to the Powers that Be for putting this scheme together! This is not to say that I don’t appreciate many of the concerns that have been raised. The most important question for me is whether the new standards move us to collectively raise our game as GMs, or whether they just add more hoops and create friction. This concern motivates all of the following.

It certainly does seem as if there will be issues getting timely reviews of some of our more far-flung GMs. Would it be possible to cut those folks a break? I don’t have an issue if GM Freezerburn at McMurto Station has to do fewer observation tables than I. They have enough problems. Dang penguins never manage to keep their chronicle sheets in order.... And, yeah, that’s unfair to the GMs who can easily schedule three reviews. But there doesn’t seem to be a fair option available, so why not choose the one that at least gives everyone a shot?

There might also be some crazy solutions involving prioritizing VC time at conventions (which carries its own drawbacks) or, I dunno, telepresence. Not saying that’s realistic, but maybe worth thinking about.

We should also consider the obvious concern that any qualitative assessment will be inevitably subjective. Of course, that’s why you have a rubric (which I’ll talk about in a bit), but it’s going to be open to interpretation. Expect table variation, as they say. What we don’t know—and won’t know until the process is up and running—is how problematic subjectivity is going to be. What we also don’t know is how much of a positive impact the reviews will have on the quality of GMing by aspiring 5-stars. Given that lack of knowledge, I ask the Powers That Be to periodically review the system to see whether it is functioning as intended.

It is certainly possible, in principle, to train the reviewers in order to mitigate variation. This begins with making the rubric as clear and detailed as possible. The next step might be something like having multiple reviewers observe the same game—even a recorded one, or excerpts thereof—and compare notes on their reactions. Whether this is a wise use of the VCs’ limited time I leave as an open question.

As for the rubric, it’s definitely headed in a good direction. There are a few additional items which I find essential to a good game that I’d like to see included. I get grumpy when they aren’t handled well—particularly if I’m the GM, when I grump mercilessly at myself! Here’s a list; I’ll discuss them in more detail afterward.

1. Coherent presentation: Did the GM present the story, setting, critters and NPCs in a way that the players could understand?

2. Adjust to the table: Did the GM modulate the game (within appropriate limits) to meet the play style and experience level of the players?

3. Monitor player engagement: Did the GM ensure that all players had a chance to contribute? Were certain players allowed to dominate the table? Did the GM encourage the reticent players? Were the players given the space to introduce themselves and their characters early in the session? If some players are repeating the scenario, did the new kids get the chance to drive?

Discussion:

1. This item could probably fit in Category 3. I want to mention that successful presentation is sometimes at odds with Category 4 (run as written) in the following way: sometimes, scenarios do a terrible job of presenting information to players in a coherent fashion at appropriate times. For example, I recently ran a table of 10-16 that I am not proud of. I’d prepped it, but hadn’t realized, until I was deep into the session, that it gives out information in the wrong order. For the story to work, the players should start with the recorded version of events, then uncover the truth. The scenario isn’t written that way, and, worse, gates the few drabs of the “official” story behind knowledge checks. Run-as-written is important, but the next time I’m running this scenario, I’m doing it differently. Otherwise, the story falls flat. And, yeah, I’ll die on this hill.

More generally, this category covers things like going beyond box text to make sure that players understand what they’re looking at, especially in complex environments; or giving extra background on NPCs, events, or locations, so that the players have appropriate context for the adventure.

2. Unlike point (1), I’m really not talking here about deviating from the published adventure. But a GM can (and should) adjust tone and (to a certain extent) challenge to fit the group and the scenario. By “tone,” I mean things like the amount and depth of roleplaying and the level of silliness and meta-references the GM allows or instigates. As for “challenge,” it is obviously verboten to change encounter design, but it is often possible to make things more or less deadly while still following stated tactics. And, please, try not to kill the one new player at the table right off the bat.

3. This probably goes in Category 3. Though that category is starting to feel a bit bloated. Oh, and it’s important that we not ding GMs for getting saddled with problem players. Y’all know what I’m talking about.

On that note, I’d like to make a general plea for leniency. Some issues are beyond a GM’s control. The real measure is how they dealt with the challenge. And let’s be nice to the folks who, for example, got a con schedule of a whole bunch of Pathfinder prior to running a Starfinder review table, then try for a 5-foot-step. It happens.

