Snorter's page

I'm so far out of the loop, when it comes to PF2, and the post-Lost Omens setting changes, that I don't know if I'll submit anything.

I've managed to keep playing virtually with my PF1 group during lockdown.
And I even found a second group, but they've run Gumshoe, Gangbusters, and GURPS. Which were nice, but no help with this.

Good luck to everyone who submits anything, and don't be dispirited if your submission isn't picked. There could be any number of reasons, including multiple articles on a similar type/theme, or clashing with a product released between now and publication.

Nothing's ever wasted; use your idea in your home game, and treat as practice for working to submission guidelines.

Please could my subscriptions end, asap.
If possible, could I cancel upcoming order #7746347?

I'm happy with service over the years, but events are making it difficult to keep up regular payments of those amounts, for a hobby.

Economic instability, and a falling pound has led to more and more parcels falling victim to customs fees, which wipe out the savings made.

Brexit is making a recession likely, whichever version is adopted. Even if it's cancelled, the country's reputation has been damaged, and companies no longer trust the UK as a base of operations.

And my job will be moving to a more distant town at the end of next year. A decision has to be made, if I'm following it (and eating an extra hour's travel per day), or looking for new work.

With all of that, I can't commit to maintaining subscriptions, especially with a product pile that I haven't read yet.

Thank you to everybody at Paizo, for friendly customer service over the years, and all staff who've taken the time to answer our posts.
I'd like to maintain the forum account, to keep in touch with friends I've made.

Bob

I had a message from someone claiming to be 'Emeline Mattis', email address xxfsilasii@outlook.com.

Quoted my Paizo password, and claims to have filmed me through my webcam (which I don't have).

I've changed my Paizo password, and blocked the sender, but I thought you needed to be aware someone is claiming to have hacked the site.

Been trying for hours; can't get anything on aliases to save, so here's the stats.

Gender F
Ancestry Elf
Class Monk
Level 1
Background Mindquake Survivor
Speed 30
Class DC 14
AC 14
TAC 14
HP 16
Saves F+1, R+4, W+3
Perc +2, low light

Armor Expert Unarmored
Weapons Trained all Unarmed

Sig Skills Acrobatics, Athletics, Religion, Stealth
Trained skills
Acrobatics +3
Athletics +2
Lore (Dominion of the Black) +1
Religion +2
Stealth +3

Feats
Keen Hearing (ancestry)
Dubious Knowledge (background)
Flurry of Blows
Graceful Expertise
Powerful Fist
Monk Feat - Tiger Stance

Attacks (all agile, finesse, lethal or non-lethal)
Unarmed Strike +3 (d6+2)
Flurry +3/-1 (combine damage rolls into one)
Tiger Claw (requires tiger stance) +3 (d8+2, crit d4 bleed)

While I appreciate the majority opinion may have changed over the last few decades, so that high stats are seen as merely 'adequate', I would prefer that the baseline play be set at 'normal people' (with the option to allow higher stats), than at 'offspring of the gods' (with the option to play with lower stats).

It's always been a lot easier for a GM to relax a requirement, than to tighten one.
If the printed baseline is grim and dangerous, the GM appears generous when they allow better stats.
If the baseline is 'godlike', the players react to lower stats, as if the GM is taking something away from them.
And with some players, this can cause tension before a campaign even begins.

Neither play style is 'better' than the other; it just makes it easier to propose a change of pace, if it's taken as a glass twice as full, than a glass half empty.

Concentration check 1d20+7+4 vs DC 19.

It's actually DC26(!), but you still made it.

If you take damage while trying to cast a spell, you must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10 + the damage taken + the level of the spell you’re casting. If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect.

"Anything odd around there?
These builders can be very tricky.
Best sing you a searching song."

"I spy, with my little eye,
Something beginning with T.
For dungeons have a pattern
For things that will flatten
And pierce and eviscerate me."

Inspire competence +2

The most urgent change needed to the weapons, is to cease the arbitary separation of 'European' and 'Asian' weapons, and the requirement that the Asian weapons be locked behind a feat tax.

"This is a stick. You hit people with it. It's a peasant's weapon, because it's so easy to use."

"Thiiiiiissss, on the other hand...(cries of 'ooh' and 'aaah' from the audience)...this, most revered of weapons, this epitome of the martial weapon crafters' arts, is an exotic weapon, and can only be used by those who have trained for decades, under the blind monks at the monastery overhanging the edge of the world's precipice. This exotic weapon is known as....a 'stick'."
(audience members faint with nosebleeds, at the sight of the sheer awesomeness of the 'stick'.)

