Drogon's page

I'm with you, Dale: this AP is awesome. I ran Kingmaker (using your supplements, by the way; thank you), and like you I get that same vibe from reading this one. The story line is so well crafted and tight, thus far. I'm really impressed. And sad that it'll be at least a year before I have the opportunity to run this.

Other than what you've listed the first thing that comes to mind are interesting random encounters. If you go by the book there are going to be two encounters per day, and often one at night. The meager lists at the back of the books isn't gonna cut it. Things will become very stale very quickly. And if you were to include interesting encounter maps to go with the actual encounter, that would be even better.

Next would be a travelling market for PCs to get their custom stuff from (because the vast majority of groups are not going to be okay with only playing with what they find). The seed of an idea is planted for one, but more fleshing out would be good.

Last thing I can think of would be "common" NPCs. If the idea is to get invested in this ragtag band of refugees then there needs to be a large number of personalities and faces to get to know. I recently read the Shackled City AP, and the level of detail that went into the setting was absolutely amazing. It's no wonder that one is popular. I think Rise of the Runelords was similar, and Kingmaker to a certain extent. Again, two very popular APs. This one needs more than just the "special" NPCs that are already listed.

If I think of more I'll hop back on.

Edit: Already thought of something: The Legion are going to be turning their conquered areas into something palatable to them. What does that look like? The likelihood that players want to infiltrate and spy on their enemies is high. Give them interesting locales and situations to find.

Bots. And factoring.

When everyone starts selling out, and it gets to a point where only a few of something are left, the price gets bumped up by a bot, one that is operated by a factor (someone who sells an item they don't own at a markup, then buys a copy to drop-ship from a third party). Then, there's another bot watching that bot, and it wants to be slightly less expensive than the most expensive one out there, but not TOO much less expensive, so it bumps up its price. Just so happens that the first bot sees that price increase, knows its own margin isn't correct any longer, and bumps its price up to compensate. Which, of course, causes the second bot to raise its price. Wash, rinse, repeat. You end up with outrageously priced items.

This blog post back in 2011 does a pretty good job of explaining the occurrence: The $24million Dollar Book About Flies

I see this happen all the time with games that drop out of production temporarily (or permanently). And because of it I always know when a game is suddenly unavailable. It often is a game that has sat on my shelves for months, selling a copy here or there, but nothing noteworthy. Then, one week I go from 6 copies to 0, often in the course of two days. I take a look on Amazon and, sure enough, it's selling for twice MSRP. Speculators come in to buy me out, and list them for slightly less than the bots. Cracks me up because, usually, the game is available again within a couple months.

Anyhoo, if you would like a copy of End of Eternity at MSRP, I may be able to help you out. I believe I still have one in stock. Would you like it?

I suppose I should step in and speak up, seeing as my name is being brought up:

rknop wrote:

I don't know enough about Living Greyhawk to know what was motivating the constant replay. However, we have to be constantly aware of Drogon's "same faces" (and the wrong faces) showing up to play the same scenarios all the time. That'll kill organized play while it's still going....

Living Forgotten Realms was killed by replay.

Living Greyhawk had no replay whatsoever.

Auke is correct: LFR was, in my store's case at least, buried by the ability to replay without limit.

rknop describes PFS as "quite welcoming to newcomers," and it certainly is; new players can show up and hop onto a table with relative ease. And, in the case of my store (which is admittedly a busy PFS location), there will almost always be space for them to find a seat they can sign up for.

The biggest problem with replay, in my experience, is the fact that there are those people who just don't care about anything except the ability to play as much and as often as they can. Sure, there were "farming" problems with LFR, too (enabled by replay), but what killed LFR for my store was the lack of new players being able to come into the game. The same 6-10 replayers routinely signed up for every game day, without concern for what was being played, and monopolized the available seats. New players were consistently turned away because all the tables were full. When that happens enough, eventually those new players stopped trying. And, actually, occasional players (those who only played once or twice a month) were getting locked out of tables by that same core group, and THEY stopped trying, too. Eventually, those same 6-10 players were the only players at any table, and GMs got sick of being stuck with always having to run and never getting to play (because, due to replay, there was never any reason for those players to make the jump to GMing).

Thus, LFR died.

When I come on these boards an rail against replay, that is why. I understand the fact that replay will likely solve a small play group's problem with finding an adventure that everyone can play. But solving that problem creates a different problem for those of us who have larger groups. And, in my opinion (and my own experience, obviously) that problem leads to a steady decline in attendance and eventually a lack of interest in the campaign itself.

You can mark me down as still firmly against the idea of expanding replay more than it already has been. Which I'm sure is unsurprising to most of you. My reasons haven't changed in the 8 years I have been arguing against it. So, I'll stay out of this debate, having said my piece.

Edit: Living Greyhawk (LG for short - the 3.5 OrgPlay campaign which preceded LFR) was easily as popular as PFS, if not moreso. No, it did not allow replay, and I think that was a key component in it's longevity and popularity. In defense of the small PFS playgroup's problems, LG also had a high number of adventures published on a monthly basis. This, obviously, went a long way toward allowing every group who played the ability to find adventures they all qualified for.

