Disturbed1's page

Any retraining needs to be recorded on your Chronicle. If you can't find the original GM, talk to your event coordinator or local Venture Officer.

No real need to track down the GM or a VO. Just wait til you get to the next table you're playing the character at, inform them of the retraining that was done since the last chronicle was issued, and ask them to list it on the one they will be issuing you.

In addition to thinking its fine for both characters and players to have a problem with the in-game leadership and how they handle things, I also think it's fine for the leadership to appropriately respond to that criticism.

A couple years back, one of our regular players made a character who he decided hated the Society and just took the job for the money. He would mouth off during every briefing about how the Society was stupid, how the VC was useless, etc. It got quite annoying. He had played the character through several scenarios doing this, and I then decided I would keep a list of the scenarios in which I was personally aware that he had done this, and which VCs were assigning him on missions in those. He would get a couple strikes on each of those VCs, and after that, if he sat down to the table for a mission in which a VC with whom he had struck out was sending the players on the mission, they would inform him that he would need to find a new VC to work under, cause they wouldn't have him.

Example: He keeps being a jerk to Sheila, then anytime I ran a scenario where Sheila is the VC, I would tell him that Sheila refuses to send that character. Pick a new character or another scenario to sit at. Basically in-game consequences for his in-game actions.

It never got to that point as I think he stopped playing the character so antagonistically, but I felt it was a just decision at the time.

To address the main problem VCs...

Shiela Heidmarch is the kind of boss that her employees would be requesting transfers from her lodge or straight up quitting to the point where somebody would need to have a word with her about driving people off or the number of agents she was getting killed.

Canayvan Heidmarch feels like he got a promotion cause he's Sheila's husband and otherwise they wouldn't have promoted him.

Drandle Dreng is more of a sad case than someone to have contempt for. IRL comparison, he's probably that higher up employee who has started show his age. He's becoming more forgetful, he's taking more personal time off due to his health (he cant even finish the briefing in one scenario, and then he was completely gone for more than a year), hes waking employees up at unnecessary times, and doing questionable things in general (don't get me started on Wounded Wisp). Basically, he likely was once a very valuable employee, and sometimes still is just cause of the amount of experience he has, but he's quickly reaching a point where he will become a liability to the Society opposed to asset.
I realize this may not be the portrait that was attempted to be painted for him (as I have no idea what his actual age is supposed to be, other than "He's gray headed"), but these are the kinds of things the scenarios make him look like.

Bahb Jonquet is a real jerk sometimes. And he's bald! And....Oh, this is only supposed to be about in-game VCs? Uh...oops...

Chris Mortika wrote:

But then, they get the reputations they earn.

Not necessarily. Osprey was bad-mouthed up and down to me, and I bought into it until my characters actually encountered him. Public opinion is not always based in fact.

Osprey is fine except for that one scenario where he sends you on the mission to find the macguffin, then shows up at the end, takes it from you, and flies off in bird form, leaving you a LONG way from home. -_-

What's the penalty in PFS when you stack mistakenly?

I was gonna say that we make you take off your shoes and walk on some legos, but somehow I don't think that'll be a problem for you, what with your specially designed feet and all.

Sent to you again, Bob, but since this is response number three at this point, can this message act as my response?

I wouldn't count on it, though I just sent him a FB message telling him you posted here about this, in case he misses the email again (which I assume you did send, based on your post).

Good luck!

Alternatively, check out this page for your area and find the closest person, then contact them.

PFS 00-01: The Silent Tide
I still consider this scenario one of the best scenarios (even over some of the evergreens) for introducing the game to new players. The combats are interesting and unique (especially the piano), and the scenario gives chances for skill challenges and roleplaying.

PFS 01-46 Eyes of the Ten, Part 1: Requiem for the Red Raven
Do yourself a favor and don't play this series unless you've played a good bit of Seasons 0 and 1. There are callbacks to previous scenarios and you wont want to go into this scenario or the series without knowing why some of the stuff is important.
This scenario has the best 'Welcome to high tier play' Ive seen. The combats are rough, the roleplay is awesome, and the story is still among the best PFS has to offer. THIS ONE SCENARIO is why you should want to get a group to 12.

