Search Posts
Spoiler: That encounter foreshadows the appearance of the Scorched Hand later but isn't really essential for the adventure to progress. If the PCs don't pay attention, they won't be forewarned that someone else is interested in the Erudite Eye. I might give a penalty to perception checks in part C because they are less aware of possible trouble. I might give the Scorched Hand a chance to ambush them. The story award is for interacting and finding out about the Scorched Hand's interest in the Erudite Eye. If they don't do those things, they don't get the award.
Concious characters can hold their breath for a long time but the encounter can get deadly quickly if any characters are unconcious because they have been reduced below zero hit points. There are also the complications in the rules for fighting and spell casting underwater to consider. It has the potential to turn that encounter into a real killer.
I and one of my players have arrived at conflicting conclusions about Radiance's stats based on different readings of its entry. Mine is that these are the total stats This +2 cold iron longsword becomes a +5 holy cold iron longsword in the hands of a paladin. When wielded by a paladin, this sacred weapon provides spell resistance of 5 + the paladin's class level to the wielder and anyone adjacent to her. It also enables the paladin to use greater dispel magic (once per round as a standard action) at the class level of the paladin. Only the area dispel is possible, not the targeted dispel or counterspell versions of greater dispel magic. That's the total of what it gets at first. One of the players is reading the word holy in the title to indicate the holy weapon quality. Price +2 bonus
A holy weapon is imbued with holy power. This power makes the weapon good-aligned and thus bypasses the corresponding damage reduction. It deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against all creatures of evil alignment. It bestows one permanent negative level on any evil creature attempting to wield it. The negative level remains as long as the weapon is in hand and disappears when the weapon is no longer wielded. This negative level cannot be overcome in any way (including by restoration spells) while the weapon is wielded. Which would make it the equivalent of a +7 weapon bypassing dr/epic already and giving it more abilities. Which is these is the correct reading?
I'm already past that part so it's too late to add a body there. Maybe I will just have a convenient mongrelman ask if they have seen any signs of other mongrelmen in the area they came from. I am a bit leery about killing the son off to since his fate is left vague and he may appear later on alive or be shown to have died elsewhere for some specific plot related reason.
There's no corpse to loot. The campsite is abandoned. If they had found it on a dead mongrelman, it would make sense that they would want to return it to that person's relative but there is no corpse. It's just abandoned there with nothing to suggest it has anything to do with the mongrelmen at all. The mongrelmen aren't the only people down here either. There are also crazy dwarves and who knows what else.
In part G, the PCs can get in by showing the guards the broach they found in part A2. My question is why they would do that? What suggests there is any connection between this place and that broach? Is there something like the bat on mushroom symbol from the broach symbol here that the PCs can spot with a perception check to suggest some connection?
If you can't understand the difference between saying something is fair and something is balanced, then I can understand your in ability to understand the discussion. People using the wrong word to say what they mean does not make it the right word. More to the point, the word is chosen specifically to convey something. To lend a credibility/objectivity to subjective decisions. Your refusal to accept this or recognize it is similar to your refusal to accept any experiences that contradict your assertions about bandwrongfun and makes it clear you're not interested in a good faith discussion. I understand what you think the difference is. I just don't that distinction has any validity at all. I understand what you think the word means. I don't think it actually means that at all. You keep using this phrase "refusal to accept" as if your opinion represented objective fact. That's just begging the question. I don't accept your premises because I don't think they are correct. No one ever actually says "you has badwrongfun". No one. No one has ever said that. Can you quote me someone actually saying, "That's badwrongfun"? Anyone? I mean saying that actual thing not something you represent as "really" meaning that. That is just what you characterize them as having said. that you used that term tells me you are giving a skewed representation of what they said in the same way that saying "trickle down economics" tells me someone is politicizing and skewing a comment someone else made about economics.
You forgot poppycock and Rah-tha
Power gamers are as holier-than-thou in their own way as role-players and both groups need to grow up. That's my end anyway. Also the old argument about whether RPGs can be balanced and what saying they are balanced means. He defines balance in such a way as to make it impossible to achieve. I define it rather differently. It's an example of what I was talking about before with two people using the same word to mean very different things in the same conversation. Plus a dash of silly rpg.net-ism with badwrongfun and how language like that prevents adult discussion in the RPG community. That's my end anyway.
