Adaro

roysier's page

Goblin Squad Member. ********* Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 848 posts (1,072 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 48 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 175 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
roysier wrote:
Extensively long combats are normal. ... If you don't like long combats don't play 2e.

That has not been my experience. Nor the experience of the majority of the people that I have talked to on the PF2 forums.

If this has been your experience, I would suggest going to the PF2 advice forum and having some of the system experts troubleshoot what is going wrong. We have had several people come on there in the past to find out what they are doing incorrectly. Most commonly it is that they do not have Striking runes on their weapons, they are not using any teamwork, or they have forgotten to add their level to their proficiency. All of those types of inaccuracies in running the game have led to combat falling apart at about level 5 - level 10.

lol, or you are not playing with PF1 players who are not proficient. To each his own. I have now been through 2 x 4 hour combats using pf2 rules. I have never, not once, over a few thousand sessions at many different levels as a player and GM seen a combat ever run that long in PF1 or SF1. The long combats make sense if you think about it. PF2 creatures have buckets of hit points. Spells are nerfed so there are no quick ending combat spells, you have creatures that have high levels of regeneration, knowledge of creatures is nerfed do you often don't know the most effective way to fight something. I get it, some people like the balance and will take the long combats. Others like me find long combats boring. So for me 2nd edition is an absolute No Go. I assume most people who think like me have already abandoned Paizo. so I'm sure my opinion is in the minority on this forum.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It looks like I'm in a minority. But I never liked the PF2 rules. 3 and 4 hour combats starting around level 10 are boring as hell. So, it looks like Paizo has nothing more to interest customers like me with this cut over.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Mangrum wrote:
roysier wrote:
I would suggest skipping the starship combat at the start of the book all together. It pisses players off to completely obliterate the opponents without taking any damage to their ship and barely a scratch to their shields and play starship combat for an hour or more in actual time only to lose automatedly by box text. Auto losing a combat by Box text is really crappy thing to do to players. I've never seen this done before in a Paizo product.

Just eyeballing it, that starship combat did look underpowered to me. (I don't care how the stacking CR math supposedly works, Tier 5 foes are gnats fated to go squish on a Tier 10 ship's viewscreen.) But since you do want to establish the threat, I would go ahead and keep the encounter while upping the challenge. Also, if/when I run this, I'll be setting it during the Drift Crisis, so my penciled-in plan is to have the adventure kick off at the moment of the Drift Crash itself. The PCs' ship is slapped out of the Drift, into the planet's upper atmosphere, with feedback from the Crash causing their Drift engine to overload the ship's systems; thus the fight becomes a race to fend off the attackers before the PC's ship burns out its own electronics.

I also have some lingering questions about the history and population of the planet, but I'm willing to chalk that up to "situation more intricate than the adventure has room to explore."

A good suggestion. It's hard for me to believe Paizo can't figure out a starship encounter tough enough to beat the players ship by using the actual game rules, and thus have to resort to a cheap shot boxtext defeat of the starship. This gets a big "Wow!!" when I tell other RPG players about this encounter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I found another map error. Room G3 is flipped upside down from the other levels. The elevator does not align. I assume this was done due to the box text and room description saying there is a portal in the south side of the room. So flipping it upside down allows for the boxtext to be accurate but throws off the elevator to the other levels.

The more I think about it the more I am surprised about how many editing errors there are in this module. Most of them have to do with maps or stat blocks. it's really too bad. This was Paizo/Starfinders opportunity to show off their mech rules and the module gets screwed up due to over a dozen very obvious editing errors. I used to read those RPG superstar contest notes. What happened to all the Paizo precision based on those comments?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

More feedback on this scenario. First the overall story line is great. The players are just discovering the mechs and are excited about the mech element of the scenario.

There are some issues with this module however that don't have to do with the overall plot line.

First besides all the issues with every room in area H not matching what is in the book. (as mentioned in my post a few up from this one). There are other map errors in the mech bunker maps. The box text does not match the map. Area E1 is the most glaring example of this.

