Mark Stratton's page

The item’s language seems clear to me:

“At the end of any turn where the persistent damage can’t overcome this resistance, end that condition.”

It isn’t conditional on whether or not the damage could overcome the resistance, but whether or not it can’t. The GM rolled a 3 - the persistent damage could not overcome the resistance, and thus, the condition ends. Rolling less than the resistance would mean, at the end of that turn, it can’t overcome the resistance.

I believe that is the right call. Otherwise, the item is entirely worthless against any random die roll for persistent damage where the size (d4, d6, etc) is greater than the resistance. Under the second interpretation, a d8 persistent damage would always continue if the resistance is 8 or less, for example.

Ok it is 4:00PM on Friday and SNAFU is here. The main thing I was trying to get people to understand is that a 3 day time frame is not enough time to get anything together.

My point is the rules that we need to look even if they were on Nethys right away there is not enough time to be ready to use them. We need time to look over the rules implement them and then worry about enforcing them. The date should be in time for PaizoCon and not just 3 days.

I gave some time for things to happen, and yeah.

Respectfully, your point keeps changing, so I don’t know how anyone will be able to give you a satisfactory response.

Your first point, which included profanity and words in all capital letters, was that Paizo was forcing people to buy the remaster books. You were then corrected on your error.

Then your point was that the remaster rules should be an addition to the game, not the default for the game. More responses were made by some pretty knowledgeable people to try to help allay your concerns.

Now your point is that the rules aren’t currently available at AoN, which we know, and which they are working to get up to speed. And people have pointed out that all we can do is to do our best. Paizo isn’t going to show up at your table and tell you are doing it wrong, especially when full access to the rules online isn’t available yet.

So, I am having trouble trying to find a way to help address your concerns, because they keep shifting, and I honestly do not know which of these things is the most important to you and your group. People here are honestly and genuinely trying to help you. Please accept that help - it will end up with a better long-term result for you and your community.

The game you ran on Friday - what problems did you encounter without having the rules online? I presume you didn’t have the Remaster books because I think you made it clear none in your group were going to buy them, which is a fair and legitimate choice. So, not having the rules, what problems did you encounter in trying to run that game?

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Quote:

If a character option has not been reprinted, characters are free to use the option as previously printed, or to select it at any time.

The champion has not been reprinted, thus you can continue to use the original until it is. So those characters are still legal.

Not without the corresponding Required Alignments... with the loss of ALL Alignments, the characters can no longer meet the Alignment requirements.

If alignment as been removed from the game, how can there be alignment REQUIREMENTS? You’re trying to take part of remaster and part of 2e original and merge them together in a way that is just nonsensical.

As currently laid out, Champions all become illegal as of November 15th...

see above blog; Specific Rules; bullet #1 wrote:

Alignment: Alignment has been removed from the game. PCs and NPCs no longer have alignment.

This means that all Champions become illegal builds on the 15th, as they no longer meet the Alignment requirements.

Can we please get a fix for this issue?

No. Alignment has been removed, which means all alignment requirements have been removed as well. They are replaced by anathema and edicts.

I’m not against people having the option to rebuild, I was talking specifically about being able to rebuild a Runelord.

To use the remaster rebuild requires you to bring your character into conformity with the remaster rules. But, there are no remaster rules for Runelords, nor should there be - they are built specifically under the concept of schools of magic, prohibited schools, and the like, none of which exist in that context in remaster. So, there would be no way to rebuild your Runelord to be in conformity with the remaster rules.

I'm sorry but increasing the cost of organized play scenarios by 50% is absurd! Too many VOs have a tough time finding GMs already, and now you're going to penalize GMs more? I understand increasing the cost of physical products; that makes sense to me, but increasing the cost of a pdf which many buyers may only run once is a bad idea imo.

For a few years I've only GMed PFS at a local con once a year. I'd love to do it more and I'm actually learning how to GM PFS online but I if I have to drop $9 for a pdf every time I want to run a game, I'm going to have to reconsider.

If a convention gets support, then the GMs can get the scenarios for free.

Secondly, VOs can loan out the physical copy of any scenario they have for a GM to use. I’m. not thrilled about the cost going to $8.99, even though I get them all for free, but an individual GM may not actually have to pay the cost.

