Alison-Cybe's page

I am prepping this for PaizoCon, and I see one question that really should have a clarification:

If the PCs give up the items (TBs) found in the scenario, do they lose the TBs? Normally I would say no, but with the specific line of "Any items given to her are lost, however." in the conclusion, I am confused.

The intent is that any treasure bundles given away are not recovered so they are lost.

Adding an extra encounter to an adventure is very unbalancing; you're effectively offering the players the chance to burn extra consumables without gaining extra treasure bundles to reward them.

While that is true, GMs will definitely need some way of filling out the additional time that would be needed to bring the shorter-running modules up to the length of a convention slot. While combat encounters are not optional like you've said, the other alternative is for the GM to make up additional content, roleplay moments, exploration/location details etc etc all by themselves. Which makes running a game just... not very GM-friendly.

It's easy enough for me because I don't/can't run Society games anymore, I just use the adventures for my home games, so I can cobble them together into a campaign structure. That makes it easier to fill out parts that run short with downtime and NPC-PC relationship-building, but my players aren't paying for a time slot. Convention gamers are, and I would hate for them to go away from a table I've run having paid and feeling they got less.

>.> those reviews, eeeh...

Would it be possible to add a 'N/A' option to the Alignment option, for people who opted not to give their characters one?

A double-length scenario is likely to be a full day's gaming. I expect most groups/conventions will find it better to play it over two slots/evenings.

One of the biggest issues new players had when I was running Society games (aside from constantly struggling with a plethora of multiple different websites inc. Warhorn, Foundary etc etc just to play a game) was the fact that post-game points were stored all over the place. Gold and Exp were on the Chronicle sheets, but Achievement Points were on the website. So players were always confused, and invariably frustrated, with trying to figure out where to find out what stuff they had. I really hope that at some point all of these are just logged online for simplicity's sake.

When creating your character concept, remember that you are a member of the Starfinder Society. They must be able to work with any other Starfinder and abide by the Society’s motto: “Explore, Report, Cooperate.”

s AP's and modules are available for the 11+ crowd we should be good.

At first I thought that this seemed unnecessary.

Sounds good to me! Especially playing the adventures as often as you like with different characters; that's something I've always felt strongly about!

I get frustrated with reviews that read like, "this scenario SUCKS! It's terrible that X Y Z happened, it wasn't fun at all!" when clearly the issue was how the GM ran things.

You're telling me! :D

Honestly, it sounds like the reliance on Warhorn is something of a hurdle the local group in question here have put in place. I started to have the same issue, which ultimately caused me to drop play with our local Society group. Just ended up that I didn't ever REALLY know if I'd be able to get a seat or not, and waitlisting can often mean ending up with nothing else to do for your whole day. The site's designed for larger-scale event bookings, not small clubs like this. Sorry you're on the same situation.

Unfortunately the local VO is one of the two who started calling for it...... and is also a friend of the store owner. Main reason I went to said store owner first is to ask "how do I approach this?" To which the response was that the store owner would have a word and ask.

Otherwise, I may just try going online for a few games more

Totally understand - that kind of thing happens more often than you'd think, when a VO gets an idea about how things 'should be done' and ends up making it into a situation where players don't have any means to rectify any problems that crop up.

Honest, best advice, just find another group to play with. If this one isn't willing to even hear out the idea of accommodating for differently abled players, you won't be missing out.

Waitaminnit! I know that ghost on the cover!

I hate to say it, but it's definitely a placeholder ;)

Sounds more than a little ableist to me.

It can be a lot, for sure, creating a Warhorn account, RPG Chronicles, signing up for new Discord servers and navigating those, not to mention Forge accounts and Foundry characters, character builders, character importers. And that's just Foundry, there are other VTTs as well. It definitely seems overwhelming at first.

I would say find a GM (or an experienced player) willing to help you out. I've helped many players with those steps and the nice thing is that for the most part, once you do it once, you're done (and/or it makes more sense for the next time). It definitely seems like a lot but I can get you from not even having a Paizo ID to being Foundry-ready in an hour, tops.
It definitely is a leap but there are folks out there willing to help.

This is true, and I agree. But it also relies on GMs playing a large number of roles, staying up to speed with multiple sites and systems, and having the time to dedicate to helping the players. And while that is fantastic when a GM can and does do that, it's also a rather big workload and could definitely lead to burnout and exhaustion. I'm all for streamlining processes as much as possible to help take the burden off players and GMs both - I think that would really help. Ease of Pick-up-and-play rocks, after all.

I don't want to say anything unnecessarily negative, so I'll try to choose my words very carefully. For context, I write adventures for org play, but I've not played any in over a year. I also used to GM for my local lodge, but have stepped back from doing so. The reason for both of these is the same.