I would suggest skipping the starship combat at the start of the book all together. It pisses players off to completely obliterate the opponents without taking any damage to their ship and barely a scratch to their shields and play starship combat for an hour or more in actual time only to lose automatedly by box text. Auto losing a combat by Box text is really crappy thing to do to players. I've never seen this done before in a Paizo product.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Leon Aquilla wrote:

Junker's Delight was a really well put together intro module but I feel like Locus-1 was kind of slapdash with an underwhelming finale.

Disappointed to hear about your experience with the rest of the Starfinder Adventures. Maybe AP's are better organized? It sounds like the adventures work best as idea mines.

The first 2 standalone adventures I thought were fine.

Red Rally was organized in a way that makes it extra difficult for the GM to organzied it and it seems the brain trust just simply forogt that a 7th level Operative with a standard build and ship bonuses will compeltly blow up the adventure. (by taking 10's on piloting rolls and making 80 stratigh pilotiong rolls by greater than 5).

To Defy the Dragon, it looks like there were last minute changes that created a word count crunch and whoever made the changes royally screwed up area H. (i've GM'ed hundreds of paizo products and have never seen anything this messed up).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another error. Area H7 in the book(H6 on the map) lists guards but leaves out how many guards. My guess is 4.

Another error Pg. 47 lists a creature names Zavrix and type page 120 of Alien Achieve 3. The stats in the book don't match whats on page 450 of AA3. I have no idea what the creature is supposed to be. However pg. 120 of AA3 does have a Void Troll which seems like a good substitute.

What the hell happened to the high quality products that Paizo in known for?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm really confused by the map on the back cover and what is in the book.

H6 on the map is H7 in the book
H7 on the map is H8 in the book
H8 on tha map is H9 in the book
H9 is H10
H10 is H11

Bottom floor is also screwed up

H1 on the map is H3 in the book
H4 on the map is H5 in the book

The rest I'm guessing. I don't see the kitchen described in the book and I have no idea what H5 on the map is. so those are probably matched up.

H3 on the Map I'm guessing is where H6 the memory vault is
H2 on the map I think is H1 in the book

The unmarked central hallway is probably H2 in the book. The 4 gargantuan creatures can start in the air so the room fits them all.

I've never seen a Paizo map get so screwed up. It's very disappointing I was thinking up to this point how well this module is written, and I was very excited to run it. But it appears some last minute editing/module cuts were not edited very well. Thus making the H maps and the non-existent K map a confusing mess to figure out - what is where.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

There is an easy fix to fix to the 7th level Operative being able to take a 10 on all piloting rolls and blowing out the entire module. Start the module 1 level lower. Character start at level 6 and not leveling them to 7 until after the first 2 rallys. In that way the rallys will have a level of challenge to them. Then if the Operative blows out the piloting rolls in rally 3,4, and 5 there will be a feeling of a come back victory.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have wrapped up running this. Total play time was 18 hours of game play. This takes a hell of a lot of prep and note taking by the GM. This module works better with GM's who can spontaneously Improv. multiple NPC's.

There are lots of names dropped. Hainb handout and cheat sheets for the players is required for the players to have any idea who is who.

The scenario itself is fun but not organized in a way that makes it easy for the GM. (again requiring extra GM prep time).

The setting up of the villains to be villains was nicely done.

If you run as written this scenario is a cake walk for a standard party, It's way too easy. A standard 7th level operative can beat the Pilot DC's by over 5 on every roll. Since they can take 10's at 7th level. This leaves 1/3 of the module an exercise in the GM saying this happens and the party bypassed the obstacle easily.

The combats are also way too easy. The party smoked them.

I suggest this not be run as written. The GM needs to adjust the DC's so the pilot doesn't always beat the DC's+5 - 80 straight times. At the end the party was 60 points ahead of the 2nd place team.

Every time the module said another group reached a checkpoint first that seemed rather dumb since no party could beat a perfect score by the party. So I had to adjust what I said and say there are other racing ships right with you and you are jockeying for the top spot.

I ran this with the characters starting at level 7 and advanced to level 8. I left them at level 8 and they smoked the level 9 part of the module. There was no challenge to the party at any point with the following 2 exceptions.