Anybody have an estimated run time for this? I finished prepping this and it looks like it will run very quickly.

My table took around 4 hours.

I just ran this today, and I had pretty much the same questions you all did. I’m glad to see some answers, but I just ruled stuff on the fly because that was my only alternative.

I will say that the maze riddle helped the characters at my table - it kept them from looking down when they had the chance to do so.

The large map is totally useless. There is no reason that even needs to be a map because it’s functionally all just theatre of the mind, EXCEPT perhaps for the one encounter that could end up in a fight (my table made friends of them, so it was a non issue.). I feel bad for people who bought the tiles for this just to have map that was pointless.

And, I’m just going to request that when authors put monsters in a scenario, that they pick ones that have actual art. Some of the monsters do not have art, which of course, makes creating pawns for them (I run in person so I use physical pawns) difficult.

But, all of that aside, the table was really enjoyable to run and my players had a GREAT time, particularly with reconnecting with NPCs they had met before.

I use Acrobat. I just use the “Fill and Sign” option and it allows me to add text then.

Many of the judges who used to come to Gen Con have moved to Gen Con Online.

Please note: 'all of Sagamore Ballroom' does not strike my memory as accurate. I remember it as 'all of Sagamore ballroom, shared with the D&D tables'.

No, “all of Sagamore Ballroom” is correct, at least for the last 8 or 9 years (edit: up until and including 2019).

This is all anecdotal, but I think the first year I GMed for PFS at Gen Con was 2014, and as I recall we had the entire Sag that year (I played the year before, and we were in a different, and much smaller, room.). But in 2014, I don’t recall sharing the space with any D&D tables.

By the way,I want to give a huge shout out to Phox (I think that’s his name). That dude did ALL the work - mustering, ran a TON of bounties with little time off in between, AND had to work on fixing RPGCHRONICLES when it suffered an attack.

He was a total rock star!

I volunteered for 8 slots - 7 at the Info Desk and 1 as a GM (I GMed the PFS special at tier 7-8).

PROS:
I got to meet a ton of new people, some interested in PF or SF, and some who were experiencing organized play for the first time. I seated lot of people for Bounties, and even ran one to help out the only Bounty GM we had for one slot.

I got to see a really good college friend I hadn’t seen in 25 years.

I got to reconnect with people I only ever see at Gen Con.

I got to watch two solid and exceptional volunteers get rewarded: VC Bill Tobin getting his Campaign Service Award and Gen Con Lead Organizer Heather Vigil be awarded the Order of the Wayfinder.

I watched Lucas Servideo’s Pathfinder Academy bring in a lot of kids to try out PF for the first time.

Organized Play is about people, and people playing games. I’m super stoked to have been a part of this phenomenal program once again!

Until next year!

Jack was one of those people who you may not know very well, but couldn’t wait until you saw them again. I only saw Jack at Gen Con, and during the one visit I made to MSP to GM for Skal Con. He was just a fun guy to be around. He was always kind to me and had asked me to come back to Skal Con (and, one day, I will return, if for no other reason than I think doing so in his memory would be a small way to thank him.)

I can’t imagine how those who knew him so well are handling this news - I wasn’t a close friend of Jack’s, and I know how empty this feels to me.

So, let his name be written on the Wall of Remembrance, and may Pharasma guide him to his richly deserved reward.

Godspeed, Jack.

It was recently implied to me by a PFS GM in good standing that I could claim GM credit for sanctioned adventure paths that I've run in the past even if they were OUTSIDE of the context of organized play. So now I'm posting this to confirm under what circumstances I am allowed to claim GM credit.

I've been running Extinction Curse for over two years for both friends and paying clients. We've covered a LOT of ground during that time, and if true, would be quite a boost for my PFS rewards. None of these games were held within the context of organized society play. That is, there were no sign in sheets, chronicles, or adherence to Society rules limitations.

Can I really claim GM credit for them? Could I have misunderstood said individual, or they were mistaken?

