Search Posts
If the character was captured by the Jinsuls, they would be among the prisoners in the final encounter, without their weapons. If the remainder of the party doesn’t secure Ekkerah’s help, he won’t free or re-equip the captured character before the fight. The scenario doesn’t call out what happens to the lost gear. Since nothing calls out that the weapons are lost for good, I would allow the PCs to recover the missing items from the dead Jinsuls at the end of the encouter, rather than having them be lost forever. When in doubt, it’s best (I think) to err on the side of the players. How did the character in question manage to fall off the chase vehicle? Were they yanked off by the Jinsuls? I don’t see anything else in the chase scene that would cause that problem.
The abilities for the aid characters are more thematic than mechanical. Character level is what is used.Does character level affect whether or not aid characters survive? Are higher level aid characters in more, less, or the same danger as lower level ones? Higher level aid characters are more likely to succeed and less likely to get dead. That said, you can choose to play it safe with your aid characters, at the cost of getting less actual aid from them.
I get grumpy when players try to use OOC chatter as free telepathy among their characters. If they haven't worked out their plan before they walk up to the guards and start bluffing, it's too late. The guards are right there. They can hear you. "But we're talking OOC" doesn't cut it. Ditto if you have limited rounds before the next bad thing happens. Your planning is in real time. Of course, I'll stop the clock for actual OOC stuff. We can pause while you talk sportsball scores. But you can't use OOC as a way to magically share information between characters.
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.
Thank you all for helping dispel my 7/10th of my confusion...Obviously he regenerated those lost fingers using divine magic to avoid being recognized. So... a bicyclops, then? *rimshot*
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.
Is there a design space for an item--magical or alchemical--that provides significant healing (so is resonance-efficient), cheaper than equivalent wands/potions/scrolls, but which can only be used outside of combat? Maybe something that requires you to sit perfectly still for a full minute before it takes effect. If you're interrupted, you lose the charge (or the item, if they're one shot). Alternately, it could provide very gradual healing that
My intent is to provide some between-encounter healing to extend the adventuring day. Also, it's a fun opportunity for an evil GM to interrupt the PCs while they take five. Muhahaha. A spell that did something similar could work, too. I suppose the much-maligned Infernal Healing did something similar (as it took a while to deliver its full effect); the effect would be increased hp/spell slot efficiency, with the drawback that it won't save you in a fight. I'm not convinced these are good ideas, just something to play around with.
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!
I ran this puppy six times at GenCon. It was a blast! Thanks to my many players for a good time! I wish I had known (prior to doing the survey) that it is only possible to do it once; I would have tried to give answers more reflective of the overall play experience. The session I had in mind when I did the survey was a bit of an outlier with respect to time. With that in mind, lemme give some more detailed feedback. Spoiler city follows: Knowledge Checks:
I was impressed by the way the upfront knowledge skill checks were handled in this scenario. The ramping difficulty to remember more details felt intuitive, though it might have thrown the players a bit, since it was a brand new mechanic. Too often, these sorts of checks either gate information that the players (not the characters) need in order to understand the scenario’s plot, or provide useless bits of Golarion trivia. The checks here avoided both pitfalls: they either granted a tangible advantage, or provided increasingly specific and useful information about the threats ahead. For what it’s worth, not one of my six tables managed to roll well enough to qualify for the checks about “The Dangers.” The critical failures on the knowledge checks were great. I did not use secret checks; instead, I used the opportunity to show off the critical failure mechanic. The ability to lie to players, when they know it’s a possibility, is a beautiful thing. It creates uncertainty without the feeling that the GM is cheating or deliberately screwing the party. A slight gripe: it isn’t clear to me why knowing the caravan’s route points to the Claw District as the location of a safe house, as the scenario implies that all of the caravan routes leave from the same city gate. Perhaps “Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Towns of the Inner Sea” would contradict this information. Dunno. That information needs to be in the scenario.