The attack by the sea monster during the boat race was a challenge, except the party just go back in the boat and speed off.

The final fight was a bit challenging for the party at level 8 characters facing a level 9 encounter. However only 1 party member ever reached hit points and that was quickly healed.

The final starship combat was stupidly easy. It was pointless. I don't know why authors write starship combats with ships that can't do more damage than the players ship can repair shields per round. The NPC ship could on average do 14 points of damage to the PC ship, who in turn could repair 15 points of shield each round. This makes starship combat a complete waste of time. Why even bother if the opposing ship cannot damage the players ship?

That my 2 cents. Interesting idea and plot, however it needs a lot of work by the GM to make it worthwhile to a party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is seriously one of the hardest adventures to prep I have ever had to deal with.

Can anyone help me identify which NPC's are in the portaits:

Pg.54 Left to Right I think it should be
Tolar
???don't know
Kitian Sparrs
Nenvi
Thel-Savai
TN8

Pg. 55 Left to Right I think it should be
Zenkayesh
Penvo
??? (looks like a female halfing?)
Tanisi
Welavor
???
Kexyl

Pg.33 Left to right
Iseph - Iconic
Tanisi
???(Male Human)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I got a bone to pick on this one. I'm trying to prep this to run it and It is unessaerly difficult on the GM's. I have read and run a few thosuand adventures across mutlple games systems and this one is one of the most difficult to prep and it doesn't have to be. It has to do with the organzaion of the facts. Instead of making things easy to look up for the GM it's more important that it reads like a novel.

The clues in garage pg 7-8 are not highliged in a order that the GM can not find them easily when the party is sandboxing the clues. Order them by section in the garage not alpabetical order by what is found. (see any chaosisum product on how to group things by area).

Now I'm up to the competition section. That's cute how it's written on Pg 51-54. but WTF - how is a GM suposed to make heads or tails of this. I'm trying to go through and write down team names. And I can't figure out exactly who the 12 teams are. I go to page 19 and it lists teams. Some of those team names on page 19 don't even appear on pg 51-54. I spent a few hours trying to figure out who all the teams are. it would help for the GM's you cut out all the novel writting and give us a list so the GM's can figure out what is what easily.

This is a game adventure/accessory. Make it easy on the GM's to GM

I'm only a part way into prepping this I'm about ready to throw it the trash. It looks like a fun adventure but not worth all the prepping heacaches.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When I saw the title and location I was hoping for some Ulfen(or viking) Lore and adventure. Instead we get Nightmares in babysitting - babysit 5 spoiled brats. Not my thing that's for sure. I 'll defiantly have to keep a much closer eye on what scenarios I want to play after this one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This looks pretty interesting. You almost had me playing this in organized play until I saw this can't be played in PFS2 mode. So, I can't use my Pf2 organized play characters - It's campaign mode only. How disappointing. Another intersecting looking product I will skip.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

Sidenote, there are few characters on that list which if players aren't in final book have bit of question mark on their future status. Like has Laori Vaos changed religion? Has Vencarlo retired his vigilante identity because he found successor(whether after campaign or to pc)? Latter is pretty big on deciding whether he would have retrained away from vigilante stuff by this one.

(either way, if you are including Vencarlo and Trinia in party, I think having one of two clerics around would be appropriate party balance wise, especially since Vencarlo and Trinia (if we try to stay as close to 1e statblock as possible) have low wisdom. Krojun, Marcus or Grau class wise make sense for fourth one to round out the balance as a bit more tanky character/additional martial damage dealer since skills should be alright with this party anyway.)

Laori is risky for a choice, we just started book 5. I'm not sure if she is going to survive and if she does what her religion would be.

Marcus and Krojun would not work due to they are already past level 11.

So "Grau Soldado" returning to Korvosa would probably be best for a tank.

For a Cleric Ishani Dharti would probably be best.

So a 4 party pegen party would be best as -

Trinia adjusted to a Bard that works well as a PF2 character.

Vencarlo - his future is unwritten in my campaign, he hadn't retired nor has a party remember taken his role. so 10 years later retiring and staying a fencing school instructor would work fine.