When you run those games outside of PFS rules, then you are running it in “Adventure Mode.” In that mode, you aren’t bound by the limitations of PFS - someone wants to play an Anadi? They can, and they don’t need a boon. You want to use Hero Point cards, or the critical hit or critical fumble decks? Go for it! (That’s what I do for the Abomination Vaults campaign I am running.)

Each AP has a Sanctioning document that tells you at which points you will earn a chronicle sheet, and any special rules that might apply to that AP. You can find the link to the sanctioning document (which also contains the chronicle sheet) in the item’s page on Paizo’s website.

The pawns are too low-res to print (not that I would -- that's not a very maintainable activity, especially in comparison to the preprinted ones that I already dearly miss getting new ones of!…

I couldn’t disagree with you more. Not only is the resolution just fine for printing, it’s also more economical for me to print them when I need more copies of a monster than come included with the physical price.

5. Having to buy the hardback version of information that has already been reprinted many times and is in some cases obsolete is just a step too far. Or rather, having to buy the pdf as well as the hardback is a step too far.

I mean, I love Kingmaker, but there is a limit.

And so, one does just what you have decided: you buy only what you want/need, and nothing further. I don't see why that's a problem.

Just to make sure I understand this - if I want to run this for PF2, the “bestiary” itself is included in the AP. There isn’t a separate one to purchase, correct?

And, if we could knock of the edition wars here, that’d be great.

Recently, all my Paizo PDFs (which I *did* purchase) are password locked and cannot be edited. This makes it impossible to do things like fill out a chronicle sheet or make notes prior to game time.

If I even try to PRINT these pdfs onto physical paper, it scatters the text into what looks like wingdings.

Is this new? Am I supposed to know the password for the pdf? Is there some other method of downloading editable (or at least printable) versions of these scenarios? Can we at least get a printable version of the handouts and chronicles? I'm having to screencap them and then print a *really* fuzzy version right now...

The password protection is not new. But, what I do in Acrobat is use the SIGN tool, and then SIGN YOURSELF. This will put box where you want it and you can type in it. It works the way the typewriter tool used to work. That’s how I do my chronicle sheets.

Occasionally, I do get the Wingdings thing when I print chronicle sheets. Sometimes, closing and then reopening the document fixes it.

I am sorry that you were disappointed. I am. It wasn’t the usual presence we are accustomed to, but there are number of factors. First, a lot of people still aren’t comfortable gathering with thousands of other people in such close proximity. Second, Gen Con Online certainly took a fair number of players and GMs, some of whom might otherwise have been in attendance in Indy. Third, as to the content of the special, no special appeals to everyone - I have played most of the specials, and this one was one of my favorites. YMMV. And, I am sure there are likely other factors, as well. If Paizo thought or knew attendance was going to be significantly lower, then they may have decided the financial expense of renting the entire Sagamore wasn’t justified - if you thought there were a lot of empty tables in the room as it was, imagine if we had been in the entire Sagamore.

On a more personal note, I volunteered roughly 48 hours at HQ to help out and to try and make sure people had a good experience. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m sorry that, as a volunteer, I failed in that attempt in regards to you.

BNW is right - it’s an unusual, single datapoint. I wouldn’t read too much into it. Hopefully next year things will be closer to normal.

I’m not big on VTT, but if Paizo produced high quality maps for use on VTT you better believe I’d buy them! Flip mats are fine, but scaling up maps in APs usually is frustrating for me.

Aaron Shanks wrote:

There are no more Bestiary or Alien Archive books planned. There will be new creatures. There are no plans for new pawns. Paizo is keeping the basics in stock for as long there’s enough demand.

EEK! I didn't know Paizo was doing that poorly. I thought Starfinder was being moderately successful.

I don’t know if it means Paizo is doing that poorly, or just those particular products. How many monster books do we need, after all?

So let me get this straight: you decided to keep stuff like NPC cards or Equipment/Bestiary cards and scrapped the pawns line...?

That's... silly, to say the least. You can get more uses from pawns than from cards. Pawns can be used in plethora of systems, not just Pathfinder. Cards are useless for someone who plays, let's say, Savage Worlds or 5e. I mean, I'm not into details of the sales of Paizo products so I don't know if that's more affordable, but common sense tells me, that more people are buying miniatures than some little spell cards boxes (correct me if I'm wrong).