I doesn't matter where the arbitrary numbers for damage and hit points come from. It just matters how large they are relative to each other.
It doesn't matter a bit how they were derived. All that matters is relative magnitude.
Nothing of the sort is needed or even relevant. Comparing between feats that was is not necessary at all. It's how difficult the encounter is not how good this feat is relative to that one. Noe you are the one conflating things.
That's what a balanced encounter means. I don't know what definition you are using for a balanced encounter but it bears no resemblance to any I have seen used anywhere else. Neither term is inherently objective or subjective in this context. Do you mean that there is no perfect balance? Welcome to the real world. There's no perfect anything.
In this context, fair and balanced mean the same thing. This division you keep insisting on is meaningless. Ballparking difficulty is all you are going to get ever. That's the way complex nonlinear systems work. Yes, you are. You are attempting to combine optimizers vs RP'ers as tantamount to good players and bad. You're conflating two separate categories of players. You're also lumping optimizers in with people who think everyone who doesn't optimize is incapable of doing so. I disagree with that as a general truth. I certainly haven't claimed RP'ers think people who don't RP can't I am using your terminology how you have presented it. I'm not the one who introduced this terminology or implied that one group is capable while the other is incapable. That was you. In the same topic that you say that one side shouldn't look down their noses at the other you say that there should be different leagues based on capability with character optimization and ability to work the tactical system representing superior capability. Which is it? I am not lumping one group together any more than you are lumping the other together. You are doing exactly the sort of thing you are complaining about. Both sides need to get off their high horses. Not having heard what they actually said and having only your skewed "they said I was having badwrongfun" characterization of it, I am highly skeptical they said what you represent them as saying. Probably neither was any "badwrongfun" claims or anything of the sort. That's just how you portray them to dismiss them. You are reducing what they actually said to simplistic badwrongfun terms to dismiss it. There are endless variations of translating what other people say to some conveniently ignoble sounding straw man and dismissing it and they are all fallacies. Every single one. This badwrongfun nonsense is one of the silliest examples I have seen. I have never heard anyone talk about badwrongfun except to accuse other people of saying it. Ever.
The system is quite mathematical. There ins nothing intrinsically impossible or even especially difficult about setting a metric. Making an encounter that is fair *is* balancing the encounter. An encounter is balanced whe it is challenging but not too challenging. That's the entire point of the CR system.
I'm not conflating anything.
You are defining the terms so that those other people are inherently the ones being unreasonable. I am not using those definitions. Role-player would also include someone who thins story comes first or who makes their character based on a character concept rather than what is mechanically optimized. I am contrasting them with min/maxers who see their way of play as being the right way and people who have other priorities as simply being incompetent.
The terms you have used in this discussion such as "more capable" or "Higher league" to refer to optimizers and "incompetence/incapability" to refer to role-players suggests otherwise. Pathfinder is not a competitive game. Why would a setup for competitive play be the right one? Inherent in the idea of leagues is the idea that some players are more capable than others because they optimize their characters better and work the tactical system better. You used that language yourself. It's not the propensity of people to think in those terms. It's the propensity of others to dismiss what others say by reducing them to those terms. No one has ever actually referred to badwrongfun or said anything like that. It's a term people use to characterize what others have said and dismiss it. No one says badwrongfun. People say that other people have said it. A - I would like to play my character once in a while instead of doing nothing but fighting.
and we are children calling each other poopy heads on rpg.net. The RPG community needs to grow up and stop this nonsense.
That depends on what you are trying to balance and how. Pathfinder seems most concerned with balancing the PCs against challenges rather than against each other.
That may be the first time you have seen that but it's far from the first time I have seen it. That's only bad play if you define making optimized characters as good play and not optimizing your character as bad play. People who don't optimize their characters are bad players making bad decisions. That's exactly the sort of thing I was talking about.
I don't have to find them. I already know them. That wasn't a claim of what someone might say. It was a quote of what someone did say. You haven't. I have. In spades. Everyone always thinks that it's those other people who are
The entire concept of choosing to "play up" has been removed entirely so references to "playing up" are no longer meaningful or relevant. Nothing has been done to discourage "playing up" because the concept is no longer a relevant one. You playing according to average level and number of players. Nothing in the current version actively discourages or encourages or addresses one option or the other at all. The whole "playing up" thing just isn't relevant any more because there is no such thing as playing up. In the one edge case described, the default is playing the higher tier and players can chose to play the lower one instead. Even if were still a relevant reference, the tier an adventure was played at has nothing to do with what the GM receives. That's quite clear. This isn't just a matter of unscrupulous players trying to "cheat". There is room for legitimate, actual disagreement here. No one in pH unbalanced's example is trying to cheat. They are simply trying to answer a simple question asked by a new GM by reading what the document says. Reducing other views to simply unscrupulous people trying to cheat is disingenuous.
