Beltias Kreun

Tristan d'Ambrosius's page

Organized Play Member. 17 posts (18 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 6 Organized Play characters.


RSS


It would probably help if the Organized Play Tab on this site was updated with that link. I imagine it being frustrating being all shiny and happy with the new hotness and wanting to engage with PFS so you come to this site. You see Organized Play and you hover over if you're at a desktop like I currently am, or you click it if your on a tablet like i recently was. And lo and behold a dropdown menu appears with the first item being Pathfinder Society. So you click it and there's all sorts of info about Season Ten and first edition. Nowhere is there a mention of the new online guide. I wonder how many potential new PFS members have given up in frustration?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Late comer here to posting but I've read the whole thread and I have a question for John Lynch 106. Every time somebody makes a post containing
the stat block for crit successes and crit failures, for example

Critical Success: Blah blah really good stuff happens
Success: Blah blah you succeed but that really good stuff doesn't happen
Failure: You fail bad stuff happens that continues the momentum of the game
Critical Failure: You fail and really bad stuff happens that continues the momentum of the game

you then question the validity of where this comes from. Even asking/ stating

John Lynch 106 wrote:
I don’t even recognise the game that critical fail scenario came from. Maybe Fate or Powered by the Apocalypse? It certainly wouldn’t belong in any D&D game or Pathfinder game I’ve played in. I really hope they don’t put that sort of stuff into Pathfinder 2e.

My question is are trying to make a point or are you being willfully obtuse? Or are you unaware? Because that format was in the Playtest. Cyouni even quoted the crit fail, fail, and success outcome from Mirrored Moon, one of the sections in the Playtest Adventure Doomsday Dawn. This appears to be the format moving forward into Pathfinder 2e. So what are you saying when you question that? Are questioning the format? Or what other individuals have used the format for in this discussion?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
...sounds good until you realize that 5th level spells are only available at level 9 and above...

This part. I don't understand why you included this part. Until you realize? I mean 5th level spells have been only available at level 9 and above for 45 years (from the white box through 5E, from the white box through PF2). When you see a spell is a 5th level spell you know this you don't realize this. And if you are brand new you learn this you don't realize this. Again I don't understand this part. It actually took me completely out of your argument.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

But Amber Diceless is not Pathfinder the game in question in the thread titled:What do you think about the digital future of Pathfinder? A game very much in need of a random number generator to be played. You may not need pen an paper but you do need more than you and your friends. I mean I assume even for Amber a ruleset exists.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
But you don’t even need pen and paper to play. You need nothing but you and your friends.

And dice of a sort, either physical dice or a digital roller. Or else its just RPS (Role Playing Stories) instead of RPG (Role Playing Game).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
But every player needs access to the rules, for those times when they are not with everyone else and want to reference them on their own.

Could've used some of this in the PF2 Strategy Guide thread where people were saying all a transitioning player from PF1 needs is a concise write up of the 3 modes of play and character creation rules. And how not everyone reads or learns the rules and can just rely on other players to tell them what to do. Cause there are people who flat out say not every player needs access to the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And you are the one who brought up 1000 anecdotes about having trouble stopping a car using brakes. And how multiple anecdotes can be as informative as an survey? And I'm asking if those anecdotes are clearly false as anecdotes can be unreliable how is that as informative as a survey? Wouldn't the data and information be unreliable?


So if someone or ones uses 1000 out of 1100 anecdotes about William Shatner being from the future sent back to lead us into a utopia is that reliable data? That would be the data in totatality. So conclusions drawn would agree with that from the anecdotes?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh so you get to pick and choose your definition of anecdote? So you can just pick or choose whether they are reliable or not? What if they are completely untrue stories about say William Shatner? That qualifies as both definitions. And still unreliable data.


But what about the second definition of anecdote:

noun
noun: anecdote; plural noun: anecdotes

a short amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.
"told anecdotes about his job"
synonyms: story, tale, narrative, sketch; More
urban myth, urban legend;
reminiscence;
informalyarn, shaggy-dog story
an account regarded as unreliable or hearsay.
"his wife's death has long been the subject of rumor and anecdote"
the depiction of a minor narrative incident in a painting.

The second definition says an anecdote is unreliable. So you're basing data on unreliable sources? Doesn't that skew results?


