Jeff Alvarez wrote:
OK< that's my bad then.
What insiders? This is organized by the VO corps, especially the online VOs. Please don't cast aspersions on the character of my fellow volunteers with assumed motives. 'Paizo', in whatever entity you mean, is not organizing this. Your fellow players are.
I can stand corrected on that.
But why have a west coast convention with no need for a travel day have only 1 Sunday slot that was designed for East coast time? Why be the only convention I know of to only to take advantage of half of a 3 day weekend? Why even have it on a 3 day weekend? I want to say that's pretty stupid. But I think there is logic behind the decision and I will never know why the decision was made. It was obviously not made with the customer in mind. Which is my biggest complaint about what Paizo has become. It's no longer a little company that got it's market share by listening to what customers want. It does what it wants and turns customers off.
The VO corp are representative of Paizo. The organized play society only runs Paizo games. Paizo chooses the VO corp.
The VO corp = Paizo
Anyway I'm happy something was put on and appreciate the work that was done. The execution of it has a lot to be desired and hopefully can be remedied or at least considered in the future decision making process.
My main question is directed at the Sunday time slot. No one is travelling so why fake a travel time. this is a 3 day weekend. Why use only half of it?. Why schedule Sunday time slot that doesn't work well for people on the west coast who are the primary demographic for attendees of their convention when it's in person. I know the real reason - the insiders want off schedule time to get together and play games internally. That's cool but in this case you are making west coast customers angry over this lack of attentiveness to customers desires. I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Whatever I guess. I shrug and know this whole stated purpose of Paizocon's purpose is for Paizo employees to keep in touch with the customers is null this year. So, I guess Paizo is just throwing us a bone by organizing this their way. Ok. I get it.
Yep that's the way I see it. I have T,W,F,Sat night time slots to sign up. Possibly Saturday afternoon. Nothing offered Thursday nights or Sundays and I'm not playing at 6 am. So I won't sign up to GM. I Don't have enough playing opportunities and you have to sign up for 4 ofmy 6 possible slots to get any GM bonus. So, I'll play where I can and plan other things during the week. I could possibly sign up to GM after I see where I can play and there are time slots where I'm available and there is nothing I am eligible/interested in playing. But, can't do that it's in backwards order.
Sorry, I'm old I'm not staying up to the AM hours and I am not getting up before 6 AM to play a game. Sleep deprivation is painful.
Paizo had the opportunity to be schedule flexible and offset the time slots so the work on both coasts, but with typical Paizo arrogance - we're just going to do things our way and Customers have to deal with it.
I didn't read through the thread. But what is the point of not scheduling anything on Sunday after 11 AM? It's not exactly a travel day after all?
Anyway initial excitement over this event has been nullified by having to work 8 to 5 Monday through Friday leaving only a few time slots I can sign up for. I'm sure I'm not alone and games in those time slots that I can sign up for will go very quickly.
My opinion is still- when Paizo sanctions modules for PFS play like they did in PFS1 is the day learning all the new PF2 rules are worthwhile to spend any time on. Until that day passes I'm stick to playing SFS, PF1 AP's in home games, as well as RPG's from other companies. I long ago got burned out on the PFS scenario format. No one in any of my home games wants to jump to PF2.
I believe the combat cooking is one fight with 3 encounters on the map. Like fighting 3 different creatures in one fight. Having three different fights does seen to be a common GM error.
When I played it and when I ran it the Combat cooking encounters came across as kiling cows who could barely fight back.
GM Wageslave wrote:
To each his own. But I absolutely hate theater of the mind when things are complex. The complexity for me does the opposite. It must be mapped out. Players can't tell what they are doing and GM's always forget something they said about the playing field. Distances change between things because GM's forget what they said. Players have to ask who do I have a clear shot or can I shoot this guy without cover. Or who can I reach and attack. etc. etc.
I ordered also. I didn't see on the order where I could say I was part of the kickstarter. I purchased the Zo mini the Necrovite, and the 1/2 Elf Steward. I put it in the ordering notes I was part of the kickstarter. My kickstarter order of the phase-1 mini's arrived with the other mini's I purchased.
I received them in California on 11/13/19.
