Rakshasa

Richard Lowe's page

**** Venture-Lieutenant, Online—VTT 166 posts (904 including aliases). 3 reviews. 11 lists. No wishlists. 36 Organized Play characters. 3 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 166 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Venture Lieutenant, Virtual Tabletop (Online)

Misleading stories & unclear scenarios don't help anyone, they provide no actual information of use and simply confuse the issue. If you have had problems with the OSP I strongly recommend you contact the appropriate Venture Captain or if you truly feel it's truly necessary the RVC, if no-one tells people there's a problem then it's quite obviously hard to know.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Venture Lieutenant, Virtual Tabletop (Online)

I'm sorry you had such issues with your local Regional Support Program, but please note that we're talking about the Online Support Program here. Whilst they both offer the same benefits it seems like your problems with the program are entirely in how it has been run in your local area and not at all with the Online Support Program (since you're clearly talking about in person games), as such I think it is at best incredibly unfair and misleading to complain about issues with the OSP when it is in fact RSP and specific local Venture Officers that has caused you concern.

I would certainly recommend you take those concerns to someone, it sounds like the VC you're referring to might be in a position to help and ensure things run more smoothly in future, but please, don't direct the frustrations you have (understandable as they may be) at an entirely different region and different set of Venture Officers who have no input or effect on your local area.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Venture Lieutenant, Virtual Tabletop (Online)
Watery Soup wrote:
Have you talked to any new GMs and asked them if they feel supported by the program?

Yes, lots! They've pretty much always been very happy with it, in as far as it is doing what it is intended to and not what some people have assumed it does. In addition I (and I imagine the other online VOs) often get messages out of the blue from newer GMs saying how much they appreciate the chance to get some cool stuff, along with all the other support the VOs offer for newer GMs. One group that stands out amongst those is people who are new to GMing and for various reasons cannot make it to cons, once they hear about race boons and such they tend to get excited for some neat stuff, but then learning that such boons often requires going to cons can be frustrating, getting access to neat stuff that lets them have fun just by GMing is always appreciated by them :)

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Venture Lieutenant, Virtual Tabletop (Online)
The World's Most Interesting GM wrote:


I'll do events where someone else has to do all the paperwork, but this sort of felt like the 'Very Last Straw Program' to me. I don't game to get stuff (probably not even 8% of the time). I game because I enjoy the game. It seems like all this energy could be better spent elsewhere, like writing, or designing open source material, streamlining processes, fixing old reporting problems, or getting the gosh-darned avatar page to work again. I mean I guess it is nice for GMs who know about it, and have time, but is this particular program really adding significantly to their ranks?

Interesting to hear, but as it happens that's not remotely the intent of the program. RSP and OSP are specifically there to offer new players and GMs, as well as those who don't get to go to cons the chance at some cool stuff for playing games publicly and helping others get into the hobby, that's it.

I'm not exactly sure who you think runs the programs or what they involve but you're very much misunderstanding it. The developers, designers, IT people at Paizo, etc don't have any input or interaction with these programs. They are run in their entirety by the volunteer venture officers with the boons (which already exist and are used in many other formats and so require no extra effort) provided by the OPM. So even if the entire program went away overnight there would be absolutely zero extra 'effort' or time available for those things you're talking about.

If it adds to the ranks of GMs and players, if it encourages new people to try out Pathfinder or Starfinder, awesome! If not, it still rewards all the current players and GMs, most especially those who aren't able to make it to cons for a whole host of reasons. Personally, I think that's certainly worth my time.

Dark Archive

Venture Lieutenant, Virtual Tabletop (Online)
Watery Soup wrote:

It sounds like OSP is meant to provide a benefit equivalent to something that I don't get in F2F play either, and in order to get a 10% chance at an unknown reward, I have to submit the information to an inferior platform and wait an indeterminate amount of time, and I should check my spam folder in case something arrives.

If your local irl lodges do not use the Regional Support Program you can talk to your local VOs about that. Whether the program is right for an area is decided by the RVC for that region, with input from the local VOs, there are a host of reasons it may or may not be a fit for your local area, I have no idea, but the lack of RSP locally for you in no way interacts with how the OSP is provided for online lodges.