Finally, I think Category 4, “Run As Written,” calls for some discussion. Let’s crank open that can of worms. How do we prioritize running a good game vs. sticking to the script, particularly when faced with incoherent, contradictory, or plot-hole-laden scenarios? To what extent ought we to stick to complex special mechanics rather than taking a more freeform approach, when we know the former is likely to be frustrating? There’s a reason, for example, why social combat encounters have become increasingly pared down over time. Is it acceptable—better, even—to apply that strategy when running earlier scenarios? Should we disregard tactics in order to spare the characters of inexperienced players? That sort of thing. I’m curious to see what people think.

Event Reg goes live Saturday. You can see the event grid on the Origins website. Just navigate to Events. The area is pretty flat. The hotel hike is easy with a Roller Bag of Holding.

I'm going to squirrel, here. I don't care about boons. I don't care about star benefits carrying over. I am happy to retire all of my characters and start fresh.

I completely understand that those things are important to other folks. I just want to make the point that some (or at least one) of us aren't that worried about them.

What I do care about is whether or not PF2, when it arrives, gives us a fun game that I want to run and players want to play. To the extent that I care about replay, I am concerned only that we have enough content available to keep tables firing; there will be a dearth of scenarios for PF2 at the outset.

Personally, and I get that this is not a universal opinion, I'd rather the powers that be spent their limited resources hammering out more and better PF2 content than mucking about with boon carryover and such.

If that's the route they take, I will understand that this doesn't mean Paizo doesn't love me anymore, or that they don't value all the effort I've put into PFS to date. It just means that they're focused on supporting the game which, unless something really weird happens, is going to be the core of organized play in the future. And that's a good thing.

I hope that PF2 will have more nuanced rules regarding anathemas vs the playtest. It's not unlikely that the brief, hard-line rules we have now are a function of page count restrictions.

Failing that (or possibly in addition to that), I also hope that PFS finds a way to soft pedal anathema. As it stands, the current rules lean more toward creating OOC drama than they do interesting roleplaying. Pace Bob, bringing different characters is not a particularly robust solution--not everyone has a deep roster to select from and it is generally not obvious which characters would be poor fits for a given mission ahead of time. Plus, drama again.

Judging by the posts above, there isn't much push among players for a hard interpretation of anathema. Do we have a consensus? Does anyone want a strict rule here? If so, why? Genuinely curious.

Finally, shifting gears a bit, I would ask that we not discuss anathema conflicts in terms of ethics--unless you're a strict deontologist, they really aren't all ethical problems. They're just a question of whether you've followed the bylaws of (Insert Deity) Club. In other words, we're not asking anyone, especially GMs, to make calls about what is "right" or "good," merely whether specific strictures have been violated. By putting the problem in an ethical framework, we again stir up unnecessary drama.

Aaron Tysen wrote:

I’m missing my GM stars as well. “Refresh Points” did not fix the issue. I am the sad.

Hey Aaron, unfortunately, without more details our team doesn't have much to go on to help with this issue. If you could point to specific event IDs, counts, or any specific information that will enable us to troubleshoot this error, please that info to webmaster@paizo.com.

And now they’re displaying. Previously, I showed a table count and venture-agent status, but no stars (even when downloading my ID card). But it seems that the gremlins have moved on to mess with someone else. Thanks for taking a look at this!

Owl your bears are belong to us!

I’m firmly in the “no” camp on this one. To be fair, I agree with the idea upthread that PF2 would do well to jettison the alignment system entirely. But, if the system remains, “no evil” is a very, very useful shorthand way of setting expectations for players in the campaign, specifically that while they need not be shining beacons of virtue, active villainy is unacceptable.

To those who are advocating allowing evil alignments, other than writing “E” on your character sheet, what is it you want to do that is currently prohibited? Are those behaviors really out of scope for an “N,” and, if so, are they still appropriate for a public game with strangers? I’m honestly curious, here.

Just remember the timer on when the target will treat the intimidating character as unfriendly and report the party to the authorities. A party who goes around intimdating everything indiscrimately could end up cooling their heels in a cell.