Adding support for this, to bump it up the chart.

Rules are no place for euphemism, synonyms, allusion, symbolism, and vaguery.

I understand that the writers and developers need space to scratch their creative itch, and audition their writing skills to us, ready for the day they embark on their solo fiction writing career, bursting free from the amniotic sac of their old day job, like a chimerical amalgam of peacock and phoenix.

But it doesn't belong in the rules text.

I think some of the confusion comes from things like Quick Draw (disallows wands, among other things), and wondrous items like the Scabbard of Many Blades (can hold rods, staves, one handed weapons, two handed weapons, and light weapons, but CANNOT hold wands).

That is indeed the source of my understanding.

Can this be another paper cut?
That Paizo cease relying on their customers to search an FAQ, rather than print/post an actual errata?
Many players/GMs don't consider FAQs to be official changes; it's 'just the opinion of some guy on the forums'.

Having a policy that errata can only be compiled, if a book goes to a new printing, means many books will never see their content formally clarified and corrected.

I'm fine with there being example flavor given, as long as it's understood it's exactly that.

If a spell was described, 'you extend your hand, and the orc in front of you is folded inside out.', it would obviously not be relevant to a PC using the spell against a target that was a non-orc.
It's an example, and is there to be inclusive, not exclusive.

So I'm fine with feats, traits, and class abilities (whatever they end up being named) having example descriptive text.
As long as there's a disclaimer at the beginning of the relevant section, advising GMs to borrow, steal, or be inspired by the the examples, to make this material their own.

Similarly, we can do without multiple traits that do the same thing, but with different enforced flavor text.

We can write our own character backgrounds, and justify our own mechanical improvements.

I'd like to see an end to explicit flavor text, in general.
It acts as an unwanted gatekeeper, against concepts the official writers didn't come up with.
And it pushes the player base toward one of two extremes;

Either every PC with a certain bonus is shoehorned into the same flavor. Everyone who wants to improve their reaction time has to have been bullied as a child, so, no you can't have been the happy contented child of a circus knife thrower...
Every person with a talent for metamagic has a wayang in the family. They put it about a bit, those wayang, don't they. Someone needs to round them up and tie a knot in it.

OR, you wind up with repetitive entries, for the same benefits, with slightly different flavor text.
I want my PC to be good at swimming, but I have to recall the name of a specific trait, that makes it a class skill and adds +1. But then, I find it's only open to PCs from The Shackles. So I look again, and here's one that's only open to Varisians. And one for people who live along the Sellen River. And one for people near Lake Blah.

Why can't I decide my PC is good at a skill, without being forced to wade through overly specific material?
What if I'm not playing or running a game in Golarion?

The game should be generic enough, to be used by GMs who run a home brew campaign, in their own world.

We certainly don't need a hundred different feats, that all give +2/+2 to two different skills.
Why not one feat, that says 'pick two skills'?
"Oh, but then everyone will cherry pick their two most desired skills!"
They effectively already have been doing, as the list of similar feats has grown.

It reminds me of the D&D3 practice, of setting a race's favored class. No favoring anything except wizard, for you, Mister Elf.
(Pssst...wanna play a wild elf?)

Rigidly defined favored classes led directly to every race having a dozen sub-races, purely to work around that restriction.
Instead of simply allowing the player to decide on a favored class, which also allowed them to consider new classes that were introduced post-core rules.

Strip out the rule that requires a +1 BAB to draw a weapon as part of a move action -- it affects a few characters for one level (maybe 2-3 if they're dipping multiple classes). It's just an extra bit of annoyance to remember early in one's career and then never again.

End the arbitary distinction, between 'weapons' and 'objects', that allows someone to unsheath an oversized, vicious, twisted, spiky, great weapon from a back scabbard on the move, but not slide a smooth wand from a pocket, or pull a potion from a bandolier.

Spell areas described in needlessly convoluted terms; eg 'X no of targets, no two of whom may be more than 30 feet distant'...

Why not just say '15 foot radius'? Since that's what it amounts to, if NO combination of two targets may have 30 feet between them.

Since we're all mourning Damiel, it's as good a time as any, to dig up this old piece of nonsense, about his attempts to medicate some of the forum regulars.

Apologies to all concerned.