Obviously the decision was already made, but it's extremely disappointing, as you were the lead in the affordable flat miniature market, offering enormous collection and now it's gone. Not a fan.

I am a GM and a player, and even as a player, I make use of the cards. My Druid can summon animals, so I grab the cards for the animals he can summon and ta-da - have the stat blocks in front of me without having to haul around an entire book.

So for me, the cards have tremendous value as a player.

PF Coop wrote:

I too am disappointed at the discontinuation of the AP Pawns.

However…there’s a solution if you have the PDF of the AP. there are programs that will extract all images from a PDF. You then take the images of the monsters you want and copy/paste them into a Word document. Print on card stock paper.

The only issue is to make them stand up. If you have access to a 3d printer or a friend who does, then it’s simple. Print a base.

If you don’t have access to a 3d printer, then do the old trick of printing two copies, cut one from the top down to the half-way mark, cut the other from the bottom up to the half-way mark and put them together.

I admit that the 3d printer option is better.

Another option that I found remarkably useful years ago when I was running APs that didn't have pawns at the time, is that you can use photoshop or Gimp to make a blank pawn template using one of the PDFs (just make a template for a page with each size, by filling the pawn outline with white. Then you can paste in monster/character art as needed and print them. What I did was make my pawn sheets like this, and then print them on sticker paper. Then use existing pawns I already had and put the stickers on them. Then you can still use the Paizo bases. And the glossy finish of the pawns make it easy to peal off the stickers and reuse later.

First, thanks for your helpful and constructive response - I appreciate it!

Second, I currently make my own pawns from the PDFs when I need extras of monsters in a set (PFS scenarios notoriously and frequently require more of a creature than come in a set of pawns.). I use 8 1/2 x 11 sheets of sticker paper, attach the to chipboard and cut them out. So, i can still do that - that’s why I asked if they could at least produce the .PDFs. I don’t always have time to go find art and create the actual pawn itself before printing them.

But, thanks again!

This year has not bounced back to in-person play as much as we had hoped.

The gamers in Indianapolis would like a word with you. :-D

I understand what you’re saying, Aaron, and on the issue of pre-pandemic pawn sales, I didn’t realize they were weak - that’s why I was perplexed at how many sets had been produced for 1e. My thought was that if the sales were poor, they wouldn’t have made as many sets as they had previously. But, I get it - companies don’t make products that don’t sell.]

We have no intention of sacrificing traditional play…

Thanks for explicitly saying this - that’s reassuring. I get that a lot of gaming has gone online and there will be players that won’t come back to a physical table. For those who will play in person (many of whom prefer to do so), there has to be something for them. That’s why I hope Paizo might decide to continue to at least produce .PDFs of the pawns, even if they don’t produce the physical product. But that’s also a time and cost vs. reward analysis, and maybe the reward isn’t there.

Thanks for clarifying - much appreciated!

As a Canadian, I'd like to point out that shipping a single AP book 2 hours north of Paizo costs $12.20, takes 7-11 days and isn't trackable. Yet to ship that same book to someone in Florida costs $4.29, takes 4-8 days, and is trackable.

For the record, whenever I order anything from Paizo, even though I get a tracking number, it is never trackable. The webpage always tells me that info isn’t available, and than at some point a couple of weeks later, it magically appears at my house. Now, I usually just use the basic shipping so maybe that isn’t supposed to be trackable (but if that’s the case, I don’t know what good providing me a tracking number does.)

I live in the continental U.S.

I am incredibly incensed that the pawns are being discontinued. For a GM who travels a lot to GM, and/or the GM who runs games at conventions, I found the pawns to be an easy-to-carry and more economical alternative to miniatures. I also liked the fact that, using the PDFs, I could make additional pawns of creatures when the physical product didn’t have enough of a certain creature.

So, now that these won’t be an option going forward, I’ll just go back to using my old set of Alea Tools to represent the monsters. Sure, it’s more immersion breaking, but at least I can afford it.

How did they produce 6 bestiaries worth of pawns for PF1, 3 for PF2, and all of the various APs and other special ones, and only now decide “yeah, there’s no market for this.”