The reward is not in any way unknown however, if you peruse the OSP website you will find that all the boons available are listed on there with details (as soon as we receive the updated info for 2020-2021 that will be present on there as well), since this seems like something you really aren't happy with and is causing you frustration then I'd suggest that simply reporting games to your own event might relieve the concerns you have.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Venture Lieutenant, Virtual Tabletop (Online)
Watery Soup wrote:

Let me try to offer some constructive suggestions instead of just complaining.

1. My complaint: the OSP does not lower any of the barriers I have to GMing or playing.

My suggestion: identify the barriers that prevent non-players from playing, or players from GMing (I'll assume the number of people who go from non-players to GM is very small).

For me:

a. I know form-filled PDFs exist (having filled them out), but am not good enough with PDF writers to create them. Is this not possible, so that, say, data put in on a standard format on one page auto-populates into a printable Chronicle on another? This may take effort and access to a PDF writer, but this is one of those things that can be decentralized amongst many volunteers (10 people doing a season each could probably knock it off in a month or so).

b. There are three ways PbP games tend to start: a bunch of players get together and ask for a game to be run, a GM decides which scenario is run and then asks for players, and miscellaneous. Technology exists to combine the first two, and some kind of matchmaking algorithm can easily be implemented. By "easy," I mean that I could probably make an Excel sheet to do it; my assumption is that someone with Python capabilities could do it even better.

c. Boons that extend a player's capabilities (e.g., access to races) make sense to experienced players, but are relatively useless to newer players (who created a human fighter as their first character and don't want to create a new character just to use a boon). But other types of boons are way more valuable to new players, such as the Welcome to Pathfinder boon (the only boon I have ever used is the "your -1 character gets a 'get out of death free' card). Examples of boons I think would be valuable for newer players that would be worthless to experienced players: retrain a Knowledge skill to another Knowledge skill (new players might pick engineering over religion thinking engineering is more useful), or retrain one Dex-based skill for another...

So.. pretty much all these issues are actually nothing to do with OSP, just to help you understand, the Online Support Program is simply a reward program for running publicly open games to help attract new players, nothing more.

Chronicles on form fillable pdfs is an issue that Paizo would have to work on when publishing their scenarios and is entirely in their hands, given the extra work for an already small and overworked team it's not something I'd expect soon if at all, in regards to matchmaking for games there is the warhorn.net site and many other online places where people congregate and this happens, if you're wanting an 'ok cupid' (for lack of a better term) for GMs and players and I would suggest that is certainly something you could work on yourself or find people interested in doing but it's unlikely to be something Paizo offers directly and not at all related to the OSP.

And again, boons are not decided upon by the venture officer staff, they are provided to us by the Organised Play team at Paizo and we distribute them appropriately, be it for cons, OSP, etc. All of these ideas might well help lower the barrier to GMing, but they are issues that you would need to directly bring to Paizo and the Organised Play team. We can certainly pass your comments on, but you're far more likely to see a better, open discussion of them if you post on the Pathfinder Society forum on these message boards.

Dark Archive

Venture Lieutenant, Virtual Tabletop (Online)
Watery Soup wrote:


For those of us who are new PbP GMs (and at least in my case a new PbP player as well), it would be helpful if someone from the OSP could sell us on it a little.

1. Was the OSP created to solve a problem? What was the previous problem? What was the previous workaround? Is there a benefit to reporting through the OSP (boons, etc) that we can't get through direct reporting?

2. Can someone clarify the relationship between Paizo, OPF, and OSP? It's often difficult for us newbies to know whether we should be complaining to Paizo, the OPF (which pretty much seems to be all Paizo employees anyway), or the OSP (which as you can tell many of us use the Paizo forums to do, probably because we're conflating all three).

3. If the OSP is comprised of well-meaning lay volunteers, does the OSP need volunteers? For routine game reporting, it takes me less than a minute to do on my own. If 20 games are reported in a week, and 15 of them just need numbers punched in, I'm happy to spend 15 minutes/week helping out so that others can focus on the 5 non-routine submissions. On the other hand, if you're swamped because there are 200 games/week submitted and 180 are invalid, I don't know PF or PFS well enough to help with that but I will help by shutting the F up.

TOZ pretty much covered it but in case you wanted a response from an online VO i'll quickly go over it.

