Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 52 posts (1,569 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 36 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.
A big "Thank You"! To Paizo as a whole (for taking a step back, listening, considering, and adjusting course to the benefit of the
community as a whole), to Mark (for patiently engaging with the various feedback received), to a variety of community creators (around the world, for being both articulate and passionate)... and to the real unsung heroes, the lawyers (for doubtless working their butts off to make sure Paizo is protected *and* the Paizo Community can continue to create, collaboratively, for free.) :)
I wish to specifically say kudos to Paizo for reinstating the CUP while also maintaining the FUP for those who do want to engage with the monetization channels that this opened up. Some companies, naming no names, would have taken their proverbial ball and gone home. Paizo instead stepped up in the right way.
Hopefully, some positive process changes can take place on the communication side of things in future, so there is less stress for all in future. (I expect the discussion would have been less stressful for all if there was time to provide feedback prior to the CUP being revoked). Regardless - I'm glad Paizo graciously changed course, and I think it speaks well of their intentions and (more importantly) their actions.
Since our licensing update on July 22nd, we’ve been listening to your feedback on the potential impact of these licenses on community tools and websites. Paizo is grateful to these creators and spaces for the immense value they add to our brand and player community. We are committed to adding options to ensure that a range of community projects are protected by the license.
With Gen Con on the horizon, we can’t offer an immediate solution, but we are working to reach one that is both sustainable for Paizo and supports the community we love. As always, thank you for your feedback—we hear you and are working to address your concerns as swiftly as possible.
Thank you for the speedy reply to the community, and for considering some tweaks. A "Remaster" of the FUP, if you will. I'm optimistic that the results will be positive for the community, and look forward to reading about such changes after GenCon.
I still don't see why the former permissions of the CUP need to be scrapped for the expanded monetization options in FUP to exist?
As a community member, I feel it would be reasonable for Paizo to use the FUP to differentiate between truly free community projects and fan projects that have a non-zero degree of monetization.
If someone's project is truly free, and respects the terms of the old CUP, why has it now become a problem for Paizo? (Other than, say, existing as a potential alternative to some paid offering that a prospective licensee might wish to charge community members for)?
If someone's project is tied to some form of monetization, e.g. Patreon or subscription based features, ads on a website, pushes to donate beyond a coffee-service link on an about-us page, etc), then the new FUP seems more reasonable. Increased options to permit explicit monetization in connection with Paizo's IP, but also increased restrictions and rules to benefit Paizo.
I wonder whether confirming/enforcing a "free means free" rule for the CUP (or equivalent provision folded into a Remastered FUP) would meet Paizo's needs / interests, while also not starting down an [insert egregiously corporate example here] road of trying to stamp out truly free community fan projects?
--
Edited above to recognize that a paid option might well be 'better' than its free alternatives, but that this doesn't detract from the value that the free alternative provides to the community.
0) I am not an attorney, I'm just a meeple on the internet with unsubstantiated opinions.
1) Paizo (like WotC) can decide how to manage its own business.
2) Licensing changes are business decisions, and most North American businesses are not required to consult with external stakeholders about business decisions, regardless of impact.
3) It is not typical for businesses to consult with "the community" about its policies and procedures, around IP or otherwise.
4) From what I understand from watching videos on the internet, American IP law is not community-friendly and often incentivizes non-co-operative practices by companies.
5) It seems like companies can have strict IP policies in place while also not taking action against all sorts of free fan projects. See: the Star Trek fan space.
6) It seems reasonable to expect significant restrictions attached to Pathfinder Infinite, since this is both a monetized option and is a "walled garden" tied closely to Paizo's branding.
I'll follow with presuming some good intentions.
1) Paizo needs to be able distance itself from the OGL, and to do so with certainty and clarity. I expect Paizo wants to be certain that it will avoid any reasonable possibility of being dragged into future litigation. If WotC tries to sue some other creator into the ground over some future Starfinder 1.0 or Pathfinder 1.0 project, Paizo likely doesn't want the expense of being even briefly involved.
2) The current timing might be a result of Paizo + lawyers working hard through a long list of de-OGL-ification issues, and getting expanded monetization rules done in time for Gen Con.
3) Paizo has historically demonstrated an interest in supporting a variety of community and independent endeavours, and one stated intention of the FUP is to offer new ways for entities other than Paizo to make money using Paizo's IP assets.
I'll offer some positive thoughts and hopes for Paizo's new FUP.
1) Paizo making more money is good, for the staff and freelancers of Paizo and for the longevity of Pathfinder/Starfinder!