They do require assembly. The Necrovite in particular I found difficult to assemble. The 1/2 Elf Steward was fairly easy to assemble. I haven't touched the others yet.
Xathos of Varisia wrote:
I am going to disagree.
First I need to define players. I'm not talking about people who play home games. I'm talking about people who play organized play at events (convention and stores). And I am only talking about my experience in my area. (and so should you).
The first item is most people want to play the whole thing. In PFS AP's the sanctioning did not provide for this. I 44 of 46 PF1 modules and Stafinder AP's the entire book was sanctioned.
If the whole thing can be played in my area I can think of 2 players who prefer the freedom of campaign mode and a few dozen who will only play them in a organized play mode.
It's already been stated multiple times. Players who do not want campaign mode want to play their characters not a copy of their characters. And some people includeing me want to play the organzied play rules because GM fiat can sometimes be heavy b*!~*!$! that most players don't agree with. PFS mode insures GM's stay in the guidelines.
Let me give you an example. This one situation caused 2 players from my home game to quit playing organzied play forever. A GM at a convention all weekend was bragging to other GM's he was going to kill all the players at his table when he ran a particular scenario. When we started playing and he couldn't do that in the first 2 encounters he bumped up the tier of the scenario wihtout telling anyone and right in front of everyone rolled a dice picked it up real quick and stated he rolled much higher then he actually did. In campaign mode this behavior is just fine the GM can be an a%$~&*+ and kill the players because the GM sets the rules. Even rolling a 12 and saying he rolled a 20 is in his perogitive. In organized play this table was nixed. No one died and all the players were allowed to replay the scenario. Did this ruling by VO's help. It did a little but it also stopped this BS from this GM happening anymore. He could not do that in organzied play. Because of things like this happening every once in awhile I will not sit at a table with a GM i didn't know with an ongoig organized play chararter and let the GM change whatever rule they wanted to kill characters.
I also would like to point out that in my area Starfinder would not have picked up like it did without the Dead Suns sanctioning like PF modules for additional orgainized play items.
This came up yesterday in my home game when I was expalining how Paizo changed module sanctioning and the response was something like "that sucks, I wouldn't have stuck with Starfinder without the AP sanctioning". I have to agree with him without the Dead Suns sancioning of all content(Starfinder AP's are shoreter than PFS content) I don't think I would have been sold on Starfinder either.
I sure hope this decision is related only to PF2 and is not also applied to SFS. We get a lot of play and enjoyment out of the SFS AP's sanctioned the way they are. And I know most players that I play iwth want to play their SFS characters and rotate them between scenarios and AP's. Both myself and most of the players I play with would not play the AP's at all if they couldn't use their SFS characters with SFS rules. We wait until sanctioning happens before anyone wants to play them.
Xathos of Varisia wrote:
Lets make this simpler. Table consent cannot overturn organized play rules. Table consent is not a legitimate way for a GM to change organized play rules.
Xathos of Varisia wrote:
No they cannot. Rules are rules.
It sounds like you don't believe in rules. Why have saving throws, why roll a d20.
If you don't believe in rules than you are exactly the type of GM I wouldn't want to be anywhere around.
I've been at tables where the GM asked for players consent. a few agreed and no one spoke up with disagreement. As soon as a player died all hell broke loose because PFS rules were not followed. Complaints went up to VO's and the GM was "spoken too" and the results overturned. The dead characters were no longer dead. Having players agree on something with the GM in organized play means nothing if organized rules are not followed.
I have seen GM decision overturned when it comes to boon awards on chronicle sheets because the GM did not follow the rules.
Any player at anytime can go to a VO and say the GM could not mark my character dead because we did not play a legal PFS table and it doesn't matter that the GM marked the character as dead.
Xathos of Varisia wrote:
We do have a module for PFS play. Its title is The Fall of Plaguestone.
You keep saying that and you have yet to provide a link to back your statement up.
Things changed it's not the same and it impacts a part of out community. If it doesn't impact you- well good for you. It impacts others if you agree or not.
Ferious Thune wrote:
I should also point out that only a few modules have a campaign mode option. (Dragons Demand and the Reborn Forge are the only ones). All 34 of the others only have PFS mode.
AP's are a different beast. all have them have a campaign or a PFS mode.