1. Games played in 'meatspace' get access to the Regional Support Program (RSP) to reward players and GMs with the chance at boons and encourage them to play Society games at irl lodges. For a long time those playing online did not have access to this, the online VOs spent a lot of time advocating for it and we eventually got the Online Support Program (OSP), which rewards people for playing games at online lodges. No-one is ever required to report games via the OSP and can freely report their games to their own events if they like, though only games report via the OSP can get the chance at the related player & GM boons.

2. TOZ nailed it. OSP isn't something that has a 'relationship' with anyone, it's a program to reward people playing at online lodges just like RSP is for physical lodges.

3. Thank you for the offer but more volunteers isn't the answer as you would need to be a venture officer to help with it.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Venture Lieutenant, Virtual Tabletop (Online)

As far as I am aware everything which is reportable on Paizo and that was submitted before Feb 1 has been reported, in fact most games submitted are reported within a week (depending on if life decides to throw us a hurdle, etc) if you’ve reported something on the OSP site and aren't seeing it in Paizo then please reply to the confirmation email you received when you reported the game to let us know. There have been some scenarios/modules that simply could not be reported on Paizo (such as Cradle of Night or the more recent Starfinder scenarios) but we keep trying those so as a soon as they can be reported they are, it’s also possible that a report got missed since were only human, but if a GM doesn’t reply to the confirmation email to let us know there’s a problem we don’t know.

For scenarios reported after Feb 1 we are still waiting on the details of what form the OSP for 2020-2021 will take, hence nothing has been reported yet as we can’t. If you decide you’d rather report on your own instead then that’s absolutely fine, but we would ask that you spend a moment to reply to the confirmation email and let us know otherwise when we do get the new OSP and report the games you’re going to start seeing duplicates and we’d rather not cause you problems like that :)

Again, apologies to anyone who has experienced issues with the OSP, it’s the first year it’s been available and we’re a very small team dealing with over 1000 games reported via it. If you have a problem,reply to the confirmation email and we’ll do our best to help.

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Online—VTT

I would expect and hope that anything PF2 gets reward wise for AcP and such will be mirrored in the RSP and OSP programs identically as both serve the same function and have the same aims in the end. To encourage growth and foster communities of active gamers in their appropriate areas.

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Online—VTT

He is not, he's referring to reporting games via the Online Support Program, which doesn't support granting any additional rewards for PF2 currently and so GMs report the games themselves.

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Online—VTT

Xathos of Varisia wrote:
Ever since PFS2 came out, I have not been reporting my games under the OPF label. I know I am not the only GM doing that either. I usually run 4 to 5 sessions each month, so I'd say there are probably closer to 200 games per month being played on Roll20 and the number that are PFS2 are increasing every month.

Indeed, we don't report any PF2 under the OSP since the support for it is currently via AcP, part of the reason I mentioned that the numbers floated earlier are wildly inaccurate since there is a ton of PF2 played online. There's also multiple online groups who run on Roll20 and prefer to report through their own events, which is totally cool, a lot more than people probably realise, especially groups who play in languages other than English (though they are also welcome to use the OSP if they qualify the same as everyone).

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Online—VTT

Kevin Willis wrote:

I need to hunt around a bit but I know at one point sharing a copy of a PFS table was explicitly NOT allowed.

The issue wasn’t the work that went into setting up the scenario, it was the underlying art assets (maps and creature tokens) that were being shared.

The Online region has permission to share virtual tabletops so long as there is not an official one available and both people have bought a legal copy of all Paizo maps/scenarios/etc used.

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Online—VTT

andreww wrote:


In which case it would apply currently which it clearly doesnt.

BNW is entirely correct, if there is an official Paizo/Roll20 product available for a society scenario then we are obliged to use that or to make our own table for it, sharing copies of tables that Paizo/Roll20 provides official versions of is not okay for society play.

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Online—VTT

albadeon wrote:
I don't know enough about Roll20, but can you currently "share" a copy of a set-up table to allow someone else to use/GM it as well (without messing up your own original table)? Or does that require additional support by Roll20?

You are able to share a copy of a table you create, using your own Roll20 drive space to copy it for someone and they can then use that without any impact on 'your' table. As an aside, you can only share tables that do not have official copies available from Roll20, so if they do move into selling Society scenarios we would not be able to share these with one another and people would be required to make their own or buy the official copy.