PFS 02-21 The Dalsine Affair
This scenario will likely not be as important or interesting to newer players as it was to the older crowd due to lack of faction missions now, so the major event in this scenario could just be a 'meh' moment for some, but it was awesome for me as a player, and I love GMing it.
The opening of the scenario is great, too.

PFS 03-02 Sewer Dragons of Absalom
I really enjoy this scenario. The roleplay and story are interesting, and the combats are far from ordinary. None of them are challenging on their own, but if you dont step lightly, you might end up in over your head.
Plus, dragons. I mean, c'mon. Who doesn't love dragons.

PFS 04-11 The Disappeared
This scenario was unlike any other at the time of it's release, and it's been one of my favorites since then. The story is interesting (and part of my favorite PFS meta-plot), the roleplay is excellent. The combats are meh, but those aren't the focus of the story.

PFS 05-01 The Glass River Rescue/ 05-14 Day of the Demon
I cant pick between these two.
Glass River's second half is amazing for roleplay and this scenario is the only one Ive seen to so easily split the party, and the party split so willingly.
Day of the Demon (another entry, though a minor one, in my favorite meta-plot) is more or less a dungeon crawl, but the encounters are awesome and the story is very cool.

PFS 06-07 Valley of the Veiled Flame
I really enjoyed the roleplay in this scenario. It puts the players in a difficult situation and you need to find the correct way to get out of it. And the bestter you do over the course of the scenario, the more the ending is changed. It's unique, interesting, and a lot of fun.

PFS 07-17 Thralls of the Shattered God
Holy crap, go play this scenario. No wait...first go play Traitor's Lodge, then go play this one. It's amazing and a lot of fun. The encounters are challenging and you better be able to think of creative solutions to creative problems, or else you might need a hand with the ending.
If you haven't gotten to play this one and have some time at Gencon, you might want to try to snag a table of it there. Andrew Hoskins, the 5-star GM, VC, author of the scenario is going to be running it a bunch, I hear.

Thankfully my wife is volunteering again this year so I know I have someone I don't have to worry about snuggling with. ;D

Ditto!

...I mean with my wife, not yours... ;)

Occasionally visited by celebrities (I saw Wil Wheaton there once).

If you mean you saw Wil Wheaton there and it was during Gencon, its cause he goes to Gencon. But apparently he considers it a pretty crass if you come up and gush at him while he's there. He is just attending the con like any other gamer and doesn't want to be treated special just cause he's him.

I walked by him in the dealer hall a couple years ago and almost made the mistake of being like 'Hey dude, Tabletop is awesome.', but remembered at the last second. :P

Companies do try out rules sets.

1. I fully believe that the alternate rules presented in Pathfinder Unchained is a test of possible new rules for an eventual Pathfinder 2.0. They wanted to see player reaction to those before deciding if they are something theyd want to incorporate into a new edition.

2. I do NOT think Starfinder is Pathfinder 2.0, as its backwards compatible with existing Pathfinder rules.

I wont force you to roleplay, but if youre gonna make rolls, its likely that I will ask you what you are saying. Im not the most eloquently worded person myself, so if youre more comfortable giving me something like "I ask him about the missing dagger." instead of "Sir, I was wondering what information you might have about the missing dagger?" then you'll get no flack from me for it. I just want something more than "Diplomacy! 20! Yes!" :P

Back before I got left the group there were a LOT of people posting questions that would have been better suited to the Pathfinder RPG page than the PFS page.

I see quite a lot of Kitsune and almost none of the rest.

I'm the only person I know with a Wayang character, and it's a Witch that is a birthday party clown as his day job.

That one kid at every party who's afraid of clowns? That's the kid who beat the save to see through the Hat of Disguise. ;)

Congrats!

I don't mind the nerf itself, I just think it was nerfed into the 'I probably wont ever buy one of these' range. Changing from Luck to Deflection is huge, IMO.

Im actually more annoyed that I need to go back and figure out how many, if any, of my characters have any of these things so I know what I want/need to sell back. :P

I think you're over estimating the number of scenarios with impactful anti-good abilities and tactics.