In my area we rarely see AP's put on an event schedule, because most people don't want to play them in campaign mode. Modules in PFS mode are scheduled at every large northern California convention (all 7 of them with the Bay Area and Sacramento) and are put on schedules at many local stores.
Not having modules for PFS mode is a major loss in my area. No doubt about it.
And Michael Knows this. I played the Witchwar Legacy(tiers 16-18) with him and we had 2 full tables for this module in Feb. 2019 at Dundracon in the Bay Area.
Ferious Thune wrote:
I will point out if you are counting hours you need to multiply the modules by 3. So in hours you are talking 63 to 79 hours in your count. That's 44% of the time.
Xathos of Varisia wrote:
You are wrong. No matter how you spin it. There is not PFS mode anymore.
Here is the difference I don't know you I don't trust GM's i don't know. I've run into to many GM's who like to play a GM vs player style battle. They are out to get players. I like to play stuff as it is written because even gm's with good intent when they change things they usually screw stuff up. PFS mode protects against all of these concerns. That's why I only play modules in organized play in PFS mode. This decision is literally the last nail in the coffin for my interest in organized play for PF2. I'm only interested in modules and playing a scenario here and there. (I've burned out on the PF scenario model a long time ago).
It’s probably area dependent. And how you define rare.
It’s been done for years and now suddenly Paizo doesn’t have the time.
Well the skin is on their sales department. It will equate to less sales and less players.
No, there are diffeences. Pirate Rob's posts up toward the top of the thread spells them out.
There have been a number of times people have stepped forward and wanted to run something at a store in campaign mode and all the players declined. They would only wanted to play it in PFS/SFS mode.
Just the door hitting me harder in the ass on the way out of organized play interest.
I always enjoyed playing modules in pfs mode over scenarios.
The point is I want to be able to use my organized play character in modules which I enjoy far more than scenarios. I want to be able to pull them off the shelf whenever needed for modules or scenarios.
Is this carrying over to SFS AP's also? very disappointing.
I was waiting to start up PF2 with the organized play sanctioning of the Fall of Plaguestone. No sanctioning in Pathfinder mode no interest in PF2. It's that simple.
To get this thread back on track:
A - I anticipated annoying Goblins in many sessions
Conclusion - In my experience most people playing goblins are not being disruptive.
... because you didn't get to roleplay being a jerk? I'm confused.
lol, yep I was going to role play being a jerk to jerks, You got it. But i didn't experience any jerks.
It's a long story maybe for another thread. But in essence nothing excites me about pf2. nothing at all. I've played 2 scenarios and found the rule mechanics slow the game down to a drag for my tastes and the whole idea of a re-hashed pathfinder society doing the same things with similar stories as before built on a more family friendly environment to be rather old and stale for my tastes. I've done it 350 times already.
If the opportunity presents itself I'm still willing to try modules for PF2.
This was one of my main concerns going into PF2. I came up with a character concept that I would through role playing put goblins in their place. I played 2 scenarios both Goblin characters behaved normally and my only character concept for PF2 got blown up as nothing to role play.
So, now I'm back to not a single character concept that interests me and I would rather play other games at this time.
I'm prepping this scenario and if the role playing session get proper attention this scenario can run 6 hours long.
Please developers keep scenarios to under 4 hours. Some of us have hard stops at 4 hours. When I played this the role playing sessions were shortened one test was cut entirely (the exploding skeletons) and the capture the flag was rushed because we had 20 minutes left. The final story part conclusion with the shuttle was dropped because we ran out of time.
SFS outside of a few scenarios has been doing a great job keeping scenarios short. Please keep them short.
for the cards I through them onto the table and swirled them around. and told the players these cards are at your characters feet. 2 of 3 times I've run it, it didn't take long for a character to figure out the encounters were similar to the cards. The other time there was a Harrower in the party and I just told him since I figured he would know them inside and out.
I do, by trying to shorten the first post that created problems I left stuff out that gave an impression that I created a female character for the sole purpose of hitting on male characters and that's not the case. That character is not even hitting on people.
I know that character should never been created in first place. At the time I wanted to explore the role playing that would come out of it.
I don't really have more to say on the subject.
