Blake's Tiger's page

I didn’t miss his point at all. If someone is going to be triggered by the word, then they probably know enough not to go looking at the warnings behind the spoiler tag.

Except then they don't know they should avoid the scenario.

I used a relatively benign example. However, one part of his point was that trigger warnings need to be written sensatively to avoid being triggers themselves. A spoiler tag is not sufficient for that purpose because if you expect those with a trigger to merely avoid looking at all the spoiler tags, they don't know if their specific trigger is there or not. Either the warning was a waste of effort because it was unread or they avoid all scenarios with spoiler warnings.

Spoiler tags are a thing. You can say look here for the trigger warnings, put them behind a spoiler tag, and only people who want to look have to look.

I think you missed his point.

This is Paizo's current tactic for advising on potential triggers:

Hell is a traumatic place replete with horrific sights and sounds. It may be prudent to discuss this with your players ahead of the adventure so that they can mentally prepare and raise any concerns. If any of the players are uncomfortable with particular details, strongly consider toning those down or glossing over those features to ensure that everyone can enjoy the adventure. Monitor your players’ reception to the ambiance; it’s okay to recalibrate your depiction of evil themes partway through the adventure.

I think this is should be addressed is this is going to be discussed realistically:

What is the scope of the actual problem. Excluding sexual assault and suicide, how many people requesting trigger warnings have triggers and what are they? Between this thread and the other, I've seen two primary themes.

"I don't have a trigger and nobody I play with has a trigger, but I could imagine there being a person with a problem with X scenario and I'm going to solve it."

"I have a trigger, but I don't get triggered by the scenarios or I have ways to deal with it that work well for me."

And triggers are a separate issue from adult themes and children. On that issue, I feel the understanding that PFS scenarios are PG-13 equivalent is sufficient. As a father who plays RPGs, I am forewarned.

I play in a one VC area (and online play), and I don't see an issue with this.

I thought one of the objectives for the new rules was to make the game more accessible for new players.

You're confusing Paizo the game company's goal for PF2 the game system with OPF the organized play administration's overarching GMing of PFS2 the living campaign.

Painlord wrote:

Hunt for Blackfang, 2e

SRM gives a long long talk about the basics of modes of play, combat, and how things work. Initially, he said that they have moved the system to a d12 based system, and once we recovered from that news, we got a look at the character sheets. Hunter (Merisiel), Seelah (which I play), Brian (Ezren), Josh (Valeros), Katrina (Kyra). Fumbus the goblin alchemist goes unused.

If this is true, I might be done with Pathfinder 2E.

They've been live playing final 2E for... 7? weeks now with d20s in the Oblivion Oath. So you don't need to worry.

That all seems doable based on information that can be found on the scenario title, short summary, and/or cover art, which has historically all been considered acceptable for use in choosing your PC.

Blake's Tiger wrote:

Kate Baker wrote:

Achievement points shouldn't be tracked on the chronicle sheet, as I understand them. Your Achievement Points earned by each of your characters would all go into the same pool, as would Achievement Points that don't have an associated chronicle (such as for GMing a scenario for the second time).

Maybe the chronicle could have a space to write how much you earned, but there should really be a separate piece of paper for tracking Achievement Point totals.

I don't even think it's worth spending the space to track what was earned because it's an OOC currency that is different based on how and where you played: player, routine GM, RSP GM, local convention GM. special convention GM (and possibly a sliding scale, that's unclear). A hand written mistake by a rushed GM could create a lot of frustration/confusion by the recipient.

Let the software where you spend it do the tracking.

You never need to know how many achievement points were earned in that moment, only how, where, and when you played.

Also if the table is not reported you didn't actually earn any, personally I see this as an advantage.

You'll have the chronicle with the event code and GM signature, which should be all you'll need to correct those oversights. (Now whether Paizo's response to an unreported game will be, "You'll have to get your GM to report the game" or something more helpful, I don't know).

Achievement points shouldn't be tracked on the chronicle sheet, as I understand them. Your Achievement Points earned by each of your characters would all go into the same pool, as would Achievement Points that don't have an associated chronicle (such as for GMing a scenario for the second time).

Maybe the chronicle could have a space to write how much you earned, but there should really be a separate piece of paper for tracking Achievement Point totals.

I don't even think it's worth spending the space to track what was earned because it's an OOC currency that is different based on how and where you played: player, routine GM, RSP GM, local convention GM. special convention GM (and possibly a sliding scale, that's unclear). A hand written mistake by a rushed GM could create a lot of frustration/confusion by the recipient.