I feel like this is going to be another example of something that a few people complained about so loudly that it results in a hard ruling that then nobody really wants to deal with and everyone is mad about. And it will have only come about because a few people needed a ruling on something that is pretty cut and dry now, and fine the way it is.

I strongly oppose changing the way this works now.

nosig wrote:

I have no idea how it can be run in less than two hours -

The situation I believe involved the same players sitting at the table for all five games, running through it over and over to get that 1 xp on a bunch of aasimar/tiefling PCs before the deadline expired.

You know, the exact thing campaign staff asked us to not do when they announced the upcoming change, even though it was "technically" legal.

(Sidebar: this is why I now weigh in heavily on rules to prevent abuse, rather than just letting players and GMs be reasonable and use common sense.)

These are the kinds of people I wish would just go play something else.

Our local group has grown in one venue and grown in another, though I wouldn't attribute any of it to the growth of the AL in the area. And even if it had, both of these are just games. You're likely best off by being friendly and cooperative with the members and organizers of the local AL as they are all potential PFS players as well, if they aren't already.

Before Kristen and I stepped down, the local AL organizer was a good friend of ours. He had played PFS for awhile but wasn't able to make it to many meets as he got a new job, but AL was in a different timeframe that his work schedule allowed. We agreed to make an effort to avoid overlapping game days and times so as to try to draw potential players into both groups and to allow anyone who wanted to play both easy access to both games, without being forced to choose between them. We also worked with new possible venues in the area together, so we could try to grow both groups at each place if possible.

Coincidentally, he now works for Mike Brock. :p

Your DM incorrectly handled the situation. I would contact a Venture officer and have them correct it.

I can understand leaving if you have had bad GMs like this. Because if they difficult on rules they are wrong about; well they will be difficult in other areas too.

You had a poor gm find, or be a good one.

1. As a former VC, if this was up to me, I wouldn't 'correct' the situation. Two years is a long time. If you were dissatisfied with the results of the table, it could have been brought up then.

So, sorry, but no.

2. Finlander, your jump to saying that the GM was 'bad' and then reassertion that someone who runs off a player for 2 years is preposterous. Everyone is allowed to make mistakes. Are you insinuating that you've never made a rules mistake in all your 60+ tables of running PFS games? Cause if you have, then by your own comments, youre a bad GM.

The GM in question didn't run MathNerd off. MathNerd chose not to continue playing after he?/she? didn't like how a table came out. I'm not saying MathNerd did anything to deserve less loot than full cause I don't know the details of the table cause I wasn't there, but innocence on the part of the player doesn't automatically mean the GM is 'bad'.

Meowth sayeth I

Guenhwyvar is a member of Team Rocket now?

The scenario in your spoiler is not retired.

Really? I could have sworn it was. Ah well! :P

Thanks for the correction! :)

Edit: Can you think of any more?

Capt. Rizzo Mouser wrote:

Chris Lambertz wrote:

Removed a post and reply to it. It's really not OK to advocate piracy of our products on our own website.

AARRRRR! Ya scallywag! If not fer me pdfs, I'd have no booty at all!

/joking

wait, I've been trailin' along 'hind ya Cap'n, and I can say you got some no'ceable booty there! LOL!

Tis true, Katisha, Yasco and I have been amassing quite a horde lately at Ratcard (previously Dralcard) Manor. And our crew be growing nicely. But I were tryin to prove a point!

(Kristen and I have a pair of rats. This is mine. Hers is a Rogue. We're piRATes. We've been applying as many of the 'follower' boons to them as possible, and giving each GM we play under one of the boons to create us a person for our crew. Sometimes it's someone from the scenario, sometimes they make something up. But it makes them more interesting then just a "Personal Fixer' or whatever.
At some point Im gonna have to type up a list of all these people for easy reference lol)

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Where do you see that it says to hand out chronicles at the start?

After looking again I see I was inserting into my head that it was done at the start of the adventure. So my mistake.

<Puts on fire suit before too many fireballs start coming my way.>

*casts lightning bolt*

But what happens when *everyone* has played through to L2 and doesn't want to use their 'one time only @ L2' run of an 'evergreen'?