Kate Baker wrote:
I’m going to beat a dead horse. I’ve had a difficult time trying to explain this situation and I think I’ve formulated a way to make it clear.
I know people’s opinion is role playing flirting behaviors is over the top and should not be used. And that’s cool. I frankly didn’t know that this behavior was unsettling to others. In my mind we are in make believe world not a real one.
If I cut the roie-playing out of the situation and go strictly game mechanics I’m making a bluff check to influence a Npc to do something equivalent to a charm person spell. My character is pretending to like the male npc and I’m using this to my advantage, My character is using him and she has no intention of interacting with this person ever again. It’s the equivalent of someone going on a date for free food even though they already know right after dinner they never want to see this person again. Or someone at a bar is pretending to be interested with someone for the sole purpose of getting them to buy drinks.
The reason I created this character is in a fantasy setting I thought it would be interesting to role play behaviors through a character that I find abhorrent. She lies, she leads people on, she pretends to be in to someone for self-gain, she leaves people hanging high and dry, she breaks promises, the list goes on and on. All of this behavior is only targeted to NPC’s, never player characters.
This leads to the gender I chose. I am male I didn’t want this behavior of the character to be mistaken for behavior I approved. So, I made her female. there are other reason for this choice, Onc was to create more of a division between real life and fantasy world. Also, when I created this character I thought it would create issues with players if it was male on female, based on the s%+# that goes on in society, But I didn’t know if it would create problems with players if it was female to male. When I first started playing this character, I was watching how people reacted to this s#*#ty behavior. It didn’t seem to create any issues, ot seemed to inspire role playing in others. so I drew the conclusion that I could carry on it wouldn’t cause problems.
I know the main issue people had was with the my post was the descriptive language I was using to describe flirting, but in actuality, I have never knowingly flited in my life. Outside of about 5 flirting behaviors, I’m completely naïve of what a flirting behavior is. I had a shocker about 6 months ago when I found out I was being flirted on for several weeks through compliments and flattery. I thought the person was being nice. I had no idea that flattery is a form of flirting when targeted at someone single who is in a gender group you are attracted too. So, that means -I’ve been screwing some stuff up in my life. When I first meet people, I sometimes compliment people to be nice, to try to cheer them up, or to bring up a new topic of conversation. So, when I do that to a single female I was displaying flirting behavior without knowing it. And I have probably done this hundreds of times in my life.
Kate Baker wrote:
Most local people know what your thoughts are about this so I don't think you see it as much as it happens. People just don't do it when you are playing at the table. It's easy for me to shut it down as a player but my concern is as a GM is it OK at some tables and not others or is it never ok because it is too distasteful for too many and thus should always be shut down.
I should add that Paizo does not ban it from play. There are prestige classes such as Deadly Courtesan that focuses on abilities a courtesan would use. There is also a Deific Obedience for Calistria where you get a mechanical game benefit for either sleeping with someone in the past 24 hours or sleeping naked under the stars.
Is there any previous threads that one can point too. That discuses in organized play what are people's thoughts about characters flirting with or seducing npc's? As a gm I encounter it here and there and roll with the amount of role playing the player does. using their comfort level. But stopping at any intimacy beyond kissing and daying something like " ok, it's the next morning", No on has ever said a thing to me about it being inappropriate. As a player if the table players and gm seem right at a particular table, I sometimes do it myself if it's a characteristic that is developed into that characters personality, such as the character mentioned above who uses her sexuality and uses flirting as a weapon to get what she wants from men.
It's off topic for this thread, so if there is not a previous discussion to piggy back on I'll start a new thread.
In certain places this may be true but I rarely play these days with people who I have not played with before and most people know I have some crazy ass characters. I usually get compliments on them but occasionally i get feedback that I should tone it down which I do.
Anyway my characters get deep at times because for me role playing is substituting for theater acting, and in theater acting you dig very deeply into character motivations, desires, flaws, etc. Some plays are comedies others are dramas. While developing a theater character there is a very open communication with cast members and directors in this process, ideas are shared openly.
But I do need to lighten up with characters. Those are lessons I've learned by playing characters in organized play.
I need to find a balance of fun character development and not off-putting to others.
It's not the same as developing a character for theater. Simply put the cast, crew, director, and audience is not the same.
