Digitalsabre's page

Jiggy wrote:

kinevon wrote:

This time, you get to explore the attic.

Already done that, interestingly enough.

Quote:

The title of the scenario, of course, is The Blackros Museum Quandary - Loot or Burn

Definitely burn. The things you would loot are usually the source of the trouble.

I'm not sure burning will fix the problem.... just saying. It would be worth a try though.

Considering that the walls of Blackros are made of stone, the entire place is filled with magical artifacts and oddities, and is linked in at least three ways from Sunday to other planes, I'm betting burning the place down would be a bad idea... you'd probably destroy Absalom in the process, and the museum would still be standing. Intact. Or what passes for intact given its current state.

Matthew Pemrich wrote:

gbonehead wrote:

I'm indifferent to whether I have a full set, but having some of the cards be foil will be really cool, so just a display is probably good for me; I never have enough item cards.

I also have to look into getting some small stickers so I can reuse them once I've written on the back.

Mini Post-it notes. Write them out (or if you're industrious and careful, you can stick them to a sheet of 8.5x11 and run the sheet through an inkjet printer). Stick the notes to the pages of your pre-written modules -- or scenarios, in the case of Pathfinder Society. When your group finds them, hand them the cards. When they identify them, take them back and stick on the notes. This sped up treasure delivery by a couple minutes each encounter at Albuquerque Comic Expo, when I did it for the Beginner Box.

I've got a huge engagement I'll be attending in Indy this August. I'm going to put this into practice there, too.

Not sure how you are doing this though. Can you show us pictures or describe it a bit better?

Thanks! :)

Sure! First, I made a bunch of box shapes on a blank document. The boxes should be the size of the mini post-it notes. My Post-its are 2" wide x 1.5" tall, but I think you can also get 2" square mini post-its. Next, I printed this document out and then filled the empty boxes with single post-its.

Finally, I typed in all the text for the items into the same document with the boxes. I wrote small so I could fit it all (for the Beginner Box, I wanted to put as much text as possible). If you're running for anyone other than beginners, you probably don't have to put as much text. With the notes firmly in place and the text ready to print, I inserted the paper with the notes stuck on into the printer and printed the document out.

That's really all there is to it.

werewolfpaladin wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I should note that all the pages are uncoated, which means that you can use a pencil, erase, and rewrite as your character gains levels.

Having seen what some of my players do to their character sheets with a simple pencil and repeated erasing (I've seen holes rubbed in the paper from erasing), this is probably not the product for them. Just erase and rewrite doesn't necessarily mean that the paper will hold up long term.

What I've done in the past is used the Scotch tape that has a matte finish and put it over areas that are frequently erased. With a decent pencil (and eraser), the tape is pretty durable and can be erased and re-used without damaging the paper underneath.

If I buy one of these, I'm buying a bunch of 8.5" x 11" clear acrylic labels to place over the pages. That way I can write with wet erase (or dry erase for hit points).

Saint Caleth wrote:

The point of a con boon is that it can be taken home and shown off.

If this is the case, then the current restrictions on races are probably the best system. I had assumed people were doing this for a fun con experience, not to prove how much better they are than the folks that don't do cons.

I think it's unfair to imply that one goes to a con to prove that one is better than people who don't. The point of the convention boons is to bring previous convention-goers back and to try to entice new attendees.

There's a huge difference between, "Hey, I got this at the con and you can get something cool, too, if you go next year," and "Hey, I got this at the con and you didn't because you suck."

1. If your motivation to go to a convention is to prove that you're better than people who don't, you don't need a boon. You might need a cluebat.
2. If your motivation to go to a con is to get cool stuff like your friend did, that's a little better than #1, but not as good as...
3. If your motivation is to get to a convention is to have fun, you're doing it right. And guess what? While you're there, you get cool stuff!

I used to play Pathfinder Society. I used to play weekly when I was living in Dallas, before the in-town FLGS went under.

I moved away, and apparently shortly thereafter said FLGS deflated. DFW is still a big PFS area and I know why: Dedicated players and GMs.