Then they create new level 1 characters.

godsDMit wrote:

Jared Thaler wrote:

No more "I check for a tea set" in every room.

Right. Now we have faction cards, so it's:

What country are we in?

Is this guy a slave or captive?

Do they allow slavery in this country?

Yeah. I hate players who want to know where they are. And those who want to know more about that country or even NPCs they interact with are the absolute WORST.

;)

Yes, they are! Im glad we are on the same page!

:P

To be fair, these cards aren't any more trouble than the actual faction missions were. If your players are the kind who ask if there is a tea set in every room, they will be the kind who asks a dozen questions about their card over the course of the scenario.

It's the players that are the problem, not the card/mission.

I just find it a bit amusing that one of the reasons the faction missions were cut was to help cut down on time so the party could spend more time on the actual mission. And then a couple years later we have the cards.

No more "I check for a tea set" in every room.

Right. Now we have faction cards, so it's:

What country are we in?

Does this thing count as a minor artifact?

Is this guy a slave or captive?

Was this thing an evil outsider with a CR equal to or greater than my character level?

Do they allow slavery in this country?

Does this person count as someone I can recruit to be a part of my faction?

Over.

And over.

And over.

So we have removed the author requirement or putting faction missions into scenarios (which is great), but assuming your players have faction cards there doesn't seem to be too much of a difference in time spent on personal missions.

But that may just be me. :P

Core tables exacerbate the problem of geek Sudoku in small venues. Exponentially.

No. No it doesn't. It may not work for your venue, but it works just fine for others (like mine).

If the players are interested in Core, then you schedule Core tables. If the players are not interested in Core, then you don't schedule Core tables.
Easy.

Oy vay. Im done.

Boot me if you people want. I'll shed no tears.

Basically, Im likening the forgetting of the paper sheet to forgetting your chronicle sheets. The GM may be willing to work with you, but if you continue to do it, they aren't obligated to run for you.

This rule wasn't meant to give the GM the final decision on which medium you can run a character.

Though Im in total agreement about electronic die rollers. I don't like them.

godsDMit wrote:

I interpret it to mean that those statements have nothing to do with each other.

Using HeroLab (or other electronic character sheet) is legal.
Using a paper copy is legal.

If you use HeroLab as your character sheet, you must have a paper copy of your sheet available for the GM to look at if they need to see your sheet and want a paper one.

That in no way invalidates the electronic sheets and it in no way gives anyone the right to boot people from his table for using Herolab for their sheet.

That would be in contradiction to what instigated the ruling in the first place, i.e. Nefreet's right to refuse electronic character sheets at the table. His right to do so it was started the whole thing in the first place and now you are saying that the rule specifically designed address this doesn't address this.

Yes, that's what Im saying. Nefreet, nor anyone else, have no right whatsoever to boot someone from the table for insisting they will use HeroLab on their iPad to run their character.

If Nefreet wants to see their character sheet, they need to be able to provide a paper sheet to show to him so he doesn't have to worry about breaking their electronic device, according to the rule.

The rule is not in place so that Nefreet can say 'I don't like people using tablets, you have to use your paper instead.'

Now, I can see where the 'we strongly recommend you to work with the player' part could mean that Nefreet has the ability to ban people if he chooses, but I disagree. I don't think it means you can ban people for refusing to play off a paper, it means you should allow them to play anyway, even if they forget their paper.

@ Nefreet, I don't mean to be solely targeting you. Just using you here for shorthand for anyone who would rule this way.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Trollbill

The Dm CAN require a paper character sheet. They do not have to insist on a paper character sheet: they can and probably will be ok with an electronic one. IE neither the DM nor the player are breaking any rules when they use an electronic sheet

I agree. What I mean by 'legal' is: MUST be accepted by the GM versus MAY be accepted by the GM. A GM MUST accept a printed character sheet as a valid character sheet. They MAY accept a non-printed character as a valid character sheet.