Fairness is also a word that means very different things to different people. Your experience does not match mine either in person or on these forums. I have seen optimizers who are at least as vocal in passing judgement an any RPer. I have seen a person on this forum quite recently saying that we was considering quitting PFS entirely because of bad players who made suboptimal choices like making a ranger with a 16 strength. I have seen optimizers loudly refer to themselves and players like them as good players who "know what they are doing" or something along those lines implying that others are incompetent and incapable because they don't play the same way. Optimizers and tactical players are as holier-than-thou as any RPer and have been since D&D first came out. Everyone always thinks that it's those other people who are being unreasonable. The suggestion of tailoring encounters is fine for a home game but it's not useful for scenario based PFS play. GMs are not allowed to alter encounters in scenarios. Please don't give me that old badwrongfun rpg.net cliche stuff. Please. Just don't. You think enforcing the rules is badwrongfun so bleh
Just don't. The problem isn't those other guys. It's that people see things in such basically different ways that the basic terms in use mean different things for them. They aren't even in the same conversation. For example, no one is actually saying that everyone should be mandated to have the same amount of fun. That's how what some people are actually saying is being characterized to belittle it.
There just isn't any equivalent to PFS for other systems like Unisystem. There's D&D Encounters but that's for 4th Edition which is at least as rules heavy and tactical as Pathfnder. I can't think of anything else besides maybe Mind's Eye Society which is for LARPing and has an entirely different style of play. Unisystem or Roll & Keep or Storyteller or what have you are fine and I have run all of them but you need a home group.
They are optional now. You can give them out or not as you chose. There was supposed to be a document that said what the new goals for older scenarios would be but I haven't seen it yet. Until I do, I am going to keep handing out faction missions for older scenarios just like before. That's just me though. You don't have to use them at all if you don't want to.
That would be my guess as well. Therefore there is no way to really know which they intended for this new rules version until they clarify. People seem to think I am arguing that between tier characters should absolutely get the higher tier items. I am not. I am saying that there is no definite answer in the current version and therefore people could argue for either one based on what their idea of appropriate is. I am also arguing that just saying that people get the appropriate award doesn't really answer anything at all since that word can be argued to mean just about anything especially if we are talking abour role-playing gamers. Role-playing gamers are brillinat at arguing that rules mean whatever it suits them for the rules to mean. They are almost as adept at it as miniatures wargaming grognards. We are a rules-lawyering, rules-arguing bunch and yes I include myself in that category as well as the miniatures gamer one.
I can say it, but not make you agree. :) Anyone can say anything. [ This is exactly the part that is in question. Is the answer to that question yes or no? It isn't specified anyplace that I have seen or that anyone has pointed out to me. Whether that item is avilable from the chronicle sheet or not is exactly the question.
Players generally get full prestige for scenarios anyway or they generally do every time I have played. If this is the case, that essentially argues for eliminating subtier gear lists entirely or even eliminating chronicle sheet gear entirely and just allowing players to get whatever they want based on their character's fame.
If so, why is one specified while the other isn't mentioned at all and is only mentioned in an a version that is no longer available using the "playing down" paradigm that doesn't exist in the rules any more. It makes no sense to say you get awards as if you had chosen to play down any more since there is no such thing as chosing to play down at all. Why wasn't this language or some equivalent carried over? Citing an obsolete and no longer available version of the rules that uses language for an option tha no longer exists is pretty dubious as evidence. The option of playing up or down was around for a long time as well but it's gone now except for one edge case. It's all based on APL and number of players. We don't take the lower gold though. We take something between. The average.