Which brings us to one of the problems with using Intimidate as a social tool in PFS: the GM rarely has the resources (in terms of encounter blocks) or the permission to deploy an appropriate response to PCs threatening the hell out of the locals. Yes, it would be better to include that kind of contingency response in scenarios, but it's not necessarily a good use of page count and developer time. Failing that, it makes sense, I think, to simply declare, as appropriate, that a straightforward use of Intimidate will not achieve the party's objective in particular cases.

Thanks and a raised glass to the judges for your careful commentary!

Hi gang! Thanks for taking the time to engage our curiosity! Just one question: what motivates the inclusion of unusual mechanics (chases, Influence, verbal duels, etc.) in scenarios? Are they generally part of a design brief, or the author's invention?

Any other insecure GMs looking for descriptions of their own games in this thread? Anyway, I'll share a campfire tale of gaming horror. I can't give any backstory, because nothing in the game made any sense whatsoever. We always had the feeling that somehow the story worked in the GM's head, but only he and the voices understood it.

For some reason or other, we were on a really long overland journey. We spent a couple of weeks wandering through an endless prairie. Eventually, we hit a really wide river. The GM informed us that our chances of swimming to the far side were nil, it was so wide. We were first, maybe second level and had no magical resources suitable for the task.

So, fine, we decided to build a raft. No trees! Anywhere. I'm from Kansas. I know from prairie. If there's a river like that, there are going to be trees around it. Nope. Eventually, we got the GM to admit that we had passed at least one tree a week or so back. Great! We turned around and walked for a week, cut down the lone tree, and hauled it back to the river. We weren't able to make a raft out of it, because reasons, so we lined up along one side of the log and kicked our way across the river. The GM insisted that our plan wouldn't work because we'd get dragged downstream. Of course, we didn't care where we ended up on the far bank (it was apparently also featureless prairie), so we explained about vectors and made our way across.

As I recall, we made the trip several times, hauling the stupid log around everywhere we went.

Not sure why I stuck the campaign out for more than one session. Probably because it was too fascinating a train wreck to look away from. Eventually, we found a bag of devouring. My character wore it as a hat, hoping it would eat him. The GM never took the hint.

I will absolutely allow a PC to attempt all relevant Knowledge skills on a post-briefing Knowledge check. Knowledge isn't only testing recall, it's testing whether you ever learned something in the first place. Each skill represents a separate expenditure of time and effort (and precious skill points) acquiring information. Maybe I nodded off in History class whilst we were discussing Tar-Baphon's imprisonment, but that doesn't mean I wasn't paying attention in my Geography lesson on the Isle of Terror. Furthermore, there is usually little point in playing coy with those checks. Generally, they're providing context, rather than hints. Context is good, it helps keep scenarios from being "Generic Dungeon #19".

In the case of allowing multiple checks to overcome an obstacle, it is not metagaming to attempt various options, insofar as the various skills represent different approaches to the obstacle, all of which are apparent to the characters. For example: I'm faced with a door, secured by a runic puzzle, for which the relevant skills are Linguistics, Knowledge (Engineering) and Disable Device. I have a choice: I can try to suss out the runes, ignore the runes and rely on my expertise in sliding puzzle mechanisms, or I can pull out my tool kit and jimmy the thing. My player knowledge of the three skill choices directly represents my character's understanding of the challenge. Giving me those options is a shorthand description of the situation.

As for the example upthread of the dead body and the bugs, would a successful Heal check notice the insects? If not, I would allow a Perception check as well, maybe calling for one automatically if the poor healer had to kneel down in the middle of a swarm to work. Not a Swarm swarm, of course. That would be a Fortitude save.

Congratulations to all of y'all, but an extra big personal shout-out from me to our local yokels, Heather Vigil and David Setty! You rock.

I've been submitting the reports of my investigations, the Stoneford Files, to the Decemvirate for years. I can happily report that the resultant rejection letters have provided a comfortable layer of extra insulation for my shack. Stay tuned for my latest installment, "Grandmaster Torch's Disappearing Soap," which should be completed just as soon as I remember to stop drinking the ink.

Pretty sure that when the gods teamed up to imprison Rovagug, there was some serious sacred/profane buff stacking going on.

Similar things happen, I suspect, when LN orders of Hellknights or Abadar's Church Militant get stuck in.