Please provide a link to where it says paper copies must be accepted and electronic ones can be rejected just cause they are electronic.

godsDMit wrote:

trollbill wrote:

godsDMit wrote:

trollbill wrote:

godsDMit wrote:

trollbill wrote:

What those two statements DON'T mean together is that:

1) A Hero Lab character sheet on a electronic device is legal (it is already accepted that GMs are not required to accept non-printed character sheets).
2) Using Hero Lab to keep track of your buffs, conditional modifiers, HP, etc. is legal.

Im in complete disagreement with you here.

If Mike meant you could print out HeroLab sheets and use those he would have specified it. Since he didn't, that means (unless Tonya wants to clarify otherwise) that running from the program on your laptop or tablet is fine, so long as you have a paper copy for backup in case the power dies or the GM wants to see the paper copy.

Mike said you MUST be able to supply a printed character sheet. He did not say you must be able to supply a printed character sheet UNLESS you are using Hero Lab.

Yes, and that was for the express purpose of making sure that you could pass it to the GM for their perusal if they wanted access to your sheet and not wanting to take the risk of dropping your laptop or tablet. Nowhere did he say you MUST use the paper copy.

You are correct, he did not say you must USE a paper copy. He said only a paper copy was a legal character sheet. Thus a GM may, if they so choose, refuse to accept someone using a different format other than the printed form. Now as far as I am aware of, Nefreet is the only one to actually make use of that right. But since he does GM at major conventions like GenCon then him having that right is relevant.

Personally, I would not do such a thing and think GMs should allow them, but again, that doesn't mean Nefreet doesn't have the right to refuse them. If was, after all, Nefreet's refusal that forced the ruling in the first place.

Please link to the statement by Mike that only paper copies are legal character sheets.

He did not use those express words, but how else do you interpret that a player MUST be able to supply a printed character sheet other than ONLY a printed character sheet is legal, i.e. cannot be refused by the GM?

Note that at no point am I saying that you CAN'T use a non-printed character sheet as long as the GM allows it. But the GM doesn't have to allow it.

I interpret it to mean that those statements have nothing to do with each other.

Using HeroLab (or other electronic character sheet) is legal.
Using a paper copy is legal.

If you use HeroLab as your character sheet, you must have a paper copy of your sheet available for the GM to look at if they need to see your sheet and want a paper one.

That in no way invalidates the electronic sheets and it in no way gives anyone the right to boot people from his table for using Herolab for their sheet.

godsDMit wrote:

trollbill wrote:

What those two statements DON'T mean together is that:

1) A Hero Lab character sheet on a electronic device is legal (it is already accepted that GMs are not required to accept non-printed character sheets).
2) Using Hero Lab to keep track of your buffs, conditional modifiers, HP, etc. is legal.

Im in complete disagreement with you here.

If Mike meant you could print out HeroLab sheets and use those he would have specified it. Since he didn't, that means (unless Tonya wants to clarify otherwise) that running from the program on your laptop or tablet is fine, so long as you have a paper copy for backup in case the power dies or the GM wants to see the paper copy.

Mike said you MUST be able to supply a printed character sheet. He did not say you must be able to supply a printed character sheet UNLESS you are using Hero Lab.

Yes, and that was for the express purpose of making sure that you could pass it to the GM for their perusal if they wanted access to your sheet and not wanting to take the risk of dropping your laptop or tablet. Nowhere did he say you MUST use the paper copy.

.If I am understanding you right, you seem to be saying that unless the game store cooperates, this lodge is domed? I mean, what do you do if players are so disruptive that other people stop showing up? Is there really nothing that can be done unless things actually get bad enough to...

More so what Bob said than this.

More or less...

If someone is being a big jerk, I tell them they are no longer welcome at events I am organizing, but unless they are kicked out of the store, then they might still be around, and a GM might decide to run a game for them anyway.

Im going to try to lay out this hypothetical situation step by step.

Tom is a jerk.
I ban Tom from games I organize.
I tell all the GMs and players and store workers that Tom is banned and not to game with him.
Tom shows up to game.
A GM decides he doesnt care that I banned Tom and will run for him anyway.
The other players at the table dont care that I banned Tom and will play with him anyway.
I remind all those people that Tom is banned.
They dont care.
I complain to the store.

This is where it divides...

A)
The store likely doesnt care because a bunch of people who want to play a game together are playing a game together.
I look like a jerk.