I tried my first hand at running PFS while in Dallas. After I moved away, I tried for a while to set something up for PFS at a game store in Kansas while I was living in Kansas City, MO. Eventually I found that people were playing regularly in Independence, MO. I played there once, but the schedule was wonky and the car trip was long and circuitous from downtown.

Then I moved to Albuquerque and everything changed. I stopped playing Pathfinder Society Organized Play. For a while—and I didn't know this at the time—PFS was running and I didn't even know. By the time I arrived on the scene, it was already dead, the first GM having disappeared, second GM having quit running due to personal differences, and the third GM moving away permanently. It literally had petered out.

Enter me: Pathfinder Enthusiast (broke, but dedicated), and veteran—if still rather inexperienced—PFS GM and player. My first session had only four players. My second, again, four players. I was getting experienced at roping people into playing who had other engagements that had fallen through. Only two players carried over from the first session to the second.

Fast forward to today: Here in Albuquerque, I've run 11 sessions in the past three months and organized one more. I have two more scheduled. I've had a total of sixteen players, only three of which have returned from the previous incarnation of a Pathfinder Society chapter in the city. And PFSOP is still growing, here: I've got eight more who are interested in playing if only I can get a game to line up with their schedules. And I've got players who know other potential players. And I've done all this in an uphill battle against Friday Night Magic—only the king of the other games that the local stores deal in. I'm going to be running four tables at Albuquerque Comics Expo and as many as two at Free RPG Day.

What's more, I'm beginning to reach out to game stores across the state to drum up interest in PFS there. I can't afford to drive to those stores, but Internet communication is free.

NM has a long way to go, but so far it's been a fun ride.

Kyle Baird wrote:

I don't think Matthew got the notice. Thea and I already won this thread. You're not allowed to post anything regarding the OP any more.

right!!!!!

Care Baird wrote:

406 posts about candy? Best. Thread. Ever.

yummmmmmm

Today I break the rules and at the same time follow them!

DICE CANDY!

I agree with Matthew on this one.

In a bygone era, when other gaming systems were first coming on the market, the term "Dungeon Master" was trademarked, and was not usable by other publishers, and thence came all manner of terms to refer to the same type of position at a gaming table. Many were chosen depending on the perceived job of the person running the game. Some tabletop games (especially war gaming) had an impartial person that observed the game's progress and made adjudications about the rules. Thus were born terms like "judge" and " referee". Others, like White Wolf, felt that it was more important for the person running the game to be more involved in the setting and plot, and thus terms like "storyteller" came about.
Then there were some that assigned a more neutral name - Game Master. Thus, we have GMs. That one has been used in many, many systems. To a large majority of gamers,within my experience, it doesn't matter what they're called .... It still means the same thing.

I've seen GM, DM, ST and Judge all used at different points within these messageboards. ST most rarely, GM and Judge almost equally, and DM about halfway in between. For some reason DM is the one that irks me the most.

In truth, though, each of these titles could be referred to as different aspects of what a Pathfinder GM does. As a GM, we are in fact the ones meant to keep the game on track. As a DM, we are meant to direct the combat encounters roughly according to the tactics provided in the scenarios and modules. As a ST, we are meant to lay out the story and provide the world with which the characters interact. And as Judges or Referees, we are meant to ensure that everyone, including ourselves, is following the rules.

The judge is a person running the scenario for the PCs. Most people refer to them as a GM... but for some of us - the GM is the guy who has final say on how something works.

For example: Can I take 10 on (insert skill here). Until resently, many Judges felt that this was "open to interpretation" and we had a lot of table variation. Then the powers that be (the GM) made a ruling and all the Judges should go along and do it the same way.

Basicly, the guy you refered to as the GM (who would be the GM in a home game), I would call the table judge.

The term "Judge" is a carryover from other organized play systems. It is equivalent to GM in Pathfinder, and was brought to Pathfinder Society by people who've played in those other systems.

Edit: That said, it's not precisely an incorrect term. GM and Judge are one and the same thing.

Freehold DM wrote:

Shifty, must we be on opposite sides of every issue?!??!

Because you choose to be arbitrarily contrary?

