Astroliar's page

I highly support this idea - I have a high-level caster whom has an assortment of wands, and 6 slots to track wands is not going to cut it. I can see that character needing 3 to 5 tracking sheets for just wands:

=====================================================================

I highly recommend having 2-3 versions of the tracking sheet:

(a) version that documents permanent magic items
(b) version that documents single-use consumables, with possible setup to track quantities ("acid flask" should be a single line item, not one line item for each acid flask)
(c) version to track multi-use items (such as wands and scrolls with multiple spells
- all versions should be editable, so we can do this at home, and type it in for legibility.
- all versions should have a column for rules source (book and page #) for ease of audit and reference.

=====================================================================

In the old Living Greyhawk campaign, you could use PDF forms, and it had a reference number to the adventure record you purchased the magic item on it, but had to have a previous (or previous forms) that were signed as a track of what you had previously. I prefer a PDF form, as it is just cleaner to look at and view.

Secondly, why not simplify the rules of what needs to be tracked more than a gp limit? It seems the concerns are magic items, consumables of all sorts, and unique items, the concern not necessarily mundane items. Make the list of what needs to be recorded the following:

* Masterwork Gear
* Gear Made of a Special Material
* Permanent Magic Items
* Consumables, including Alchemical, Poisons, Potions, Scrolls, Wands, Etc

Do you really want to clutter a tracking sheet with mundane weapons and armor? Have to write down a greatsword, plate mail, chain mail, and other mundane equipment on these sheets? Having the purchased written down, as per the old rules, on a adventure record seems good enough and acceptable. That, and the four items above cover 10 gp acid flasks and 2 gp cold iron arrows, if tracking these items is a concern.

Fafnir the Cloud-headed is listed under Andoran, but should be under Taldor. He is also now 13th level.

Someone commented that no one seems to have issue with the second part of the changes, aka the High Level Play/retirement play options. I've stated my desires for those options, even in limited numbers, a few times before for more 12+ play opportunities. Given this recent announcement, I am unimpressed with the solution of using adapted modules as a solution. It seems cheap, and uninspired, considering we were hoping for a few chances to play in a storyline with characters we have retired. And the argument that it was never mentioned is incorrect - at the beginning, special play opportunities were mentioned as a possibility for retired characters. 4 to 8 modules a year did not seem like much to ask for, but it appears that the campaign has no interest in possibly catering to those of us who would like to see campaign oriented and story driven opportunities, for whatever the reasons. I'm on character number 4, with two retired characters, and feel that it would be nice to play them again at higher levels a good thing, since the rules are for characters 1 to 20, not 1 to 12. Other organized play campaigns managed to support higher level play, and provide good stories, beyond 12th. I feel that not exploring a serious effort to expand play higher, even in a limited or minimal form that uses the campaign background and is story arc driven, is not utilizing the campaign setting of Golarion and the Pathfinder rule set more fully is a lost opportunity.

My two cents I can provide via my smart phone access currently, from a long time organized play player, judge, organizer, and author, who had very high hopes for the PFS early on, and is becoming more and more indifferent with the play as time passes.

Doctor Smite wrote:

7 is the odd number. If there were 8 people then you could easily make two 4 person tables and work things out that way. But with 7 you cannot split things well (if there is a judge available) I'm not sure a table of 3 is legal or not I forget but it shouldn't be if it is.

A 3-seater is legal if the GM rounds out the party by playing a pregen.

Pathfinder is a game, but it is a social game. Tables of 4 and 5 are fine, but given a choice between a 7 person table or two tables with 3 players, carrying a pregen, likely a cleric, to make 4 that someone needs to run does not seem all that enjoyable. I regularly travel several times a year to play with friends at cons, were we have sat 4-6 tables sometimes, others have 3 tables of 6-7 players due to the judges available, level differences, and other factors. I also play with friends from decent distances a few times a year were there are 8 of us - the option of breaking up to play to 3 person tables when we have setup and travelled to play together and socialize is unattractive and far removed from the idea of us playing this campaign to have fun together. Circumstances very in every case and opinion, but the 7 player table issues that are voiced may be concern to some, but do not assume that everyone believes that playable and fun absolutely ends when 7 player tables occur.

Atrius wrote:

Actually after the level 12 arc, you can still play the 13th and 14th level sanctioned modules with your character.