I mean, I’m sure the business numbers support this decision, but I’m still irked. I wonder if it would be worth it to produce new ones that are .pdf only, and then people could just download and print them? I mean, I do that already for extra pawns, so that might be a more cost-effective solution.

At any rate, I’m just venting my disappointment.

And hence the whole freaking reason I asked for some official language to answer my question.

I mean, it’s almost as if people have totally forgotten that fact.

Brian, I checked my spam folder - there is no confirmation email there.

I haven’t checked but I will. I have never had a problem getting the confirmation emails from Paizo, but I’ll check - there is a fist time for everything!

3 hours or so later and the order is still pending.

Just an update: I logged into my account (without using Incognito) and was able to add the two items I want to buy and go through the whole purchase process. Now,it says it is pending and I haven’t gotten the confirmation email yet, but otherwise it seems like it worked okay.

Can we have a sequel or follow-up to this scenario? :)

Well, this is been discouraging. After setting up, preparing, and promoting the PFS event at the local game store, I've yet to host a table with more than 3 players. For our last session, not a single person showed up (I waited 45 minutes).

I'm left wondering if people aren't ready to game in-person yet, if they don't have interest in this system, or what other factors may be in play.
I'm so discouraged that I plan to finish out this month and then see what else I can do down the road.
Thanks everyone for the advice and assistance.

It is easy to become discouraged. I have started up Organized Play in a few stores. Some take off right away, some need sometime, and others never quite get there.

But if you can have a table with a regular group of 3 people, that’s a good starting point. Maybe one of them can bring a friend next time. Or maybe if the store owner is interested, they could sit and play - that’s what happened in my current store, and when players of other games saw him playing PF2, they started playing, too.

So, while it’s easy to become discouraged, don’t. It just takes some patience, a little word of mouth, and some luck.

1. Somehow, i have lost nearly 70 tables of credit for PFS 1. I am a 4-star PFS1 GM; it now only shows I have like 56 tables of credit and a 2-star GM rating. That’s wrong. I had between 110-120 tables for PFS 1. This error popped up just in the past few days.

2. I know people are supposed to get a bonus of 80 Achievement Points for PFS2 and SFS, but I appear not to have gotten mine yet. I posted about this elsewhere, but I wanted to make sure I posted in the website forum.

Thanks!

Best wishes, Jim! Here’s hoping for continued success for you and Paizo!

Best wishes to you, too, Jeff - hope the health issues improve!

At larger cons, the reports from VOs running the events certainly seem to indicate that a lot of new players are drawn to them yes. But even ignoring that, pregens in general aren't great for timed events, people may not know the characters abilities, not be sure what equipment they have, what their combat tactics look like, etc.

That’s all true, of course, but as one who coordinated a small-medium con (120 or so total tables over 3 days), the multi table specials attract new players at those cons, too.

But, while what you say is true, what’s the solution? Having what we do now (no high tier options, with plenty of lower tier stuff and pregens), or no lower tier stuff, but high tier stuff with higher level pregens.

I would argue that the first option is better - if the concern is that people may not know a pre-gen’s ability (which is a well-founded concern), that problem will be magnified at higher tiers. So, if I have to choose which set of tiers to exclude, I’d exclude the higher tiers (as we do now) - it at least allows new players to get a foot in the door without burdening them with the abilities of higher level characters.

And I know that means that higher level characters don’t get to play in those special, and thatis a negative, no question. But short of going back and adding those tiers like we used to have, I’m not sure there’s a better solution.

I’ve always preferred running low level games, generally because that’s where I get new player and get a chance to teach them the game. I considering myself something of a “teaching GM” and I have had a chance over the past few months to bring in new players as we roll out OP back in a store we were in before the pandemic.

Happy to have new players to teach the game to, and to have veteran players come back!

thaX wrote:

Saying nothing is an option, and that was something I was seriously considering before posting, though it is difficult to keep silent sometimes. I just see some of these situations and begin to wonder if I can keep playing the game without causing some offense to someone without knowing it.

Just a disappointing situation overall.

But everyone was annoyed at you for being transphobic. It's not like you weren't told you were being transphobic but you kept on digging a hole for yourself.