Since I've been quoted rather without context above I'll mention a little more, we typically report somewhere around 100 scenarios a month, give or take, to the Online Support Program. This doesn't include any scenarios GMs run themselves online and report to their own events (a very significant number), nor any that are reported for cons (another large amount), etc. I would suggest that the only people able to guesstimate the number of online games played with any remote accuracy is Paizo themselves and the figures mentioned in previous posts are very likely wildly inaccurate and misleading.

I suspect that Roll20 likely has little interest in having people outside their own company make tables they would sell as official, any such tables would still need to be thoroughly tested and checked by their own staff before they offered them for sale and the time taken to do this would, I imagine, be a significant amount compared to them just making the tables themselves with the tools they have access to. Though this is of course entirely speculation on my part.

Dark Archive

Ravingdork wrote:
Oh be quiet you. /tongue-in-cheek

Bu.. but... MAH RIGHTS! ;)

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

It was not my intention to change the name of 2nd Edition, no.

I just had an idea, wanted to share it, and (apparently) went about it in the worst way possible.

I don't think it was the worst way possible but... when you say the title is clickbait, you tell people who disagree that their opinions are off topic and you don't seem interested in the fact most people replying disagree on the core premise... it might not have been off to the best start.

A better way might have been "Do we need a new name for the older PF material released before the PF1 CRB? Does anyone see people confused about it?" That way you're inviting a discussion and opening the floor to ideas and suggestions, not seeming to demand people agree with you or be quiet.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
That is a valid viewpoint, but as it doesnt further the aims of the thread, it is essentially off-topic.

I think it's valid to say that people who disagree and don't 'further your aims' can post in discussion of the point and it doesn't make their posts off topic. They are absolutely discussing the point at hand, they simply don't agree that the point you're trying to make is a needed one and makes things less confusing.

Personally I think trying to force some new nomenclature onto books that most people seem to be perfectly satisfactorily calling Pathfinder Campaign Setting material or similar creates more confusion that not.

Ultimately if people even disagreeing in a thread is considered 'off topic' then in this particular case the entire thread itself needs to be moved since it's only barely tangentially related to PF2, as the primary focus is on naming the pre PF1 material.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This seems like a solution in search of a problem to be honest.

Dark Archive

10 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
if you ask me to call a dog a cat, don't be surprised what I forget and call it a dog: for me, this content = fluff. I go to 4 others site and everyone uses the term fluff, my brain doesn't just switch to another term because I tabbed over to this one.

I'm not saying you're doing it on purpose, but that's about as good an example of a strawman fallacy as there could be. No-one is asking or suggesting you call something an entirely different thing. If you see a dog you can probably tell, "Oh, that looks like a labrador." vs "I think that's a pit bull." That's all.

Frankly, just try. Make the effort. Don't assume you can't and won't remember. If your position is, "I'm pretty sure I'm gonna forget so whatever" and a shrug, then what people will hear is likely, "I don't care enough to bother, deal with it." If you don't mean that... don't say it. Try, make the effort and force yourself to learn. It's not hard and "can't teach an old dog new tricks" is the laziest form of excuse, from your posts on here I'm quite sure you're smarter and better than that, give others the respect to at least try and accommodate such reasonable requests. Sure, you might slip up sometimes, but try, please?

Dark Archive

17 people marked this as a favorite.

Just as a general comment, if someone goes to the trouble to tell us that a specific term people use to refer to something doesn't make them feel great and to suggest alternative options, and we want that person to keep interacting with us, by not accommodating them (which is almost always incredibly easy with a little effort if we're honest) then we generally make it less likely they'll choose to use their time to interact with us. This applies in all aspects of life and social interaction, just some food for thought.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Venture Lieutenant, Virtual Tabletop (Online)

The OSP website is back up! As soon as we have any news we can share about what will happen for 2020 in regards to it, we'll let everyone know!

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Online—VTT

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Philippe Lam wrote:


My own problem with that ultimately is the narrative having been insufficiently brought on in the year 10 PFS1 campaign. One scenario seriously dealt with it but as goblins are an important part of the story, could have been more (a series of scenarios from 1-5 to 7-11 tiers, wouldn't have said no). Outside of that scenario, there's the last We be Goblins, has there been a book about it outside of PFS ?