Damiel's Drink
(to the tune of 'Lily The Pink', by The Scaffold)

(Chorus)
We'll drink a draft or two
Of Damiel’s Patent Mutagen Brew
It works on any sentient race
You may not get what you ever expected
But you’ll be totally off your face

Sebastian Brony became a pony
But being earthbound made him cry
So after a snifter, of Mutagen Lifter
This Pegasister has learned to fly

Leprechaun Spanky looked tired and manky
He was constipated and cold
But one application of Lubrication
Now he’s pooping pots of gold

(Chorus)

Mikaze was frantic, a hopeless romantic.
Wanted Men and Orcs to wed
But after they rubbed on some Rootagen Powder
Now they're never out of bed

TriOmegaZero, the Caydean hero
Would pour anything down his throat
He hosted a hearty fraternity party
And now's he's fathering a goat

(Chorus)

Ashton Sperry was notably merry
From the Muse-Booze he'd imbibed
Till the morning, when he was drawn in
Inside the pictures he had scribed.

Mister Timitius found potions delicious
Wondered what could be the harm.
One too many deadlines, then we all read the headlines,
'Man Grows Extra Pair Of Arms'

(Chorus)

Poor Damiel, he became unwell, he
Self-medicated till he burst.
But with a final, defiant gamble,
He dared the Gods to do their worst

To the Cathedral he ascended
The Starstone pulsing holy power.
And now it's time to pack them all in;
The Church is calling Happy Hour!

We'll drink a draft or two
Of Damiel’s Patent Mutagen Brew
It works on any sentient race
You may not get what you ever expected
But you’ll be totally off your face!

Also, I have read fantasy stories where a character's magic item didn't work when they needed it to. It added tension to the story and made it a whole lot more interesting.

Another legacy rule from AD&D, that never made the cut to D&D3, was that dwarves had to roll for item failure (20%!), for anything that was not armor or weapons.

The reasoning being that dwarves were highly antimagical, hence the bonuses to saving throws (highly prized in those days, when resistance items were rarer).

D&D3 kept the flavour, kept the bonuses to saves, included bonuses to Con, (later increased by PF to Wis AND Con) that bumped saves, keeping dwarves as the kings and queens of passed saving throws, but dropped the downside; having to be more self-reliant, because you can't depend on your gear.

Plus if I want to fish for examples of potion failure for chugging too many, I could point out the Witcher for that sort of thing (okay, that's actually a build up of toxins within the potions and not wibbly wobbly resonance, but the effect is similar)

AD&D included the infamous Potion Miscibility Table, which you had to roll on, if you drank a potion while still under the effects of a previous one.

Results went from the mundane (second potion fails to work, half effect, first potion replaced by second) to the alarming (one of the potions' effects become permanent) to the lethal (drinker explodes).

So there is precedent, for wanting to reduce the number of potions a PC consumes.
The old school writers didn't want anyone wearing a chugger hat filled with four flavours of resist energy, then going Leroy Jenkins through the Temple of Elemental Evil.

If people hate CLW wand, then fix the lack of healing, end the magic item mart and fix wands.

I imagine they could do all four.

The problem with wands and other spell-in-a-can items is the ability to go nova with them. Having the wand as an extra option isn't a problem. By limiting the number of times an object can be used per day, it increases the PCs' range of spells known/prepared, without excessively increasing their number of spells blown through in one day.

And having items be used less often, means they will cease to be bought in vast quantities, thus fixing the Magic Mart anachronisms.

The only way the illusion is detected is if it is lower-level than the detection spell. If it is of the same level, it is unnoticed.

This is the one thing that stood out most for me.

While playing several editions of D&D, from Moldvay B/X, through AD&D, 3.0 to PF, one of the mythical archetypes I've always wanted to enjoy playing is the illusionist. A wily trickster, who wins the day through misdirection.

But it seems that character idea was something I've had to shelve, for the last two decades.

It was possible, in the past, due to the scarcity of divination magic, relative to the current PF rules.
When there were no 0-level spells, when crafting scrolls and wands was a downtime activity for retired, Lord-level PCs, when pearls of power were unheard of, casting detect magic was something you could do, but preparing that meant one less other spell that day.

So you saved it, for when you believed it truly necessary.

And as an illusionist, you capitalized on that fact, through clever choice of subject and placement. By accounting for existent environmental factors, you could place an effect that made sense to those who perceive it, and rely on them rationing their resources enough not to 'waste' a spell querying it.