2) Creators and entertainers having more ways to make money from creations that build upon or engage with Paizo's own creative efforts is also good!
3) I will wait on a firm opinion until folks with skin-in-the-game and/or experience have had time to review and offer longer form comments about the details (that's where non-OGL-devils lurk), but it seems at first impression that Paizo is offering up more ways for other people to make money using Paizo's IP without having to give Paizo a cut or otherwise deal with negotiations and business 'stuff'. If so... that's amazing!
4) Increasing Paizo's presence in the actual play / entertainment stream / podcast space would enhance the visibility (and hopefully growth) of Paizo games, while offering more fun entertainment options for interested patrons.
5) Announcing this policy before GenCon enables creators and Paizo to go to GenCon primed to talk about these policy changes, and collaborate at a giant RPG community networking function.
As noted by other commenters above, however, Paizo's non-replication of certain CUP options under the FUP and Paizo's abrupt termination of the CUP have combined to create some very negative impacts and feelings. This fallout seems largest for those of us who do *not* want to make money using Paizo's IP, and for those of us who might want to continue to support Paizo's older games. (The "modding community", if you will.)
1) Any change that disallows creators from creating and distributing *free* fan-made creations are harmful to the community. The net benefit to Paizo and to creators and entertainers looking to earn income from their works might outweigh the downsides to such changes, and/or such changes might be a necessary evil (from Paizo's perspective) based on other factors. Still, a smaller scope of permitted free creative uses of Paizo's world is a clear loss for the community.
2) The contrast between "hey, lets consult and get feedback from relevant communities to make ORC the best it can be" and "stop creating *free* products using our IP in previously allowable ways, effective immediately" is quite jarring.
3) The immediate removal of the CUP --in the absence of any visible need for its immediate removal-- feels uncomfortably similar to WotC's recent "move fast and the turmoil will pass" approach to change management.
4) There is a segment of the RPG community that still enjoys PF 1.0, and prefers its mechanics and style of play to PF 2.0. It is conceivable that a similar segment of the Starfinder community might prefer SF 1.0 to SF 2.0. Players who appreciate the new Paizo world-building content but who are not fans of Paizo's new game mechanics might prefer to avail of free (or paid, if possible) resources to continue playing Starfinder / Pathfinder, rather than buying into Paizo's new game systems... and that seems like a threat that Paizo would rather avoid.
5) Given the financial incentives at play, it feels very much like Paizo wants to quietly kill off third party supports for SF 1.0 (and PF 1.0) rather than facilitate or allow the PF 1.0 and SFS 1.0 communities to continue to develop free resources to extend the lifespan of their preferred Paizo gaming products.
6) Given the concerns expressed by posters above about the FUP's new restrictions on developing and distributing free tools to support Pathfinder and Starfinder, it feels like Paizo may be trying to create perceived value to potential (or current) paying licensees by adding barriers to the development of fully integrated/effective free alternatives. This seems detrimental to the community, both in terms of the loss of free tools (or the loss of capabilities or clarity available through those free tools), but equally in the loss of competition / pressure on various paying licensees to create better tools that are worth paying for.
I remember a different company playing games with licenses not so long ago and being declared The Bad Guy.
You don't make more restrictions and get to be The Good Guy.
I think it i a bit "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation.
Doing nothing would meant that they still had entablements with the OGL and where still somewhat dependent on WotC goodwill. **In the long term** this would be a very bad descission as WotC (or better Hasbro) has shown that they don't really respect the customers.
Paizo has allways been more open with their licences and the fact that AoN exists - and as Mark has posted is in now way affected - shows that they continue that way.
Yes, it will be bumpy **for a few month** for sure, but this not so good decisssion seems to be better then the alternative. [Emphases added by Redgar]
That's definitely one take. To me, announcing big changes with 5 weeks notice (and one week before the biggest North American convention) seems worse than the clear alternative. That alternative being Paizo announcing the sunsetting of the CUP with a few months lead time, to provide for community feedback and recalibration/adjustment by all parties... .
I agree that these (or similar) changes seem to be needed *in the long term*. Any such changes would likely be bumpy *for a few months*. Paizo decided to implement these changes on a 5 week timeline - a stark contrast to the *long term* need and timeframe for community adjustment.
The ratio of people who bounce off of PF2 because of its rules is incredibly lower than the ratio who bounced off of SF1 because of its rules. All your subjective complaints about PF2 pale in the face of this inexorable truth.
Got stats to back that up?