I'm a retailer. I own two stores in Colorado. One has been open over 10 years, the other is now in its second full year of operation.

I can say with certainty that the last Humble Bundle actually *created* sales for my business. Additionally, the existence of their PDFs often close the deal on sales of the RPG hardcover line (by "close the deal" I mean that they are the difference maker when making a sale). And I have already seen a bump in Pathfinder sales as a result of this Humble Bundle, as well.

My statement, obviously, is anecdotal. But I'm pretty confident in saying that I'm one of the largest game retailers in the mountain region (two of the largest, actually). I use a POS system that tracks all my data and inventory, and I watch it obsessively for trends. Pathfinder RPG sales have certainly slowed since the launch of 5th Edition. But that is definitely attributable to different things than Paizo's sale of PDF product. And, at least as far as I'm concerned, the two biggest "up-ticks" in Pathfinder sales I've seen have coincided with Humble Bundle traffic.

Also, a bit of a nit-pick here: Paizo does not have reps for stores. No retailer buys directly from Paizo. They sell through distribution and let their distributors handle all their product movement. Paizo does not share their sales trends with anyone. Ever. And speculating on how a promotion of theirs may have hurt brick and mortar stores and what the future repercussions of that would be is not something I've ever seen Paizo do. In other words, I have serious doubts about whether your store owner spoke with anyone at Paizo about any of this.

Then I apologize for saying yes without also including the fact that it is convention exclusive for the first year of availability. That was my bad for misleading you.

You don't have anything to apologize for. No one has, yet, as I'm hoping this is a misunderstanding.

If I am being misled, it is by the way the 4- and 5-star adventures have been handled up until now. Up until last year there were only 4-star exclusives. Mostly, those exclusives came out mid-season, and could be run at any time (designated 3-S or 4-S) before being added to the regular rotation the following year. Bonekeep changed that, by making it necessary to be run at a convention. There was a lot of griping about that. "What good is it to be a 4- or 5-star?" and comments of that ilk.

Last year #6-99 was introduced as a true 5-star Exclusive, one that specifically had to be run by 5-star GMs, and was NOT allowed to be run by 4-star VOs. There was an additional 4-star adventure (#6-98) that was set up for those GMs, and for VOs to "extra star" qualify for. By the way, if someone tells me that #7-98 is ALSO a Convention Exclusive, merely for 4-stars, I'm going to completely lose my cool.

Now, after a very long and heated discussion in April about how detrimental the new convention policy was toward local stores, one that was supposed to be re-addressed in May and still has not been touched because everyone is "too busy," I am being told that this adventure is YET ANOTHER convention-only exclusive item. And, I'll be honest, at the rate that "convention exclusive" crap is starting to pile up (counting all the different boons that you can ONLY get through conventions), things are starting to stink already. Then going in and making it more difficult to QUALIFY as a convention? I'm calling b$*%~@@%.

But, no, you have nothing to apologize for. Frankly, I'm just feeling a bit disenfranchised. I'm unsure what it is that I've done in recent years by trying to keep my community together. It seems, at this point, to be a rather thankless job that I have done, as I see plenty of other people getting rewarded for the same job I do, with less time put in, but due to the glitz and glamour of being part of a "convention" they get the accolades.

And I've obviously just pissed myself off by typing all this...

I'm going to go to bed and try to cool down. I'll take this up in a different thread, where it belongs, tomorrow.

Having to seek permission to run something that is "granted" to me by my 5-star status is a step backward from the "5-star reward" as it used to be. I'm really unhappy about this. Seriously.

Remember that "taking things away is worse than doing things properly" statement I made in another thread? Someone just stepped in it, and it's raised my hackles, I will not lie. Combined with all the talk of altered convention rewards and status, which still has not been addressed, I'm swiftly losing my patience.

I've heard repeatedly that Replay = bad, and I've asked multiple times over the years for examples, explanations, and evidence as to WHY it is, even in theory, bad, but have never once received an actual answer, beyond "people may chronicle hunt".

DM Beckett, I'm pretty sure you've been part of those discussions over the years, so I'm pretty sure you would have been exposed to my (and others') arguments. Perhaps my memory is faulty, but seeing as I know you to be one of the replay proponents (albeit one of the less strident ones, and one who actually comes up with good alternatives from time to time) I'm pretty certain we've shared space in those threads before. Hopefully rknop's and Pirate Rob's posts have a more lasting impact on your memory than my own.

Seeing as all the links and statements have been made by others I see no reason to add my own to this, beyond saying that I still haven't changed my opinion much in the last six plus years. I hope I'm a bit more politic than I used to be, and I think I've proven that even I can alter my stance on occasion. But as I said a few posts above I believe that not too much more "bend" will result in a break. I don't want to see that.

Edit: This, by the way, proves the veracity of my saying you often suggest reasonable alternatives:

I think the best solution I've heard was to make a handful of evergreen scenarios across the level ranges, specifically avoiding levels 1 and 2. That would actually go a long way to solving a few issues, and help alleviate some of the problems with lack of replay for credit.

This, I believe, is actually a suggestion you proposed in the past, and it is one I like myself. It is a "bend" that will forestall a break. (-:

Kifaru was only referring to GM replay credit, not player replays.

