GM Lamplighter's page

This concept is something I have wanted to see for a decade or more, so thanks Alex and everyone who worked on it.

I think the "intent" section is the most important to wordsmith, tbh.

Many people don't even read the whole Guide before GMing (sorry, Guide folks, but it's true). What matters is, what does a new GM get told by their organizer in the 30 seconds between arriving at their event table and starting a scenario designed for 5 hours in a 3-hour slot.

"You can fix errors and reskin things now" may be what the majority of (5-star, VO, highly-engaged) GMs posting here might already do and be able to handle. Giving that to a new GM without some limitations is not a good idea. So, we should make the 10-word version of the rule convey the intent without opening the barn door.

IANAL also, but "Community Use" doesn't apply to commercial publishers regardless of the cost of the product in question. Also, this isn't DriveThruRPG's first rodeo, so I don't think they are wrong.

So sad to hear this news. Met him at a PaizoCon dinner, such a kind guy. And the early days of the Paizo forums made me realize how much bigger gaming was than my table in my town, and connected so many people who built the Paizo community. He will be missed, but his influence remains.

Smurf.

What a line-up! Nice to see new and familiar faces returning. Welcome back Jason and Mike!

Right now, the OPF has two "members": Paizo's organized play programs (Pathfinder Society, Starfinder Society, and Adventure Card Society), and Evil Genius Games' new OP program.

In recent days, there has been an exodus of staff from the latter as well as freelancers cutting all ties with the company, based on "ethical" or "moral" differences between the individuals and the company.

This is not the place to talk about what those issues are, or who is right or wrong, since they are irrelevant to my point.

This condemnation of an OPF member company's ethical standards causes some concern, both for volunteers of the OPF but also given the OPF's new charitable status. It is extremely easy for concerns about ethics at a charity to cause prospective supporters to look elsewhere or to pull support. Left unchecked, it can even cause government to review said charity's status if the concerns continue.

I trust that the OPF board is already investigating the issue and looking at any actions they deem necessary based on this. That's also not what this thread is about.

My main question going forward is: what process is used to vet prospective members of OPF? That should be made public, so that people who play or volunteer for one OPF program know that the same charitable organization isn't also running an organized play program that they strenuously object to.

(I personally wouldn't support an OP program where the table rules allowed GMs to exclude players based on gender, say, or where all the scenarios were written by AI. Right now I don't know whether OPF programs would be allowed to do that or not.)

Clear standards about what OPF stands for would help everyone, and can serve to foster the kind of gaming environments the OPF wants to build. (Maybe it is out there somewhere, but right now the OPF website redirects to a Paizo OP page, and I couldn't find anything on it.)

---

Very cool! Love that crossbows got some remastering love as well.

Many (most?) Pathfinders went to school. What did we learn from the Three Masters, if not to use cold iron against fey and bludgeoning against skeletons and fire or acid against trolls? You would think that in a Pathfinder Society-based Organized Play campaign, there should be a way to track this. And there could be, at the expense of additional content creation from Paizo and additional paperwork for all players and GMs.

Would it be worth it, just so a player whose character has no knowledge skills can “know” things beyond the rules? No, it would not.

Sure, you should be able to remember stuff (maybe with an Int roll), but it can be hard in the heat of combat to be sure that you’re seeing skeletons and not another undead, or exactly what sort of troll it is. But we don’t model that level of detail in this game. We also don’t model what information you learn from scenario to scenario. We abstract it into a roll to Recall Knowledge, and you roll it every time to figure out what the monster is. It’s a simplification to facilitate game play, and with rotating GMs it’s a necessary one.

It works the way the rules say it works because it’s a game and those are the rules of the game. Any other path leads to madness.

@Eric: it sure feels like there should be, hey?

People who want to play Blood Lords with their regular group for PFS credit: please also keep in mind, most PFS games are not played that ways. A huge amount of PFS happens in places where the group changes and sign-ups can literally be anyone with a PFS number. If content is sanctioned, then it gets played in those circumstances much more than in your private home-game-at-a-public-location.

The issue of refusing to play if you won't get PFS credit is another matter. I know that people weigh "reward" differently, but for me, the reward happens at the table and not after. I accept that others may disagree, but try and think about the fun at the table before deciding to not play the AP.