It's true, I look forward to the day when the subject becomes a non-subject in the way we don't feel the need to converse about whether the sky is blue, and indeed it becomes a general day to day non-issue where the notion of where one puts ones private parts and with whom raises no eyebrows nor interest, and indeed no one really cares apart from those who might be interested in joining in.

I'm hoping for Sexuality threads to make about as much sense as a blue eyed thread, or 'people who drink water' thread.

Now if you are saying that you would like it to remain always a conversation piece where people feel the need to 'identify' (or worse, feel compelled to conceal) their sexuality, then I would suggest you are advocating that you are maintaining the status quo.

I'd personally like an end to the stupid 'politics' around the issue - you are suggesting you would like to maintain them.

In that case I welcome you to the opposition.

Won't be long now until the final hurdle of gay marriage gets crossed, and then thats pretty much the end of the battle won in this country.

Hate to say it, but gay marriage is not the final hurdle. It's a big one, but it's not the last. With many states still supporting the ability to hire and fire for no apparent reason given other than "because," people of open alternative sexualities will still find themselves in the position many women find themselves in today: Inferior job security, inferior pay in just about every market where they're "accepted."

Discrimination based on race isn't over, either. If nothing else, for some highly-distinguishable ancestries it may be accelerating lately. (Or that may just be my perception because I've run into a bubble of it on the Internet.)

Bob Jonquet wrote:

So what happens if I have already taken GM credit and running the scenario for the 2+ time? Do you expect the GM to offer up one of their characters then?

I rarely see character deaths the first time I run a scenario. That is largely due to my unfamiliarity to how their tactics should really work (despite advance prep). After a run or two, I am more comfortable with the BBEG/mook's skills, abilities, tactics and how they complement each other.

Well, you can only get positive credit once, so you should only be penalized once for all the times you run it. Though this would give GMs a free pass to kill off as many characters as they want once they have taken the one negative hit. That would be up to Paizo to balance, but its all kind of moot because they obviously side with RAW, GMS, and huge penalties for dying.

I feel that you have some strong issues with GMs in general, wolflord. You've repeatedly ignored the assertion—one that has been presented on numerous occasions within this thread—Player Character death is most often caused by inadvisable decisions made by players or by the random results of dice rolls.

Again, I must assert that neither of these are things that are within the scope of a GM's arsenal to adjust. Dice rolls are not negotiable; a GM cannot change them. Where the die falls, it stays, with certain exceptions which are well within the rules and documented in the T-Shirt Reroll rule, class features, feats and traits. Likewise with player decisions. If I wanted to edit my players' decisions so that they were "safer," I'd be playing Pathfinder Society at home, by myself. It is cheating for a GM to specifically suggest the safest course of action for a character, although he may suggest that there are alternatives and let the players puzzle out what those alternatives are. It's definitely cheating if the GM specifically outlines the traps before they're sprung, or the tactics of the baddies, or anything else that the character should not be able to act on because she isn't meant to know about them before encountering them.

First time scenarios differing from successive playthroughs depends on how you as the Gm play the NPCS. The first time you aren't playing to win or using the most deadly tactics, you are trying to figure out the tactics. The second time around you know how to play the npcs in the deadliest way and most gms do. (Open with the firestorm that hits the entire party, then follow it up with flame strikes, or other nasty things.)

GMS are not playing to "win." As I've mentioned above, the GM's job is to tell the story. Remember that the GM also has to play the parts of any NPCs allied with the party and the parts of any NPCs who are indifferent to the party, whether they are allied with or at odds with the NPCs who are antagonistic to the party. It is the GM's job to be impartial and let the scenario proceed as it is written, to keep the party on-track and focused on events as they unfold, and to ensure that everyone—including the GM herself—is following the rules.

And a GM who is using the most deadly tactics is probably playing well outside the Rules-As-Written. If he is pulling tactics that are maliciously deadly, going out of his way to kill characters and come up with strategies that don't fall within the provided tactics blocks in the scenarios, he is doing something that the difficulty of the scenario does not account for and should be reported.