If so, then I would not be as opposed. To clarify my own stance, some definitions may be in order.

Replay = players' ability to replay an adventure for credit.

Rerun = GMs' ability to rerun an adventure for credit.

If someone is using the word "replay" my assumption is that it is for players (and GMs would obviously gain the benefit as well, as "replay" crosses those bounds easily). This is why I responded the way I did, not because I don't support GM rewards.

To further state how much I support the idea of GMs continuing to get rewards for games they run, I will direct you to this post which very clearly lays things out, including a bullet-point list of options for GM rewards for rerunning adventures. I made that list because they are reasonable suggestions, and I would not have personally posted them if I did not support them in some way.

The only thing I would add to that post if I could is the fact that I would prefer to see any kind of character credit option be the last of the options that is explored. I would vastly prefer to see a reward card that unlocks things based on number of reruns.

Kifaru, you have my support. It is obviously not in exactly the same place your own wishes are, but I'm on your side. And I think a lot of people here are, actually.

It makes everything you've already run an "evergreen level 1" adventure, but only for a short time. Thus, the reverse incentive would actually hold sway: GM's would want to get in all their re-GM credits before they were no longer available, and would be unwilling to run new adventures (not everyone, of course, but you see my point I hope). I know that in my stores, if I were unable to get GMs to run new scenarios for a six month stretch, I would have a hard time keeping consistent game days going.

That's one example, and one I think is very likely, really.

In fact, I would actually only put it in place for 6 months. Have a scheduled beginning and end of the test run. Start it the first of September and run it through the end of February. This gives a 6 month sample set to see what the repercussions are and another 6 months for the Paizo decision makers to contemplate before the start of the next season.

I dunno, man. This feels like an Aasimarpalooza FUBAR just waiting to happen, to me. Way too many things could go wrong with this scenario, I think.

I'd like to see this implemented as a test run for a season. If it causes the feared disruptions, it could be discontinued.

Taking something away from people is significantly harder than implementing the correct procedure in the first place. For reference, see the ongoing debate about GM star-recharges. Even though this was never something that was promised, and was mistakenly not edited out of a *preview draft* version of the GtoPFSOP, people still see this as something that was taken away, and regularly bring this up. For further reference, see the complaints that come up every time Paizo releases hardcover errata and "takes away" components of the game. If you need even more proof, let's talk about aasimar and tieflings a bit.

Implement it, or don't. But if you implement it, do it properly so that it does not need to be taken away.

The people on this thread are trying to discuss the value of a possible change. I believe you are a 5 star GM, and I feel your experience could be quite worthwhile. I understand that in debates emotions can run high. I didn't take the insults personally. I assume in person you would never be so impolite. I implore you to continue the discussion, but please I would request that you refrain from further personal attacks.

I'm pretty direct. So I suspect you would have received the same comments in person. But tone and visual cues matter so much in conversation, so you would have also seen genuine interest in the things you are saying. Which, I'm sure, is true of your side as well.

I apologize for attributing a poor attitude to you. :-) <--that last bit is the "happily" part

A (very brief) history of my dislike of replay credit:

I'm utterly opposed to it. Many would call it bias; I call it a non-negotiable consideration. Despite this I have bent, many times, in those negotiations (which occur regularly as certain players ask for it repeatedly). I now believe that this cannot bend very much more before it breaks.

The reason I point this out:

The same players who want replay credit will not stand for a system in which GMs get character credit for re-running scenarios (no matter how "partial" that credit is) while they cannot get any consideration for replaying the scenarios that are currently limited to one play per person. And they shouldn't. Unequal entitlement is not a healthy way to promote a program.

I firmly believe that PFS will not survive the slide in to replay. Rehashing my reasons can be done, but I hope you don't find that necessary. Enabling re-run credits for GMs is another step onto that slide.

However, I will acknowledge the issues many have with getting GMs to run things more than once (and have already stated such, way back at the beginning of this thread and again, later on).

Here are some of the ways I can think of to reward GMs for re-running that have been discussed in this thread:

• Allow GMs to check off the "GM this scenario" boxes on the Faction Journal cards despite not getting character credit. LINK and LINK
  
• Create another tracking card that opens up rewards dependent on the number of times you have run a scenario.LINK and LINK and again LINK
  
• Add a boon to scenario chronicles that unlocks varying things based on the number of times the GM has run the scenario. LINK and LINK
  
• Allow GMs to assign a re-GM chronicle to a 1st level PC, and only to a 1st level PC. LINK
  
• Allow GM stars to recharge each season, but allow the recharge to apply only to re-run scenarios. LINK
  

This is probably not exhaustive, but it's what I could find right now. Early on in this thread the discussion was robust, and John and Tonya posted, as well. I think an expectation that GMs get something for running without character credit is a not-unreasonable expectation. And I think you will see it implemented sooner than later. But I also think you will get far more traction with your requests if you leave unfettered character credit (again, no matter how "limited" the gp and/or xp may be) off the list.

There are lots of rewards for GMing something again. They've already all been listed throughout this thread multiple times, so I won't get into it again, but suffice to say that if credit is all you're after you have plenty of options and there is no need to GM something more than once. It's a stance I certainly don't understand, but you're allowed to take it.