Our local group quite likes and regularly plays Starfinder.
Pathfinder 2 still causes us more frustration than fun.
We are working on pushing through playing PF2 scenarios, but presently we've had no-one bounce off SF and a few people bounce off PF2.
The possibilities of polishing some spiky bits on SF 1 rules still leave me optimistic about SF 2.
The basics of either system seem equally easy/difficult for a brand new RPG player to learn. Both have quirks to make the "game" (or the "math") work. Many other posters in the thread have already flagged aspects of PF 2e that don't seem like an upgrade (to them) to base SF.
While I continue to be mildly disappointed by Paizo's unwillingness to provide PDFs to those who prefer to support their friendly local gaming stores, these humble bundles provide a great opportunity to support charities while acquiring virtual maps (and searchable books) to complement my physical collection. So, a net win-win. :)
(And for those who eschew dead-tree versions: these bundles are a must purchase, in my opinion!)
Thank you, Mark! (And the rest of the awesome Paizo team)!
While I have physical copies of most of the currently available titles, I'm very pleased to see them reoffered in a sustainable way, and look forward to the selection of titles hopefully growing over time.
Just wanted to pop back in to say a big THANK YOU to The Powers That Be that changed "Fame" to "Reputation" in the Instructor boon in the Season 4 Guild Guide.
The Shirren Named Ed, and the Hatching-in-Training, appreciate your community-mindedness! :)
After several awkward minutes of fiddling with her gear use playmat discard Fortified Breastplate* to redraw... Lightning Bolt, Mother Myrtle sighs.
Well, I guess there's nothin' else for it. It's been many a year I've dreaded this reunion, but there's but one place left and time's a wastin'!
Move to Torture Pit
Barracuda Aiger
*So, you've finally come back have you?* sneered the Captain.
Time to finish what you started replied Mother Myrtle.
*You don't look ready to me, Belinda...* scoffed her foe.
With a smooth motion, Mother Myrtle doffs her cloak to reveal sharp but nimble attire, fashionable several decades prior. Recharge Steel Ibis Lamellar ...*Impressive*. Barracuda steps down into the sunken floor at the centre of the room to take position opposite Mother Myrtle.
You may have bested me once before, Baraccuda, but I've learned a thing or two in forty years...play BotE... 1d4 ⇒ 1 hour discards *Clong* A clock sonorously strikes the hour as two old foes face off for one last dance...
Dex DC 71d4 + 1d4 + 1d6 ⇒ (1) + (2) + (5) = 8
Despite aging bones and aching muscles, Mother Myrtle recalls her training many, many years ago by a rigorous and athletic halfling dance instructor... Stealing Flenta's BoNethys
Charisma DC 121d6 + 1d6 ⇒ (6) + (4) = 10
The crowd around the railing begins to murmer: despite an impressive display of footwork for one so old, it seems MM's energy is flagging.
recharge Stained Glass Elemental for +6
But wait, look at those shadows! What is this?! As the music's tempo continues to accellerate, the newcomer begins to whirl and jive and trot so quickly, there are almost two of her. The shadows pair off and begin to waltz around the flummoxed Barracuda, while the light sparkles off what must be hidden sequins in Mother Myrtle's attire.
The two performers each strike a concluding pose as the music ends, and the crowd erupts into thunderous applause towards Mother Myrtle.
8+1[
Barracuda Aiger smiles wryly: *Seems I owe you that drink, after all.*
Before Mother Myrtle can reply, she feels her adrenaline start to fade and her aching bones begin to assert themselves again... AYA Discard: remaining hand
Aye, and don't you forget it! I'll be back to collect one day...
With as much grace as she can muster, Mother Myrtle sweeps out of the bar, leaving her former beau standing on the floor once more.
Discard: Baraccuda Aiger. Redraw: entire hand
Ouch! The "Torture Pit" is aptly named... I think my feet won't be the same for weeks!
EoT: Fort DC 10 1d8 + 1 ⇒ (2) + 1 = 3 burying: BotE 2
End of Turn Summary:
Ally 5 (Barracuda Aiger) acquired!