Than the easy ones would be Grau as a tank and Ishani as a cleric of Abadar.

Thanks so much.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Best of luck, good to see you still around.

I'd say barely still around. I went from 100% Paizo product game playing time from 2012 to 218 to about 25% today and will drop even more when my current home games wrap up. Mainly due to Paizo making decisions that seem to reverse all the quality decisions that I loved Paizo making from 2012 to 2016. Options are being pulled off the table in organized play, cutting edge products and ideas are now family oriented, etc. etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
I mean, if you want the players to play NPCs from crimson throne as pcs in this adventure, just create them with PC rules.

Yep, but creating characters in PF2 is not easy, it's not intuitive. Now make them level 11 with almost no game knowledge and have them reflect the similar them as a character from PF1. No thanks, creating a level 1 character is a hard enough. For me it would be easier to convert the entire module to PF1.

I'm hoping someone else with PF2 game experience has done this. I can't possibly be the first one to think of doing this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am currently running a group through Curse of the Crimson Throne. 4 of 5 players don't play PF2 at all and have no characters built. I am toying with the idea of running this as a one off sequel for the same group right after we complete the AP. 10 years later as the module suggess. I have no PF2 GMing experience and have played about 20 sessions of PFS2.

I have 2 choices:

I could convert the whole thing to PF1. Or I'm leaning toward running in PF2 and having the Players with no PF2 take on a ready made NPC of a personality from Curse of the Crimson Throne.

Has anyone created starting NPC's level 11 of NPC's for this module from Curse NPC's? Not knowing the PF2 rules I would have a very difficult time doing this myself. If I can find ready made character to run through this I would probably run this in PF2. If not I'd do the opposite convert it to PF1.

If anyone has done this or know of anyone who has done this pointing me in that directions would be very much appreciated.

Curse of the Crimson Throne NPC's that come to mind (if they survive the AP):

Sabina Tabor
Vencarlo Orisini
Amin Jalento
Ishani Dharti
Laori Vaus
Krojun Eats-what-he-killsa
Boule
Advancing in levels a Skoan-Quah Bonselayer
Jasan Adriel
Marcus Endrin
Grau Soladro
Tayce Soldaro
Salvator Scream

Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

OK, that's a change I did not see. your character is treated as pre-genernated character and thus those rules apply.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Elegos wrote:
Kinda disappointed we have to wait till July for more modules, since the AP schedule dropped to bimonthly in order to accommodate them. Feels like a strict downgrade in the production of starfinder content volume.

I agree, I thought we were getting stand-alone modules every other month. I understand why the cut off every other month for AP's. Not enough sales to support this model. But as a replacement Bounties don't cut for me as a fill in. A 1 hour module for level 1's as a replacement for an AP for a module.

If you want to increase sales on modules have them tie into the SFS structure and find a way they can be run in SFS mode. I know that would draw more interest in my circles. Campaign mode turns off players in my circles. They don't want to go through them in campaign format.

5/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For me this is just one more nail of disappointment in the Paizo coffin as I shift my gaming hobby time further and further away to other game companies.

For me this has everything to do with Paizo setting such a high standard for itself. For years there was so many exciting ideas and rules and game content and really interesting AP's. For 9 years I never even thought of shifting game systems, it never even crossed my mind. Paizo was a gleaming light of gaming excitement with constant stream of new ideas. The nails started falling for me with how disappointing the PF2 rules system was followed by the move away from adult content to family friendly material. Now it looks like SF/SFS is at most a few years from end of life.

I'm not there yet. I still have a FEW PF1 AP's to finish that are mid-stream. (Curse of the Crimson Throne, War for the Crown, and The Blight). But the coffin is almost shut.

I hope instead of SF - 2nd editio,n Paizo put their creative juices to a new genre for RPG. Maybe weird-west of horror. Knowing that Paizo hides that they are working on a new game system for a couple of years before announcing it, if there is anything in the works I'm sure it's already being worked on now.