As to the disparity of 4- and 5-star GMs pooh-poohing this idea vs the 1- and 2-stars lauding it, I think it comes down to what Auke said: Personally, I have long experience in the campaign (and in other campaigns), and am absolutely opposed to adding in something that is so obviously disproportionate to what players get. The moment something like this is realized the players who want unlimited replay will cry foul and be impossible to placate - rightfully so, as one group being entitled to something another group cannot have is the worst position to put a system in.

And the day the unlimited replay proponents are on the right side of the argument will be a bad day, indeed.

I'm not interested in seeing things change so that GM credit is out of alignment with player credit.

If a GM wishes to not run an adventure more than once due to lack of credit, despite all the other incentives, then that is their right. Saying that they are being *punished* for having to prep an adventure and only get to run it once is a bit over the top. I see the fact that it's already prepped as one of the incentives, but if credit is stopping you from offering that game again, so be it. Let someone else run it who will have more interest in it (whether it's because they'll actually get credit or merely because they truly enjoy GMing is a moot point).

But this circular argument is just as bad as the unlimited player credit argument and reeks of entitlement. There is no need to act this way.

I don't get it.

One thing I get to take away from this: Hmm will now be known in my mind as Hmm The Hun. (-:

We used to have a great trilogy once upon a time called 'First Steps', and in that magical trilogy you could take your own character and nothing broke.

I beg to differ. Lots of people broke when confronted by Ledford. O_O

Oh not at all hun.

Your phone's auto-correct is a bit, um, old fashioned? That's probably the most polite way to say it. At least, I hope it was your phone's auto-correct...

Okay, I feel the need to put down exactly what I am actually looking for. Hopefully this will help shed light on where my arguments come from, with relation to the Quest line.

I feel that the concept of a "delve" or a "quest" or an "encounter" is an awesome way to show people how to play a tabletop RPG game. As mentioned above, you can have it all set up at a convention on a front-and-center table, and when people ask what you're doing you can say, "Hi. Want to see what it's like to play Pathfinder/D&D/Shadowrun? It'll take less than an hour to show you the ropes." As is being proven in many conventions, this model is helping draw a great number of people into the game.

I want the ability to set this up at a local store.

Now, don't get me wrong: I am fully aware that I have that ability already. I merely have to pick a lineup of quests/delves/BeginnerBoxBashes and throw them on my schedule, have a batch of pre-gens ready to hand out, and get the ball rolling. I don't even need to even worry about structure, credit, character rules, or what-have-you. That's why this stuff was developed.

However, a store environment is very different than a convention environment. A convention is pretty much designed as a showcase. People can attend one to immerse themselves in a weekend of non-stop gaming, or attend one merely in an effort to find out "what all the fuss" is about. Sure, some conventions break this mold and begin creating a community out of their attendees (Paizocon, in particular), but most still operate as a showcase environment - a "one and done," if you will, where being noncommittal is not a sin and is actually encouraged.

A store, on the other hand, must foster a community in order to truly thrive. We will learn each others' names, talk about our pets and kids (and politics), and have an expectation of seeing the same people on a regular basis. The "one-and-done" model doesn't work at a store, at least not as a long-term plan.

So, to put the quest/delve/encounter concept to good use in a store, you need a story. You need a series of events that will draw the same crowd back a few times, so that they become a part of that community. D&D Encounters did this phenomenally well. I will not go into details (again), as there is no need to beat a dead horse.

I want to see a Pathfinder lineup that I can implement to the same effect.

Again, I know I already have the ability to do this. I could take the Quests that are available and just put them on the schedule. I can let people play pre-gens, or play custom-built PCs. I can even extend the stories with my own writing, or tag them to an existing module so that things can continue on for a couple months.

The problem with that idea (which, I realize, no one is espousing), is that my existing community of Pathfinder players will have no measurable desire to join in. Any new players coming along will be making all these baby steps by themselves, and while they may end up a part of the store community, overall, they won't be a part of the PFS community in the way that I want to engender. Eventually? Sure. But the process will be much longer and more drawn out, and will ultimately NET far fewer players than something more efficient like what I'm talking about.

So, I want a PFS sanctioned lineup of 1-2 hour adventures (a series of 8-12, ideally) that I can put down on the schedule that will draw in new players, and encourage veteran players to join them by virtue of getting credit in the game campaign they already enjoy. I want a two to three month long, weekly playing session, that will draw all these elements together (new players, old players, players just getting back into the game, and players who do not have the time to commit to 4-hour sessions), and put them all in the same room. My room, by the way: the stores that I care about, and the community that I spend so much effort to foster and grow.

I chose to jump on the "open up quests" train because that train looks like the most likely vehicle to achieve what I want. I know that Paizo doesn't have the ability to develop a new Encounters season every 3-4 months. I know that the PFS resources are already stretched thin. So, I look at the Quests and I see a group of 12 adventures that are already there and, with just a few tweaks, will accomplish what I want. No extra money from Paizo. No concern about lack of credit from veterans. No worry about "too much commitment" from new players. Everyone wins.

Does this help to shed light on why I'm so adamant about this?