Frankly, and as politely as I can put it, there are a lot of hurdles towards people, particularly new people, to playing org play games. Many of the systems that have been incorporated into org play which facilitate ease of play for more experienced players, are a series of whole new challenges that they first need to learn, grasp and master before they can simply sit down and play the game they want to play.

To refer back to what I said earlier, I've been unable to play for over a year because I have difficulty navigating and booking slots on Warhorn, and have thus far been utterly confused about how to create a character on Foundry, and have frankly been avoiding in-person games because I don't know how to update my PF2e character to their post-relaunch version equivalent. Those are my hurdles. When I was GMing, the usual hurdles I was informed about from new players I ran games for were substantially more, which ultimately led up to players signing up for games and not turning up.

I can't say for certain that this is the reason why it happens for you, but it's worth bearing in mind the possibility.

There have even been adventures like A Lie told to Strangers where, after hearing the introduction, my only thought was: "Yes, there is probably a bad thing happening there. But WHY IN THE WORLD does the Pathfinder Society care about that? We are not investigators and prosecutors, we are explorers!"

As I wrote the scenario, I have to give a slightly meta answer to this, which ultimately amounts to "If they don't, there is no adventure for your players to play this week." There are times suspension of disbelief has to take a back-seat to playing a game with friends.

There are rabbitfolk in Starfinder; I know because I introduced them in the Society adventure I wrote about 4 years back, back in 4.02.

They've not had official playable stats made thus far, and I'm not sure how 'on the plate' they even are. But they exist.

SuperParkourio wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

My personal gripes with the scenario

** spoiler omitted **

Those last issues also apply to Hogwarts, so maybe it was a deliberate riff? I remember playing the Harry Potter video game adaptations, and all the professors were like, "Today we will be learning the Expelliarmus spell. Harry, please crawl through this small hole in the wall, go through the obstacle course full of giant swinging axe blades and rabid monsters, and retrieve the Expelliarmus spellbook. And then duel Malfoy when you're done." And then no one else has to do it and class is dismissed.

Absolutely not. None of the scenarios I develop will ever reference or riff off of that franchise.

THANK YOU! <3

I feel like that's intentional for lesser, but not moderate. The whole "Boots Theory" where buying the cheaper option is more expensive over time. I will house rule the moderate down to 3 GP which makes it cheaper than the lesser but more expensive overall than the greater which is what should be expected.

As someone who is undergoing HRT specifically for this, yes, the 'boots theory' is very much a thing.

Taken into account, the costs would run something along the lines of as follow:
Lesser: 52g+ (a year or more)
Moderate: 96g
Greater: 35g
The lesser would, almost certainly, run for multiple years. Two or three. Which, for medical material which people like me need to live (or at least, live without constant discomfort), it's... yeah. I homebrew that medical and accessibility aids in my games don't have associated massive, dystopian capitalist financial costs, personally. I just wish fantasy games could just move beyond replicating the same awful 'healthcare for a cost' systems that we are plagued with in the real world. Can't we dream of something better?

Come on, at least make the scenario's make sense within the world they exist. There is a crime spree going on, half a dozen people have gone missing, what do we do? let's call on the Pathfinder society which is several hundred miles away and have the help we are asking for take the slow route using a multi week caravan trip to get to the city where a crime spree is taking place. That's dumb.

Ther rest of the scenario was OK, but it was hard to get past the completely implausible scenario set up.

The reason for this is established and shown in the 'Journalistic Integrity' section of the adventure, on page 7.

Okay, I have to ask. Based on the description you've just outlined as your experience....

Had the GM actually read the adventure beforehand at all?

Legit question, because a lot of the issues you've stated are things which might be averted with more prep and planning. I know that I've sat through more than a few sessions which have this same vibe in terms of lack of readiness, and it does genuinely ruin the fun.

Just a question for the OP; have you tried any other org play scenarios since your post, or with another GM? I am curious to see your feelings and if they've changed at all.

One piece of advice I'll offer, which seems very obvious, but...

Prep your adventure. Read it thoroughly beforehand, preferably a few times. Don't 'skim' it; read it. There's nothing that brings a player out of a game is pausing everything so the GM can read the adventure.

Super cool!

To me that's kind of the issue given online play is often NOT regionally based? I play with people all over the world and the whole regionally based rewards for playing online seems like it could use an overhaul?

Which region would an online server based on providing international play fall under, I wonder.

Anyone know if this is actual starship combat or just a skill challenge thing?

The starship encounter was removed from the final version of the adventure.

So I... do not understand at all.

Could I publish fiction set in PF/SF settings on Infinite? Can that be my question one, because that seems to be the easiest.