I strongly recommend reading Michaels post here.

Goblins have been positioned as being able to sometimes be better and not the Rise of the Runelords version for a long time, going back many many seasons of PFS.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Venture Lieutenant, Virtual Tabletop (Online)
GM TOP wrote:

The OSP appears to be down.

On that note, I have a correction to make regarding a game I reported via the OSP. Do I contact someone here about that or wait till the website is back up and contact someone there? FYI, it isn't a major reporting issue that requires immediate attention at least.

The OSP website is currently being updated, i'll yell here to let everyone know as soon as it's back. Generally the easiest way to report any errors is to reply to the confirmation email you get when reporting a game on the site, that way all the info is in one place!

Dark Archive

graystone wrote:


But if you're going to quibble too much on polearms... they pretty much all overlap a lot. The difference between some glaives, ranseur, fauchard and spears aren't that great either. How little or great you differentiate them is more a matter of opinion that any real necessity: we've never needed 1/2 the polearms except as a vehicle for vehicle for different traits and damage die and types.

And we're still vastly better off than AD&D was with it's 45 different types of polearm! (Hyperbole... but not by much I suspect)

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Online—VTT

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adam Yakaboski wrote:
zeonsghost wrote:
The Goblin RP I've seen at my PFS tables has largely been more like Kender from Dragonlance and less like cannibal pyromaniacs.
With all due respect but isn't that worst? O.o

Would 100% take cannibal pyromaniacs over kender.

(But yes, most goblins I've seen, and I hope my own, have been more funny and interesting roleplay than disruptive.)

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bardess wrote:
So could a deity have shield bash as a favored weapon?

Not Shield Bash since it's not a weapon, but Imot (one of the Monitor demigods from Gods & Magic) does indeed have Shield Boss as their favoured weapon, so already sorted! :)

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Online—VTT

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lady Ladile wrote:


For what it's worth, I agree with the three previous posts - the majority of PFS players that I've encountered, both live and online, either don't visit this section of the forums at all or they do so sparingly and usually don't post often. While I believe that the vocal minority who do post here often mean well and genuinely want the best for Organized Play, they are not representative of the PFS player base as a whole.

I'd just like to echo this, we have almost 4000 members on the Org Play discord server online, games running every day and the number of people who are actually like those who have you not wanting to play in Society are vanishingly small... and for those who are they are very quickly shown that such behaviour isn't acceptable and either realise it's not okay and get better or find other avenues of play since we have no interest in enabling people who cause such problems to stick around and ruin things for everyone else. We take the section on community standards in the guide very seriously, especially the part where it says;

Quote:
We ask all participants to respect their fellow players and to work together to create positive, memorable experiences.

Hopefully some day you'll give Society a try and find people are a lot more welcoming and friendly than you fear :)

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

More. Liane. Please!

So good :D

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Fantastic blog! Love the sample pantheons! :D

Dark Archive

Venture Lieutenant, Virtual Tabletop (Online)
Grandmaster TOZ wrote:
Both of them were Season 10 scenarios that I can report on my own events, so I doubt that is the problem.

Weird, if they're not showing up then please respond to the confirmation emails and let us know! We'll look into it :)

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Venture Lieutenant, Virtual Tabletop (Online)
Grandmaster TOZ wrote:
I reported mine in December and still don't see them, so I should probably poke at them.

I believe everything that currently is reportable for the OSP has been reported, games are usually reported en mass on a weekly basis since the site can be very flaky and doing it in one sitting is a lot more user friendly than a handful at a time every day, it also gives GMs time to notice any errors on the info they submitted and respond to the confirmation email with the corrections, since it's far easier to enter the right information the first time than go back and edit things.

Also note that some scenarios simply aren't reportable on Paizo currently, if that's the case we keep checking with the weekly reports until we can but it's not something we can do much about other than letting Paizo know (SFS 2-13 and 2-14 are recent examples).

Hope that helps!

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Online—VTT

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Saint Bernard de Clairveaux wrote:


Folks have raised the concern that lax sanctioning can later lead to massive frustration, if the society at large decides material is inappropriate for all ages (e.g., the vivisectionist, the grave warden) or not well balanced (e.g., the summoner—especially the synthesist, the vivisectionist).