I hope so.

I still want to see whether it is possible that Quests get opened up to custom characters. I acknowledge that maybe they are not the best vehicle for that. However, they are the best vehicle that currently exists, with the flexibility to be on both a convention schedule (with pre-gens, only) and on my community's schedule (where it can set up a group of new PFS veterans). As much as I would love to see Paizo write all-new content for this program, I just don't see that in the cards. A little tweak to the existing Quest rules, however, and we have a pilot program. Perhaps its success will convince Paizo to commit a bit more to future versions that will better cross the bridge between what I want and what convention organizers want.

Holy thread necro, Batman! What year are we in?

I would like the Quest line available to players of any type of PC for one reason, above all other reasons: I want to see a lineup of adventures that are capable of filling 6 to 8 nights, once per week, over the course of a couple months, with "drop in and play" style games available for all who care to show up.

To be clear about what I want, I will point a finger at the D&D Adventurers' League Encounters program. This program was built on the idea of "one encounter per session," which very much feels like the Quest style of adventure. There is a continuous story for all the Encounters in a series, but playing them all front-to-back just isn't something that every player was able to do. And that was okay. If you made sessions 1-4, missed 5 and 6, then showed up for 7-10, you were welcome. Players moved in and out of Encounters freely and without regret. They could bring their own PC to every single session. Or they could play in just one session to see what it was like to play D&D and be handed a pre-gen without hesitation. They could even try out different PCs at different points during the season. Or they might try the pre-gens the first couple times and then, amazingly, <--that's sarcasm after deciding they liked this game, show up one day with their OWN character. Every type of player was welcome.

The program was WILDLY popular. So popular that even though WotC has attempted to kill it players and DMs are continuing to use the model to run their games in my stores. They don't even care about getting "official" rewards for the games; they just want to play with that style and structure.

I have seen all kinds of groups form because of the Encounters setup. I have many of them playing their weekly "home" games in my stores. I have even ended up hiring one of the DMs because I was so impressed with his attitude while running games (something he says he never would have tried without the Encounters model).

There are a lot of positive things I can see for a Quest lineup for PFS. I could continue, but I don't want to wax too poetic about a competing model.

I do not see how opening up Quests to 1st level PCs would halt the ability to play with pre-gens at a convention. All it would do is give players the option of bringing their own or using a pre-gen, which they already have in tier 1-5 adventures (and most others) anyway. I regularly seat 3 brand new players playing pre-gens with 3 veterans running 1st or 2nd level PC at tier 1-5 games, or (more likely) at my Learn to Play game. I'm not sure I've ever been told that this practice has upset anyone's ability to have fun.

Seconded.

I was very excited when these were all released. I got very sad when I found out you had to run pre-gens. That killed all interest in my area.

PS - in case you don't want to read that thread Hmm linked to, I would like to sum up my own stance from that thread: I want access to these to run them as "intro" adventures. A 60-90 minute drop in and play schedule with these would be awesome. But I want people to feel welcome to bring their own characters, and not forced into playing a pre-gen they have no feelings for.

A few weeks ago, I unveiled a new Event Support Policy on the blog. It generated quite a bit of discussion, and I put a note in the comments that the team had read the commentary and was reassessing the program. I intended to post the revised policy today, but unfortunately technical difficulties while on the road meant I couldn't access my notes. I ask for your patience for just a bit longer while I return to Seattle, retrieve my notes, and pull the edges together.

I am bumping this. Not because I am impatient, but because I want to be sure that it stays somewhere on the radar. This is still very important to me (and to others, I am quite sure). I know Paizocon happened, and GenCon is upcoming. But many of us will be planning our fall events, and even looking ahead toward winter, and will want to know what to expect when we begin putting together our promotions.

Like I said, just a little bump. I'm not hyperventilating, yet. (-:

Drogon wrote:

I think a Starfinder Corps (that's my favorite name for it, so far) would be huge.

Sorry Drogon, according to this article it will be Starfinder Society. Starfinder Corps does sound cooler though.

That article...so awesome...

Pardon me. I have to geek out for a little while. I'll be back in a bit..,

For the record, Gorbacz and captain yesterday, I've never seen either of you as anything less than reasonable. I know you both like seeing the envelope pushed, but you are willing to give credit where credit is due.

To "define" myself: the only AP I have outright disliked is Skulls & Shackles. I just couldn't get behind that one pretty much from page 1. Really? They press-ganged Lini and her cat to be crew? Even as a "traditionalist" I was able to read and appreciate Iron Gods for its story. Skulls & Shackles couldn't get me, though. So I guess I'm part of Gorbacz's group 3. Which, honestly, I think is the biggest group. The only thing up in the air is which color envelope various members of this group doesn't want pushed.

So, yes, I like what Paizo has done, in large part. Because of that, I'm willing to wait and see what anything they put out is like before I pass judgement.

But looking at the pure numbers that post counts are seems to indicate that Hell's Rebels has fallen flat. Certainly not as flat as Second Darkness or Shattered Star. But it doesn't seem to be exciting people. Which is too bad. Because, like you've both acknowledged, it's incredibly well done.