And I'm not calling for you to be banned. I'm not calling you a horrible person. All I'm saying is maybe just stop when people tell you are doing something hurtful.

Hold on - did ThaX say something transphobic? That’s how I’m reading your message but I think I missed something.

The overall situation is disappointing. I am just not sure what to post after that as (with everything else) anything I say or do could be that one thing that puts my own status on shaky ground..

Then perhaps it’s best to say nothing.

One of my (minor) pet peeves is that various bits of the game (APs, PFS scenarios, etc) basically allow nature checks to accomplish pretty much exactly what is covered by Animal Empathy (or the ability to speak with animals) via diplomacy.

Makes it very hard to decide HOW I should build my "wants to play nice with animals" character. Do I rely on Nature or do I also have to invest in Charisma and diplomacy? The answer varies, sometimes within the same AP (I was sometimes using diplomacy and sometimes using nature in different books of Extinction Curse with the same GM. Not sure if that was the AP or the GM changing his mind)

Interesting. Just looking up the rules, it seems clear (at least in the CRB) that if you want to change the attitude of an animal, then you Make an Impression (which is Diplomacy; the druid has Wild Empathy which allows them to use that on animals.) If you want to have the animal do something for you, you use Command an Animal (which is nature.) Those two seem to be distinct enough for me to be two different skills.

But, I haven't read or played either Age of Ashes or The Extinction Curse to know if it's that way in the AP, or something your GM did.

Make sure you run him through PFS2 3-16.

OMG. NOW I get the reference. HAH!

Make sure you run him through PFS2 3-16.

I don’t get the reference?

Castilliano wrote:

It seems there's a fundamental misunderstanding about how Spellstrike works; the Magus never recharges the "same" Spellstrike, they recharge their ability to do a new Spellstrike.

Example:
-Battle begins, Magus starts with the ability to do a Spellstrike.
-Magus does a Spellstrike. This involves casting & striking. Both the casting and striking are immediately resolved and have nothing to do with future Spellstrikes.
-Magus cannot perform another Spellstrike until they recharge.
-The Magus can recharge as noted (or via a 1+ action Conflux spell). This has zero effect on the upcoming Spellstrike other than to allow the Magus to make it.
-Magus makes another Spellstrike which requires casting another spell and making another Strike.
-Magus cannot perform another Spellstrike until they recharge.

Does that make sense?
Recharging only does one thing; remove the inability to perform another Spellstrike that's imposed on the Magus after Spellstriking.

Ugh. Now it seems rather stingy. That does explain why there's no time limit mentioned though. Thanks.

I am not sure why you think it’s stingy. The magus could, in theory, spellstrike every round.

Round 1. Do something (1 action) and spellstrike (2 actions)
Round 2. Recharge spellstrike (1 action) and spellstrike (2 actions)
Repeat what you did in round 2.

It won’t always be the most efficient thing for a magus to do (they might need to move or something), but they could, in theory, recharge and then spellstrike every round after the first.

The spellstrike is the bread-and-butter of the magus. It’s what they do. So, the fact they can use it frequently with a minor cost makes sense (to me, anyway.)

As a way of background, I served as a VL for Indianapolis for about a year, and then as VC for a total of about 4 1/2 years, give or take. I can say without equivocation that having a title along the lines of Venture-something is no license to violate the rules. The title doesn't give you a defense to act in bad faith or to behave badly.

In fact, Venture-Officers, generally speaking, are to be brand ambassadors for Organized Play. How VOs behave, in person and on these forms, directly impact the impressions people have the Organized Play program.

Now, it is easy to get heated on these boards, and to sometimes react hastily and harshly. I'm guilty of it myself, so I don't point the finger at anyone else. And, it might happen more than once, but repetitive violations can not, and should not, be tolerated.

Now, a kind forum goer (in response to my private message to them) told me who the former VO was. I'm really sad it has come to this. The former VO DID do a *ton* for Organized Play - he was my RVC when during part of my time as Venture-Captain. I like him personally. I have disagreed with him (on these boards, in person, and in other on-line venues.) I didn't know anything about this "enemies" list (I call it that because that's what others have called it, but I never saw it for myself.) And, though I consider him a friend, I cannot condone the act of reposting a list that was specifically deleted and one which, apparently, he was told not to do.

