Search Posts
I'd be okay with buying the ability to start higher with achievement points, even because you have to run or play Pathfinder to get them. I routinely start off my characters at higher levels because of GM chronicles. For a ton of folks, that wouldn't be an issue. But for a public game day, that's where you'll have problems. It's the brand new player who wants to try the cool blog build or someone who's trying "basically 5e" for the first time that worries me. The only way I can see to screen for "I have a solid understanding of the rules of the game" is making it achievement point gated. Even then, you'll have issues, just not as many, I don't think.
The day you can freely create PFS characters at any level is the day I stop running PFS. Full-stop. I don't want to be responsible for running games, especially games on a timetable, when people may not have a clue how their characters work. That solution would solve the two level band, but it's not one I am willing to run for. I honestly don't even want to play on tables where someone sits down with a level 7 build they found on YouTube and want to test drive. To me, that's a solution worse than the problem. I don't think it's a big deal in Starfinder right now because there's only one level band, but my experience running the high level play test stuff was agonizing. Nobody had a clue how anything worked. That's fine for a play test, but if that becomes the new norm, I'm out. I've run about 200 pf1e games and about 75 pf2e games, just to establish my experience level. I'm not saying I know more than anyone else, I'm just saying that's where my hard line is.
I just wrapped up a convention and wanted to share some feedback on how the recent changes are playing out in practice. For context, our SFS2 tables fired at about a 50% rate, while PFS2 tables fired closer to 80%. My primary SFS2 organizer expressed concerns about the scenario length. The only SFS2 game he was able to sit down for ended in two hours, and he left feeling disappointed. His worry—and mine—is how these shortened scenarios will function at conventions. Locally, SFS has been functionally dead at game days for a long time; it only survives at conventions. If scenarios are too short, SFS will either have to be scheduled on an entirely separate timetable from PFS, or else leave long, awkward gaps between sessions. PFS2 brings its own complications, with scenarios falling partly into the old slot lengths and partly into the new ones. That combination is already shaping up to be a scheduling nightmare. To be clear, I haven’t yet run the newest PFS scenarios myself, but I have already seen negative feedback from the first public runs of SFS2 in my area. For me personally, the value of Organized Play lies in conventions—meeting new people, seeing wildly varied parties, and facing the unique challenges of mixed-level tables. I run weekly local game days not because I want a fixed, home-game style group, but to build momentum for conventions. The current changes feel designed for weeknight game days at the expense of convention play, and I’m worried Paizo is going to have to decide which format it truly wants to support. Walk-ups are another major factor. I had many first-time PFS players this weekend. Because of the broader level bands, I was able to shuffle tables and make sure they all got seated. With two-level bands, that flexibility disappears. For this event I scheduled four PFS2 tables and one SFS2 table per slot across a standard seven-slot convention, each slot at four hours. That doesn’t leave much room for maneuvering. I had exactly two Tier 7–10 scenarios scheduled, and both fired: one table with characters at levels 7, 8, 8, and 9; the other with 7, 7, 8, and 9. Under the new system, neither of those tables would have been legal. Even before PFS2 officially shifts to the new model, organizers are already reacting. One of my coordinators has chosen not to schedule an upcoming Season 7 scenario (Tier 1–4) because by the time Part 2 arrives, it will effectively have been shortened into a much narrower Tier 3–4 experience. That’s discouraging to see before the changes even fully take effect. Finally, on the volunteer side, the changes to stat block inclusion are also concerning. This weekend I had to ask a GM to step in on just a day’s notice. Because the scenario was a Season 6 Tier 1–4 with stat blocks included, it worked out. Without those included resources, it would have been a much heavier lift to expect them to go print everything and prep it overnight. As I often say as a long-time volunteer for Paizo and other organizations: every barrier to volunteering, no matter how small, reduces the number of people willing to do it. I’ve been encouraging everyone who shared these frustrations with me to come here and voice their feedback directly. I can share my perspective, but real pushback needs to come from the wider community. My concern is that Paizo may be hearing mostly from the most engaged fans—the ones who are already posting here or filling out surveys. Meanwhile, the convention organizers, store owners, and casual players who are unhappy often don’t bother to say anything—they just quietly stop showing up. That’s what worries me the most.
