Zoplo's page

Congrats!! Look forward to gaming with ya in the area...

Quote:

Also if losing a character in a Pathfinder scenario ruins someones day they should turn on the news and realize a day of gaming really wasn't that bad....

It's the epitome of a problem unique to "first world" countries if you really allow your imaginary character's death in a game to affect your day.

While I agree with some of your sentiments here, Zoplo, I feel like they're a little out of place in this discussion.

We wouldn't have a 350+ post thread on the issue of scenario difficulty if it wasn't something that people cared about. You wouldn't have GM'd 10+ games to get that star I see by your name if you really didn't care about it. Sure, we all know it's a game, and we all know that it's not going to ruin a persons life to see Bob the Barbarian die to that ogre -- but it still sucks for some people.

Also, your second statement regarding "first world" countries and their problems versus problems elsewhere in the world opens up a lot of doors that really don't belong in this thread.

Fair enough. I get what you're saying. The only reason I went down that road was to address the argument of character death being a bad thing somehow (and it ruining a day was the reference used). In my opinion it's part of the game. It's also an instrumental part of making the game fun for a lot of players. The "danger" it poses makes "winning" more rewarding of an experience. So back to what I was saying in my original post I believe Pathfinder scenarios are often too easy.

re: Benrislove It's the epitome of a problem unique to "first world" countries if you really allow your imaginary character's death in a game to affect your day. Seriously. I have enjoyed characters thoroughly in games prior. I understand attachment to a character but I revel in a characters death and often see it as more glorious than surviving to retirement. The epic fail in battle of a barbarian trying to hold back a troll is awesome as is the "whoops that trap was rough". On the idea of playing lower level characters to ensure a challenge... I agree entirely level 1-3 play is my favorite. The vulnerability creates a realism that I enjoy a lot.

I understand what you're saying Lab Rat but how do you play up when you are at the scenarios level cap? Also maybe just two levels of difficulty isn't enough to ensure a good challenge more often.

Personally I believe there is already tension and peer pressure at table because simple differences in personality and factions. Also if losing a character in a Pathfinder scenario ruins someones day they should turn on the news and realize a day of gaming really wasn't that bad.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the argument but I respectfully disagree.

Often stuff in the introduction can include spoilers. Also it can end up giving the players information they can get later through checks anyways. Sometimes it's good to let them in on some of it. So in the end it's a case by case thing in my opinion. Use your discretion.

I have yet to GM a pathfinder scenario I think was "hard" for players. Additionally questions surrounding difficulty in scenarios will never have a happy ending because there are many different preferences and play styles. Personally I think a party wipe should be a strong possibility in at least a quarter of scenarios. Other people would prefer their character be near invincible and actually have fun when they just thrash a monster that was literally no challenge. Neither is wrong.

It's silly to bring up. Besides just playing up, maybe there could be a way for a table to decide to opt for easy or hard encounters. Those who opted for harder encounters during their scenarios could reap higher rewards. Mild to downright deadly... Thoughts?

Well damn.

Is my face red.

I swear I checked that list and just didn't see it. Maybe I was just looking for "table" instead of "animated object."

...

On a completely unrelated note... how does one delete a post so that no one ever has to know you asked a stupid question?

This sort of thing happens to me all the time man. Don't feel bad about it. I wrote and submitted a quest using the moniker of "Grand Harvester" for a character. Then literally a day or two later ran a mod from one of the early seasons that mentioned a "Grand Harvestman". I felt pretty dumb and needless to say I doubt it will get picked up... I also went on to suggest some ideas on the general GM forums to improve my game experience only to have people show me that all of the concerns I had were already addressed or were in the process of being addressed by Paizo. At the end of the day you are not alone when it comes to stuff like this. =)

I'm just another hopeful trying to give serious and constructive advice. Take it or leave it. All is said with the best intentions and respect for your work.

Your idea itself is nearly 700 words. It sounds like a tall order to get that many acts cut down into a 2000 word complete adventure (especially when including stat lines). Start by trying to cut fat off of the adventure itself. If anything could simply be narrated or is redundant, make the appropriate changes. Although if you can pull it off... more power to you.