I know. For the purposes of having the title of "retired" you have to be 12th level and played through the level 12 arc. A level 12 character is not "retired" if they just hit the cap and don't play the arc.

I know there are opportunities for "retired" characters, but you can't play the 13th and 14th level modules with your level 12 character until you play through the level 12 arc first.

This will have to be one of those times you mention about agreeing to disagree - yes, I am lucky that one of my two 12th level characters has the Eyes of the Ten series and two adaptables to play through yet, but as far as I'm concerned, they are retired, as they cannot partake in the normal PFS play due to their level, and are thus retired from normal play at this time.

Two retired characters:

Ka-Dar the Silent One, Qadiran Fighter 12
(Start of Year Zero to mid-Year 1)

Fafnir the Cloud-Headed, Ulfen Druid 12
(Start of Year 1 to this GenCon, by choice, to retire him at the Special)

A recommendation on events and tickets per slot - as attractive as having every (or nearly every) module offered every slot of the convention, perhaps schedule a third or half the offering per slot of the number of events offered? It may alleviate some of the issues with mustering and table composition, along with getting tickets for tables during prereg. We had several people who could not get tickets to certain events a few minutes after others they planned on playing with had, and thus choose other activities other than PFS. Some slots offered as little as 12 tickets for a game, which also in turn meant some slots there were only a portion of the tickets sold available at muster due to no-shows; 3 players at 1 and 3 players at a higher level make table balancing difficult, especially if those players are slanted towards one type of role (melee without caster, vice versa).

I'll add the already massive suggestion about reducing the noise level, and having prepared judges. I felt the modules were all enjoyable, and had more good judging experiences than bad. Overall, a good time.

Darius

I thought I add my experience as a partial reply to yours. I had a great time - even if I couldn't spend a lot of time with the PFS folks.

I only booked flight tickets from the UK 2 weeks ahead of the CON. PFS wasn't the reason to come (this time) and it felt weird as PFS was the reason I now go around different CONs here in the UK.

So with other commitments as the reason to go and my ticket purchased Thursday morning at 8 am I showed up approx. 3 hours later to have a look and maybe to chat to one or the other PFS game master.

With everyone playing poor Mark Moreland had to endure me as one of the first GMs not at the tables. I asked what I could do to help - and being available during mustering seemed a good idea.

So I arrived half an hour early - not to be needed. Which actually is good if there are enough helpers.

Forward 15 minutes and you understand why I write this as reply to Darius. One GM hadn't shown up. While this was awkward for the organizers - for me it was an opportunity.

No - I hadn't GMed the Frostfur Captives before. I didn't have anything with me apart of diceback and Core Rulebook. Actually the reason to carry the book was less to have it around but rather to add Jason and Lisa to Eric (Dragonmeet 2009) and Josh (PaizoCon UK 2010) to sign it.

So there was a need - some players who wanted to play. I never had run a scenario cold. I don't think I felt comfortable - but Mark was left not much choice - and this was likely my sole opportunity to GM at GenCon.

10 minutes ahead of the game - and I had the scenario in my hands. I think I got up to Act 2 by the time my players showed up. Tim Hitchcock (?) offered his own personal, newly bought battle map. Thanks !!

With the first players showing up I explained the situation. Luckily a tier 1-2. Three experienced players who knew each other. 2 new players - thanks to the GM who did the mustering for my table for organizing 2 pregens for them. And one player who played his second game. I even had some spare PFS...

As one of the trio of players who knew each other at your table, it was a pleasure to have you as a judge, and you did a fine job with the module. Having played, judged, and coordinated events for organized play campaigns for over a decade now, you judged Frostfur Captives wonderfully even with having to run it cold, which is something that I've experienced from both sides of the screen in the past. We were glad to help out however we could, and had no problem with the pacing - you did a great job (in fact, better than some other judges that prepped for the convention, in my opinion).

Thanks for running the module on short notice so others could play, and I hope we gave you a good experience to remember judging at GenCon with. Kudos on the goblins overall - I know how I'll be running them if and when I get a chance to run the module myself.

- One of the Brothers, who's trying to figure out how we managed so much diplomacy...

Astroliar wrote:

As for tacked on HL failing, that is a pretty negative assumption and a bit of lack of faith. There have been a few examples were it utterly failed, but the big example had a multitude of other of other issues that did not setup for success.