I've done a lot of system conversions, and going from anything to PF1 is the hardest, because of the number of choices. It's pretty much redesign from scratch. Kasoh has some good suggestions on how to do it on the quick - I've run PF2 games in PF1 on the fly, just by grabbing a set of stats of the appropriate CR and using that as a baseline.

Guns work VERY different in PF1. I do not think the adventure will be balanced if just transliterated into PF1. PF1 gunslingers will just destroy everything, so I'm not even sure this one is very convertible at all.

Yeah, sorry KC, I wasn't saying that CS was deliberately doing anything badly! I'm a huge fan of Paizo's CS department since way back. I agree management and policies were preventing the right thing from being done, and it was exacerbated by decimating the CS department recently.

I guess my point is, if management has to be pushed into doing better, but "better" is really just "bare minimum expectations," then a lot more pushing needs to happen.

I am still concerned that there is a larger picture being played out here. Do we really believe that forum moderation policies or company policy suddenly changed for the better this week, despite this lackluster response from management? Or, was a problem created by those policies, allowed to fester, and then suddenly "solved" by the people in power to help offset the huge amount of recent bad PR?

I feel bad that I have become this cynical about motives. On the one hand, banning bigots from the forums is a very positive change, but it's really hard for me to give credit to directors for finally meeting the absolute bare minimum expectations of a community.

These tools were there all along and were withheld by someone in the chain of command. What has changed at Paizo to make sure that doesn't happen again?

"weird"

I think a better way to describe it is, "some people here are acting like they're being discriminated against, the same way that trans posters have been verbally assaulted." And that's baloney.

As others have pointed out, Reddit and 4Chan and whatever that new Trump social media platform is are all available options for people who don't like Paizo's policy, which was always there from the beginning: "Don't be a jerk."

Funky Badger, I think the pictures went from "pics" to "dick pics" in the retelling, and not necessarily in the initial allegations.

I find the final fight can go long when scaled up based on CP - I've made a mental note to find different ways to up the difficulty for future scenarios. Since it is the last encounter, GMs can always just narrate the end when they run short of time, if the final outcome is clear.

The tracks thing was probably a oversight on my part - my first draft was very sandbox-y, and I forgot to remove that reference when we added a bit more structure. The tracks do first lead to the Aspis camp, though, so they should still find the camp and encounter <redacted>. It would be a focused party indeed that would walk past an unguarded Aspis camp just to follow some tracks!

Being unapologetic about being a selfish person doesn’t make it somehow noble. Good for you, you care only about your own opinions. Then why post repeatedly looking for validation? All it does is cause people harm.

But then, you know that.

As usual, HMM has a gem of a post here. I think that we can all do a lot to recognize that differing opinions are common.

One thing that I know made a difference to me early on was attending PaizoCon, and actually meeting some of my early forum heroes and anti-heroes. It definitely showed me that the anonymity of the forum up to that point had affected they ways i saw other posters.

EDIT: I think that Paizo has to start dealing with recurrent bad actors, though... that kind of behaviour makes it harder to respect certain posters.

And it’s only the privileged who can talk about bigotry as an issue of academic analysis and logic. The people who have to live them don’t have that luxury.

The object has always been a phylactery for me and I don't feel a need to stop using it.

So, you’re saying you are fine to offend people at your tables rather than change?

A mere moment of research shows how many folks outside the hobby are just learning that one of their faith’s sacred items has been co-opted in this way, and they are *pissed* that it ever happened. The change is the only good part of the story for a lot of people.

The reason a lot of things don't get changed is that the majority don't realize it's an inappropriate use of the word. I love that Paizo is open to revising things when they realize the issue.

@Cori - I agree they can correlate people who were as proactive as you. I suspect, though, that some people cancelled and posted here without emailing. Again, cancelled subs are a very effective and direct method of getting a message across that you're unhappy.

My point is, resubscribing based on union recognition, but choosing to not buy new things until the other issues are taken care of, is not as clear of a message since they can't disentangle why sales for new products might be lower.

Who says/said that new products are not selling as well as old ones?

Read the post... people not choosing to buy new products out of protest would show up this way, without being able to correlate the lower number to a reason. Thus making it a less effective form of protest.