5/5 5/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

When SFS first came out I had a table that went back and forth between Dead Suns and SFS scenarios. All of those characters are level 13 or 14 now. 4 of the 6 players stopped playing SF and SFS because they only want to play that high level character.

Just saying - there is a market for tier 13/14 level content. I don't know if it's a big enough market to make it worthwhile but it does exist.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow, this actually looks interesting. For my part not a single PF2 AP looked interesting until this one. (The Ruby Phoenix was interesting story wise but I have no desire for high level play).

Bring on stuff that has interesting real world cultural ties and I'm in. This one has Ice age cultural ties = Awesome.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This looks great. I'm thrilled there is a new one shot that doesn't involve playing a goblin or a skittermander.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A sequel to Reign of Winter or Skulls and Shackles. A Viking themed AP. Or a classic horror AP similar to Carrion Crown.

5/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
roysier wrote:
I just started prepping this and ran into my first problem in trying to create tokens for roll20. Anyone know what a Apex Zuvak looks like? No physical description what a phase 2 one looks like. I can't find it referenced from another source.

My Monster Vault for roll20, join the game and you can import the monsters to your table. Click on the monster, you get popup buttons, click the buttons they do their thing.

Thanks, I found something I thought they might be, but I like your tokens better for these things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do know it's backwards to the way it's been expressed for this convention but once I see how my play schedule aligns I will see if you still need gm's. And I will volunteer to GM slots where I can't get into things I want to play and work for someone who sleeps regular hours on the west coast.

Sorry but for all conventions I always pinpoint a few things I really want to play and then see what slots are left over and volunteer to GM in those slots. If that doesn't work that's fine i'll just watch Netflix instead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

5/5 5/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xathos of Varisia wrote:

Let's also not forget that if you just ran the modules in campaign mode, most of your arguments about organizing for PFS mode would have no bearing. This keeps coming back to those who want a more restrictive mode advocating for their choice versus those of us who prefer the campaign mode advocating for our choice.

You know, you could always let the players decide what they want to play. I think many would prefer the campaign mode.

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.

5/5 5/55/5

5 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

5/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xathos of Varisia wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Xathos of Varisia wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Not as the rules stand.
Maybe for your narrow interpretation of them.

Feel free to explain how GMs can enforce consumable expenditure in PFS Mode.

** spoiler omitted **

It's a simple agreement between players and the GM. Apparently you don't think your players want to play by the rules you want them to play by. That's not the fault of the mode.

Bottom line here is you want to restrict choice. I read Nefreet's points and disagree with them as already explained.

Can you as a GM mark characters dead? YES - if everyone agreed to the mode beforehand.

That's not that hard to figure out. I find it interesting how some want to complain about trusting the GM. Looks to me like some don't trust their players.

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.

5/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xathos of Varisia wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Xathos of Varisia wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Not as the rules stand.
Maybe for your narrow interpretation of them.

Feel free to explain how GMs can enforce consumable expenditure in PFS Mode.

** spoiler omitted **

Can you as a GM mark characters dead? YES - if everyone agreed to the mode beforehand.

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.

5/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

5/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would like to add PF1 module/AP play in my area has gone way up since they stopped releasing PF1 scenarios.

5/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:

Do I understand correctly here:

As a GM running Fall of Plaguestone for PFS credit, I can say "All PFS rules and guidelines apply to character creation. You may only use sanctioned material."

So that the players' characters would be identical to characters they could play otherwise.

The only difference is that, instead of Paizo staff making necessary editorial cuts for time/length, it would be my decision.

And I could collaborate with other people in my area to reach a nonbinding consensus as to what to leave out and what to keep in.

And if someone wanted to "play their PFS character", they could create an identical clone, play the clone through the adventure, and then apply all the gains to the "real" PFS character?

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).

5/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:
The blog states that the belief is that modules running in short slots is an uncommon thing, and I don’t think that’s the case. Posts from others in this thread are helping to confirm that.
While I'm staying out of the way of the larger discussion, I wanted to take issue with this attitude. Given how reporting modules works, Paizo's information on this is likely to be as close to perfect as anyone could ask for. I would encourage everyone not to allow their confirmation biases to take up too much space in this conversation.