Shain Edge wrote:
Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:


I'm so happy you can make a complete judgment on what I find worthy or unworthy Karnak. Because I'd rather play with someone who takes agency and the reigns of the game in hand has no bearing on whether I find some one worthy to play with me. What does that even mean, worthy to play with? Good conversation derail, though. Why would you even want to play a game without knowing the rules? I wouldn't even want to play Battleship without knowing the rules.

You /litterally/ stated-

Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:


Wow!!! I didn't realise so many players would so adversely affect their own agency in game. Glad I don't play with them.

"Glad I don't play with them."

How is anyone supposed to take your statement other then you wouldn't want to play with anyone who hasn't read every rule in the Core book before playing?

Rather then scaring a person off by handing them the Core Rule Book and saying, "Here, read this before you get into my game.", the equivalent to a college text book, wouldn't it be better to give them a much smaller book and say, "Follow the steps here, and you can make a character to play in my game. We will get into how to play when you are at my table."?

(What are you talking about 'Karnak'?)

Glad I don't play with them does not equal unworthy to play with me. Where do you even get that correlation from? Not from anything I said. You quoted it above where is unworthiness even in there? Hint, it's not.

Karnak was a famous skit on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson.


Shain Edge wrote:
Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:


Wow!!! I didn't realise so many players would so adversely affect their own agency in game. Glad I don't play with them.

They aren't bad players, just more casual then you are seemingly willing to give a chance to play. They don't care about making every little detail the optimal damage/effect per round. They just want to hang out.

In fact, it is more likely that it is the 'GM' that will buy one or two of the books so that their Core Rules isn't the bottleneck of chargen. I actually do that in my games. I'm the one who buys, at least the initial, books. Usually two of the main rules. I'm the one who reads the rules, and helps the others learn them as we play.

I sort of know the type of players who would need this sort of book to get off the ground in gaming. You seem to be under the impression that any person who is unwilling to read 300+ pages of rules is unworthy to game at your table.

I'm so happy you can make a complete judgment on what I find worthy or unworthy Karnak. Because I'd rather play with someone who takes agency and the reigns of the game in hand has no bearing on whether I find some one worthy to play with me. What does that even mean, worthy to play with? Good conversation derail, though. Why would you even want to play a game without knowing the rules? I wouldn't even want to play Battleship without knowing the rules.


Shain Edge wrote:
A handbook for players is for players who don't even want to read the rules for play. I don't think I've ever been at a game where at least one or two of the players don't even want to read the rules. They just want to play, and trust the other players to tell them how the game is played.

Wow!!! I didn't realise so many players would so adversely affect their own agency in game. Glad I don't play with them.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Yes, I'm sure that not every player needs to purchase an all up CRB to play pathfinder, which was the point I was responding to. For proof, please see every single iteration of 3.5, including PF1.

To play pathfinder sure but PF2? If all I'm going on is pathfinder and character creation rules and concise rundown of the three modes of play, rather than the actual rules, I'm going to try to take an attack of opportunity when someone moves out of a threatened square. If PF2 holds true to playtest not everyone can do that. How's a transitioning player to know that with their creation rules and concise rundown of three modes of play, not ruleset? Relying on 3.5 and Pathfinder knowledge tripped up every player I playtested with, more than once. How did we correct that? By looking up the rules. Rules that would not be thoroughly provided in character creation rules and concise run down of the three modes of play which you said is all transitioning players would need.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Also, transitioning players do NOT need the entire CRB. They need the character creation rules and a concise rundown of the three modes of play (and what parts of the character sheet are relevant to each). Players coming from 5E would also benefit from a rundown of Golarion. All of which is in the PF1 strategy guide.

Are you really, really sure about that? Because during the Playtest every PF1 player I encountered, self included, needed more than a concise rundown of the three modes of play. They needed every iteration of every rule because of inherent differences. They needed every spell because of the differences.


*Smiles*
My playlist materials arrived today ahead of tonight's character building getting to know you PF2 session. All is good.


*Sigh*
Went to gamestore for PFS play today. Looked longingly at all the Playtest materials they had for sale. I ordered through Paizo so I would have physical copies before 8/5/18 when my home game was gonna start building characters and passing the book around and not worry about a trip to gamestore to get materials. Oh well.
*Sigh*