Philippe Lam's page

FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Venture-Agent, France—Paris 244 posts (249 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 43 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 244 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

1 person marked this as a favorite.

3pp and homebrew is what I don't want to appear in a standardized setup, on a casus belli level. If it should happen, it should be vetted by the leadership only, not by everyone.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MadScientistWorking wrote:
No. I'm not using hyperbole. I also know you are incapable of noticing because it's appears as a relatively common quirk. That and symptoms tend to be all over the place. At the table it was just severe short term memory loss. I never really asked beyond that because it was also really depressing because you aren't wrong. Especially, since its not the first time I've known people in PFS with the exact issue to the point where they needed help. The only difference as far as I could tell is the symptoms manifested in other ways.

As a player with disabilities, I find these comments patronising and bullish. Which does a disservice to the people the arguing is purportedly defending. Not being the only one saying this, and the previous one to get the same idea has been blatantly ignored in this posturing ?

Seems the word " compromises " starts to be an empty word. Thinking of being right first before engaging into a positive discussion is a wrong approach.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Everyone should start at the same level 0, so no, I would like but absolutely against the idea. Hard and clear transition is better than a muddy.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

The problem might be the players' expectations on what their actions should do. Sometimes, a scenario goes against these and it's better to just accept it rather than dwelling too much on it.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Well it is because you can't actually figure out what is wrong with the person looking at them. And at that point it does make you a jerk. That was my original point and why I told you you were rubbernecking. You can't tell when people are physically incapable of doing something. And its not really something that should be up to arbitrary whim which is why I said its exclusionary.

Hence the need of explanation. It is poor form to call someone a jerk for something they don't have a clear idea about, but trying to get the bottom of it. The problem is that the GM not verifying things are in order would be in the wrong.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Spoiler:
I wrote that knowing there's the pakalchis and Citizen Dread.

Might be in the wrong, but I'm merely supposing what a GM might do, and that would still be defendeable even with chain of command escalation. Now doing it can't be advocated.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

1 person marked this as a favorite.

More random character audits should be conducted ... and there was the case when I saw a player couldn't justify the crunches of his character under a minute. And I might discover more surprises down the road.

Protecting a group is fine, but that's not what a GM is supposed to do. It is also to make sure the players play within the rules of the game.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Spoiler:
There's also the possibility of breaking the walls enough to create a gap, but I'm supposing it probably wasn't the case as there's speaking about the courtyard.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Depends of the course of action of the party.

Spoiler:
If the escape was possible in one single round, better that than seeing the prisoners escape.

That case would allow the GM to modify the tactics of the monsters. But clearly if the first fight already have been solved, in all cases the GM should have written the reward from the first fight at least. If it didn't happen like what written in the spoiler, it's difficult to predict how the party would have fared in that fight and the last one (no guarantee of success so would depend on the VO's decision).

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

James Anderson wrote:

My players were not happy that doing the right thing and not-fighting the dragon got them a negative boon. I came up with a compromise. The dragon's orders were to bring back a scroll of teleport. Which costs 1125. The Grinning Pixie sells anything up to 2500. So before the scenario 'ended' I let them use their existing funds to buy the one scroll and finish their obligation without getting the boon.

Better than EACH of them having to cough up 1125.

In effect, what they think as the right thing might end up being the wrong thing. Their logic isn't bad, but not always adapted to that specific case. It is not inherently bad/evil to fight it, not being needed for the balance of the area nor I would miss a delusional individual, but that depends of the mood of the group. If only viewed on the lens of the Society's goals, it even might be better if the dragon is removed, incapacitated or pidgeonholed to surrender.

But I would take pains to help Nalu to get out.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Without clear instructions written in the scenario's text, that can go both ways. The GM is not bound to completely accomodate parties trying to go stealthy. It can go well as expected, or it can go ugly, inside the lion's den under disadvantageous conditions. And there will be little to complain about.

The Creative solutions part of the guide allows to bypass some of the hurdles and getting their coins, the GM is not bound to give everything in that case. It can be reasonably ruled that as some things have been completely skipped, these rewards being cut. The party accepts the overall gamble or doesn't.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Spoiler:
Depends on if the party can succeed on a DC40 Diplomacy, Bluff or Intimidate check. While there are circumstances allowing for bonuses, even then in 3-7, it's still hard to reach. There might also be penalties given by the GM because of the timeframe limit given in the scenario's text, and getting past it by even the slightest, worse if by a mile.

If you don't reach the DC, the party is arrested (or part of it if an invisibility has been dropped with Emilio Bucsa and at least one PC under.

I wouldn't be against creative solutions, but it would have to stay under that rather strict time. If not, it's directly harmful to the mission. The case explained by Matt2VK might already turn ugly during the 4-6 hours spent to scout. In the case someone managed to bluff but spent too much time inside and Irel coming back, I don't need to draw the picture.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

That's what I read, too. I can see the GM's logic, while it's lenient for the purposes of time limits, it's still fair. But I might have failed their mission instead if I was the said GM.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Sent them an email, no replies as of yet (I contacted them for Bonekeep 3). Waiting a little bit before going to the forums*

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

That's unfair, but that's not exactly what some players do ? Lots of players might not be happy, but as a Magic player, I can say I saw much worse like decks winning Turn 1 or 2, or combos piecing the opponent up in one round. I play something, I know the risk. This is a similar situation.