Actually, if the player is actually problematic and the only alternative is to cancel the game for 6 others, I doubt I will have a problem with the venue owner. I doubt he wants to enable one customer to drive away the others. There are costs to be paid for everything. Everything is a tradeoff. That's reality. There are no solutions, only tradeoffs. I am fine with the tradeoff of requiring one person to leave to avoid spoiling the fun of several others or forcing all of them leave instead. You don't define what rights I do and do not have. You don't make the rules in PFS. You have authority whatsoever to tell me what rights I do and no not have. None at all. Don't cite RPGA rules as authority either. This isn't RPGA. I reserve the right to eject problem players if I feel that I need to. That's the bottom line. It's not negotiable. It's not something I would do lightly but it is something I reserve the right to do if I need to. So far, I have not even had to consider it but if I need to do it, I will do it regardless of what you think I do or do not have the right to do so. That's the authority that any GM has in any RPG. If I have a player that insists on being disruptive, that player will have to leave or someone else will have to do the judging. Period. I will not put up with one person spoiling the game for everyone because you say so. I won't put up with it AT ALL. At large events, I will have probably never seen that guy before and won't know him and there will be other tables for the people leaving to go to. That doesn't apply to most local PFS events. All events are not large con events. Where I judge, that would mean cancelling the game and sending everyone else home because of one problem person quite possibly for several weeks in a row. I am not prepared to do that to satisfy you. Does anyone else have an issue with being told they must accept all players regardless of their behavior and track record and that ther only response to a problem player is to have everyone else at the table leave? Does anyone think this is not a reasonable response to a problem player?
Not for saying that this or that answer is definitely the correct one anyway. At this point, I can't say that one answer or another is definitely the right one.
Suere there is. I just outlined it. It looks appropriate to me. Everything there is quite appropriately appropriate. You say it isn't appropriate. I say it is. The Out-of-Subtier gold value is the average of the high and low subtiers; for slow progression it is half the normal Out-of-Subtier value, rounded down."
It's a perfectly appropriate interpretation. It's full of appropriately appropriate appropriateness. What could be more appropriate than that? I am simply taking the appropriate award as is appropriate. I'm, not making up interpreations. I'm demonstrating how malleable the definition of appropriate is and how useless it is as a standard here. I can use appropriate to mean anything I want it to mean and so can everyone else. If people are good at anything, it's justifying why what they want to do is appropriate. You may as well say that they can chose from that treasure which they are rightfully due or something similarly vague.
That's not even an argument at all. It doesn't mention equipment at all. Therefore GM characters can't get equipment from chronicle sheets at all? This has already been discussed and dealt with.
I have the right to tell someone that they can't play at my table. I can't throw them out of the venue but I can throw them off my table if I need to. If I need to remove a disruptive player and I am told I can't, I will simply stop running open events there. If other GMs are told that their only response to a disruptive player is to shut the table down completely, I doubt that I will be alone. RPGA rules are not relevant here. I did not agree to any such rules and they do not apply to PFS play at all. There is a reason why I don't participate in RPGA or run RPGA events. I can't tell them leave the store. I can tell them to leave my game. If the person's behavior is genuinely disruptive, I won't be the only person that feels that way. I was in RPGA. I'm not any more. There's a reason for that. I and all the players will have made a special trip to the venue lugging all their stuff and making whatever arrangement they have to make specifically to participate in PFS. You are telling me that, if I have a persistently problematic player, that my only option is to have everyone else leave the game which will practically result in all of them going home without being able to play instead of just ejecting the one problem person? That I am going to have to possibly do this for several weeks in a row if he keeps coming back? That is completely unreasonable.
So all you're saying then is that there is no guideline. Yes, unless you can point me to one in the current rules.
I did read it. It refers to a table of undefined players in an entirely undefined "most appropriate subtier" and ties GM rewards with what the player award would be when they are explicitly not connected in the Organized Play rules in any way. Appropriateness is so undefined that it means whatever I want it to mean. Here's an example. If I am level 3 playing in tier a tier 1-5 scenario, I get out of subtier gold which includes the lower tier gold and a portion of the higher tier gold. therefore it's appropriate for me to be able to get the lower tier equipment and a portion of the upper tier equipment as well. I can't buy it all since that would not be appropriate but it's appropriate for me to buy one of the items. I will now appropriately buy that amulet of natural armor for my level 3 monk with appropriate appropriateness..appropriately. What do you mean it's not appropriate? I see nothing inappropriate. What exactly are you even proposing here? I should recalculate the APL as if that character were playing and then look at the number of people and base GM rewards on what tier we would have played at if I had been a player playing that character? Is that what you are saying? Where does that come from? If it isn't, what exactly *are* you saying? The dice example is not even vaguely comparable. There is a commonly agreed upon standard of how dice are made and how they are read that goes well beyond PFS or the Pathfinder game or even the role-playing hobby. It arises from the basic nature of math and the shape of those polygons. There is no such commonly agreed upon standard of what "appropriate" GM credit should be. The two things are not even a little bit comparable. What GM reward a PFS GM should get and how many sides a dodecahedron has are hardly comparable in general level of agreement or factuality or anything else.