That changed, with D&D 3.0.
The introduction of 0-level spells meant a mage could set aside some detects, without impinging on his magic missiles and mage armor.
Cheap, easy crafting, and the resultant canonical MagicMart in every official setting meant you were not limited to the 4 or more cantrips you inherently cast. For 375 gp, every party could have 50 plot-spoilers in the palm of their hand. Half that price, once you take the requisite feat, and make them yourself.
Spending 6.25gp every few minutes isn't a relevant discouragement, to any party over level 2. Not compared to the old cost, of 'a quarter of your level one spells/day'.

PF went even further, by handing out infinite cantrips/day.
No longer required to prepare specific detections, or buy/craft wands, a party of PCs simply needs to ensure one member has picked it as one of their continually spammable choices that morning, and every single thing in the adventure will be scanned.

And then they declared that all casting is obvious.
Even when casting an illusion, or worse, an enchantment, which requires that no-one suspect a spell has been cast.
And even when casting surreptitiously, using Silent, Stilled spells with no materials.
Everyone gets a Spellcraft check, to know you placed an illusion or attempted to mess with a target's mind, because a kaleidoscope of glowing runes envelops you, and broadcasts the casting, and the school of magic to all in line of sight, even if they weren't looking in that direction (thanks to D&D3's everyone-gets-beholder-vision Perception rules).

So, my poor illusionist concepts had to hang their hats up, sometime in 2001, after hitting headfirst the wall of changes that made them non-viable. May as well stick to casters using blatant, obvious displays of power. Subtlety was dead.

Hopefully, these upcoming rules will allow players to once again use illusionists (and enchanters), without requiring GM pity to function.

I would really hope that at the very least something relatively basic like taking an AoO would be available to everyone either automatically or as a universal feat that can be taken. otherwise I feel like your setting a precedent where we get nickle and dimed for wanting to build something "less traditional". And if that's the case then we're back where we started with characters needed to spend a ton of feats to just one thing kinda well.

While I agree, that AoO should be an option available to everyone, at some point in their career, if not at level 1;

I expect that each class will have a thematic option from level 1, with further options unlocked through levelling, which make more sense as reactions, than just 'poke them with a stick'.
Such as a caster being able to throw up a low level protective spell, or the Rogue having an opportunistic Steal ability, both of which would have cost a feat, talent, arcana, etc.

BBEG: "You think me beaten? I will DESTROY you...uhhh...where..."
Rogue: <holds up scroll>"You looking for this?"

They've been an option in multiple rule sets since the 1980s, from my experience.
I first recall spending them in Warhammer Roleplay, 1st Ed, but I don't know if they were in the main rules, compendium, or an article in White Dwarf.

And many forum writers (back when mags had letters pages!) promoted the concept of giving rerolls for good play.

Undead don't just destroy the living in order to eat. They destroy the living because that kind of malice is just part of what it means to be undead.

Beings powered by energy from the Positive Material Plane don't just destroy the living in order to eat.

Thanks to everyone who donated something to this.
And I'm not saying that because I won anything.

Is this still open for new entrants?

I'd second the request for winners to review anything they receive. The third party publishers need the exposure, and that review may be the one to drive another few sales.

The only thing is... that even with my modifications, the dùlra spell list still includes too many distructive spells. It would still need some tinkering (maybe one day...)

Is this something that could and should be best handled through roleplay?

After all, a person whose ideology is untested, and un-tempted, cannot as easily claim to be morally pure, than one who has the ability to do something, and refuses to do so.

31. Refer to your PC in the GM's decades-old, ten-volume, intrigue-focussed campaign campaign, as your 'toon'.

My physical copy came yesterday, after being held up at Customs.

By Crikey, that's a doorstop. 900+ pages.
You could kill a man with it, and use it as his headstone.

In a non pfs game i play a completely different shelynite but in order to match shelyns ideals and actually use her favored weapon well (built before paths of the righteous), it is a brutish half-orc forgepriest. She crafts, and uses a golden glaive, but she certainly looks nothing like any of the slender and graceful glaive wielders illustrated throughout various sourcebooks - none of which are buildable in pfs.

Half-orcs haven't been forced to be brutish, since the PF open playtest in 2008.

I've just read the thread, after seeing it ping into the recent top ten.
I've been looking for a PbP in general, and any discussion of the Blight in particular, and this fulfilled both.

