Timothy McNeil's page

heck, I've had posters point out that I should not raise my PCs Perception so high that he finds the traps on a "Take 10" - you know, there should be a limit on skill bonuses!

I've had a previous VC (now in a different region) complain that one of my PC's Perception bonus makes it possible to spot invisible creatures, let alone the "Take One" to find magical traps. How dare a character have an ability that contributes to the well-being of the party, right?

Of course, my current VC has a PC who is built to find, disable, and/or bypass traps.

I would kind of like to see this discussion wrap up. The gist of it seems to be that someone has a problem with how other people enjoy the game. The proposed solution is to alter the effect of the game mechanics to bring it into lines with this person's expectations. I have no idea why, other than courtesy, this is being entertained at this length.

I just finished playing in the Kingmaker Adventure Path with an online group. I played an Archaeologist Bard (yes, of course with a whip), and I threatened to name him Wisconsin Smith. Didn't follow through on that, but I did name him Deckard Kimble (after two of Harrison Ford's other roles). :-)

When it comes to sending up Indiana Jones (in naming conventions), it should be (and has been) Wisconsin Platt. You act as though Mark E. Rogers didn't write a series of illustrated books built around a feline samurai named Miaowara Tomokato (or 'meow, tomcat').

In the RPGA, there were a very small number of people (no more than a handful) who managed to earn bans from RPGA play. Several earned multi-year bans for extensive forging of campaign documents (imagine someone making a bunch of forged PFS campaign boons, and you get the general idea). I know of one person who got a lifetime ban, for a physical assault during an RPGA game.

You jump up on a table and kick another player in the face, I think you have earned a lifetime ban.

No one ever seems to be all that concerned when the Neutral characters consistently do Good acts or the Chaotic characters thoroughly obey the law or sign-on to a moral code.

Ok folks, I'm interested in hearing some proposals for what the guidelines should be, specifically, for what a GM should be permitted to change. This means one or two sentences explaining how to adjust an encounter up or down that would apply to all scenarios.

I'd also like for everyone to put your powergamer hats on tight and try to find examples in existing scenarios where the proposed changes could have unforeseen or nonstandard effects.

I'm not saying we'll take any of the given proposals or even that we'll be issuing any sort of policy allowing for GM fiat, but I would like to see what balance issues the community can find with the sorts of things some other members of the community are proposing. I want the advocates for GM fiat to be your own devil's advocates.

Keep it civil, and for those proposing ideas, don't take it personally if someone punches holes in your suggestions.

Also, when citing specific examples from existing scenarios, please use spoiler tags.

I guess my point of origin on this debate is that the PCs are expected to succeed in the scenarios. I may be wrong, but I can cite another well loved OP campaign that included multiple conclusions, many of which supposed a less than successful adventure.

If PCs are supposed to "win", then the only changes that a GM (I prefer the term judge, personally) should make are those that make the characters feel like there was a challenge to be overcome and that allow all PCs to contribute to the eventual success. Most specifically, a GM should never use the opportunity to alter a scenario as a chance to kill PCs.

I don't know that a set system or real rules can be given for it, other than "if you feel the need to cheat as a GM, you cannot kill a PC in any encounter in which you cheated." I also think the real challenge comes from judges who can properly judge the strength and abilities of a party versus those who cannot (or will not). Because there is the latter group, implementing a system to allow alterations will be problematic.

I am actually thinking of giving up PFS altogether after I'm done volunteering at a local convention in April.

Too much work, too little reward (which for me would be that I could play the characters I enjoy playing more than once a year, and it looks like one will be forever stuck waiting to play Part IV of the Eyes of the Ten series).

Still not as bothersome as what I perceive to be petitioning for the over-management of the campaign by a select group here on the boards. I am already having a difficult time having fun with PFS right now; I don't need a steady stream of complaints about how what I enjoy about the campaign is often wrong and needs to be changed. I understand that all of us want what we want, but it seems that too many of "us" want to actively interfere with how others see the campaign.

Uh...

So much of the discussions that have been ongoing make me wish that people would develop a sense of not wanting to ruin other people's good times with a need to have some false sense of order imposed from on-high.

Now there's a challenge. I have a hard time just thinking up the first sentence of a verbless synopsis.

It's just Darmok on Tenagra speak. If you work with iconic Golarion imagery, it could even work.

From a player's perspective, I don't think there needs to be a boon for playing the multi-part scenarios in order. I just want the story to be compelling and connected through all of the scenarios.

It may be a nice giveaway for people who have played through an arc in order, but I don't know that it is necessary.

As an organizer, I see the appeal. It helps the players figure out which PCs to play (with the Quest series, the players chose to not start with characters that would level out before Part III because there was an extra incentive) and allows for some easier scheduling. That is not to say that it always works out for the players, but I don't know that there is anything that can be done about that.