Encounter A:
All of my parties dealt with the minotaurs without casualties, though several PCs got pretty bloodied by their Powerful Charges. It would have been nice to have some reminder text to the effect that the large-sized baddies didn’t treat the river as difficult terrain. This was implied by their tactics (and made intuitive sense), so I ran it that way, but the actual rules are in the Bestiary, which I didn’t get to look at until after the con. Even now, I think a lot of GMs are going to miss that bit, which will make the minotaurs sad. Having the Minotaurs only speak Jotun was fun, as none of the pregens could understand them. I ended up mooing a lot. Between that, pantomime, and drawing in the muddy riverbank, the Minotaurs were generally able to negotiate surrender. The super-condensed monster stat blocks are a thing of beauty. Seriously. Much love. It was odd having the tactics elsewhere, but I think I like it this way. The encounter descriptions flow better: “Here’s a thing, doing stuff,” rather than “Here’s a thing, dig through its stats to figure out what it’s doing.” If I needed to, I could note its morale conditions or other details in the margin. The new, improved party size scaling is great. It’s sooo much easier to remember to drop in some extra baddies than to remove them or apply conditions/templates. Kudos! More knowledge checks here. Again, nice that they provide actually useful information, as well as lore. Although it’s weird that, among local tribes, only the Gorebreathers worship Baphomet. I thought he was kind of a big deal among our horny friends.
Encounter B:
I’m going to confess: I put the dice down and roleplayed this encounter pretty much every time. I mean, we rolled at the end of the conversation, but I didn’t run the sparring session once, even when no one crit the relevant DCs. Maybe I’m a bad GM. Maybe I can justify it as allowing significant situational modifiers for good roleplay. Anyway, there were two reasons for this decision. First, the combat was nothing more than a rehash of the earlier one, only with terrain more favorable the PCs. To my mind, they’d already proven they could kick the butts of three Minotaurs. Knowing that the fight with Ryolle could run really long, I preferred to buy time by skipping this one. And at least two runs of this scenario went the full five hours, so I’m glad I did. Second, it wasn’t clear to me why Mildora wanted them to spar, anyway. Now that I’m rereading the scenario, I found the answer (top full paragraph, p. 13). This should be called out earlier, preferably in the paragraph preceding the “Diplomacy” header. I need to know WHY an obstacle is an obstacle when it’s presented to me. In any case, the minotaurs were fun to roleplay. But I’m an extremely silly person and enjoy being silly with minotaurs; other GMs might feel differently.
Encounter C:
Again, I love the tiny stat blocks. They are my friends. What I didn’t love so much was the setup of this encounter. I’m not sure whether I should have allowed some Perception checks to identify the ambush ahead of time, allowing the PCs to set up somewhere other than in the middle of the map. Of course, there isn’t a party starting position indicated on the map, but the monster tactics call out “getting behind the PCs” at the start of combat, which said “smack in the middle” to me. I decided to confess my confusion to the players and surround ‘em. It totally worked, but I think some players felt a bit cheated. On the other hand, it set up the clerics for some really boss 3-action Heal spells. I love watching Kyra go nuclear. There were an awful lot of Fortitude saves being made in this encounter. Probably too many. It would have been better if Bolstering were a bit more generous, rather than applying only to a single source. The bookkeeping got hairy, especially for an easily-confused fellow like myself. Of course, that would have lessened the threat a bit, but that could have been balanced through some other means. This isn’t scenario-specific, but I really like the way that the duration works on paralysis. Most characters were able to bust out pretty quickly (which was good), but even if they hadn’t, they could always see the light at the end of that particular tunnel getting closer as the DC decremented.