If there's still space, I'd love to apply, if there isn't, no hard feelings, and I'd ask if I could be on a reserve list, in case anyone drops out.

The back and forth on the discussion thread seems way in advance of what passes for roleplay in most groups, thank you all for a good read.
And the fact so many of you brought songs and poetry to the table made me grin, as I've been slipping similar homages into Wayfinder for the last four years.

For disclosure; I did back the Blight Kickstarter, and have the material to download, but I've yet to begin reading it, as my home group's tabletop campaign has probably got many months to go.

I'm happy to hold off reading any GM material, if required.
I think experiencing it as a player first would be beneficial to running it when that day comes.

I'll sign your petition, Bertie.
I've lost count how many times my Bigsley's healed someone, brought down the villains, or his skills have been crucial to success.

But he doesn't get thanked. Sometimes they'll compliment me, like it's my doing, or I'm his boss or somesuch. They'll talk over his head, like he isn't there.
But he's not stupid, he hears it all, and takes it in.
I'd bet he's brighter than half the Taldans we've been lumbered with.

My chosen subject, fellow citizens, is slavery.

I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave's point of view. Standing there identified with the bondman, making his wrongs mine.
I do not hesitate to declare with all my soul that the character and conduct of this continent never looked blacker to me than on this day!

Whether we turn to the declarations of the past or to the professions of the present, the conduct of our nations seem equally hideous and revolting. Avistan is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future.

Standing with the God Of Man and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of our constitution and our holy texts which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery, the Great Sin and shame of Avistan!

I will NOT equivocate, I will NOT excuse; I will use the severest language I can command; and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, shall not confess to be right and just.

What, am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters? Must I argue that a system thus marked with blood, and stained with pollution, is wrong? No! I will not. I have better employment for my time and strength than such arguments would imply.

While ever a single man, woman, or child toils in bondage, our celebrations are a sham; our boasted liberty, an unholy license; our national greatness, swelling vanity; our sounds of rejoicing empty and heartless; our denunciation of tyrants, brass-fronted impudence; our shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; our prayers and hymns, our sermons and thanksgivings, with all our religious parade and solemnity, are, to the Gods above, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy; a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages.

And that is why I cast my vote, for Tiller Credence.

(with thanks to Frederick Douglass)

Two things to remember: First, this voting's open to everyone, even if you don't have a Liberty's Edge PC yet.

Campaign and roleplay on!

Entryists, Fifth Columnists, Quislings!

It's annoying when you get inspiration for something with less than a week left and everything else going on keeps you from ironing those ideas out >_<

If any of you have any unfinished ideas, I recommend you get them written down asap, and work on them while the inspiration is still with you.

Test it on an NPC in your home game, run it past your friends, see if it's a feat or spell they'd pick for their own PCs. Ask someone you trust to spell check it, grammar check it or critique it. Ask your group's canon-savant to look for holes in your timeline or geography.

It might sound like punishing yourself, but practice is practice.
It could be of use to you, in a future issue or elsewhere.
And it's nothing to the punishment you'll give yourself, if the next issue's theme is announced, you know you once had an idea that would fit, but you're staring at a blank screen, unable to recall a word of it.

Good luck to everyone who submitted for the first time.
You've passed the first hurdle, of believing in yourself and your work.

These forums have lots of talented people, creating material every week for their home games, but write off their efforts as nothing special.

Especially the ones who say 'I don't have time to write. I only run pre-written material', but even they will have to tweak, rewrite, or add to that material to fit their players' preferences, their PCs' backgrounds, or fill in the gaps when they wander off the written page.

Over the decades, I've lost count of the players who insist the next session/adventure/campaign be totally free of rails or restrictions, and they be allowed complete free reign to go anywhere, and do anything they can think of.

And when you give them that, they stare at you like a nest of startled baby owl chicks.

Indeed, I'm starting to think up some homebrews that take place AFTER Starfinder (they would basically be Pathfinder homebrews still, but story wise keep all of the events and features of Starfinder) where Golarion has been mysteriously returned and a new deity named Omnia has made it's presence known (I actually attempted to make this deity already, check out the General Discussion thread in Pathfinder, look for Jurassic Bard).

What if we've got it all wrong?

PCs who break level 20 get to form a new planet from the wreckage of the asteroid field, and set themselves up as deities?

I just had this amusingly horrible vision of a 'Reality Scrying' version of colonization:

All the colonists are on a Scry-Per-View programme and they're supposed to take brief 'cuts' away from the action to tell the other players and audience what's going through their minds, etc.