My comment comes from the standpoint of being tired of seeing the back-and-forth war of words between groups 1 and 4, I guess. Also, I think there is a "group 5" out there: Start my AP at 10th level with 5 levels of mythic tiers, please. And if I'm not constantly bedazzled by the bad guy's perfectly laid out stat block, then please don't bother putting it in the book. It grows wearisome.

For the purpose you describe, Grue, Bonekeep is pretty good. If you get all three levels and put them together you can get a pretty solid adventure out of them. And it has a very "old school" non-linear feel to it (despite, ultimately, being mostly linear). A little bit of tweaking and it turns into a very memorable adventure location that fits easily into just about any story. My Kingmaker players *still* talk about it, and that campaign ended a year ago.

Hmm wrote:

Yes, this was one of the few erratas that was a straight upgrade.

:)

It's probably good for us to acknowledge that sometimes that happens. Not everything brought by the errata fairy is bad news.

Hmm

I wouldn't call it an "upgrade" either.

I played my 'Striker pre- and post- errata. The post one is a little less effective, but MUCH easier to roll attacks. (Before I had a clear plastic button box with a cell for each level having a d20 and a d8. Shake the box (very noisy!) to roll a Wierd Words attack and see what the results were...)

Heh. That's awesome.

Reminds of a local player who ran a two weapon crit-based fighter during Seasons 1 and 2. He had a color-coded chart of all his attacks and damage rolls, and corresponding dice for them. He'd pick up about two dozen dice, roll them all, spend a minute sorting them, and start calling out numbers for the GM to work with.

I suspect that if Rise of the Runelords were to have been a newly released AP this past year or two, it would have been met with a resounding cry of "BOOOOORRIIING!" from everyone who has been fed such a steady diet of New Class Option Crunch and BizzarroAPs over Pathfinder's life. Silly, isn't it?

Random thoughts, no particular order:

Core is happening in Denver at three different stores with regularity (two of them, admittedly, are mine). Tables are rarely canceled. I would estimate the number of players involved in Core to be around 12 to 20, with varying degrees of "involvement" (there are a half dozen who ONLY play Core; another half dozen who play it perhaps once a month; a couple who only *GM* Core - and don't play at all; and a few who predominantly play Core, but are occasionally seen in Standard). As Cfoot mentioned, I see a HUGE presence online for Core, and regularly hear online GMs in the area talk about their online Core games (this is the only way those player participate in Core, however, so I didn't include them in my other numbers).

One thing I will note, however, is that the hope I had of Core attracting *new* players who would ultimately transition to Standard did not pan out. I attribute this to two things:

1 - Explaining Core vs Standard to an interested player adds a layer of complexity to a conversation that is already complex (the conversation being, "What is organized play?"). People still see the massive wall of Pathfinder products I have available and balk at how to become involved.

2 - 5th Edition absolutely dominates at attracting (and keeping) new players. It has brand recognition, a low profile of products available, a drop-in-and-play entry level OrgPlay option (Encounters), and a bunch of celebrities touting its virtues all over the internet (which is a very powerful tool in the marketing war).

Most of the Core play I see centers around individuals who want to consume PFS material at a breakneck pace. This, I think, is why you see such a huge presence online.

I think you continue to promote it. Market it at schools, libraries, and college campuses. But I don't know that it will ever see the level of play that people were initially thinking it would. There just isn't enough support for it from Paizo. If they were to provide Core-Only boons or stories, or provide a bit of push for Core at Paizocon and GenCon, I think you would see growth. But their time is consumed by the success of Standard PFS, and trying to put effort into Core merely costs precious resources that they can't allocate.

Honestly, I couldn't tell you *why* they decided to go forward with Core, if they don't want to dedicate resources to it. But, it is what it is. And, frankly, it does have its own success. It's just different than what many of us expected.

Edit: For perspective on the Core numbers I gave above, I estimate the number of *actively playing* Standard PFS players in Colorado to be near 100. We have probably 400+ people who move in and out of "active," but many of them are seen once or twice per year at best.

Lune, I'm sorry if you don't *like* the way PFS treats partial items, but what I said above *is* how PFS treats those items. Prodding me about my house rules (which I have said not one word about, and which have no impact on PFS) is not going to change how partial items work in PFS.

You can't buy piecemeal items unless you see them on a chronicle. You can't sell piecemeal items unless it's something you bought off a chronicle. <--That is the rule you get to work with.

Shadowrun Missions Link

I have an argument for how Stafinder Corps might attract a bunch of NEW players: Shadowrun Missions.

Those guys are already playing a "science fantasy" game, and participating in OrgPlay. But their gaming time is infrequent and unreliable. Give them something solid with steady support from the company who publishes the game and I'll bet they switch over.

Also, if this were available *right now* I would simply add another table to my PFS nights. That would allow players to mix and mingle as they wished, which I think would go a long way to help the growth of both campaigns.

In case you check back in here, Chris, you're awesome. (-:

<-- Jealous because he has none.

I have 4 expanded narratives

rknop wrote:

Even though these things are technically legal, just don't do it. It's on par with creating a character whose rituals include giving a wedgie to all of the other characters constantly. You can just know that it's going to cause gratuitous table strife, and it's not wise to go there.