Encounter D:
Hoo, boy, this was interesting. Particularly when there were two harpies involved. In this case (and I suppose I’m contradicting myself), targeted bolstering was amazing. More than once, I had characters get free from Ryolle, only to join his buddy’s fan club. So many PCs got so much exercise running back and forth over the map! Seriously, harpies should set themselves up as personal trainers. I loved watching the party bomb each other with Thunderstones and Sound Burst in order to deafen themselves. Eventually, most parties dealt with mass captivation by sending someone up next to Ryolle and reading an attack vs. him singing. I had to suggest the tactic, and I hope it works the way I think it does. Several groups attempted Dispel Magic. The mechanics were less than clear. I calculated a DC of, if I recall correctly, 28 for the check, allowing it to (potentially) work against a single target. I do not know whether this was remotely correct. Speaking of rules issues, I’m still not clear what skills are used for which Recall Knowledge checks, either for creatures or to identify items. What skill is used to know about harpies? Can I use Arcana to ID a flask of Alchemist’s Fire? How dumb do you have to be not to recognize a Tanglefoot Bag on sight? What kind of roll should you make (at what DC) to put together a good guess about the weird interaction with Ryolle’s magic stick? Twice, the party, upon hearing that there were harpies ahead, decided to plug their ears. Clever! I handed out circumstance bonuses on their saves. It would be good to have some guidance as to how effective that ought to be. I used +4 the first time, and +2 the second. The smaller number felt right, and is what I would use again, barring further clarification. Anyway, helluva fight in this encounter. The guards were ineffectual, but I think that was intended. The second harpy was a HUGE swing when it showed up, versus the one instance in which I only had five players, if only because of his additional control effect. The players were kind of salty when they learned how difficult it would be to break free from control—no additional saves, no breaking upon getting hit by things other than the controlling harpy. On the other hand, it forced some really clever play, so I think most folks enjoyed the challenge.
I’m going to wrap this text wall up with three comments that are very not specific to the playtest scenario. First, the three-action economy is great. The players were nearly always able to do something useful with every action. Once things got hot, it often felt like not-quite-enough to do what they wanted, which is probably the sweet spot! It forced tough choices, but still let characters do cool things. Second, dropping AOOs made for faster, more fluid combats. Yay! Third... resonance. So much grumble before the game got started. Much less as the game went on. The only character that ever felt checked by resonance was the pregen alchemist, which was probably ok, as that’s his limiting resource. And this was mostly because his starting allocation was low on bombs. The players who adjusted his loadout before heading off into the woods had (as I recall) plenty of boom-boom. Once again, thanks to my lovely players, and thanks to the creative folks who put this bad boy together.
I figure you could get by with a blogpost or language in whatever document governs future seasons similar to: "All Season 0 scenarios are eligible for replay, once each as a player and GM. This replay does not count against those granted by other sources (GM Stars, the Expanded Narrative Boon, etc.). No character can ever have more than one copy of the same chronicle sheet attached to it." Then a year on, you alter it to "Seasons 0 and 1" and so forth. Either way, it's just a different mechanical implementation of the same basic premise, and it's the premise I'm fighting for. :) Another complication: it would be possible to restrict replay to those who played the scenario prior to the unlock (to restrict replay to the old hands), but I'm not advocating for that. Of course, in my dream world, the old scenarios would be re-released in a remastered version. But that's probably a terrible use of the devs time. Maybe a Greatest Hits album?
How much do I love that idea, Nosig? Lots! Not that it needs to be implemented in exactly that way, but a gradual unlock of scenarios for replay (once, as if they were an entirely new thing) is awesome. I think I’d still disallow putting the same scenario (even if it were renumbered) on the same character. Because that’s just silly.
Stepping back from the specific discussion of convention boons, I'd like to chime in on the original question about boon carryover into PFS2. First: Wow! Some folks really are really invested in their boons (or lack thereof). Me, not so much. I'll be able to use anything I'm really excited about between now and the time PFS1 winds down; and anything else, well, I wasn't that excited about it to begin with. So, really, any of the proposed solutions would work for me. Of course, not everyone feels the same way. Which is why it is important to get to a solution as close to right as possible. But it's also important to get clear about our goals. If there's anything that (I hope) we all want, it's this: a happy, fun community going forward. The old guard needs to feel valued, and the new kids need to feel welcome. We're going to have to compromise on this one, folks, and we can't be bitter about it. The question we need to ask ourselves isn't so much "What's fair to me?" as "What's best for the game?" We're going to have to give up some of our old toys, even the ones we GM'd our butts off for/traded for/cut a check to a charity for, or risk making the new folks feel left out. This isn't because the leadership stoppped valuing us, or doesn't want us to have nice things. It's because we can't walk into a fresh campaign with a giant pile of nice things that aren't available to all the new players that we (I hope) want very much to attract and retain. Plus, obviously, there are lots of boons that will simply be mechanically obsolesced by changes in the rules. That isn't to say that there shouldn't be some value carried over from our legacy boons. I fully support some sort of trade-in option. But it will have to be at a reduced rate, and probably amortized over the first year or two of the campaign, to ensure that we are all, new players and old alike, given the chance to progress at a similar pace. I hope this made some sort of sense, and that I haven't made too many fresh enemies.