Players shouldn't expect to be always able to fight back. They should be ready to have to fight under more unfavourable conditions than they might stomach. I dislike that, but that's the randomness of playing PFS, other scenarios being much friendlier on that point.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

The Human Diversion wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
What will you do if Paizo has taken that consideration and decides to let the removal stand?
I've already taken the action of no longer playing PFS. I've also stopped purchasing Paizo products, and I am strongly encouraging everyone I meet and game with to do the same.

It might be great on a personal standpoint, but unless at least 50 percent + 1 customers of Paizo do the same thing, it's unlikely to have a lasting impact. Not a judgment, merely a possible consequence.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

There's already many ways to have free stuff to not adding this.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not every creative solution produces results. Depends of if it is realistic at that point of the game.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Being disallowed to buy stuff before a mission happens only when it is explicitely written in the scenario's text or if the setting makes it clear otherwise. At the end of the scenario, there's no time limit before the next scenario played so same thing.

I don't see the reasoning if this GM.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Seconded. There's already enough legal menageries that there's no need for even worse.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Picking up the fights I can win, and rejecting the ones when the cost is higher than the expected end result. Zero-sum game or no-win situation, but the idea is the same.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That spreaded to the online group's Discord channel, and I was one of these who had to intervene to make some users understand that mob rule is only hindering the situation when everything has already been said (Finding it irony when knowing my short temper).

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Some unfairness is still better than an overall anarchy the move might provoke. Especially when some Pathfinder agents are able to level entire countries by themselves and who are possibly the least concerned by these needs. The Ten are sometimes already superseded, and should an international organization be governed the same way as a local country ? Comparing with Nirmathas, and the difference is glaring.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Sending my swashbuckler trying to exfiltrate him out of Galt. But there will be quite the dirty laundry in private... I have yet to see if Tamrin Credence is any better.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

The last thing I want to see is the Society turning into a ragtag band of idealists, though. The fact the Shadow Lodge cares even less than the Decemvirate about collateral damage is what makes me unimpressed. At least Ambrus Valsin isn't being dishonest while sending the Pathfinders to dangerous missions. Grandmaster Torch do care about Pathfinders, but how many bystanders do he hurts in the process ? (cf Assault on Absalom)

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

He's certainly not encouraging any GM, even outside of an Organized Play, to do some kind of effort. That works both ways with the player also having to make some concessions, or I missed something ?

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

There's also the problem of having unreasonable expectations. *coughs*

Grand Lodge

That still theoritically falls under the last minute thing considering he size of the convention. It is not like the weekly event at the shop when it might be possible to organize Singles or couples would easily be prioritized over a group of 4, or the group might be asked to play separately off each other.

To get a GM available in that late notice is a low probability the same way. Some of the staff was probably a little optimistic about finding a table, but even when showing every day, expecting not to is more accurate than hoping to be able to play together. I would myself expecter the latter I warn, the latter I'm attended to in all cases.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

The spell has a more limited use because there is no way for the caster to force the corpse to tell the truth. NPCs having the useful info often have big will saves, and underlings are unlikely to have that info.

Nor the ability nor the spell comes often so don't expect a GM or a scenario to plan for this (even if the GM should improvise without too much difficulty)

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

I don't mind but I can gamble on her being set up as over-chatty by default, and some GMs not toning that down even if the scenario invites so if the players show disapproval.

I have seen worse, but some could even walk out and I won't blame these. The Wounded Wisp and The Consortium Compact don't have this "problem".

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

If it was the clergy of Abadar, as a GM I would shrug but that happens. There's a need for every alignement in a society. But while the general alignment of the organization is the same, Hellknights have some goals which are contrary to those of Milani.

I would be lax if the player takes steps to not display the symbol, even if they speak quite tactlessly. If they keep it on display even randomly then Hellknights would start with more misgivings due to the current fight of the Milani clergy against Abrogail Thrune II, and the organization deeming her the ("far") lesser of the two evils.

A -2 penalty sounds fair even if I think it should generally be ruled harsher.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Spoiler:
Order of the Cockatrice probably, one of the abilities being +1 to damage against the creature challenged every 4 cavalier levels and Dazzling Display as a bonus feat. So everything activated, it would amount to a +13 (tier 7-8) or +17 (tier 10-11) to damage on a successful hit as there's also the +1 damage per cavalier level.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

I'm fine with, as long it leads to no modifying behaviour from a NPC. It's probable that some players might attempt to grab a mechanical benefit out of it, and that is the problem.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Normally a first-time offense would only entail a warning as there's no point to get immediately too harsh. But free murder is on another level of infraction and warrants a higher level of sanction. If the alignment shift results in an evil alignment :

- The character pays an atonement, but there is grounds to insist on the 8PP version for major fault instead of just 2 for minor. Even then I would warn there won't be another chance and a similar later act will result in asking for permadeath.