What I was sort of hinting at above is that gms don't HAVE to always have the npcs employ the most devastating tactics. Players often don't, because they want to have fun, have gained a new level and don't understand their abilities, are casual players, or might be newbies. While it is within the rights of a Gm to play the npcs in the most deadly way possible, personally I don't feel they always need to for the group to have fun. They can choose to make it a little easier if it means not killing a character and having him sit there with nothing to do for 4 hours.

Further, you're using as example your personal experience with a scenario you played up, which you announced that you yourself opted into even though it was two levels above your character's abilities. As it has been stated above, you made this choice, knowing that Pathfinder, like D&D before it, involves some risk. The risk to your character was great, and in spite of this great risk, you opted to play. This is an example of a player making a poor choice.

You also, at great inconvenience to yourself, chose to sit at that table for the remaining five hours rather than find something more productive and interesting to do.

Remember, this thread asked what I would like to see and this is my perfect pfs world. I know many of you would probably hate it. I do find it interesting that AFAIK only (or mostly) gms have responded. I wonder what experienced non-gm players, or newbie players (with chars under lvl 5) would think of these ideas. How do they feel about all these issues? Did these things (and not just the death thing) make them want to come back for more or did it deter them?

I do not see anywhere in the original post where it asks you what would make PFS a perfect world for you, and while, despite that, I still appreciate your candor, I honestly believe that your suggestions would cripple Pathfinder Society Organized Play by further deterring people from becoming GMs and causing existing ones to walk, not to mention by completely throwing off balance mechanics that are meant to keep Pathfinder Society Scenarios fair for all players.

Your qualm, as has also been mentioned before, is with specific GMs and the tactics and attitudes of those GMs—tactics and attitudes it has been suggested again and again that you should report. But the rules you're suggesting are across-the-board changes that would apply to all GMs. It is not a GM's duty, nor should it be, nor would it benefit Pathfinder Society Organized Play as a whole, to soft-ball encounters, and it has already been indicated in other topics that GMs may not employ tactics that go beyond the scope of RAW to outright maliciously kill characters.

Your character has died. I'm empathetic on the subject. But characters die and penalizing GMs for it or mandating that GMs are to "go easy" on players when the dice roll in favor of the baddies or the environment or when the players make inadvisable decisions for their characters is not the answer.

Let me turn this around, however. You spent so many hours getting your character up to level 6. The only way this can be a waste of time is if you toss aside Pathfinder Society Organized Play and never play again. All the hours you spent learning the rules and nuances you learned, not only for your dead character's class but also those of the classes of characters belonging to other players you have sat beside will have gone to waste if your knowledge of those rules and nuances are never used again. And if it also causes your friends to avoid playing the game, all theirs will, too.

Instead, as the GM I told you I am, and as your best friend as I told you I am, I challenge you to do better. A dead character is not a dead stop. It's just a dip in the road or a speed bump. So I challenge you to make a more resilient character, to choose better tactics, and to realize when it's just a bad idea to play up. I challenge you to not let those hours of learning the nuances and rules go to waste. And I challenge you to fairly report when you feel GMs are outright bending or breaking the rules to march PCs to their deaths. And to fairly report when you see GMs bragging about their kill counts when—and only when—they are doing it at the expense of their players' feelings. And not when it's meant in honest, good-hearted fun. Such attitudes of lording it over the players when the player is obviously upset have NO place in Pathfinder Society Organized Play.

Moreover, I challenge you to GM for Pathfinder Society, within the RAW, following as closely to the tactics delineated within the Scenarios you run as you can and deviate only as far from those tactics as would befit the NPC's or monster's outlook. Not only so that you can learn that it is indeed possible for a player to have a good time even when his or her character dies fairly, even when it is his or her own decisions that led to that death. But also because doing so will open up more venues and avenues for players who want to play Pathfinder Society, Pathfinder RPG, and pencil and paper tabletop roleplaying games in general, and so that you can exemplify the kind of attitudes you would prefer to see among Pathfinder Society GMs.

Please don't let your bad experiences turn into a hate fest. Turn your negative emotions into dedicated, devoted, caring determination so that all of Pathfinder Society benefits.