For question two, could I publish game material such as new enemies or new classes for PF/SF on Infinite? Because I already have done so, using the editions of the game current as of one year ago.

If I was to do the above in two weeks' time, would that material need to be in the new ORC-based mechanics system? Because my (admitably very not-understanding understanding of the post) is that such would not be possible?

For question 3, could I create the above new enemies or new classes for a setting other than PF/SF, such as a homebrew, on Infinite? If so, would it need to be done under new system, or previous system? Or not permissible at all?

Next question - same, but for adventures? If I create an adventure set in Golarion, using PF2 mechanics, can that be released on Infinite? What about post-ORC mechanics? What about an adventure using either PF2 or post-ORC PF2 mechanics but NOT set on Golarion?

Next question - spells. Some of the spells have changed under ORC. Does material CURRENTLY published on Infinite which reference spells need to be changed?

I've been holding off on working on publishing more material on Infinite until ORC was established, set up and had this in place, so I have been watching for this post but I've really tried and I really just don't grasp any of this at all. Sorry!

One of the issues I've come across is on the road to being an Organized Play Venture Officer. My information may be out of date, but I seem to remember one of the requirements being "Coordinate two sessions a month at the location where you coordinate games. Run one of the sessions, but the other can be ran by any area GM."

It's like, I found running 12 adventures a year to be pretty tough. And I know that not all GMs need to necessarily be part of the volunteer system, but being part of that is an attraction and a goal for many.

As I'm sure folks will eventually notice and point out, I feel it's worth mentioning that this scenario does include a subplot in which the PCs encounter and aid a transgender character in pursuit of achieving gender affirmation. I know this because I, as a trans person, wrote it. There's been a question as to whether this was included to meet some kind of quota; in actuality, it was included because it's a subplot I asked to be able to write and create, because it matters to me. If there's any quota to be met, it's an amount of 'some; because we exist, and are valid, and deserve to be seen'.

One piece of advice I would like to offer with this scenario;

This adventure is intended to be run as a very chaotic and frantic action-focused experience. Pacing is therefore very important, and it's generally intended to keep the action going every second, with heavy descriptions of the unfolding battle. It's very important to avoid long pauses or moments when the game may drag, and to minimize double-checking for rule clarifications, so I really encourage the GMs to ensure they do as much prep work as possible.

My character calls her patron 'Daddy'.

Other Pathfinders find it a little uncomfortable...

They could do the lotto a few days out as well so those who aren’t picked can find something else.

That would be preferable, at least personally so, and that'd give time to find an alternative adventure.

The lottery system looks like it might be very problematic. Let's say 10 people sign up for a 6-seater game. Each of those 10 players has to then take time out of their lives for that game, preventing them from signing up for any other games scheduled at that time. Four of those players would be guaranteed not to get in, and there doesn't seem to be anything in place to allocate those players to another game instead. With games that fill up fast, at very least those players who miss out could then find alternative games to play at that time instead. That makes it an 'either you get the game you gambled on, or get no game', which really doesn't appeal to me, so I'll personally not be choosing to put my name down for any lottery-based games.

I found myself wondering how this thread could have descended to folks being really snippy at each other so quickly. But then like, I don't think it was going to be positive anyway. I only have my kitsune character for SFS because I had a bunch of PF2 sitting around doing nothing, and now that I have her, with pretty much the UK scene having moved away from org play post-lockdown for a variety of reasons... she's just kinda sitting around doing nothing too. I... think yeah, I don't think this cross-promotion works for what it's trying to do.

I'm aware that there are some players (regardless of system) who will always gravitate to the more exotic races, but in my opinion, they are missing out on a wealth of fun, meaty character options possible with just the core races.

They might be missing out, but that's still their decision and choice to make, and it's not for anyone else to tell them that they're wrong for what they want.

Even though new players have 80AcP to start off, that's still a barrier. They need to gain this information, access the website, spend and navigate and so on, all from what could otherwise be a choice made at the FIRST moment they play. Turn up at their first game and want to play a tiefling, only to be told "first you need to do this, this and that before you can" is kinda... yeah, I think that if you're wanting to grab players coming to us from D&D, our versions of every D&D ancestry option should be ready to meet them. But that's just me.

Yeah, I set up a dedicated and specifically queer-only Discord for Pathfinder/Starfinder players. It came about after realizing just how many queer folks were having 'issues' in the local Pathfinder scene, and realizing that creating a dedicated for-us space. There are games being run, and the community is coming along very nicely! It's over at ** spoiler omitted **

I just want to flag up, if anyone is looking to run any org play games online, we are specifically looking for any now.