I agree with this. Even if you choose a really tame and non debasing form of slavery, it will usually cause a level of strife not healthy for the hobby.

Doubly agree, here.

The only PFS player I've ever come close to removing from my store was a profession (slaver). This was back in season 1, when we weren't quite as in touch with how Golarion worked. It was painfully obvious that he was using his game mechanic to push peoples' buttons. The fact that I'm a coffee shop with a lot of non-gamer clientele didn't seem to deter him. After seeing the look on one couple's faces when he started in on his spiel, I decided to put my foot down and tell him to shut up about it or get kicked out. That couple made it a point to thank me, right in front of the player. He didn't try that again.

Like rknop said, don't be that guy.

David Setty wrote:

No, we've ha multiple rulings on equivalent things (rapist, torturer, etc.) It's not legal.

I disagree. Slavery is not evil in Golarion.

Not evil? Or do you mean not illegal? Because I'm pretty sure every single slaver involved situation I can think of in Paizo-published works involves evil npcs. Perhaps owners of slaves in some publications aren't evil. But the ones who actively participate in the market that I am aware of are all given E alignments.

Edit: Ninja'd by a much more comprehensive post...

Agree with BNW. I have found that very few of my PCs use any measurable amount of consumables. The exception might be a wand of CLW (which I buy with prestige, anyway).

But, seeing as I'm one of those guys with an auto-8th-level PC, let me reassure you that he is no more powerful than any of my other PCs, and far LESS powerful than many of the characters I see as a GM. And, frankly, I bought things for him naturally as he progressed through his "career," despite that career being wrapped up in GM credits.

Having read the thread on GM credit babies, I think this approach is pretty common.

Edit: Which, I guess, makes me sound like I'm defending unlimited credit. I'm not. Instead, I'm trying to reassure you of the morality of our GMing corps, with regards to their PCs.

I'm not going to agree with you, Lau.

If you are in combat on the ground and you move 5 feet (NOT a 5' step), say because you want to draw an attack of opportunity and get a use out of a fire shield or allow your rogue to more easily get into position, you are using a move action. A 5' step is a "non-action" that is NOT a move action. Air combat is no different when it comes to movement rules.

You, however, are not likely to agree with me. I'll follow your interpretation at your table. You follow mine at my table.

Like I said, expect variation.

Edit: By the way, Yu Kee Lin, with regards to the "variation" front, I have run into many GMs who simply hand-wave flying and treat it as though it were a 3D version of ground combat. Fighters decked out in full plate while using tower shields, who have no points in the fly skill whatsoever, are able to make 5' steps straight up at those tables.

Drogon wrote:

An idea.

would this apply to re-running Evergreens? Run Confirmation 5 times and recharge a Star Replay? How about running the same scenario once in Core and once in Standard, does that count as running it twice?

No. Why would that make sense? You already get a full credit chronicle for it.

I'm not a rules writer. I'm certain the rules would need to be cleaned up. I just put down an idea. It doesn't need to be picked apart for loopholes, already. /-:

I'm not sure how we got to the "two types of GMs" discussion where you either love GMing and would do it for nothing or you hate GMing and are only doing it because of peer pressure.

Similar expressions of irritation or dismay.

I should probably have known better than to post the two extremes as my example. Sorry.

I believe that the vast majority of us (most of us, in fact) lie somewhere in between the two examples of GMs. Pigeonholing anyone into a place where they are either only in it for the loot or only in it for the fun is a fallacy. I, myself, love GMing. I love GMing adventures more than once, mostly because I like seeing what the next group will do differently. But that love of the game wears thin on the 6th or 7th run, believe me. Frankly, I never want to see True Dragons of Absalom ever again. This is not to say, however, that I don't love taking credit for my GMing. It's pretty important to me. I use it most often to avoid 1st level. I recently used it to put a PC directly to 8th level, as that's where I think he'll be fun to play; I plan on keeping him on slow track so that I can have enough time with him. And I certainly don't want to be forced to run something MORE than once in order to get credit. Some adventures just suck.

Like my own attitude toward GMing is a compromise of the two extreme types, I believe that a better compromise between "all the credit, please" and "no credit at all, thanks" exists. Thus, the example I posted.

I'm not a fan of replay. In any form, really. I'm pretty sure most people know that about me. Therefore it will probably not be a shock to hear that I like the star-replay setup the way it currently stands. They are precious, and meant to be used at exactly the right time, for the right reason, and I think that has been accomplished under the current rules.

That said, I think the boon that allows GM stars to recharge should absolutely be available in some way outside of conventions.

So, how about we get this "re-GM" thing together with that boon?

Our "check off the box" list could look something like this:

[ ] If you are GMing a scenario for the second time, check this box. You now have access to the "I'm a Re-runner" boon.
[ ] I'm a Re-runner! While in combat you may use this boon to perform the withdraw action and not draw an attack of opportunity in the first two squares you move through. Check the box once the boon has been used.

[ ] If you are GMing a scenario for the third time, check this box. You now have access to the "I'm in for Three" boon.
[ ] I'm in For Three! While gathering information in a bar you may use this boon to gain a +5 bonus on your skill check. Check this box once the boon has been used.