I didn't say tacked on HL would fail, I said it comes across feeling 'cheap and flimsy'

Astroliar wrote:

There are more examples of where it went just fine or went wonderfully.

Here we will have to agree to disagree. I have personally seen more examples of it being done poorly than being done well.

My argument here is that if there was going to be post-12th gaming, it should have been planned for from the start. Adding it now is less than ideal. I would rather play a completely rebooted campaign that allowed it than have it added on after the fact.

As an aside, it's already been shown that lower levels suffer when the higher levels become a focus. Just see the issues from the beginning of the season when they had to retool the schedule to make up for the lack of low-level play. People already complain that certain level teirs aren't getting the attention the deserve (I'd like to see more 5-9s) Unless they increase the mods done in a year, this will get worse.

It seems to me that people are complaining about the failure of a system that hasn't seen the light of day yet. They have said since the beginning that there will be play for retired characters at 12. We are only now getting to a point that people with these characters are starting to show up at the major cons with their retired 12s ready to play. Next year at paizo-con and gencon, this will be a necessity. I look forward to those myself. It just hasn't been needed before now.

Apologies - cheap and flimsy stuck me as failure; I find that would not be work the effort than. Given the structure of leveling, item access, campaign arcs, and PFS rules, iI view looking at the options of 12 and up as an expansion of the current campaign, not something that has to be forced. Erik mentioned the biggest possible issue, the expansion of wealth if level 12 remains static. There are higher level powers and abilities that may need to examined, but I cannot foresee a multitude of issues that cannot be solved. If it cannot be done correctly, I'd rather thy not attempt it. I have a belief that thy can handle it. As you stated, we may have to agree to disagree on this opinion.

I agree that perhaps the HL play should have been planned better from the start, but it was not. I guess I'm confused on why it cannot be a natural extension - certainly you could have perhaps planned characters differently with feat choices or classes with a knowledge that play would go beyond 12th from the beginning, but I cannot see that as a game breaker. And the request of 4 to 8 modules to support HL play does not seem unreasonable; in fact, I'll agree that the balance of supported tiers in past seasons was confusing. The first two seasons of play saw half of the modules for tiers 5-9 and 7-11, making it impossible to play those modules at times, especially at launch, til late in the season.

As for the complaining about a system that has not seen the light of day, it started with the Eyes of the Ten series already, and I believe addressing this now is better than not acknowledging it til next year. The play numbers were not perhaps showing the percent of players reaching 12th correctly - for example, I know tables of 7-11 events played at the passed two GenCon, and probably a decent number. After 1 to 2 years, I'd have to believe those players have played 3 to 12 events and retired those characters. I believe there are a good number of players out there at or very close to 12th, and starting this discussion now will only serve to better prepare for next year's play. And low level play should not suffer, as it's the bread and butter of PFS, and the pathway to even entertain this discussion of higher level play.

cblome59 wrote:

To me, this just feels like a rather vocal minority yet again complaining until they get their way.

I also suspect that it's a minority of "Überplayers" that care about high-level play, but (a) I could be wrong and (b) even so, why should I care if there's high-level play as long as it doesn't hurt low-level players like me?

I don't know that this is just a vocal minority complaining - it's a group of players asking a question on the direction of the campaign and letting another opinion/desire be known. We play PFS because we have faith in Paizo's rule set and designers, their adventure paths proving what thy can offer use from levels low to high. If we had not asked or voiced our concerns, the numbers and evidence would left us unheard. We are not asking that the entire campaign become a high-level playground - we only ask that there be acknowledgment that a growing population is reaching the cap, and would like to see further opportunities for those characters to be played. As you mentioned, there will still be plenty of low-level events available, and the support for the campaign will likely still be 1-12, but the document that some had mentioned also stated some support for characters of 12, in a limited or some fashion. A fraction of resources being directed at 12+ is not going suddenly end the low level play - some players would like to play characters for more than a year, and not have an annual character creation (which the extended play will support wonderfully, and those that wish a quicker advancement are also sill able to enjoy their style of play).

As for tacked on HL failing, that is a pretty negative assumption and a bit of lack of faith. There have been a few examples were it utterly failed, but the big example had a multitude of other of other issues that did not setup for success. There are more examples of where it went just fine or went wonderfully.