I remember when that happened, Mark. It was widely celebrated.
Hardcover APs. As someone who has been subscribing on and off since Dungeon Magazine. I'm looking forward to this change. It is better for shipping costs, environment as well as the shelf space. I like the fact that everything is all in one book versus needing to pull out multiple books when I'm trying to prep either forward looking or reverse looking. Huzzah! I'm probably cancelling my subscription for the AP line. The main reason I was subscribing is to one, not miss a volume, and two, get something in the mail once a month that wasn't junk or a bill. I'll probably just switch to buying them as they hit the shelf of my flgs. It'll be cheaper anyway. So this a good change for me, but I wonder if it's an intended consequence.
That's my fear, as well. Scheduling. No question it's easier to prep. But what good is prepping a game that doesn't have enough players? Also, are in-person non-convention games on the decline? I hadn't thought about that, and I only have my area to go off of, but is that other folks' experience?
Average people do not become adventurers. I am an average person in real life. I want to play a character of someone who is exceptional. That is why my fighters have at least a 17 strength and my wizards have at least an 18 intelligence. They are exceptional, and bored with the mundane nature of life in a village, and have become adventurers as a result. If my fighter had a 13 strength and a 12 charisma, he'd probably still be a farmer. It's safer that way. If my wizard had a 14 intelligence and a 7 constitution, he'd probably be a librarian. I figure my less powerfully built characters died to a single goblin attacking them on the road to the Grand Lodge, and that's why they don't go on Pathfinder Society missions.
I can't agree enough about the con thing. You can get by with a lower con if you're a more experienced player, but people get really attached to their first character, and it sucks to have that character die early before you have a plethora of other characters to take their place. That's why I always emphasize a 14 point con if at all possible. It helps me to think of PFS as just another home game with a different set of house rules and a constantly rotating cast of players and GMs. I still love my home games, and I run one and play in one, but PFS fills my travel and spur of the moment play needs. Also, I get to learn from a large variety of different play and GM styles.
I also realized as I got home that my copy of Occult Adventures ended up sprouting legs from our hotel room and walking away I think we ended up with it. I know we ended up with an extra copy, but I thought it was Corwin's. Zach messaged me the other day to let me know you lost yours. I sent you a PM. Let me know how I can get it back to you. :)
I have nothing but good feedback for this Gen Con.
General:
For headquarters:
For the other GMs:
For the players:
Channeling in combat changes the math. It allows that fighter to survive one more full round and kill the BBEG. With Channel Revival, it saves the party the cost of a raise dead. It reverses the effects of the fireball that just landed on you. I think it's worth it, if you're gonna invest in the phylactery of positive channeling. You get the ioun stones for wisdom and charisma and the phylactery for channeling, and you can really make a difference. I know in high level play, there's some stuff that's just unbeatable without a cleric or life oracle along to change the math in your favor.
I agree that the Expanded Narrative boon doesn't seem to be causing any problems in my area. My wife has used hers to replay scenarios, either because she had a bad experience with them or because she realized after playing that a different character would've been a perfect fit. (Not for boons or anything, just because the character's background fit the scenario very well.) Personally, I've only replayed one scenario, and that was to help make a table. I plan to use stars to replay the bonekeep series with a table who actually knows what bonekeep is and is prepared for it. (Played Bonekeep 1 with a pregen and an 8 year old. Played BK 2 with a 9 year old.) I'll probably eventually use my expanded narrative boon, but TBH, for myself, play opportunities are so slim I hate to waste them on scenarios I've already played. Again, just my take on it. I might use my stars at some point to replay Eyes of the Ten in a couple of years, when the memory of it is not so fresh, if only because that was the best series I've ever played.
I'm against most forms of replay simply because I have a hard time recruiting enough GMs as it is. If my players could simply play every single slot without ever having to GM, it would make it more difficult. If I didn't continually recruit new players by virtue of having open seats and get the "fresh blood," I wouldn't get the up-and-coming GMs out of that crop. I know I've seen a rotation of some of my original players showing up less, but I have more tables than ever. Some of my original players have migrated to home games, and that's okay, but you either grow or die. Having the exact same people in the exact same chairs week after week prohibits growth. That's my two coppers, as a VO and an organizer with two years experience. (Sidebar, that puts me on the opposite side of the argument with my wife, who's played a TON. But that's my opinion.)