Of course we want to avoid that, but in 1E, sanctioning didn’t prevent some players from building overpowered characters that frustrated judges and other players. I do this myself when it comes to maximizing Diplomacy bonuses on my characters…

I'd just like to take a moment to address this, my experience with the sanctioning process is utterly the opposite. The word 'lax' should never be used in my opinion, the Paizo staff and Venture Officers who help with that task spend countless hours on their evaluations and on discussing them, trying to allow as many options as possible without anything that risks creating imbalances that will harm the campaign, there is nothing lax, haphazard or anything of the sort about it.

Does stuff that is broken slip through sometimes? Sure! Unless sanctioning involved hundreds of people it's always going to risk missing some corner case combo that breaks things, but the time and effort involved to work with and go through that many reviews would make the current sanctioning schedule look like light speed, so that's not an option.

I strongly agree that a culture of "don't try and break things" would be great but... have you meet nerds? Mathematical combinations, optimisation, and so on are the favourite part of the game for many, I would hope that despite this everyone can understand they should allow each player at the table a chance to shine and that soloing a scenario isn't fun for anyone except you, but... :/

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:


I guess there could be a human colony planet in the Vast called "New Rahadoum", but even that would imply that Rahadoum survives until Golarion's space age, which would be information that I don't think Paizo would want to commit themselves to as being canonical.

Not necessarily, perhaps Rahadomi wizards decided they wanted an entire world where there simply wasn't any clerics to worry about, they use interplanetary teleport magics to leave Golarion and go 'elsewhere'. Their new planet, which they build entirely based upon the laws of man, far, far away from Golarion, advances technologically just like everyone else does and eventually they become a star faring people and find that much to their dismay... there are gods everywhere out there.

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Online—VTT

Congrats to all the new 5 star GMS! Especially Steven, well deserved and I'm glad Fin ignored my advice of "give him hell" ;)

Great to hear progress is being made on all fronts, can't wait to actually start to see some of these things go live!

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Online—VTT

1 person marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:

Hey good people,

Those of you who are like "I got too many chrons" remember you're not the target audience for this proposed change.

The target audience is those folks, let's call 'em, Reluctant GMs. Not all the happy Uber GMs and Uber Switches that post regularly here - no - rather those folks in your respective communities that may map onto the following:

You seem to have missed or not really considered all the posts where people have mentioned that the repeatable quests and then scenarios for PF2 actively fulfill this exact requirement you are concerned about.

Repeatable quests: Good entry point, shorter & easier to prepare/run for a new GM with limited exposure so they can get used to the role
Repeatable scenarios: Longer form to allow more chance for a GM to learn & practice their skills and begin to experience games are lengthier

Both forms give a chronicle sheet each time and are planned to be present in ever increasing numbers which means that any worry of limited options will quickly become irrelevant, it solves every part of the problem that you're seeing in your area.

The fact that despite this you presumably still feel people aren't stepping up to GM locally means that that problem isn't what you think, if it was a lack of extra chronicle sheets then since that isn't actually the case you would see lots more GMs in your area, so you need to look elsewhere.

Perhaps the local environment isn't friendly to new GMs and there are cliques or such so you need to look at finding a way to break that up, perhaps people are intimidated by the quality of the local GMs in which case you might want to look at a mentoring system, or perhaps people just don't want to GM and would rather play or do nothing than GM in your local area. I hope you can figure out what the issue is and start getting more GMs but whatever it is, lack of rewards is clearly not the issue since that's not actually something that is a problem.

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Online—VTT

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think repeatable scenarios for PF2 (of which there are a lot more planned) pretty much covers exactly what you're asking for within the system already, as Kate mentioned. If a GM, especially a new GM as you're positing, wants to start running and pick up the baton and get rewards for it all... then repeatables and especially quest repeatables are literally the perfect solution, shorted scenarios, easier to prep which makes them much easier for new GMs to run! Once they're happy with that they can move on to the regular scenario repeatables, exercising their growing skill and actually seeing ways to improve as they're using the same basis each time and can find areas that are done better after trying it once.

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Online—VTT

Nefreet wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Blank filler chronicles seem worse than what we have now.

Fair.

On a spectrum, how long would sanctioning need to be delayed for a blank Chronicle to be more palatable?