I understand those actions might seem like withholding or a protest or whatever to those doing it, but that's unlikely to be how Paizo will see it, because they don't correlate your sales history to your post history.

"People dropped, we recognized the union, people re-subbed" is pretty clear, even if it wasn't everyone who re-subbed.

Now, new products not selling as well as old ones? Is that due to this issue, or because the product isn't what the market wants right now, or a dozen other factors that could affect month-to-month sales data? It's much easier to ignore or shift the blame to something beyond the company's control, should they want to do that. It's as likely to affect the viability of future product lines as to be taken as a sign that the company still hasn't satisfied their forum fans.

Again, should they want to do that. I still hope to see some genuine change from upper management regarding the transphobia issue, the community management issues, and the privacy of company data.

I love watching edgelords have theoretical debates from the safety of their privilege without having to consider other people. It's really the best part of the forums right now.

[EDIT: Not related to the post above, but to exactly the posts you think it relates to.]

If people are re-subscribing because the union has been recognized, why would they do more?

No I meant would I have to join them or am I going to be stone walled from being hired?

Is that the only thing holding you back? or are you just trying to raise theoretical arguments against a union because there are no actual valid arguments against a union?

I suggest we move this discussion to a hot tub in Kaer Maga if that's where we're going...

Don't engage with bad-faith distractions.

Been delinquent on this, but there's still time...

As a scenario author as well as a GM and player I'm also watching this discussion carefully.

Someone made a good point about paying attention to the newer GMs and not only the most experienced, since that is a more common situation. Very good point.

The idea of specifying a DC to "Aid" is a really good point, and I'm making a note to do this a lot more in future, especially for those lower levels.

Much of the discussion has focused on the effect of crits, but I haven't seen a lot of mention of hero points. It's not just the one you start with, but new ones handed out, as well as ones from other players' boons (often with a bonus for their GM glyphs). At my last table, many players started with 3, and overall the table had more than 20 over the course of the game. It doesn't remove the effect of a high DC entirely, but it can mean that mid-level challenges become givens.

Personally, I'd love to talk to more GMs on their experiences with my own scenarios so I can learn from their experience, but it's pretty darn hard to do that on a comprehensive campaign-wide basis.

A good review is a useful tool for authors - but usually, reviews are either really good or really bad, and don't always separate out the scenario-specific data from other effects like, "Did the GM prep sufficiently?" or "Did I bring my high society character on a wilderness exploration adventure?".

(I do have to say, I wish people wouldn't state that Paizo is "not listening" to complaints, especially after Mike Kimmel stated he *was* listening right off the bat. People who have been around a long time should know better.)

Says it's all heading into layout, which is great news. I can't wait for this, Kingmaker has always been my favorite AP.

Corollary: I'm a fairly experienced gamer and a rabid Paizo supporter. Due to a variety of issues, I don't play PFS2 as often as I played PFS1. I can't afford the new hotness, and so I'm restricted to the same options I've had since Season 0 of PFS1. Do you think that encourages me to play more PFS2, or discourages me from bothering to play?

(Of course, this is a bad example - I'm gonna play everything because the stories in PFS2 are amazing. But I'm a story person, and so the different mechanics of PFS2 versus PFS1 don't really make much difference for me. That's not necessarily true for every experienced gamer, of course.)

EDIT: cleaned up grammar a bit.

This will sound weird coming from someone who is adamant that not every option should be PFS-legal, but I think the OP is correct: the prices are too high.

Imagine the experience of a new player that sits down at a PFS2 table (virtually, or hopefully in person again one day).

They sit down with their core-only character that they have lovingly crafted, selected from the same basic options that have been available to RPGers for decades. At the table are players with new character options, special powers, and game mechanics that aren't open to them.

"Just get that first character to level 8, which will take a minimum of 24 game sessions *if* you can play exactly the right tier of scenario every time, and you too can have a single* new option!" the GM says.

I think it is important to look at a broader representation of players, and not to assume that the experience of VOs and longtime PFS advocates to dominate the opinions.

* Yes, you can get things for less than that. But those are neat things, not new character options like ancestries.

This is an interesting thread. Of course, I only saw it after Sara Marie cleaned it up... thanks Sara Marie!