- A report should be made up to the chain of command, so the Venture-Lieutenant or the Venture-Captain of your area. A meeting of several of them will be convened to decide of the case of yes or no. The player will be invited to defend the case. If unhappy with the result, an appeal might be lodged to the RVC (someone correct me if I'm wrong), and ultimately the Campaign Coordinator (there Tonya Woldridge), but then the decision is final.

Now I would monitor closely in a couple of games to see if the player might be inclined to repeat a similar thing. If not it's possible to take this as a frustrated one-off, but if repeated later, following the process as I said before.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Other hard mode scenarios. Given the season 10 would close PF1, it would be especially befitting a grand barnum

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrBear wrote:
Every time I come here to try to post something, I'm finding the needlessly hostile responses from the League Of Replay Prevention make it so difficult to try to participate in this discussion that I instead just close the window. I would be sad to see the argument lost in the back of caving to bullying.

One extreme fuels the other. As nobody will attempt to stop, it's bound to explode.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

It's not done during the process of a fight, but only outside of, out of frustration from the player. The lie and also the faulty reasoning.

Knowing the scenario, Sheschere clearly acted within reason. The player should defend his case good enough, or alignment shift.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

If it takes two sessions to complete the scenario, I'll take the time. But if the scenario could be reasonably finished within the timeframe of one session and the players not doing so, I'll skip some things if the players played properly, but if they suffered some delays due to their actions, nope I won't rush and accomodate them.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

- In a home game Milani could be reasonably taken, but not in an Organized Play. A GM could be entitled to refuse the player at the table until class change or deity change as the latter is expected to not ignore that. Given it's a class with divine powers, enforcing a 8 PP-sized atonement would hardly be blamed as harsh (and I don't add the alignment infraction, even with good intent).

- For the diplomacy checks, the Hellknight has a fair chance to recognize that kind of aura. Unfair as it is, for lots of them CG will be included in the same bag as the CEs and CNs. "Slap in the face." Talking could still succeed but much more difficult.

The attitude would probably be set up as hostile by default, so 25. Add next some charisma bonuses. In the case the opposite number is already hostile, I'd throw a situational +5 to the DC of the check, same thing with a set DC from a scenario's text.

The player also has to be careful on how to RP this, bonuses or penalties could be given for that too.

axemaiden wrote:
A check of 28 is probably going to succeed anyway.

So no it's not always probable success. Now most of the times as long the player doesn't chain errors like pearls, there won't be that many penalties.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Or more basically, his approach is detrimental to the cause he pretends to defend, but he clearly doesn't care.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Not pirate-themed, but maybe Hell's Rebels for the purposes of infamy ?

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

shalandar wrote:

It doesn't really matter at this point, and as has been pointed out...the people who are for reply (in any additional way) aren't going to change their mind and the people who are against replay (of any kind or changing the existing rules) aren't going to change their mind.

Each person is going to be influenced by their region's experience, players, and availability. To be honest? This thread should just be closed at this point. Personally, I'm putting it on block/hide....it serves nothing any longer other than to rile people up.

That's pretty much the point. I respect the opposite point of view despite disagreeing strongly, some have valid reasons and are moderate in their requests. But unluckily, others are intently spoiling it with unrealistic wishlists.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Harold Ervin wrote:
It's the year I stopped putting ranks in knowledge skills, even on knowledge-heavy classes. ...

I like hack'n'slashes myself, but I absolutely won't advocate this because what is PFS ?

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Burden of proof is on the one alleging allowing unlimited replays won't hurt, not on those who say that will cause problems, because there are already proofs of the latter. Thinking to have a right cause doesn't make it a right cause.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Some should ask themselves on why they're constantly opposed, instead ?

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Some will always protest, ask for more or etc, when it's better to grab what they can but not wasting more breath. Short and blunt, because I'm fed up to always hear the same protagonist(s).

Adventurer's League is bad because of the unlimited replay. But some are oblivious to the dangers of that, obviously.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is also bad form to be judgemental, to pidgeonhole or shame a player into being more versatile. That's the main motive behind my POV. I'm perfectly fine being an OTP as long I do the part during the session and not feeling bored nor frustrated. When being told how to play happens during a game, and it happened several times, it's disruptive.

Agree to disagree is the best to depict the situation given no one will budge off the stance. Big or small money, and I'm not condoning bad actions during a game.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

I don't see why being a one-trick-pony would be considered a F-word by that many people. That's a problem. Also the unhealthy urge to act when it's perfectly fine to sit back when it's not the character's expertise. If I think I can get some use of a secondary style, good but if a player tries to push me to, it's a casus belli.

There's a lot of different backgrounds there.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

I'd prefer doing nothing rather than hassling myself doing 1 or 2 damage having wasted some resources which would be better spent focusing on the main fighting style, or investing only if I'm sure the secondary will be meaningful.

Grand Lodge **** Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Infinite replay devalues the interest of playing a scenario.

EDIT : reply to the post below

Gary Bush wrote:

I think unlimited replays will make setting up tables harder for season 8, 9, and 10.

Why? Because I think players (and GMs) will want to cherry pick chronicles.

If it's the case, it would clearly be against the spirit of the game.

1 to 50 of 244 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>