[Hervé Villechaize]"Boss! De boat! De boat!"[/Hervé Villechaize]

[Ricardo Montalban]"Welcome! Welcome, my friends, to TPK Island!"[/Ricardo Montalban]

I'm glad you mentioned Jamestown, Jim, as I was going to ask if that was an inspiration.

There's a current TV series of the same name, which may help get the mood right, and give some insight into the obstacles faced by the settlers.

'By the makers of Downton Abbey', apparently, but with a slightly larger helping of drunkenness, whoring, poisonings, and explosions.
And that's before you add your typical PCs.

Thanks to Liz for the art of the lutist in mid-leap.
Recognised the pose straight away.
You, milady, are the Boss.

After a while, I found myself unconsciously thinking of the 'un-named tiefling barbarian Dungeon iconic' as being officially called 'Mikaze'.

I don't care for Monday's blog.
Tuesday, Wednesday, such a slog.
Thursday, doodle butterfrogs
'Cos Friday's news will cheer.

Monday you can sort your dice,
Tuesday, Wednesday, get advice,
Thursday dream 'Next day'll be nice,
'Cos Wayfinder is here'.

Saturday is great.
And Sunday we congratulate
Our artist/writer/editor mates.

I don't care if Monday's blue,
Tuesday, Wednesday, go screw you.
I've got my Endzeitgeist review.
Five stars says 'I'm in love'.

IMO, if the GM is going to insist on all corpses being legally purchased (and I do actually agree with the reasoning), it's up to the GM to set a cost for it, in the absence of any official price.

I wouldn't set it too high, though. Not more than the cost of the onyx material component. Because you're not so much 'buying' a corpse, as purchasing a licence to circumvent the usual laws on disposal.

The government has to charge you, as compensation for taking work from the gravedigger and mortician. Some of the fee is likely to be passed on to them.

I think you can all take pride in the fact that this has come out on time, for as long as it has, with reviewers reporting a constant increase in quality.

The release of issue 17 will mark nine years of herding the cats of this forum toward a common goal, with all their awkward questions, and attempts to reimagine the submission guidelines to their own interpretation.

Like a swan floating serenely across the surface of a lake, to outside observers it appears effortless, as they can't see the frantic paddling going on below the surface.
Made even more impressive, by the fact several of the contributors and staff have been dealing with serious personal obstacles, while bringing these issues to print.

Take some time out, because you've earned it.

As to the original question, what I'd like to see would depend very much on the specific terms of the Compatibility License, what material is present or lacking in the Core Book and early releases, and what material Paizo decides to keep open or closed.

So it's hard to answer what we're missing, and what you're allowed to create, until all that is known.
But I would echo Corvus, in that attempting to create material that ties too closely to Paizo's home setting could be problematic, in case it is obsoleted by a future official product.

Another galaxy, which can evolve in its own direction, and allows, or better facilitates, styles of play or sub-genres that are not as fully supported by the Paizo material?

I didn't see Drahliana's comment as a negative.
More as, once you've seen that product, you realise there are no boundaries, except those that a closed mind imposes on itself.

There's a lot of contributors inspired by The Plain of Ten Thousand Swords, and the spooky goings-on there.

Whoever came up with that in the original book needs a pat on the back.

On that note, it may not be apparent, but the 'dark stranger' who protects three generations, in the song 'The Night Shepherd' is meant to be a shoki, and this is how the shokala (page 9) are sometimes made.
There was a sample NPC, intended to be the girl in the last verse, but space was tight.

Unfortunately, the deadline for issue 17 was on Jan 1st, but there should be a call going out for issue 18 once the shortlist for 17 has been chosen, and the dust settled.

The thread for issue 17 contributions is already kicking around ideas for the next theme; if you follow that, you'll see what's leading the running, along with some of the reasoning behind why some themes get picked, or not.

That seems a very expensive solution, to deal with an issue that could be covered by simply saying to the GM, "Before we set off, we'll write down all the pertinent information from the briefing, borrow a map, and refresh our memories of local events.".

I certainly don't want to reward lazy players, but at some level we have to respect that for most, it's a game, not to be taken too seriously, and that the PCs who live or die by their wits would be more motivated, patient, and aware, that a group who are in their fifth game of the weekend (and tenth coffee of the day), trying to fit the scenario into a narrow time slot.