I think this whole thing is sad and unfortunate. I do. Others may find it to be neither. He was a great volunteer and organizationally, one of the best organizers I have seen in any organization. But, there's a code of conduct that we all are obliged to follow. And if it's true that he willfully violated that, I don't know else Paizo's response could have been.

To the original poster, I will say that it's probably best for you to let this go, especially if you consider him a friend and want to respect his work and volunteer time for Organized Play. Threads like this don't honor the good work he did - they focus on the present situation, which doesn't reflect well on him, I am sorry to say. And, it doesn't reflect well on you, either.

So, my advice is to let this go and, maybe one day down the road, things will change for the better.

So, let me see if I understand this (because I don’t have a clue what this screed is about):

Someone (a VO, it appears) was banned from Organized Play, and now we have a person who will violate that ban and allow him to play at his tables (and I’ll be charitable here in thinking he means his public tables -running private tables, he can do whatever he wants.)

The original poster is going to violate the ban by allowing a banned player to play.

And he thinks it was a good idea to come here and post “HEY, I AM GOING TO BREAK THE RULES AND I AM GOING TO TELL EVERYONE ABOUT IT!”

I don’t know who this guy is (the original poster) or the person who was banned, but this sort of thing is probably better sorted out privately. Public stuff like this gets ugly in a hurry, and usually doesn’t work out the way the original poster planned.

On another point, talking about the scenario layout.

While I really like the way the current scenarios are set up, where you get all of the statblocks in the back, and such, if this is a cause of a large amount of development time, I would be more than willing to forgo that part. I can make do with stat blocks for unique monsters and NPCs, and then handle the bestiary pulls myself.

Is it as convenient? Not really. Would I sacrifice this to get more content? Absolutely.

Given that GM’s don’t get the scenarios really until the last minute, I wouldn’t be in favor of removing any stat blocks. I mean, I suppose if removing the generic ones (the ones you could get from the Bestiary,etc.) meant that GMs could get the scenarios significantly earlier, that might be a reason to consider doing so. But I suspect the generic stat blocks probably aren’t the problem.

As to what tiers to offer, to me, offering the beginner range 1-2 doesn't make a lot of sense at the expenses of higher tiers. A walk in or new player don't have time to make a PC on the spot and can pick up a level 3 pregen just as easily as a level 1. Playing a level 3 will probably give them a better feel for the game and they'll have a little more fun because their PC can do more.

Though it’s not a substantially large number, your point excludes people who have already made a level 1 PFS character, but who have never played. So, there is a circle of players who show up ready to play, but have never played before. And working at the info desk for PFS/SFS at Gen Con, I can say we would get tons of questions from a number of gamers about how to make characters, and then they grab an empty table and start working on one.

So, yes, a walk-in player who shows up at game time won’t have time to make a character, true, but there are walk-ins and new players who already have made characters. So, I think that pool is a little wider than perhaps you may think.

And, I can only speak for myself - I don’t find anything intrinsically more fun about playing a level 3 character over a level 1 or level 2. But, my play style and yours may not be the same, which is totally cool. I’m just pointing out that not everyone finds fun in the same things.

I thought one of the big selling points for this not-quite-so-new system was that it better supported high level play?

So I would ask Why Not?

The game system supporting high-level play and the Organized Play model supporting high level play aren't the same thing. The game itself may handle high level play quite well.

If reducing the workload that goes into specials is a priority, then having fewer tiers makes sense.

If higher-level content is that much more demanding to create than low-level content, then it makes sense to restrict specials to 1-6, rather than 1-2, 7-8, and 9-10.

But I though one of the design goals of 2E was that it's easy to write a run high-level content. No more page-long statblocks, rocket tag, or one round of combat taking an hour.

And this adds to the ongoing problem of a lack of content for mid-level PCs.

I would guess that writing a standard scenario for levels 9-12 is probably a different, and perhaps easier, exercise than writing part of an interactive that includes levels 9-12 and having to fit that part with the other tiers. I don’t think the two things are the same.