I'm curious to hear from those folks who'd like more high-level play opportunities to speak to what exactly they would like to see us do?

We've got the Eyes of the Ten series, which based on play reporting and sales, seems like it came out too early and a lot of people are still waiting to play it, even though they have characters who qualify. I must confess that this puzzles and frustrates me (mostly as the narcissistic author of the first one, but also as publisher). It seems to me that, despite our best intentions, the Eyes of the Ten series does not appropriately speak to the desire of the folks clamoring for high-level play.

I've heard good things on the Eyes of the Ten series. I have not played it, the reasoning two-fold. One, we've been attempting to schedule it with friends, and need to find a time (or times) to do so. That said, given that it is all there is currently for HL play, it has been easy to push the date back on these events to play them, as there is nothing beyond this series (save the newly announced or soon to be announced adapted published modules). We have interest in playing HL PFS, but the limited HL PFS events available has given us pause and excuses to wait to play them, so we can get our group together and find a quality/experienced judge to run us.

We've also sanctioned high-level Pathfinder Modules for Society play, specifically Tomb of the Iron Medusa (level 14) and (very soon) Academy of Secrets (level 13). I'm guessing that the nature of module play in the Society means that these efforts don't appropriately scratch the high-level itch, either.

Having addition play with adapted published mods is welcomed, but not an overall solution. They are not written with PFS in mind, and are not extension to the arc/story of the campaign. They are developed for the campaign directly.

So from my perspective, both efforts we have made to improve high-level play opportunities for the campaign have been failures, partial failures, or are too early to tell.

I'd go with Too Early to Tell. Our delaying is part our scheduling, desire to play with friends with a quality judge (and none of us especially interested in eating any of the 4 HL mods available currently), and the fact there are little to no options tempting/driving us to play these events sooner.

If these options are not sufficient, what would be?

A series of 4-8 HL events in a year would be welcomed. Currently, only 4 events from the past 3 years of published PFS events are Tier 12; 60 to 80 events from levels 1-11 exist to level a character to Tier 12 (not including the new slow advancement, which has yet to be implemented, or people who prefer multiple lower-level characters).

Adding high-level tiers to all adventures?

I'd prefer not - HL play differs enough from lower level, and trying to expand modules to a greater number of Tiers has more going against it than for it.

Adding more high-level adventures at the expense of low- or medium-tier events?

There are currently enough lower level modules to level two characters on the current XP path to 12th level (or one with a full use of the slow advancement track), so would it hurt going forward decreasing the number of low to mid level events in a year? Those who play less than the more active players have a catalog of many events to choose from, and there will still be modules created for them, juts less of them.

Special high-level scenarios at Gen Con? (High-level "megadeath" events, etc.?)

I would have tickets, or be standing and waiting with generics if a Special HL event was being offered at GenCon. LC had a few, but Living Greyhawk, Living Arcanis, and Blackmoor had special events that were popular options in the past. And even making versions of these available to other regional conventions would allow more draw to PFS play on a community level. I fully endorse this option.

What is it, exactly, that would satisfy your desire for more high-level PFS play?

4-8 events created and worked for PFS play, with a story line that allows players to continue the adventures of characters that they have put much time, effort, and play, usually ones that have better developed and create personalities, that would be fun, challenging, and deep with the rich campaign setting that is available, providing already in the adventure paths, products, and other published materials.

FrozenTundra wrote:

Ryan, you may want to learn a bit more about the players in your local area. Most of the people I am taling about and play with are IN the Mpls area, or a few hours drive. Just because they do not come to your game days doesn't mean they are not around.

Then have them contact me. This interaction is a two-way street. I try to make game days known, post and recruit on a lot of the common locations, and show up at other games in the area that I know are happening or send a proxy. I can't reach out to people that don't reach back. If your players really want this, then have them get involved in their local game days, heck, just have them e-mail me, my address is in my profile. I may not like high level play, but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to push for what my players want. Up to now, my players aren't even at the point that it's an issue - if your friends want this brought to the forefront I can relay that information. Believe it or not, the VCs do have Paizo's ear and any of us will relay information as we hear it - I'm not hearing it though from the people I talk to and thus I don't have it to report, in fact I have quite the opposite at this point.