Let the software where you spend it do the tracking.

You never need to know how many achievement points were earned in that moment, only how, where, and when you played.

ah ok....do i have to have a specific character to apply? i have a guy i can make into whatever....has 2 xp....i am flexible....

No, just express interest and I'll sort out the rest. I.e. you're good.

Back to the broader subject, yes, I will apply GM credit to characters who would benefit. For example, when I prepared a scenario with a chronicle that very flavorfully modifies one specific class, I said, "Well, that GM blob is going to grow up to be that specific class."

But I didn't buy or read the chronicle first and then say, "Oh, I'm going to run this so I can have that" (I was actually assigned the scenario at random). Nor did I buy or read the chronicle without running the scenario and then go out looking for or asking my local GMs to run that scenario.

If you're a closed group who has run through a ton of scenarios and knows what's available from a combination of playing and running those scenarios, I don't see anything intrinsicly wrong with GMing what you've played and spending replays to run a fresh group of characters through in the desired order. However, from the outside, in public, I can see how a visitor might feel overhearing such a discussion. Or if you guys basically planned on GMing X scenario 4 times in a row at a public venue so you could each get the chronicle on the right character, which would conceivably be excluding an increasing number of PFS players. Or filling up a venue's 4 tables that week with the same scenario for that purpose. Etc etc.

Blake's Tiger wrote:

On one very specific point brought up about Chronicles only working with specific character features: when you get such a chronicle, you can build toward that feature/boon interaction (e.g. take the technologist feat for your next feat). Nothing says the boon has to benefit you immediately.

End up with access to a unique shield but you're not proficient in shield? Take a level in a class that is or take shield proficiency.

Faction... can't do anything about that, but the blurbs tell you which factions in the later seasons.

My point is that I don't believe the problem is with the Chronicles.

That is only rarely going to be a practical option. If my character wasn't using a shield then it is unlikely that taking a level of fighter to get shield proficiency is going to be a reasonable thing for that character to do (wow, my wizard will DEFINITELY become a fighter to use a shield. Yeah, right)

And that's up to you (the individual player) to not chase that tangent in your build. But you could if you wanted to.

Or should the very specific scenario that rewards that very special shield only always be played by characters who use shields? And that one very specific scenario that rewards one very specific occult class only be played parties made up of only that occult class?

Or should boons and rewards be so lack-lusterly generic that they can always be applied to any character?

Don't get me wrong. I understand the desire to get the "right" reward on the "right" character. I just don't see the OPF's way of designing chronicles to be flawed in that particular way. EDIT: I assume there's some calculus involved in determining what percentage of characters are going to actually score the reward, and their goal is probably <100% for some things.

On one very specific point brought up about Chronicles only working with specific character features: when you get such a chronicle, you can build toward that feature/boon interaction (e.g. take the technologist feat for your next feat). Nothing says the boon has to benefit you immediately.

End up with access to a unique shield but you're not proficient in shield? Take a level in a class that is or take shield proficiency.

Faction... can't do anything about that, but the blurbs tell you which factions in the later seasons.

My point is that I don't believe the problem is with the Chronicles.

This is disappointing news. This was our first year getting hotel rooms downtown in the lottery after 6 years of trying. Now we go to get our PFS 1.0/2.0 event tickets only to find there are no options and everything has sold out. Where all the GMs at?

Thursday 8 AM PFS(2) 1-03 was available, last I checked today, and in enough volume to accommodate a family/group.

There's one, at least.

...of course it may disappear 30 minutes after I post this due to posting it.

There's not an extreme shortage of PF1 GMs or any other way you want to throw shade on the organizers. There's just a relative shortage of GMs, period.

INSERT EDIT: There's an extreme number of players wanting to play the last PFS special.

But they did need more people willing to GM the number of PFS(2) tables that they wanted to offer. And only 4 of those tables (all the same slot, same scenario) have tickets available, indicating they made the right decision.

There's no asking us (the volunteer GMs) because we haven't been assigned tables.

What's going to happen is the OPF will review ticket sales and remove unsold tickets and put out more tickets for sold out events.

When all that sorting has been done, they'll assign us schedules.

So, 1. keep checking the tickets and 2. don't buy tickets to events you don't really want (because then it will look like they'll need GMs for it).

Blake's Tiger wrote:

pjrogers wrote:

Would it be helpful to volunteer to GM 1 or 2 PF1 games? I had been thinking about doing this earlier but then I believe I saw something to the effect that one could not volunteer for just PF1 but also had to be willing to GM SF and PF2. I don't have any interest in (or the available time to) learn either SF or PF2, but I'd be willing to GM a couple of Passing the Torch tables.