As far as the one model per bestiary box issue,it sounds a bit silly to limit your encounters to what you can purchase in one box of "minis". We've all played an encounter or two with something misrepresented because someone simply didn't have the mini. I assume most of us (unless uber wealthy) will again in the future. I hope it's just a guideline to use creatures that "can" be represented by minis.

Sweet, thanks for clearing that up guys.

Thanks for reopening the opportunity to submit to the Open Call. I have two questions.

Larger issues that display a lack of attention to detail and familiarity with our products and style: capitalizing spell names; not capitalizing feat names; not italicizing magic items or spells; not adhering to our established format of presenting encounters in separate sections describing creatures, traps, development, treasure, and so forth; lack of understanding of how to calculate CR for a multi-creature encounter; misspellings of established proper nouns from our setting or the campaign; not spell-checking your document; not proofreading your document for grammatical errors.

With the degree of difficulty in gaging Pathfinder Society scenario combat, what constitutes a "lack of understanding of how to calculate CR for a multi-creature encounter"? Example: In the 1-2 subtier you could end up running a table of four 1st level non-optimized characters. You could also end up running a table of six 2nd and 3rd level characters that are completely broken.

I guess what I'm asking is if you want us to correctly calculate their combined CR or create a level appropriate encounter which has the above mentioned problems.

As far as the Idea Submission Agreement goes, is a digital signature acceptable or must you send a scanned image of a signed copy?

Thanks for your time,
Dawson

We should have new guidelines for the Pathfinder Society Open Call in the next few weeks. Until then, reading and playing existing adventures (both within the Pathfinder Society and Pathfinder Modules lines) are great ways to see what we've done in the past and what neat ideas you've got haven't been tried before.

What about those of us who have already made submissions without a response? Do you have any idea of how long before you drudge through the backlog? I wouldn't want to make another attempt without having addressed any issues or criticisms of my past writing.

Thanks for your time,
-Dawson

lol awesome. as per usual im a day late and a dollar short with ideas. glad to hear it's already being addressed though sounds like it will be a blast. do you have any links to those threads?

Yeh I thumbed through that actually for the first time yesterday. I mostly looked at the Cheliax fame rewards and the adventure packs. That sounds incredible I will have to check that out. Thanks so much for the info.

When it comes to comparing PFS play to home play it's been hard for me to think of how to bring the best elements of both under one roof. There are obvious challenges to this. Pathfinder is amazing because you get to play professionally written and crafted modules. Additionally pathfinder does an incredible job of creating a level and fair field for organized play (which is sometimes lost in home games). Unfortunately in the process I think you sacrifice a few things that make RPGs so fun in the first place. In conversation with my fellow players at PFS events I have found they believe the same things are missing.

A small issue is ownership and more specifically property ownership. In a home game you can often attempt to buy a land holding or climb the ladder of nobility and even build a settlement or keep. Now for obvious reasons being a noble, owning a castle or making giant waves in the world doesn't make too much sense when playing in the PFS. However why couldn't someone own a bar, ship or be a weapons merchant? Why couldn't they be a smith? Don't these types adventure too? The main problem is managing character wealth right? What if the place you owned (after spending the appropriate PP and GP) merely gave you a circumstantial bonus when dealing with others of the same merchant type or a discount on similar good?

Another issue in PFS is influence. In a home game you make choices that change the world. In PFS your character has little to no influence over the course of a season. Essentially my PFS character goes through module after module walking a predetermined path. What if there were options within the modules that influenced an overlying mutli-season plot.

FOR EXAMPLE: Say PCs tracked down a thief brought him to trial and at the end of trial got to choose his fate. Incarceration or forgiveness. After each group played this module or scenario the GM reported with choice the PCs made. At the end of a season it turns out the PCs overwhelmingly chose his incarceration. In the next season he's back and out for revenge at a surprise point during another module.

(this could also go to a larger scale) Say two venture captains of opposing factions wanted the same information reported. Both offer separate rewards and have different intentions of dealing with the information.

The final issue that I end up with is PVP. It's something that would be incredibly fun to participate in and I fully understand the reasons why it doesn't work during module play. What if there were tournaments once in a while? What if they worked by level tier. Also you couldn't gain xp from these but you can get some treasure and a bit of fame (for winning). The same characters couldn't compete in more than 1 a season....

At the end of the day I enjoy PFS. These are just some ideas I have and an attempt to get a conversation started. Thanks for reading.