We aren't talking about RPGA. This isn't RPGA. This is Pathfinder Society. RPGA rules are irrelevant. I don't have to avoid anything. That just doesn't apply. Also, rules like that are not sacred writ handed down from the heavens and set in stone. If they become counter-productive then should be reconsidered. Everyone shouldn't be tied to what seemed like a good idea at the time. These are group rules, not scripture. No, it isn't. It's saying that everyone else doesn't have to sacrifice their own enjoyment because of one disruptive player that refuses to change his behavior. Expecting people to have some minimal consideration for others at a social event is not a bit unreasonable. Ejecting people who refuse to show such consideration is also not a bit unreasonable. There is no such moral requirement, It doesn't exist. I should make every reasonable effort to accommodate people when possible but that doesn't include accommodating a problematic person at the expense of every other player at the table including me. There is no moral requirement to accommodate him at the expense of everyone else any more than there is a moral requirement to put up to someone being disruptive at a theater while everyone is trying to watch a movie. In practice, it does. If there is no other table or not enough spots for those people, they lose their chance to play because one person can't behave himself. Public event doesn't that everyone must always be accommodated regardless of their behavior. Businesses are open to the public but still have the right to refuse service. I also have the right to refuse service. I and all the other players don't have to sacrifice our own time and enjoyment in the name of inclusion of everyone all the time regardless of cost. I don't drive an hour and a half to judge Pathfinder events so that I can essentially dissolve the game and send everyone home or do that multiple times in the name of symbolic inclusion at all costs. The reasonable response to one person persistently causing a problem is to remove that one person not to remove everyone else.
The existence of out of subtier gold is irrelevant here since there is no equivalent out of subtier item list.Then you agree that without such a list, we must determine which of the two actual lists is appropriate, or grant neither list? No, I don't. Saying that this or that list is or is not appropriate just doesn't mean anything. That word means whatever you think it means in this context which essentially makes it meaningless. An appropriateness standard is useless.
That argument is nonsense. Dice are standard products. They are widely available. Everyone knows what they are. Everyone knows what they are supposed to be. Everyone knows what numbers are. That example makes no sense at all and has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand unless you are saying that there is a similar level of agreement on chronicle sheets and GM credits as there is on dice and how numbers are read. The two issues are not even remotely comparable.
Again with this. What the players got is completely and utterly irrelevant. It has no bearing at all. None. None at all. It is explicitly not connected with GM credit. No, you don't. That argument is, to be frank, absurd.
Turning away a player that is being disruptive and who refuses to change his behavior is a far cry from turning away a player "because you don't like them". It's unreasonable to essentially cancel the event and deny everyone else the chance to play because one person refuses to stop being disruptive in the name of including everyone at any cost. People who are being persistently disruptive and who refuse to change can be excluded. You don't have to include everyone in everything despite the cost to everyone else every time.
GSF1 is one of the most common fallacies, and one of the most deeply held. Many geeks have had horrible, humiliating, and formative experiences with ostracism, and the notion of being on the other side of the transaction is repugnant to them. In its non-pathological form, GSF1 is benign, and even commendable: it is long past time we all grew up and stopped with the junior high popularity games. However, in its pathological form, GSF1 prevents its carrier from participating in -- or tolerating -- the exclusion of anyone from anything, be it a party, a comic book store, or a web forum, and no matter how obnoxious, offensive, or aromatic the prospective excludee may be. As a result, nearly every geek social group of significant size has at least one member that 80% of the members hate, and the remaining 20% merely tolerate. If GSF1 exists in sufficient concentration -- and it usually does -- it is impossible to expel a person who actively detracts from every social event. GSF1 protocol permits you not to invite someone you don't like to a given event, but if someone spills the beans and our hypothetical Cat Piss Man invites himself, there is no recourse. You must put up with him, or you will be an Evil Ostracizer and might as well go out for the football team. This phenomenon has a number of unpleasant consequences. For one thing, it actively hinders the wider acceptance of geek-related activities: I don't know that RPGs and comics would be more popular if there were fewer trolls who smell of cheese hassling the new blood, but I'm sure it couldn't hurt. For another, when nothing smacking of social selectiveness can be discussed in public, people inevitably begin to organize activities in secret. These conspiracies often lead to more problems down the line, and the end result is as juvenile as anything a seventh-grader ever dreamed of.