*1 Blessing discarded from Hour Deck*
**Stole Flenta's BoNethys**
Mother Myrtle wrote:
Hand: Tinker, Crystalline Carnivore, Enervation, Control Weather*, Potion of Heroism, Bottled Lightning, Acid Flask, Mirror Image,
Displayed: Deck: 8 Discard: 8 Buried: 3
Notes: Local: Feel free to use my +2d4 vs. An/Acq/Plant/Vermin, or +1d4 to Wis. Global: Enervation (-2d4 DC to combat)
Sideboard cards: Reroll: Not Used
Skills and Powers:
SKILLS
Strength d4 [ ]+1
Dexterity d4 [ ] +1 [ ]+2
Constitution d8 [ ] +1 [ ] +2
Fortitude: Constitution +1
Intelligence d8 [x] +1 [ ] +2 [ ] +3
Knowledge: Intelligence +2
Wisdom d12 [x] +1 [x] +2 [x] +3 [x] +4
Craft: Wisdom +2
Survival: Wisdom +2
Charisma d6 [ ] +1 [ ] +2 [ ] +3
Favored Card: Spell
Hand Size 6 [x] 7 [x] 8
Proficient with: Light Armours
Powers: (Reanimator)
You may use your Wisdom skill ([ ] +1d4) for your Arcane ([x] or Divine) check
When you attempt to recover an Alchemical or Liquid boon, you may instead attempt a Knowledge check
with a difficulty of 7 ([ ] 5) plus the card's level. If you succeed, recharge it ([ ] or shuffle it into your deck); if you fail, discard it.
[x] You may recharge a card to add 1d4 to a Wisdom check by a character at your location ([x] or to add 2d4 to his check against a card that has the Animal, Aquatic, Plant, or Vermin trait) ([ ] or the Outsider or Undead trait).
[ ] When a character at your location defeats a monster, you may draw an ally ([ ] or a spell or an item) from your discard pile ([ ] or deck, then shuffle your deck).
Jared: Thank you! Wrote a big ol' post only to find you are already on all of the improvements to the OPG site I was going to support!
Trimming my post down to:
I want to suggest to the Paizo webmaster-powers-that-be that there ought to be a speedy update to the Pathfinder Society landing page, https://paizo.com/pathfinderSociety, to reflect:
"Get Started with Pathfinder Second Edition (2e)!
[Something like] We're putting the finishing touches on brand new guides to the Pathfinder Society for Pathfinder Second Edition! The Roleplaying Guild Guide for Pathfinder 2e is now hosted:
[link to the PFS 2.0 Guild Guide]"
above the existing "Getting Started" section,
Then change the "Getting Started" to read: "Getting Started with Pathfinder First Edition (1e)"
And the link to "Roleplaying Guild Guide" to read "Roleplaying Guild Guide - Pathfinder First Edition"?
so new players can be quickly and correctly directed to the right spot?
Usual Loot usage; Lem heads to Sunburst Market this time to trade Scrying for Elemental Treaty.
Lem will start at the Sulpher Pits (missed that Grazzle was starting at the Towering Obalisk)
Lem wrote:
Hand: Blessing of Maat (L), Deathbane Light Crossbow +1, Apprentice, Blessing of Gozreh, Blessing of Nethys, Restorative Touch, Lightning Bolt,
Displayed: Deck: 13 Discard: 0 Buried: 0
Notes: Have: Please feel free to use blessings and heals! :)
Sideboard cards:
Skills and Powers:
SKILLS
Strength d4 [ ]+1 [ ]+2
Dexterity d8 [x] +1 [ ]+2 [ ]+3
Constitution d6 [ ] +1 [ ] +2
Intelligence d6 [ ] +1 [ ] +2 [ ] +3
Knowledge: Intelligence +2
Wisdom d6 [ ] +1 [ ]
Charisma d12 [x] +1 [x] +2 [x] +3 [x] +4 Arcane: Charisma +2 Diplomacy: Charisma +2 Divine: Charisma +2
Favored Card: Spell
Hand Size 6 [x]7 [ ]8
Proficient with: None
Powers:
At the start of your turn ([X] and after you reset your hand), you may discard 1 spell then add 1 spell from your discard pile to your hand
You may recharge a card to add 1d4 ([x]+1) ([ ]+2) ([ ]+3) to a check by another character at your location. If the recharged card has the Healing trait, recharge a random card from your discard pile.
[ ] Add 2 ([ ] 4) to your check to recharge ([ ] or acquire) a spell that has the Arcane trait.
[x] When you play a blessing on a non-combat Intelligence or Charisma check, you may add a d12 in place of the normal die.
[ ] You may recharge a spell that has the Arcane trait to draw a card.
[ ] When you would recharge a card, you may shuffle it into your deck instead.
@ Big Norse Wolf: aren't GM star replays 10/year max? 5 for Stars, and 5 for Star Refresh?