I'm with Steven on this, but even beyond the practical problems and issues I'm not sure I can entirely put it into words in a way that makes sense but a blank chronicle sheet just seems to devalue the experience somehow. I know that when I see chronicles from early seasons that at best have some generic items on them and just a huge expanse of white it makes me feel like maybe the scenario didn't really matter... I'm not sure entirely why really, but having gotten used to ones with story related boons (not even useful ones) and the new 'summary' on PF2 ones I would be loathe to go back to the mostly or a new entirely blank format at all, I don't think any time frame would make me okay with it.

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Online—VTT

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
does anyone not like this idea?
Raises hand. I don't like it. YMMV

That wasn't my question, so I'll restate it in an effort to avoid misquotes:

Given the alternatives, does anyone not like this idea?

raises hand

I'm not at all a fan of GMs filling out entirely blank chronicles, as First World Bard mentioned, which one of three is it? Did the GM forget to add a note saying? GMs already ignore filling out significant portions of chronicle sheets a lot of the time, adding even more places for them to fill out stuff and potentially miss seems like a poor choice. If I flip through my chronicles on different characters which parts did I play on which? What was the order if I played them all on one?

Let alone that, having the chronicle blank and only giving xp, fame, treasure bundles seems incredibly underwhelming, a blank white chronicle is a sad, sad thing. The notes, the hopefully unusual treasure items, these are the things that tie back into the story and when you look at them make you go "Oh yeaaah... I remember that item!", that's an awesome trigger for the memories and story you experienced.

I'd prefer we stick with it how it is now if that was the only other option, if it was possible to do within a reasonable time frame and without overly stressing the team I'd prefer three 4xp chronicles with the usual info, story summary and items on them (for the same total rewards), but I recognise that individualising three separate chronicles (and possibly a fourth 'extra' one) is likely as lot more work.

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Online—VTT

Ferious Thune wrote:


Scheduling a 4 month long module as your only PFS event at a shop and then claiming that you've run 4 public events when for three of those days no one new had an opportunity to join is not the same thing at all and is not in the same spirit of what a public event should be.

Who is doing this? You keep coming back to it as the reason these don't count as public games despite meeting all the Guide requirements. Which shop and organiser thinks this is a good idea and has planned it?

I'm guessing the answer is, "Hypothetically..." since Xathos has specifically stated that in his shop regular scenarios are run alongside Plaguestone at the same time so people who weren't able to sign up all still have games to play. In which case the problem isn't with the layout of Plaguestone, it's with the organiser of this hypothetical shop who has failed to understand that they have new people turning up each week and the format they are running games in doesn't meet the needs of their playerbase.

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Online—VTT

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:


I'm arguing from a moral point of view, not a rules point of view. I feel Ring of Fangs users should feel shame at their past build choices and face up to their sins, not pretend they are victims and ask for redress. What redress have they offered other SFS players who avoided the temptations of evil but had to tolerate the corruption at their tables?

I presume from this and previous posts you're being facetious, which really isn't very useful.

If not, take a break, get some fresh air and reconsider your perspective.

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Online—VTT

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ferious Thune wrote:

But a public event was not being run on the subsequent days. Again, the point is that the material can't be used as additional content for a normal public gameday/convention while it only grants 1 chronicle sheet for 16 hours of play. That is impractical for the majority of PFS game days. Public signup or no, it's being organized like a private game after the initial listing. I'll quote the part that I left out of Mark's post:

Yes. It was. It was a completion of the public event that began on the first day, the sign ups were public, the event is public, the fact it took multiple sessions to finish it doesn't change either of those things.

Quote:
Every day after the first, there is no opportunity for anyone else to get into the game. You're not holding a public game day on those weeks if there are no signups and nothing anyone can show up and play if they aren't already part of the group in the module.

You are literally saying that if someone asks to sit at a table of a regular 4 hour scenario 3 hours into the game then suddenly that table is no longer public if they're refused a spot... so anyone can make any game private by simply asking to join after it has started. That's not how Society play works at all. A game is public if it is recruited as such, taking longer than one session to finish it doesn't suddenly make it change, it just means it takes longer, nothing else.

Quote:
So sure, count it as 1 public gameday. But it's not 4, and it's taking those other 3 days worth of play opportunities away. In its current form, this should not be seen as a substitute for a regular gameday. Run it in addition, but don't replace your PFS days with it.