As a GM, I would like the add-ons to be kept to a minimum in terms of the mechanical impact they may have on a session.

Having written all of that, I would be much happier (all around) if PFS scenarios were released based on the connectedness of the stories rather than on filling out the selections by tiers. As Paizo is likely never going to adopt that policy (because it probably only appeals to a few), I think that keeping the multi-parts linked and engaging is the best solution. And if there is any way there can be more PC-NPC roleplaying encounters written into to any scenario, that would thrill me.

Quote:

There is a clear gap developing between those ppl who have small irregular PFS player bases ...

....you don't dismiss our problems because they just don't match your experience.

If you want to say "Hey this is great for my group!" then that's fine. When you try to suggest it's somehow a generic problem among 'small groups', I completely disagree because I've been there. I've dealt with that issue on and off for nearly three years now. Several other people have said likewise.

So your reply to the sentiment that 'your anecdotal experiences cannot be extrapolated across the whole of PFS play' is that your anecdotal experiences are (as stipulated) different, and therefore other concerns must be isolated?

I'm sorry, but that reads as very disrespectful. If this is a situation with which you have dealt for three years (longer than my involvement with PFS), might you offer a solution for how this concern was relieved?

I apologize if this comes off as antagonistic; that is not my intent. My general concern is that there will be players who were allowed to advance PCs under one set of rules and subsequently there will be players who are not allowed the same flexible opportunities. My concern is that it seems to be a bit of an uneven playing field. Granted, this is going to happen to some degree as an OP campaign. Scenarios are retired/removed from play (on a similar note, the Prestige rewards from older mods are different depending on when they may have been played, as is how Prestige is earned). Rewards that are offered at major conventions do not make their way to general availability (I am thinking of a different campaign when I consider that issue). These are, by themselves, minor concerns. However, when they accumulate they seem to be something more.

While I understand the motivation behind the proposed changes -- we all want a better, stronger OP campaign -- I do not know if disallowing players from "leveling" existent PCs up or down to play sanctioned modules is the best answer. I do like the reality of there being risk to the PC who receives the chronicle.

However, my greatest desire would be for PFS to open up scenario play for characters beyond 12th level (and not just module play). I have found (and this is anecdotal, to be sure) that there is less of a commitment to individual PCs and the setting than a previous OP campaign in which I played that finished with mods being written for 18th-20th level PCs. This is not about the "power" of those PCs, but rather the amount of play one can experience with one character. I do not know that sanctioned modules will offer the same level of involvement, especially given how they are not directly tied to the ongoing story of the Pathfinder Society.

I apologize if that comes off as a rant (and even more so if it appears to be uninformed). However, I do think that some of the concerns tend to get overlooked because they don't seem to effect certain vocal parties. So long as the campaign is taking steps to grow and provide a consistently rewarding play experience -- and provided I wish to continue to play -- I will go along with the announced changes. I do think that the proposals as first proposed were not particularly well thought out or forward thinking, but I am not in charge of the campaign. Nor do I speak for or represent anyone other than myself. As such, I must look upon my concerns as they relate to me and not others, excepting (of course) where I see fellow players post concerns that echo my own. I can understand where Dennis can take the input from several players who agree with his sentiments and feel that his experiences are not isolated, but I do not believe that necessarily translates into a truth.

That's about all I have to say on the subjects of the changes and how we respond to one another here.

And this is one reason why paladins are difficult to play. Too often the GM feels that strict adherence to the laws of the land are required, because otherwise, you are not being Lawful.

But law can refer to other aspects as well. My paladin's views on law are more internal. His word is his bond. He does not lie, nor try to find exploitable loopholes in the paladin code.

He believes that everyone should understand their place in society, but stops short of enforcing societal hierarchy. He does not blindly follow the local laws unless they are good for the people therein. An evil law is not to be obeyed and should be combated. Evil rulers, even if "legally" in power, are to be opposed. Chaos, in the form of anarchy, is to be opposed, especially those who actively try to foster it (like demons).

If everyone were familiar with Kant's Categorical Imperative and the premise that 'the only thing which can be considered Good without qualification is a Good Will' (my apologies for not drawing out the actual translated quote), there would be a much better understanding of the ideals to which Paladins aspire.

The Paladin is effectively bound to the Moral Law (the exercise of pure reason irrespective of personal inclination, and where every being must be treated as an End unto his/herself and never as a means). Civil and criminal laws need not have any moral weight or consideration, and while a Paladin should not feel his/herself above them as a divine servant, it is the service to Good without qualification they are (ideally) serving.

Having typed all of that, so long as players don't play there Paladins as blood-thirsty killbots who are rapacious and plunderous I generally let them be without any questioning of the PC's actions (at least not at the table).

I think an OP campaign that strives for a relatively high level of player character death will quickly drive off the casual players.