I think the biggest issue is that it's one thing to be a GM, and another to be a good service provider. The two aren't necessarily found in the same person by default. That's why I personally wouldn't pay to play with someone I didn't know already or at least admire by reputation. I have donated at several cons to play with "name" GMs and it has always been a great experience, but that's because I chose the GMs carefully. Not sure I would pay to play under a GM I didn't already know. (But see below.)

I've also had people pay to be at my table for scenarios I have written. The money goes to charity, so I wasn't the one getting paid, but I sure felt the pressure of a group that had paid for the experience I was responsible for. Prep takes on a new level, and this would be even moreso if it was content I didn't already know intimately.

I think it's a big uphill slog for someone to start something like this. Not impossible, but takes a lot of work and hustle and building a whole brand, not just hanging up a shingle and saying, "pay me to GM". You need to be on social media (not just the forums), showing people what you're like. You need to be creating and giving away content, so people get to "know" you and your style and feel comfortable paying for your games. Run free games at cons as promo, to get players and spread the word.

I also think pricing matters. If you're charging as much as a movie, you're competing with multi-million-dollar productions in an established business model. If you're charging less, it may not be worth your time, but it may be easier for people to take a chance on a relative unknown. There's a delicate balance, but it is always easier to raise prices later than to price yourself out of a very small market and get nowhere.

Good luck to the folks trying it.

They're like the Quests, except it's not assumed that you are a member of the Pathfinder Society, and so there's a whole lot of background that a new player doesn't need right off. Great for store demos and recruiting new players at cons.

Congrats Michael and James! Really excited to see the magic that comes from this.

I agree with Hmm... it seems almost all I hear is the complaints. Although, usually it's mechanical in nature. The one thing that hasn't changed between editions is lore. NPCs have carried on without seeming to notice that the rules have changed. (Although, how they managed to fool us into devaluing the currency they pay us with tenfold, I still don't understand!)

It's working for me, but I've played and GM'd it.

Although, they're often retroactively sanctioned (as in, if you played it already, you get the Chronicles when they're available).

If something is written in the scenario that contradicts a rule, go with the scenario version. I mean, the author/developer/Paizo staff could have just written a new rule, called it something else, and provided that same effect, right?

The spirit of the "table variation" is to not have different groups experience radically different adventures. The only way for that consistent approach across tables is to run the scenario as written.

EDIT: fixed my Canadian-ist spelling. :)

You can say that's what you're doing for your Craft roll to Earn Income during downtime.

I love these stories! ("Devil licker"... ha.)

EDIT: oh, yeah... HUZZAH!

So excited to get back to pre-Gap times for Wayfinder! I love me some Starfinder, too, but Golarion is home.

Working on a piece of fiction and some other bits... Tim, I'll PM you to see what you might need more of.

Starfinder Society rescue ship Lamplighter... nice! :D

This is fantastic news, thanks to everyone involved who made the sanctioning happen pre-release.

There are so many bits of additional lore hidden in this blog, as well... for example:
* kobolds clearly love the smell of cabbage;
* kobolds are morning people, since Drandle Dreng never schedules meetings during respectable hours;

What other speculative conclusions can we find hidden here?

So sad it has come to this.

I have no doubt that Paizo will give us amazing story lines without having to deal with things that are too close to reality for a large segment of the audience.

Thank you, folks, for an entertaining game. I'm sorry for the many delays, my real life got in the way too many times to keep this on track. Please find your Chronicles here.

The cost was paid by those who offered to pay for it.

J.R.R. Tolkien wrote:

Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger.

Subtle? I do not think that word means what you think it means...

OK, I will finish up Chronicles today. There was a 100gp "bill" for the destroyed merchant wagon that we decided we could discuss at this stage... how do you want to pay for it? A couple of people offered to pay, and one person offered to kill everyone so there were no witnesses. I'd prefer a monetary solution since it's a lot less paperwork. ;)

Turns out that the ring prevented the erinyes from attacking the wearer and all allies within 60 feet. So she was bluffing, she knew she couldn't hurt any of you. (While there might have been valid questions as to whether Natula considered any of you "allies", I decided that your Pathfinder bond counted regardless of intent. ;)

I'm starting to do Chronicles, but you still need to tell em what you report back to V-C Bracket. [/ooc]