The reason any org play scenarios in general aren't repeatable is to prevent players from grinding them for XP/loot/Rep. Which could be handles in other manners. Seen many GMs have to cancel their day's session because players were 'locked out' of a game, and that sucks.

Threw the discord invite behind a spoiler tag for safety.

Thanks! Didn't know it was google searched!

Yeah, I set up a dedicated and specifically queer-only Discord for Pathfinder/Starfinder players. It came about after realizing just how many queer folks were having 'issues' in the local Pathfinder scene, and realizing that creating a dedicated for-us space. There are games being run, and the community is coming along very nicely! It's over at

So this may be a dumb question, but...

I get to the 'tired of cishet nonsense' level really fast nowadays when people rub me the wrong way and some such has led me to start looking at alternatives to org play with total strangers.

Would anyone here be willing (by which I mean eagerly excited, and would be very keen to pitch in to build) in an LGBTQ+ specific org play discord group set up for online play?

I think the 1st edition org play scenarios were popular enough that if a 1st-2nd edition conversion guide were a thing, they would see a huge surge in play (and sales), if such a product were ever released (HINT HINT!)

The official length of scenarios should be 3.5-4 hours, not 4-5 hours. Bring back optionals like Jared said or just write shorter scenarios (or… keep the page count up and add more flavor and less crunch).

These are good ideas. I won't lie, I've been GMing for several years and, hand-on-heart honest, I can honestly say I've never run a game that's finished in under 4 hours. I've currently taken an extended break from running online because over-running was making GMing society games too difficult; I was often needing to split an adventure over 2 sessions (I'm UK-based, so for my US players we had to play in what was late evening for me). This made scheduling to get all the same players back for the second part extremely stressful. And, I won't lie to you, us Brits, we love to really get into character with our roleplay - more time on the clock! Typically to get a scenario to fit a 4-hour block, I'd need to cut content for it (usually a combat), which I'm not SUPPOSED to do... I'm currently running some dragon game for my local group, and I note a lot of the premade org games for that one advise a minimum of 3 hours - those scenarios tend to last for 2-3 evenings! But yes, I think including more 'optional encounters' is the way to go. Gives the GMs more agency to adapt to the needs of the players, that's never a bad thing.

'Bye Ehu! You were cool!

Thanks to Alison Cybe for highlighting the plight of indigenous populations in post-colonial Americas/Australia.

Small correction - “Silent Generation” is incorrect - should be “Stolen Generation/s” - the forced removal of indigenous children from their families by the “welfare” arm of the Australian government.

Good catch! Can we have that edited in?

Alison-Cybe wrote:

And, worth noting...

SFS 3.11 Spoiler: ** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

Okay! That's pretty awesome right there!! :D

And, worth noting...

I'll aim to make it along next year.

Plenty of people don’t “look like” what our backwards society assumes they should for their pronouns - me and my partner are both trans, but not interested in hormones or surgeries, and we’re not exactly dressed as paragons of femininity or androgyny, because we shouldn’t have to be.

The number of times I've had to remind players that my Orc, named Harmony, who wears flowers in her hair and dresses in feminine-assigned clothing attire, and who I've continually refereed to as 'She', shouldn't be addressed as 'he' simply because I'm not wearing my make-up...

I now don't regret retiring my Vlaka character.

And Elsebo's boon there is sweet!

Let me represent myself clearly here. I am not in the habit of maligning any game systems; especially not games which, like in this example, I've been a writer for. Please don't interpret any games I've named anecdotally while describing my history of interacting with the TTRPG hobby and industry as any comment on the game itself. It isn't. I don't do that, and I wouldn't damage my professional standing in the industry to do so. Games differ, game design philosophies differ, how the audiences interact with them differs, and how they interact with games in regards to (or sometimes despite) the game design philosophy differs. So if I'm speaking about my own journey through TTRPG history and how I've experienced the community, and name a game while mentioning the way I've seen gamers interact with it, I'm not maligning that game. I'm discussing player behavior.

Anecdotally (and I'll preference again, ANECDOTALLY) I'm not a fan of PvP content in TTRPGs. I have seen, more times than I like, it result in one or two players having fun, while others either have their fun put on hold or disrupted. I am a big proponent of everybody at a gaming table having fun, inclusively. This means in the TTRPG club which I co-manage, we have a simple and straightforward rule involving such content, which is that it must be enthusiastically approved by all players at the table before and during its inclusion. This ensures consensual enjoyment. It also requires unanimous agreement from all players because its inclusion impacts on all parties involved. The argument of "It's what my character would do" subverts the consensual nature of that agreement; it allows one single player to push for the content against other players, sometimes against their will and consent. I'm not okay with that, and I'm glad it isn't a part of the org play format.