B)
The store tells Tom to leave.
I now have to decide if I want to give those players and that GM a warning or outright ban them for not obeying* me.

*My point is really all I can do is make suggestions, unless the store is going to actively take part. If everyone listens to those suggestions, great. If not, I cant actually FORCE a change.

In James' situation here I doubt he will have this problem, as just about everyone dislikes these people.

Nefreet wrote:

I don't think I've used shampoo in some 15 years...

Is there some reason you keep making light of this issue?

If you would look at his profile picture you would notice that Nefreet is a Tengu, and birds dont use soap.

:P

I applaud the idea of updating Wounded Wisp every year like this. Adds a lot more customization to the scenario, which can be very handy for GMs/ coordinators who want to get things lined up a certain way for players.

Good job, PFS team.

With all due respect, who's Todd Morgan?

A) Todd is Iowa's version of Mary Poppins.

B)Todd is Bob Jonquet in disguise (so he can now control two regions).

C) Todd is familiar to PaizoCon attendees as the man in charge. He became a Venture-Captain in 2011. Moving from Iowa to Nebraska, he continued to support Pathfinder Society. His hard work and dedication to the Pathfinder Society was recognized at Gen Con 2014, where he received a Campaign Coin at Gen Con 2014. The past two years, he has been co-lead of Gen Con. Todd is full of tales and is happy to share them over a beer or two.

D) Todd is the answer to life, the universe, and everything.

E) Todd is the one who gave Heath Ledger's 'Joker' the scars on his face.

At least one of these is true.

What's your guess. ;)

He's the Professor from Futurama. House coat, slippers, and all. And a beard.

"Good news everyone! We're going on an adventure!"

I like the idea of this thread, though Im hoping it can avoid becoming a list of rulings people dont agree with and want Tonya to change it.

With it being 'Year of the Serpent' and all, the Aspis Consortium is bigger and badder than ever. Many people are seeing this as Cobra rising, and the Society is G I Joe (Im making Storm Shadow).

In an effort to make sure that my Joe gets to fight Aspis scum as much as possible, I am looking to compile a list of any scenario in which you deal with Aspis either through combat or social interaction and maybe even scenarios that tie in just for story purposes.

My list so far is under the spoiler tag (dont click it if "There's Aspis people in this scenario" is a big enough spoiler for you to complain about).

If I have missed any scenarios or are wrong about the Aspis involvement, please let me know.

Thanks!

PS. Yes, you are more than welcome to join in on making a Joe of your own to battle the Aspis. If you do so, I suggest working with other people you play with frequently to work out your own joe squad, instead of worrying about the fact that 958 people in the world already built Snake Eyes. :P

Or you could just let the trap go off and deal with the consequences.

1) To quote from We Be Goblins, Free:

"Those players who have a Chronicle sheet allowing them to play goblin characters in the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign may play those characters in We Be Goblins Free! so long as they
are within the module’s level range."

Personally, I think this wording should be applied to all 3 of the WBG mods, as obviously the rules on goblins in PFS have changed over the years. So you dont have to be below the level of the goblin pregen to get credit onto the character. You can just play your own goblin as long as they are in range.

2) The intent of the 'newly created" level 1 PC, at the time, was not that the PC hadnt been locked in at 2 yet, since that rule hadnt yet been established. It was exactly what it sounds like, a character with 0 chronicles applied so far.
Getting rid of the 'newly created' is one thing I had suggested be removed because of the limiting factor it has for conventions and since people tended not to abide by it anyway (I didnt enforce it at conventions at all).
If its still in the Guide someplace, please point out the page to me, so I can speak to the new CC about it once they take office.
I think that 'not locked in at level 2' is a fine definition, but its probably easier to just remove the wording entirely than to add more wording that explains the first wording.

Edit: Along that same line, I have been making suggestions for the past couple years to try to help make the credit system as easy as possible by making everything the same as much as possible, so if you see any differences in the guide for how someone takes credit for a pregen vs a regular character or as a gm vs as a player, please let me know so I can suggest those changes too.
Of course, you are welcome to suggest those changes yourself as well. You dont have to be a VO to suggest changes be made. :)