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.
Hoo! What a ride! GenCon was great. Is it next year yet? Thanks to all for their hard work, and to my players for putting up with me. On to the meaty stuff: I'll start with the overnight slots, as Bob has asked about them specifically. I had a lot of fun running them; I wish my third late night slot had fired. I would definitely do overnights again. There is a certain joy in playing in a near-empty Sagamore, especially after the chaos of the specials. As a personal note: I apologize for getting stroppy with a player at one point. My feedback for myself includes taking more deep breaths next year. I was a big fan of the little breaks during the specials. It's nice to be able to run to the Little GM's Room without feeling like I'm putting my individual table on hold. Signage was greatly improved this year, kudos to the leadership. And I know you guys are still working on it. Would it be possible (or even helpful) to mark mustering areas with, say, colored tape on the floor? I know that you can't put up Tensabarriers, but it might be helpful to direct people to, for example, the red or blue zone. If you were feeling really crazy, and this is pure spitballing, you could even have videos looping on wall-mounted screens outside the Sag, similar to the ones used in airports to explain security procedures. After my non-firing 2 AM slot, I got to help clean up the Sagamore. That's cool, somebody has to do it. But I was, frankly, astounded at the sloppiness of my fellow gamers. Can it be part of the GM's responsibility to make sure that they (and their players) clean up their messes before they leave? Starburst purveyors, I'm looking at you in particular. This is something that could be communicated in the GM instructions, which brings me to my next topic. I understand the motivation behind breaking information down into a series of small chunks, sent out over several weeks. I don't know whether it worked, though I hope it did. The downside was that it made searching for any particular bit of information that I needed while at the con much more difficult. Might I suggest a single handy-dandy-can't-live-without-it GenCon GM guide sent as a single PDF in addition to all of the other messages? It could go out whenever, but would warehouse all the policies and procedures in a single place that would be easier to navigate. Judging by the AAR, it seems that some GMs were caught flat-footed by tables of new players, or players playing at unfamiliar level ranges for which they (the players) were unprepared. I agree with Tonya that this is ultimately a GM training issue. I don't think a structural solution (e.g. mustering new players only to certain tables or GMs) is practical or called for. But I do think that the solution begins with a friendly warning, early in the GM email packets, that these sorts of situations can and will crop up and directing them to helpful resources. I guess what I'm suggesting is language like this:
If any of these possibilities make you nervous, have a chat with your local Venture Officers, they're sure to have some helpful tips. Or check out this (LINK) here." After all, there's plenty of expertise in the PFS community; the trick is to encourage GMs to engage those resources ahead of time. One final note on communication, and I'm very serious about this: tone is important! I found the GM newsletters abrasive and condescending. I think the writers were going for "businesslike" but ended up with "harsh." Please take more care next year.
Given that "[a] single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents, including those from character abilities and spells) higher than +10" (from the PRD), I'd say no. The corrosive or flaming ability is a special ability bonus equivalent. Linkage Here
I am planning to play this character in PFS in a couple weeks. I usually use PCGen to build my characters, but the Living Grimoire is a bit too new right now for PCGen to have included it. Could some people please double check it and make sure that it is legal? Additional Resources gives all archetypes from Horror Adventures as legal, apart from a long list that does not include Living Grimoire, so, yes.
I second Turelus's recommendation of RotR. And constraining your own design space is a good idea, especially your first time out of the gate. Solo games are a unique challenge to balance. The standard Challenge Rating system assumes at least four players, so it won't help you too much. As a rule of thumb, I'd suggest that anything with a CR more than your brother's level +1 is a seriously mortal threat. I'd shoot for CRs two below his level as standard encounters. So at first level, CR 1/2 or 1/3. The thing is, not only does a solo character have fewer actions per round than a team, but also a vastly narrower toolbox/bag of tricks. Never be afraid to adjust a planned encounter on the fly, should you discover that you miscalculated its difficulty. Balance is a tricky thing; don't punish your players for design errors! Good luck! |
Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 43 posts (60 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 35 Organized Play characters. 1 alias. 