No, what you were seeing were people who volunteered for PF1 and PF2 and got all PF2.

When you send in the volunteer appllication, you check what system you are willing to GM. If you only check PF1, they're not going to assign you PF2 or SF tables.

I just went to the GM registration form for GenCon, and it says that one can’t just volunteer for PF1.

Oh, yes, I remember now. They added that after the first wave of volunteers due to an excess of PF1-only volunteers and relative shortfall of the other systems, or something like that.

Your best bet is to e-mail the GenCon leads directly to see if you can help.

Would it be helpful to volunteer to GM 1 or 2 PF1 games? I had been thinking about doing this earlier but then I believe I saw something to the effect that one could not volunteer for just PF1 but also had to be willing to GM SF and PF2. I don't have any interest in (or the available time to) learn either SF or PF2, but I'd be willing to GM a couple of Passing the Torch tables.

No, what you were seeing were people who volunteered for PF1 and PF2 and got all PF2.

When you send in the volunteer appllication, you check what system you are willing to GM. If you only check PF1, they're not going to assign you PF2 or SF tables.

You can play up or down a tier if there is no tier for your specific level when it comes to multi-table specials.

EDIT: The non-MTS scenario tickets look experimental. There's only enough tickets for 1 table each.

There will be a Guide for Organized Play published for PFS(2) in the relatively near future. You should read that. If you have a number, you'll need to register a PFS(2) character (or two) before play, but that function on the website is not yet implemented (also coming soon-ish).

However, the materials it references as 'bring your own' are: pencils, paper, dice, and a physical representation of your character (mini, penny, or a stale marshmallow, doesn't matter). Some GMs can loan you dice and minis (and sometimes tablemates can/will), but you should not expect it.

So, I have a few questions about this boon.

1. Do I have to apply it to the PC that I used in outpost?

No :)

Faction totals for all factions can go on a character sheet. They don't go down, only up. So all you really need is the faction name +X.

You usually don't gain more than two factions' rep, although I've seen three once in SFS.

Fame spent seems to be missing.

That's a lot of realestate for tracking gold.

I want to see more! So hungry for more...

I could easily buy 7 items in one session. Usually, it's 2-4, but every so often I go on a potion/alchemical weapon spree.

I buy 20+ items on my first session.

So... well, I'm bring my own hand made ITS, which is what I do for all my characters now anyhow.

Blake's Tiger wrote:

If that was your *only* way if earning PFS1 replays, yes, but it's *not.*

You get *all* the old ways (GM stars, recharges, boons) plus a scaled number of bonus replays based on games played (more played = more replays).

If you play PFS2 and choose to, you can buy PFS1 replays.

I'm off the mind that that fact is irrelevant. Earning replays without these 2e point buys is going to be far too limited for the people that actually want or need replays to keep the system alive. I know paizo would love everyone to love and play their new system, but this is pushing to far and will be the slow death of its 1e campaign, which I can't help but feel is what they actually want and are simply masking it very well with these options.

For months, all we've known is the scaled replays as the only solution.

Here they announce an *extra* way and that's bad?

Sure, people can want more replays, people will always want more, but that's separate from 2e earning 1e replays.

If that was your *only* way if earning PFS1 replays, yes, but it's *not.*

You get *all* the old ways (GM stars, recharges, boons) plus a scaled number of bonus replays based on games played (more played = more replays).

If you play PFS2 and choose to, you can buy PFS1 replays.

There is a Downtime section at the bottom. You can't "save" downtime between scenarios, so the number doesn't need to be tracked, just what you spent it on.

Achievement Points are generated by your GM/VO logging the game in Paizo.com.

Play-by-Post (PbP) is going to be to slow to help his current character if his group is playing weekly, but VTT is a good option to slip in extra sessions.

Of course, if you just want to play your own character with other people starting at 1st level, you could start a new character to play in PbP. As long as the character isn't in a session (since PbP takes weeks+), you can take them to live games just like visiting different game locations.

GenCon: Published in the past couple of hours, go make your wish lists.

PFS2 hasn't shown yet, but probably "soon."

Blake's Tiger wrote:

CheeseStalker wrote:

Shido wrote:

It's been a few days since you submitted your schedule, but I'm not seeing any Paizo-run RPG sessions in the Gen Con event database. Is there any update on when I should expect to see the events?

Not gonna lie, I have the same question...

Ask GenCon. The publishing of events in the database is fully in the control of GenCon. Whatever GenCon may say about deadlines, they're still the only ones with power over the publication of events.