[ ] If you are GMing a scenario for the fourth time, chick this box. You now have access to the "I'm all For It" boon.
[ ] I'm All For It! While in combat and you use the charge action, you gain a +4 bonus to damage rolls. You gain this bonus for the remainder of the combat whenever you use the charge action. Check this box once the boon has been used.

[ ] If you are GMing a scenario for the fifth time, check this box. You now have access to the "Five Stars, Here I Come" boon.
[ ] Five Stars, Here I Come! You may recharge your use of the "star replays" you have used. This boon only recharges replays you have used, and does not add to the total replays you have beyond the number of stars you possess. You may only earn this boon once per scenario you are re-running.

I think that the easiest solution would be to create a GM card similar to the Faction cards.

I think this is the most viable solution (also proposed above by TimD). Going back through seven season of scenarios, AP chronicles, and module chronicles, is a task that should not be added to the PFS team's workload. And, frankly, going forward I don't want to see any space taken on future chronicles for something that has a much lower rate of use. Put it on a separate card that only needs to be updated every now and then.

I have:

1 x half-orc
1 x halfling
1 x half-elf
1 x dwarf
1 x ifrit
8 x humans

Human: the only truly broken race. (-;

I'm fine with the unlimited gm credit thing as long as the following aren't available:

Cultist's Kiss
Refuge of Time
Feast of Sigils
Cult of the Ebon Destroyers
The Merchant's Wake

Eyes of the Ten Pt IV

There are a lot of these kinds of things. Navigating the maze of "what can be allowed, and what can't" is too much to ask. Someone will take credit when they shouldn't. Much easier to have a blanket "yes" or "no" rule in place.

Pretty sure it's obvious that I vote "no."

Go with the check-box card idea.

The only impact the loot that you find in the adventure has in the game is you can use that treasure as consumables first because you'll get your gold total anyways. Essentially, the loot you find in the adventure ends up being free consumables. So you will want to use the potion of cure light wounds that you found on the bad guy before you cast any spells or use wand charges, because you'll then get a chunk of change at the end of the adventure and be able to buy another potion if you want.

Not entirely true.

Sometimes the loot you find is "unique." A wand of flame blade at CL10 with only 8 charges. Or a broken, artifact-level longsword that gives a cool role-playing bonus (and might be "mendable" on a future chronicle with the right boon), or a set of gauntlets of giant strength (specifically NOT a belt of giant strength).

Finding those kinds of things on chronicles is pretty impactful.

It's my very own Tripledent Gum commercial...

I mostly agree with everyone here, some sort of credit would be nice but free unlimited replay is bad. Spitballing some ideas:

- Let GM replay stars apply to getting GM credit for a scenario?
- Let GMs re-reunning scenarios mark "replay" on a chronicle and apply that chronicle as a 1 XP, 2 PP, 500 gp, no items/no boons chronicle to a first-level character? (how many people like level 1 anyway?)
- Let GMs clearly mark "replay" on a chronicle which counts as a no-XP, no-PP, no-Gold/items/boons chronicle to a character for faction credit? (those things are a pain to fill up anyway)
- Add one-line GM boons to each chronicle that add something small but fun that increases with GM credit? Ex: "GM reward: check one box every time you GM this scenario. For every box checked, this character receives a +1 bonus on Knowledge: Engineering checks related to bridges."

Why am I twitching every time I start reading this post?

O.o

Will Pathfinder Academy have school friendly materials? I ask since I found out my old school has a D&D club and I'm hoping to donate them som Pathfinder stuff.

This is a pretty important question, and leads to another important question:

Will this program be available outside of conventions? Because if you think only conventions have the potential to attract a bunch of kids to a role playing game day, you are woefully mistaken and missing out on a big opportunity.

I.E., you should give local and store organizers access to the program, as well, or you will be under-serving this program's potential.

By the way: That's a bad-ass logo for Season 8. Can't wait for the t-shirt. (-:

Mitch Mutrux wrote:

Nosig, it's one thing if a table all agrees to play pregens, and something entirely different to show up with a pregen, sandbag and get yourself and possibly others killed, then just shrug and go "oh well, at least I'm playing a pregen."

I have seen that attitude more with play above level 5. It's one of the reasons I prefer lower level games... down where getting your PC killed is much more ... noticeable? tangible? I think I have heard "Well, that's what we get PP for..." and things like that much more than I've anything like "oh well, at least I'm playing a pregen."

"Death is only a condition. Deal with it and get on with the adventure."

Sadly, I actually think that is true. At higher levels death is barely a speed bump.

That doesn't mean, however, that I am okay with players who take an active role in causing my characters' deaths. That, to me, is the epitome of selfishness. I want nothing to do with it.

I can.. and will! Tackle the black dragon on the snout for each of his points...

I've read that you're really just a big teddy bear. I'll accept that tackle! Meaning: I will do nearly anything for GMs, as well. But putting them on a pedestal and lavishing rewards upon them that players will never be allowed to have is not conducive to "fair play." And whining about "fair play" is all that lavishing them with rewards will engender.

And yes, the "boon farming" immediately leapt to my mind as well. Not sure why I didn't point that out. Sometimes I have blinders on...