Well, I can certainly do that for you Ryan. I've been playing PFS since launch with Frozentundra and that crew (we number around 12-15 in our "group"), playing Society play at conventions and home events for the past three years. I play with 5-8 people locally in the Twin Cities/St Cloud area regularly who have participated in PFS play, with characters in levels from 1 to 12, and enough retired PCs to fill a table; we are a much larger group when you add in friends we coordinate weekends and con travel to play with.

That said, I have not participated in any local events as I have little left to play outside of the high level events, or adapted modules that I've chosen to wait on. I usually attempt to play at GenCon (currently my one major con of the year), 2-3 conventions in Milwaukee (where years of gaming have afforded me numerous friends in WI and Chicago I love to play with and enjoy time with), and a handful of organized weekends with friends (organized as our schedules between jobs, family, life, and other interests allow). That said, I've played, judged, and written in numerous campaigns from back in finding LC at Gencon in the mid to late 90's to currently PFS, with stops along with way with LG, LF, LA, and Blackmoor.

I've currently got a retired 12th, an 11th with two modules left before retirement (planned to play at GenCon with friends), a 5th, and 2-3 concepts/themes being planned, discussed, and plotted as GenCon means that a new character needs to be rolled up, else myself and my acquantances will find ourselves without characters to play the released events for possibly long stretches of time (aka the need for more lower-level scenarios mentioned above). In order to keep playing regularly, it's an annual ritual to plan for a new first level character, a requirement for a dedicated player and customer. Do I like rolling up new character builds/concepts? Yes, but there is a point were it wears on me.

In LC and LG, I would create characters that I would enjoy, and I was able to enjoy the highest level ones because of time to advance and grow the character (corrected some with the slow advancement being offered) and develop a personality, relationships, and history to fall back on when doing the roleplaying of the character. It was memorable and enjoyable. They feel like a comfortable pair of shoes, and I can/could slip into those characters with ease, even after all these years. Secondary and beyond characters were not annual tasks, but moments of inspiration or desire, having thought up a campaign-oriented and/or rule-oriented character I wished to create. Right now, even though I manage to create characters to keep playing, it's not as fun or exciting at times as it was in the past (not that my friends and I have not come up with some great concepts, good and bad, roleplayish and power-gamish). Heck, one of the local players has begun naming his characters variants of numbers after his first PFS character, since it was going to become an annual ritual.

HL characters don't need to topple kingdoms, kill gods, do the impossible, to be given play opportunities. A good story, memorable and with an arc, and a chance to flush out the character's personality and/or enjoy the character we've putting much time into is what we are looking for.

That said, instead of the answer being more and more lower level modules to give play opportunities, why not fill in with some HL play? Right now, the campaign has three years of modules, between 60 to 80 events, that cover levels 1-11, with 4 events written for Tier 12 only. By my count, unless players are failing at events and earning no XP, or choosing to have a corral of lower-level PCs, is more than the 33 events required to hit level 12 twice-over, regardless if play results state otherwise. I have harassed/bothered/asked/show those not reporting events to do so, but with the handful of retired mods, it may be near impossible to have my play results hit 33 on my characters.

And before I get the 'play the current ones first' response, it's planned, but to be honest, when right now its the only series available to play at high level, there is not a huge urgency to do it right this minute. There is no next challenge currently, no continuing story, and it has become easy to put it off another month or two when we can align our schedules to play them. We'll get to them sooner than later, given things, but the lack of more content for retired characters is one of the reasons I have not yet played, along with wanting to share the experience with friends.

Consider this my request to have you ask for more HL event play.

Sadly, the loss of Baron Jacqo as the leader of the Taldor faction will be the end to some of the most amusing missions in PFS play...

Any update on this? I'm attempting to report results, and the GM number seems to not be working, were as the reporting for player's seems to auto-fill as desired.

Question - Seeker of Secrets introduces different types of Ioun Stones with flawed, cracked, etc. My two questions are:

1) Do multiple types of the ioun stones work, if different types (normal, flawed, cracked)? Can you have a normal and flawed of the same shape and color work together?

2) Some ioun stones specify they apply to one specific check, or have two options of effect, chosen by the crafter when the ioun stone is made. Can you own multiple of those stones and have them effect you, as long as they are different effects for each one?