I do the same thing when I'm playing, whether it's me or another player. I'm fond of saying stuff like, "I move to this square, provoking from this guy and this guy." As one of my players likes to state, "It's everyone's responsibility to maintain game state." And I can't argue that. To be fair, he's something of a rules lawyer, but I can't complain when he argues against himself as often as for the party. At least I never feel like he's trying to slip something by me.
When I played it, the GMs rewrote the faction missions to come from the PC's faction leaders, flavored as a favor to an ally of the society. It was great. The Taldor faction mission for part III must stay. And it was written from the point of view of Ambrus Valsin, starting out, "I can't believe I'm actually putting this on paper, but could you..."
I find the third time running something for me is the sweet spot. I've got all weird mechanics figured out completely, I know where the players are likely to go off rails, I know exactly how to get them focused again, I've got unique voices for each NPC, and my roleplaying has more depth. But I haven't completely memorized all the stat blocks yet, and I can still be surprised when the players do something unexpected. On topic, I'm bleeding for GMs locally. My area continues to grow, and I just don't have the GMs to back it up. I've got about 8 regular GMs, and we run 6-7 tables per week. That means that some GMs are running two tables a week, and playing every third or fourth week. I'll be honest, I'm just not sure what to do about it. I make it as easy for the GMs as possible by handling reporting, providing chronicle sheets and loaner copies of scenarios, maps when available, etc, but there's not much else I can do. I'm interested in all suggestions.
Pathfinder Explorer
If I want to participate in a story with no consequences for failure, I'll just read a book. I prefer my skill (or lack of skill) to matter in my success level. Otherwise, I have no reason to improve. I also believe that the dice should matter. Otherwise, why roll them at all? I believe that without the ever-present fear of death, victory ceases to have the savor. There's nothing better than dropping the big bad knowing your fighter can't eat another full round, or waiting with baited breath as the die slowly stops spinning to land on that 2 for the bad guy's saving throw, and knowing that it could've gone either way. And there's nothing like GMing a table that's on the cusp of utter defeat when someone pulls out just the right scroll or has the right spell prepped, or makes the right call and jukes left when his instincts should be telling him to dodge right and pulls out a win. The players are excited, everyone's blood is pumping, and you get to share in the celebration. And sometimes, there's nothing like a crushing defeat to remind you how far you still have to come. We had what we thought was a perfect table for Waking Rune in hard mode, and by the end, it wasn't about winning, it was how many body retrievals we were gonna have to pay for. Died like a boss when my superstitious barbarian/fighter failed 2 fort saves in a row. That's not supposed to happen. But that's why we roll dice, folks. Sometimes, the good guys lose. And it was one of the best gaming experiences I've had. We had a phenomenal GM and great players, and I wouldn't change a moment of it.
I disagree with this suggestion. I am currently running ES for a group attempting to play the entire thing on the same characters. The first levels went fast, but they are going slower and slower the deeper the delve. We complete a level about every other week now, and I expect it to get slower still.
I agree with Elder Basilisk. Giving both fighters an attack of opportunity deliberately might've been the GM's way of trying to soft ball. Obviously, it wasn't effective, but if the bad guy had been down to less than ten hit points and let two beefy characters swing swords, it could've been a "here's your chance to kill me and be a hero" moment on the GM's side. I try not to assume the worst of a GM without being there. That being said, I've had my share of bad or killer GMs. It happens. And I've killed new player's characters before. My general tactics with new players is before a player takes an action (such as charging a minotaur after their superior has stated that a minotaur is beyond their capabilities and they should run into a nearby cave, for example) is to explain exactly what the potential reprocussions are of a given action, give an alternate strategy, then ask the player if they truly want to complete said action. If they say yes, I let the dice fall where they may. I dislike the outcome, but I play a game in which we use dice for chance purposes. And who knows? The minotaur could miss his AOO, Valeros could crit and drop him to half health, and an archer could come out and longbow crit and roll max damage. Not likely, but if that's what the players are banking on, who am I to cheapen the experience?
|
Venture-Captain, Pennsylvania—Pittsburgh 245 posts (256 including aliases). 10 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 37 Organized Play characters. 1 alias. 