7. I know this will draw a lot of ire, but I HONESTLY believe it would be a good idea for PFS in general to give a negative penalty to a GM who kills a player, and give huge penalties to GMS who have Total Party Wipes. I don't know what the penalties would be, but I have seen too many gm's in public venues who seem to take pleasure in killing players (sometimes even adding little flags to their GM screens as trophies for player deaths), and even celebrate it and boast about their player deaths to other GMs. I've even seen official Paizo employees do it at PaizoCon. They should be sad when a player dies, because the players put a LOT of real-world time into their characters and are there to have fun. Gm's should be trying to encourage players to have fun, not trying to kill them.

If you want PFS to flourish you need to give GMs the ability to do a little hand waving and bend the rules rather than follow them to the letter and kill players. In the example of the pickup game above, the GM and his fellow gms seemed pretty proud of killing all those players and played the RAW with no hand waving or consideration for their players "fun". Out of 4 tables there was a total party wipe (of lvl 2-3 characters who are permanently dead), my table lost 3 of 5 characters, and each of the other tables lost at least 1 if not 2 players. That is a HUGE ratio of deaths to players, and that is NOT the way to encourage players to play PFS.

I know I certainly will never go back to that venue for a random pickup game, and I would be very hesitant to ever play a pickup game at a local game store again with Gms I don't know. (And I am a very experienced pen & paper gamer). Want to scare everyone off and shrink your player base drastically? Continue to encourage Gms to kill players, or don't look for ways to discourage them from doing so and you will see this happen.

I understand the RAW guys, but it's no fun to have a character die. And I'm sorry, but I see the role of a PFS GM as someone who should be building the player base (a promoter) and making sure that anyone who sits at his table has fun (try your damnedest NOT to kill players). Whether the GM has fun is not really relevant. (And yes, I've been a Gm many times before in many other games). I'd REALLY like to see PFS take an official stance for their GMs to encourage Fun over RAW.

I strongly disagree with this. I'm a GM who's already afraid that I'm going to kill a character. And yet, I force myself to play by RAW. Luckily for me, none of my players' characters have died (yet), but I know that it's going to happen sometime. Setting aside for the moment that I'm worried about how the player will feel (probably more than justified and because I know what it's like to lose a character I've put a lot of effort into making and building up)...

And setting aside for the moment the point made ad nauseum above (death is part of tabletop RPGs)...

What you've said here strikes me as contrary to the spirit of gaming in general. The whole point of sitting down at a table to play a game like Pathfinder RPG, Pathfinder Society, GURPS, Alternity, or what have you, is to have fun. And in my (somewhat limited, compared to folks like Kyle or Mike or Bob) experience with Pathfinder Society, that's what happens. I've had players near death, useless in combats because they're bleeding out at 1hp a round. Two at one of my most recent, in the same combat, too. And at the end of the night, they all agreed that they had a fun time.

I suggest that if you're not having fun in Pathfinder Society, whether it be because you feel the GMs are too unfair when sticking with the RAW or because you feel that it's too easy and you're not being challenged well enough to hold your interest, that Pathfinder Society is not your cup of tea. Not that it's not for you—never that, because (let's be fair about this) the phrase, "not for you," carries an unfortunate, oft-unintended and, moreover, an oft-overlooked strong connotation that implies exclusivity—but rather that you'd prefer something else. While we love having players, yourself included, it's not as fun for us as GMs if we know our players aren't having fun playing the game they're playing. If I have to ask why you're playing the game, I feel like there's something wrong, and that perhaps you'd be much happier being elsewhere and doing elsewhat.

I don't agree with celebrating over a character death. And I will never condone it in the GMs that I will eventually recruit. Certainly, if a player is going to be a good sport about it, or even can see the fun in his character's death I won't stop them from joshing with that player and others at the table and even other GMs. My point here is that I want to see caring GMs who recognize that a player is feeling down about what may honestly feel like a lot of lost time and effort. And if you feel that GMs running the tables at your local venue are going out of their way to TPK so they can brag about it, then you should seriously contact your local VC or Mike Brock about it. However...