Not quite enough for also playing a monthly campaign all year, I grant you...
...but in my experience, I have yet to play in a monthly campaign that had no missed months.
While I'm not on the 2e hype train just yet, and locally most GMs I know plan on running PF 1.0 and SFS, I'm pleased by the option to spend PF 2.0 AcP on PF 1.0 replay. It's a nice option for those who might use it; it can be safely ignored by those who don't.
(General question: there's a limited pool of 1e PFS Scenarios. That is set in stone. How much replay credit does any player need, considering any given non-evergreen can only be replayed once anyway, and high use PFSers have had several years of replay available already?
How many times to people really want to play the same scenario(s) over and over and over again... in a formal "campaign mode"?)
Edit: The main reason I try to hoard replay options is to get certain scenarios to the table again / play through with particular friends where I think we'd have fun. It sounds like the "one-and-done" credit dump is designed to enable that, if you have a friend who is new to PFS.
For what it is worth, the last couple of days there have been players eager for PF-01 online GM Pick Up Games. (On the Discord, pfschat.com, for games played on Roll20). I think there will be a demand for scenarios to be run.
Chalk me up as someone who is very excited by the core set and by the redesign! Thank you for these design blogs.
Aesthetically, I have some comments.
While I wasn't originally thrilled with art moving to a portrait window rather than being 'front and centre', I confess this design is growing on me. (Especially with confirmation that art space is not decreasing). It's a bit like a portal into Golarion, separating the art/action from the mechanical game text around the image. Plus, who wouldn't want a framed portrait of Chompy on their wall? :)
I am ambivalent about the change in location for traits. I think I see how either the 'checks to acquire' or 'traits' needed to move. I think it would be more intuitive as someone who currently plays the game to see traits top left under the title, with the check to acquire under the art, but this may provide insufficient space for longer checks to defeat on banes.
I believe another forumite noted how this change will likely obscure traits when cards are held in hand (perhaps an unfortunate missed opportunity to enable more easy "scanning" of cards held in hand, if all game text had been placed on the left side), but I note that the design shown doesn't seem *less* convenient that the current design (with game-text across the bottom of cards). Further, though it might be awkward to hold cards in hand like this, I note one can now stack cards vertically on top of each-other and still see their effects.
I am, however, wholly underwhelmed by the new swirly backgrounds on the cards. I feel this significantly detracts from a clean, crisp, streamlined design for game mechanics, along with taking focus away from the lovely artwork on the cards.
Frankly, I find the background 'busy' and distracting. While I appreciate how background elements/templating can subtly help with quick card type recognition, I note that the different coloured borders already go a long way to achieving this effect. Frankly, I think the card borders/type would stand out more with a plain white background... though I'd be interested to see a comparison shot/mock-up for clarity.
This rubicon may have been crossed, but if not, I would strongly urge you to consider ditching the kitschy backgrounds.
Thanks for all your hard work in getting us new ACG, and I look forward to trying out new adventures in May!
Looking at this in hindsight, just wanted to say a big *thank you* to the initial posters who flagged their concerns here with Ninja Division. I was seriously contemplating backing, until I was prompted to do a little due diligence by CorallineAlgae and Ventor, among others. I appreciate your positive contribution to my hobby wallet!
@ Paizo, I hope this whole ordeal hasn't dampened enthusiasm among other potential partners for bringing Starfinder minis to the masses. The Pawns are great, of course... but I wants to paint some Shirren, gosh darnit! :)
@ any veteran PFSers with piles o' GM boons, etc, for PFS 1.0:
Don't think you'll get value for your trade-in at the PFS 2.0 table? Then come on down to Honest Redgar's Used Boon Emporium! No sp, gp, pp, or ep will change hands, we favour the good ol' fashioned barter system. Who knows what wonders might be found in our vaults that could form a bargain to satisfy Abadar himself!
Who knows, Grandmaster Torch might even make you an offer you can't refuse!
(Offer not valid where prohibited by law, scripture, or Dragon. Your mileage, much like that of our inventory, may vary.)
For what it may be worth, I think Option 1 is preferable. Reasonable replay that would enable:
a) experienced players to continue to meet monthly to (re)play some PFS 1.0 scenarios together; and,
b) experienced players to gain some credit (and thereby incentivize participation / full tables / fun times) when they tag along to support new groups/players playing through PFS 1.0 content for the first time.