But they're not going to give you an answer better than, "When it's done."

Last year it was on Paizo to submit not Gen Con to publish. just fyi quick answer guy.

Everyone is anxious about building their wish lists, but I’m not sure I deserve your derision.

Unless for some baffling reason Tonya is lying to us in this very blog post, Paizo has submitted (past tense) their schedule.

Now, GenCon needs to make those events visible in GenCon’s event finder/website. Paizo can’t do that or speak for GenCon on when that will happen.

Shido wrote:

It's been a few days since you submitted your schedule, but I'm not seeing any Paizo-run RPG sessions in the Gen Con event database. Is there any update on when I should expect to see the events?

Not gonna lie, I have the same question...

Ask GenCon. The publishing of events in the database is fully in the control of GenCon. Whatever GenCon may say about deadlines, they're still the only ones with power over the publication of events.

But they're not going to give you an answer better than, "When it's done."

Also: What deadline? Event submission was open until this past Saturday. While I'm sure there's some internal deadline for mega events, it would be more fair to have said we are working through posting events in the order recieved.

So for Starfinder #2-00, it's repeatable in each of its level ranges once, but I'm assuming each of the level ranges must be played by a different PC. Is that correct?

This is correct (was clarified on Slack channel but didn't make it into blog post).

Cross-Posting here and in SFS:

Want:

SFS GM Boon 2019 Online Region: Dragonkin/Planar Scion

...sadly (for me), I was not assigned any SFS scenarios.

Have:

PFS 2019 GM Boon #1: Aphorite/Ratfolk/Vishkanya
PFS 2018 GM Boon #1: Vine Leshy
SFS 2018 GM Boon Online Region: Ferran/Woioko (P.S. Woioko are awesome)
SFS Relics of Golarion
A ton of SFS Free Captain's Affiliations
SFS Mining Laser
...and some other random PFS/SFS boons.

Spinosaurus mentioned above is currently in negotiation, so don't count that in my offerings for this.

Cross-Posting here and in PFS:

Want:

SFS GM Boon 2019 Online Region: Dragonkin/Planar Scion

...sadly (for me), I was not assigned any SFS scenarios.

Have:

PFS 2019 GM Boon #1: Aphorite/Ratfolk/Vishkanya
PFS 2018 GM Boon #1: Vine Leshy
SFS 2018 GM Boon Online Region: Ferran/Woioko (P.S. Woioko are awesome)
SFS Relics of Golarion
A ton of SFS Free Captain's Affiliations
SFS Mining Laser
...and some other random PFS/SFS boons.

I'm looking for Seen it Once.

It's that boon that lets you automatically remember one detail about a fixed list of monsters once you've successfully ID'ed one.

I still have a boon to make the Spinosaur a legal animal companion (as long as your character has access to the full druid list of companions) as well as several Freedom's Champion/Argent Knight boons and some other random non-race boons as well as some SFS things.

Again, online is ideal, despite bringing its own suite of issues.

It would be good if work-arounds and fixes for those inevitable issues were hammered out before launch day.

On the issue of convention reporting delays and errors, an idea that would marry the old way of getting your GM boon in your hand and online achievement points tied to your games played/run would be some mechanism for Achievement Point gift certificates.

I arrive to GenCon on Wednesday, I pick up my stuff including my GM Boon. I now have it in my hot little hands. 1. I'm immediately gratified. 2. I can use it right away if I want. 3. If I loose it, it's all on me and nobody else's fault.

With Achievement Points as described, I will pick up my stuff and somehow indicate that I want Achievement Points instead of a boon for SFS or ACG. Now I have to wait until they're reported to use them. All the time that I'm waiting for them to be reported, I'm worrying: Are all my tables going to be reported? Did I take pictures of all my reporting forms? Are my pictures legible? When are my tables going to be reported? I know I will have enough points for this boon that I'd really like to build a character, but when am I going to be able to use it!? Oh no! What if somehow they mistakenly marked that I received a paper boon for SFS and I won't get any points after all this time and no way to get it corrected!!??

If, however, I received a paper certificate with instructions on how to input this code or report this dummy event into my Account page, then I'm back to something closer to the first situation. The only difference is if I can enter it, buy a boon, and print it before my first game on launch day (when we then crash the servers).

Sure, someone could get their certificate and then not show up for their games (still happens with paper boons). Sure, someone who give their gift certificate to someone who didn't GM anything (happens all the time, just ask Hmm, and it's called gifting). You just need a way to make sure I can't enter it more than once or enter it myself and then pass it on to someone else who can get credit from it too.