However, I will never agree to penalizing GMs for character death when the GM was following Rules-As-Written. I have trouble getting players already, and that's starting to pan out better since I have both the stores in my town advertising for me. But I'm sure that the majority of VCs and VLs will tell you they know just how difficult it can be to recruit a GM, because that's probably a hundred times harder to do. Not just anybody will step up for the position, and quite frankly not just anybody has the right combination of attributes to perform the job even passably. Giving someone a minefield, telling them, "now this might kill some people even if they're good at avoiding mines," followed by, "if anyone dies, you don't get paid," and then, "usher these people who claim to be good at avoiding mines across the minefield," is ALWAYS going to result in a resounding "HELL NO!" That is to say, giving them yet another reason to not do it will turn them off to the idea even more. What this illustrates, obviously, is that I'm really bad with analogies.

While on this path, it's important to note that it is important the GM has fun. If GMing is not fun, it's work, and if it's work, I don't want to do it and nobody else will, either. Especially if there's no benefit in following the rules, because there's definitely no benefit to be had from bending or even breaking them.

Even worse would be to give GMs the edict to let all their players' characters live, even if those players make poor choices or if the dice do what they're supposed to do and roll badly sometimes. The dice are one of the things that are most decidedly not a guideline, and if a player makes a choice, there are definitely either positive or negative consequences of the actions she chooses for her character. If there's no real risk, there's no game. Pathfinder, like D&D before it, is about that risk. It's about delving into secret dungeons and sifting through the ruins of ancient, collapsed fortresses, and exploring a strange and wondrous world filled with traps, treasure and things that would like nothing better than to destroy you. And if you take the danger out of that, you may as well be frolicking through gardens of butterflies, in a world where it never rains and yet a rainbow hanging perpetually in the sky. (PROTIP: If you ever, while playing Pathfinder or D&D, end up in a place like the one described above, be very scared.)

But, after all that, let's return to the original topic: If you were in my region, at my table, and your character died in a scenario, I would not laugh unless you were laughing, too, and then I would be laughing with you. And then I would ask you if you'd like help creating a new character for next time. For my players, I'll do anything within my power as a GM—power that's limited by the RAW. If you ask me about something I will tell you what I know of it and go home and research if I don't. If you email me or call me and tell me you are sick or that you have another engagement and won't be able to make it this week, I will tell you I look forward to seeing you next week. If you want to argue that the rules are unfair I will either agree with your or disagree, but I'll be honest about it and I will continue to follow those rules. As a GM, I am your best friend and I will be honest with you Every. Single. Time. And as your best friend, I won't change the rules for you or lower the hurdles because however hard the world your character lives in wants him to fail, I want him to succeed all the way, just like everyone else who's gotten over those hurdles all over the world. As a GM, I don't try to kill characters. I let the NPCs and monsters do that for themselves, and it's definitely not my job to stop them from doing it. My job, as a Pathfinder Society GM, is to tell the story. My job as a promoter of Pathfinder Society is to interest players who are willing to give their time to the game, to their character, in exchange for having fun and trying to keep their character alive throughout that story. And I do all of that and more, every week.

How is it that I can possibly recruit a new Pathfinder Society player half the planet away, but I have trouble garnering interest from players who live within 50 miles of me?

By the way, Callum? You should be receiving an email from a friend of mine soon.

Edit begin:

Okay, that's not completely true. I had nearly a full table last night and it was really fun. Last night being the fourth week, the second scenario and the third table I've run here in Albuquerque. This beats the largest table I've run by 50%, and the largest number of potential players by 75%. I didn't turn down that other player... he didn't have his character and opted to play a board game with some other friends rather than create a new one. Interestingly enough, I might have too many players for one table at the next session, this coming Friday. The dreaded 8 player situation scares me. If that ever happens I might need to call James Kirk for advice, 'cause what I see has Kobayahsi Maru written all over it.

Honestly, it's a pretty awesome feeling to start building a new region atop the charred remains of previous attempts, but I honestly think Greater Albuquerque is going to work out with me behind it.

:Edit end.