Anyway her is my list of female characters – I said in a previous post it’s about 40% of all my characters were female. But counting them up I only have 7 female characters out of 36. So it’s actually less than that.
Dakin -Female Oracle mentioned above who uses her sexuality to get people to do what she wants. Example I gave above sometimes came out depending on the gm and the players at the table. She’s super powerful and 18th level she doesn’t need to flirt anymore she just gets her way.
Lt. Orlov - Female Jadwiga Winter Witch. The only reason she is female is it fits her Jadwiga Witch story. She is a low charisma character because no one like a witch.
Peppery - Female Gnome Oracle –very playful, childish, like a gnome, I made her female mainly because It felt right to ask boys if they thought she was cute (her catch phrase) and it seemed a better fit for someone who was obsessed with her own green hair.
Vesironia - Female Priestess of Calistira – Overtly sexual I never played her at a table with kids. I don’t play her anymore because everyone else at the table would take things I was saying as sexual when they weren’t intended to be, and that led to sex jokes for the rest of the game which I grew tired of. This character main motivation was trying to get people to brothels.
Aerys – Dark, moody, an alcoholic, who is bitter of men. I lightened her up from earlier levels. She was too dark and bringing table fun down.
Anastatia – Based off Anastatia Romanov, very Victorian morales, and finds any hint of physical intimacy as repulsing.
Stella SFS – I came up with the name first and someone immediately yelled stela at me in a Marlon Brando type of way. Now I use that in her character as a recurring nightmare she has and doesn’t understand and she freaks out if a player does it at the table. Also I mentioned her in a previous post she thinks guys like her for her looks and reminds them to keep it professional she is also repulsed by anyone getting to close to her “ No, touching” is her catch phrase.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
I stand corrected that's how I understood it when I read it.
Kate Baker wrote:
I was pulling an example I only actually did a few times many years ago. And only if the GM played along and the table was more heavy on deep role playing. That much detail came out very few times. But she is dark using her sexuslurty to take advantage of people is something I have seen and experienced many times.
Basing characters off real people with real problems can go too far. It's the exact opposite of what Bob said in one of the opening posts that he doesn't like cross gender players because they can't know what it's like.
Anyway I do apprecite the feedback that it is oversly sexualuzed and creepy to most folks. Even though I don't role play like that anymore it will reinforce me to steer away from that next time I'm struggling to put a characters personality together.
I’ve been thinking about this topic about cross gender character role playing.
I’d say about 40% of my PFS/SFS characters are female. Most of my characters are loosely based on someone real of fictional. All my characters have personality flaws of some sort, many have Biass, and each has catch phrases that I use only with that one character. Some are really silly some are much more deep with real world personality quirks/flaws. With that background about how I develop a character personality for PFS and SFS. I do know why I make a character female.
I’ve been GMing for almost 40 years I routinely and normally role-play female NPC’s the party encounters. So, I’m very comfortable in that role. But most PFS GM’s are male and most don’t cross gender role play very well. So, when I have a character that has a personality flaw/quirk that is cross gender dependent I get much more traction and good role playing when I make my character female so I’m in a role I’m fine with and It lets GM’s role play in their comfort zone.
For example, my very first PFS female character thinks everyone else is beneath her and she uses her super good looks to take advantage of the opposite sex. So, if there is a role -playing encounter where there is a NPC male that we are having problems getting information from. I will literally describe to the GM how my character is flirting. I will often tell the GM (after reminding him of my picture and Super high Charisma (32),) Something like- ” I walk up really close behind him barely brushing up against him, I let him smell my scent and I lightly blow in his ear.” If that doesn’t work I might go on further and start hinting at something special later. As soon as she gets what she wants the guy is dumped. She doesn’t give a s+%@. She just used him and spit him out. In real life this could be done by any gender to any gender.
Not all my female characters are so dark. My latest SFS character is constantly worried that men won’t take her seriously, so her catch phrase is “I’m strictly professional, so, no touching”. She uses that in the character intro and whenever the characters are squeezed into close physical proximity.
Not all my character have cross gender personality quirks, but the one’s that do I almost always make females due to the role playing traction I get by allowing gm’s to play in their male comfort zone.