Maybe let the people who are actually there at that shop decide what they do and don't need to run based on their needs not on some meta changes you want for the campaign? You seem to imagine there are somehow an extra dozen or more people who are turning up each gameday and standing around unable to do anything since the module is being run and the public game of it finished over multiple sessions, despite the fact that we literally have posts from the organiser there saying other games are run as well and everyone gets to play, both the players who joined the public run of the module and those who prefer to turn up for scenarios instead.

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Online—VTT

I think that given it had such a large impact on how some builds were made it wouldn't be unfair to offer those players a rebuild of options directly related to the rings use (and only those options).

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Online—VTT

4 people marked this as a favorite.

However it might feel, it's absolutely not a private game if the initial sign ups were open to everyone at the shop, it is a Pathfinder Adventures game that is played over multiple sessions exactly as described in the all the various guides to organised play.

Just because a game takes multiple sessions to run due to length, due to limited time available at the location to play, etc. before the players receive the chronicle sheet for it has no bearing on whether it is private, home, or anything else. How sign ups were handled (open for anyone) and whether it is being run in PFS mode or campaign mode are what determine if the game is a Society game and what sort of rules are legal.

Whilst I don't know the specifics of it, if Xathos game had open sign ups at the shop, which it sounds like it did, and followed the rules for PFS/campaign mode then it is definitely a Society game whether it takes 1 session or 10 sessions to get through all the content. Some places may have very limited hours and even a regular scenario intended for 4 hours takes 2 sessions to complete, these people aren't playing home games and the guides have always allowed for that as an option to encourage and support those groups.

Edit: Fixed for better language.

Dark Archive

CorvusMask wrote:

Well I can't figure out who or what is the POV character O_o; Besides that they are outsider to pact worlds.

I guess the perfect lines thing could be referring to Morlamaw, but I don't think space walruses had legs. Maybe one of really machine fascinated races from near space? I don't think they are grey or reptoid or anything, even with weird focus on smiling as cover.

I think they're something far, far higher up the food chain than that.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Very cool! Can we ask for more? :D

Also... distrust mode activated. Someone is a lot more than they're letting on!

Dark Archive

That cover is amazing (yay Tessa Fairwind!) and it sounds like the book has some truly awesome stuff for us in it, very much looking forwards to it! :D

Dark Archive

Linda Zayas-Palmer wrote:

Hi! After carefully weighing a variety of factors (such as the burden on GMs still grappling with a new set of rules), the Organized Play team has decided that it's not in the best interest of the campaign to have playtest characters participating in official Pathfinder Society games at this time.

If you're interested in earning Pathfinder Society credit for participating in the playtest, I highly recommend playing Fall of Plaguestone and downloading the free sanctioning document for it on the adventure's product page. You can play a playtest character through the adventure and then apply the credit to a Pathfinder Society character of your choice when you're done.

Awesome! Thank you for letting us know officially and for making what I think is definitely the right call for Society right now.

Dark Archive

Greetings and welcome soulnova!

Looks like pretty much everything has been covered already, but I just wanted to add that there are plenty of Society games run in both real time on virtual tabletops (Fantasy Grounds, D20 Pro and Roll20 being the most popular) and in PbP formats online all the time, so you shouldn't have any problems finding something!

The discord communities that have been linked are also great places to start that involve both PbP and VTT games for Starfinder (as well as Pathfinder & 2nd Edition Pathfinder) and are just generally awesome places to find games and meet other online players.

The only one i'll add is the main Online discord server which can be an excellent place to chat and discuss things as well as find groups! Org Play Online

Good luck with your gaming and may you always roll crits! ;)

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Online—VTT

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Even should we not get a playtest option or hear anything, for those wanting to playtest the new classes and get credit for it it might be an option for you can run them through Plaguestone if you haven't already got credit for that, since it is in campaign mode.

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Online—VTT

Pathfinder 2 does not offer an Online or Regional Support program currently Anorak, instead GMs and players earn Achievement Points as games are played which will be able to spent for boons once the system is active on Paizo.com, this is why we don't have any of the PF2 scenarios listed in the Online Support Program reporting tool. As Nefreet says GMs should simply report them to their own events as normal, with the appropriate event number they have. Hope that helps explain why they're not in the list! :)

1 to 50 of 166 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>