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.

5/5 5/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

5/5 5/55/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

5/5 5/55/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I know this is already covered but I just want to re-enforce this.

When running in a 4 hour hard stop situation without optional encounters the last encounter is the encounter that usually gets dropped. I hate it as a player when time runs out and we did not get to or we rushed the final encounter.

5/5 5/55/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

5/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm personally in the boat of chainmail bikini's are in bad taste but if it makes someone happy and doesn't mock/offend someone else than ok.

I have much more problems with players getting hammered drunk at the table and disrupting the game. That's my personal pet peeve, that I won't stand for.

I will throw drunk players out of the game. Controlled drinking a little is OK, disrupting the game because someone is too drunk not ok.

5/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:

A follower of Archea does not need to be half or more naked all day long, constantly presenting as hyper-sexualized. Perform your obedience “off camera” where it belongs, and stop using it as a crutch to justify bad behavior that is offensive to most women, some men, and all children.

I’m not going to judge every rule in the game that could be perverted. I said my peace above. If a player breaks the “don’t be a jerk rule” I’ll react accordingly.

Would you be equally offended if someone of any sex showed up with a table tent with a muscular male in a speedo and introduces his character talking about his large muscles and membrane?

5/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thought this is a game of high fantasy. It's not real.

Play what you want and obviously be sensitive to others.

5/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My mind has been changed on this issue. Tag away if someone thinks it's needed. But, It looks from an outsider that pf2 products are targeted at a younger and with more light-hearted/silly themes then previous material so tags might not be needed as much.

I don't think Paizo should be the ones doing it on previous scenarios. That's a lot of work to tag hundreds of products. There is something like 300 PFS/SFS scenarios in publication. And then there is something like 140 Adventure paths and somewhere around 30 modules.

But I still believe people who don't want to be reminded of something terrifying to them (and not others) avoid taking actions that puts them at risk of re-living the terrifying moment. I'm aware that PTSD often comes on with a trigger that was previously unknown.

I still haven't met a person in my gaming circles that think 3% of PFS/SFS players are at risk of a trauma trigger that involves an in-game situation. That is different then saying 3% of players have PTSD.

People also play the game differently. some play if very mechanically and it's all about rolling dice. Some play in the moment within the game. Others play with detailed descriptions with use imaginative imagery.

In my area the most common GM complaint is GM's who go out of their way to kill characters. The most often heard content complaints that I hear is something is too hard or the content was written in such a way that a certain party make-up is needed. Sometimes I hear some of the season 5 Demon stuff box text items are disgusting.

But maybe I live in a bay area bubble where things are different here.

5/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well,by your count you are saying 3% of PFS players have active PTSD issues. That would be 1 in every 3 tables. Honestly I would have to rethink my comitment to organized plau at that rate. It would better to play in Home games then risk triggering severe trauma in somone accidentally.

5/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yep, it's Paizo's choice about published content before any tags are considered.

I prefer gritty over sanitized that's why I choose to play pathfinder over Toon the role playing game or 5e.

If I had a loved one who had ptsd triggers I would choose another game to play (like miniply or magic) with them or ask someone who already played the scenario if such and such comes up or I would play in a home game or I would gm.

I think someone in the community who cares enough should create a database of scenario issues. Paizo needs to make money to stay in business. They are losing market share big time. It all won't matter if they go out of business.

Someone should care enough to do it, don't wait for Paizo.

5/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Corps is a great title. But it should be corpses.

I would suggest Press corp in Karlsgard now that would be a twist.

5/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are other things I do. Such as when the players are sorting out who is taking what role in the ship I'm writing down DC's to accomplish the probable star ship crew actions. (Restoring shields, evade roll, re-balancing shields, etc.)

If the players are moving first I'm rolling my science officers re-balance roll. If it's failed it'a already done with it. If it succeeds I move my ship and see which side end up facing the players and re balance shields in that direction.

As soon as I see the players are not doing something tricky with their movement such as trying to move right in from on my ship I roll evade. Since I'm doing that action 95% of the time anyway.

1 to 50 of 175 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>