I suppose create a boon store that is its own entire thing that functions solely on Achievement Points. Then the AcP gift certificates could function exactly like gift certificates with their single use. Then reporting tables has to sent the credits to this store.

Table variation around who can play at a table, what a legal source is for an ability. . . really doesn’t have to be as common as it is right now.

Fortunately, I haven't run into this but once, but shouldn't the fact that the player needs to produce the latest version of the Additional Resources document along with his copy of the source so that he can show where his source is made legal solve prevent that problem?

it seems like a storm in a teacup to me.

I scrolled back a bit and noticed that most of the people decrying bait and switch aren't subscribers.

I'm not a subscriber, but seeing how simple it is, I might be for certain lines (if PDFs are included).

Blake's Tiger wrote:

I can ruin any acronymn you come up with, so... Achievement Points is perfectly fine.

Good point, but eventually people will want to reference them in conversation with some sort of abbreviation.

Right, so AcP or AP is just fine.

Re: confusion of abbreviations, specifically "AP"... Really?

John: "How many AP do you have?"

Jane: "Um, none, why? Did you want me to GM one?"

John: "Oh, no. I mean Achievement Points."

---

Jane: "How'd you spend your AP?"

John: "Um, what? Spend my Adventure Paths?"

Jane: "No, your Achievement Points."

But, hey, whatever is cool as long as it's not overtly offensive. :)

I can ruin any acronymn you come up with, so... Achievement Points is perfectly fine.

Also googles OPP on phone, not work computer

Yeah, out.

1 Level = XX Hours of Play: I am glad that we are not going that way. It is roughly 12 hours of play per level ( 1 XP per hour), but that is a general guideline. Different tables play the same adventure in widely varying amounts of time.

Renaming Achievement Points: We could consider something like Player Experience Points or Community Experience Points?

I don't know how 'this xp scheme roughly approximating 1 xp per hour of play' became 1 xp per hour of play in readers' minds. Boy! In PbP I'd have Seekers in one scenario! ;)

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

Community Points (CP)?

I like CP, provided we never have PCP! These acronyms can be dangerous!

Hey! I have proudly been many children's PCP. Acronymns can mean more than one thing. :)

Somewhere we have confirmation that you can use meta-boons as GMs.

Someone will come along with good search skills any time now, I'm sure. I can't remember if it was Tonya or Thursty that wrote it.

I am curious about proportion between AcP gained by GM for running adventure and AcP gained by players at that table: will GMs derieved from table size? Like, 3 players - players get 1 AcP and GM gets 3 AcP, 7 players - players get 1 AcP and GM gets 7 AcP.

Another question - about GM tables of credit (and AcP) for running APs and long modules in campaign mode. Now GM gets only 2 tables of credit for a game that takes way more time than two scenarios. Will that be changed?

The SFS Skittershot chronicle is an example of this: play = 1 point, GM = 2 points, GM a Con = 3 points (I think GMing an AP book = 3 points, but don't hold me to that as I'm not looking at my chronicle).

AcP would have to be tracked online so the system would know how much you have to spend when you try to “buy” rewards.

Online is ideal.

An issue with this is reporting/reporter delay and error. I walked into the Sag on Wednesday of GenCon 50 and could have played a cool new catfolk character on my first open block to play. GenCon 2017 took 10 months to report, 2018 took 6 months to report. Ideally, not as long as 2017, but we will have to wait some period of time longer than the con to make use of our GMing rewards.

A new reality to get used to, I guess.

Interesting. I like a lot of this, but it also sounds like a lot to keep track of. Especially when you break out Reputation into the however many factions, we'll have >10 tracking numbers for society play, which makes me worry a little bit. Will have to see it in action.

I don't mind it personally because of the way I track my characters, but SFS is the example, and you're not wrong about the reputation tracking. It can get a little crazy depending on what scenarios you play, and you can bring more crazy to it yourself depending on how you play.

What I'm not seeing in this blog--although technically, you did say PC and "player"-- is whether we're still earing GM chronicles for scenarios run.

Starting a higher level character is mentioned as a function of Achievement Points. Are GM chronicles still going to be the way of things or are Achievement Points replacing that mechanism (too)?

It is a very hard encounter (too hard in my opinion), and you can TPK a party using even minimal tactics.

My GM just had it settle at ground level and FA every round, and we barely made it through (based on what you've posted, I think he used the higher tier HP). So, as Nefreet says, using killer tactics when you already have a killer beast using the simplest of tactics is a choice.

...but it is still very, very hard.