Small lodges, like ours here in Halifax/Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, benefit greatly from the enthusiasm, engagement, and knowledge of veteran PFSers. There are some great PFS 1.0 stories to be told to new players who want to play PFS 1.0, and option 1 helps new players experience that content (if, as is usually the case in my experience, there are 1-2 brand new players in the hopper, and a motley crew of veterans with different play experiences for whom sometimes new-to-them content can be scheduled, but who sometimes find themselves filling out a table for a scenario they have already played).
Plus, it would be a nice gesture to providing at least a minimum of "Legacy" support to the system many veterans have expended significant piles of gp and years of their lives investing in. Helps offset the great devaluation to come with the advent of PFS 2.0. ;)
(Tongue in cheek reference to the GP = SP change in the new system, and an acknowledgement of the real financial cost that Paizo will be asking new players to bear when they switch to 2.0. Coming from the CCG/LCG world, the current play value of 'legacy' products influences perception of the longevity/value of today and tomorrow's 'new' products, at least in my experience... .)
Radillo will take the Knock spell, replacing Lightning Touch 2 (box) and Eyepatch (buried).
Edit: sorry, I failed to specify. I'll start at the Hot Springs.
Starting hand:
Radillo wrote:
Hand: Acid Arrow, Force Missile 1, Force Missile 2, Guard, Codex, Blessing of the Gods 2,
Displayed: Deck: 8 Discard: 0 Buried: 1
Notes: Please feel free to use Blessings, if needed for closing, to avoid a hairy situation, or to acquire cool (AD 1+) loot!
Sideboard cards:
Favored Card: Spell or Ally
Hand Size 6
Proficient with: None
Powers:
After you play a spell that has the Arcane trait, you may examine the bottom card of your deck; if it is a spell ([ ] or an ally), you may put it on top of your deck ([x] or add it to your hand)
When you attempt to acquire an ally, you may use your Arcane skill in place of any listed skill.
You automatically succeed at your check to recharge ([ ] or acquire) a boon that has the Mental trait.
Greetings! I been done messed up, and signed myself up for a scenario I'd already played many, many moons ago in Standard:
3-18 The Gods Market Gamble.
I'm taking the unsolicited liberty of posting here, to hopefully connect an interested player with a table which now has a space, thanks to my fuzzy-headedness
There are a couple of variant decks that tone down / expand the range of possible 'encounters'. While the high-stakes nature of the original can be fun, I think the stakes of (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/artifacts/minor-artifacts/deck-of-many -things-harrow/), for example, can be just as fun and a little less game-destroying... .
(Experiential Data-Point: my GM (who is great with narrative) just used one for/on us. I recommend, heartily! It was less game-warping (and less soulcrushing) than the original deck... although our gnome ended up with a Ring of "Get out of Consequences Free* x 3", which helped smooth out the results a little.)
What's the difference between "paladin falls" and "dex monk/Bonded Witch/Cha 11 android psychic/etc falls"? Am I not allowed to have fun making and playing these builds because a GM feels like it?
Hardly! Unless you are playing a specific module/AP (and, thankfully, even then the GM can deviate from the printed rules to provide a different start to the campaign), nothing requires ALL play-groups / GMs to periodically knock people unconscious / separate them from their loots.
I don't see anything that obliges the GM and other players, however, to modify their play style to suit your preferences if you are not a member of this group/campaign.
I've had players that I've politely not invited to particular games I've run because their play style didn't match the campaign's style, and I've refrained from asking to join certain games because I didn't think I'd enjoy the narrative/play style of that particular campaign/game/group or haven't had the time/ability to do it justice (such as becoming familiar enough with the campaign world and inventing a well-fleshed out back story with the time and energy I had available). I may also have been politely and surreptitiously not invited to games that I wouldn't be a good fit for, and that would be fine.
If there is a sudden mid-campaign divergence from player expectations, or if the GM and other players expect you to be a part of the campaign but also do not appear responsive to the elements that you find fun (for example, it sounds as though you enjoy trying out fun/innovative builds and making the most of your resources, including gear, which makes sense), then that is not cool. Part of a healthy group is one that can make time / adjustments to the campaign so that all players regularly have fun.
Screening you out at the 'intake' / backstory stage, however, seems like it was a good thing for both you and them: if this campaign / plot railroading would hamper your fun, or if your playstyle diverged significantly from group expectations, surely it is much better to find out before you spend significant time/effort and have a miserable play experience when the plot unfolds as most other players are comfortable with?
They can play their game; you can find (or run) a campaign that is more suited to your tastes.
Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 52 posts (1,569 including aliases). 4 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 36 Organized Play characters. 1 alias. 