I could just as easily argue that giving level 3 characters awards appropriate to level 1 and 2 characters means that they will be behind the curve and lacking the expected equipment when they hit level 4. There is an expected level of wealth and items as well as character abilities based on level. The existence of out of subtier gold is irrelevant here since there is no equivalent out of subtier item list. If fame is really the limiting factor, then letting a level 3 character take any item on the sheet would make no difference at all since that character could only take items their fame level allowed them to take regardless of what subtier sheet they got. That's an argument for letting them take items from the higher tier if they have the fame to be able to get them, not the other way around. If that held true, it would be an argument for getting rid of items by subtier entirely and letting players take from any of the lists. It doesn't really hold up though. Here's the 4-5 subtier list from the last scenario I ran: Echoes of the Overwatched. amulet of natural armor +1 (2,000 gp)
3 items including a very useful amulet. None are over 3.000 gp. A third level character could easily have enough fame to get it after that scenario was over even if that was their first scenario at level 3. Characters commonly have 14 fame at that point and getting a 3,000 gp item only requires 13. Gold shouldn't be an insurmountable obstacle either since out of subtier gold for that scenario alone could be as much as 1,168 gp added to what they already have. Having access to the item (and possibly having it and being able to use it) is the point. If possible access to the item isn't important, then the idea of different lists of items by subtier is nonsense in the first place. Clearly that isn't the case or at least Paizo doesn't think it is. Characters are expected to have a certain level of item as well as gold. Magic items are an expected part of a character's capability according to level. Low magic settings for 3.X where magic items are scarce where magic was scarce like Midnight had to add new character abilities to make up for lack of the expected magic items. If I don't have access to the item, I can't have it. if I can't have it, I can't use it. If I can't use it, my character isn't as capable as it is expected to be. If this wasn't a factor, it would not be necessary to have different items for different subtiers at all.
I could just as easily argue that giving level 3 characters awards appropriate to level 1 and 2 characters means that they will be behind the curve and lacking the expected equipment when they hit level 4. There is an expected level of wealth and items as well as character abilities based on level. The problem with arguing based on what is or is not appropriate is that the word appropriate has no specific meaning in this sort of context. It means whatever the person using it thinks it means or wants it to mean. I could just as easily argue that it is not appropriate to under-gear the characters by sticking them with gear meant for lower levels as I could argue that it is not appropriate to over-gear them by giving them items meant for higher levels. Saying to take the appropriate items is seriously about as meaningful as saying to take "ye goodly amount" or "ye right quantity". The phrase "appropriate subtier" has no actual definition. Appropriateness standard are too undefined and subject to subjective interpretation to be of any use at all. Saying "appropriate subtier" is really just saying "subtier I think is appropriate". What has changed between second and third levels? The same thing that changes between third and fourth levels or between any two levels. The character is a bit stronger and is expected to have more wealth and better items to fight the higher CR and more dangerous enemies they will be expected to face. It's the same thing that happens when characters increase in level in any level based system.
In my experience, you have to deal with this in a firm, straightforward way. Tell him clearly and specifically what behaviors are problematic and why. Tell him that these behaviors have to change or he will no longer be able to participate. You have to be willing to follow through on that past part. If, after being clearly told which behaviors of his are causing problems, he continues acting as he always has, you have to be willing to eject him. Here's something to think about.
That sort of approach sounds good. I have seen it suggested many times, tried several times and actually work zero times. A person who responded to social pressure would have changed his behavior a while ago after seeing everyone being obviously annoyed by his behavior. That obviously didn't happen. He is much more likely to feel himself to be picked on and dig in his heels more, quit the game in a huff or blow up at the table over what he sees as mistreatment. Meanwhile, everyone else gets to be annoyed every session for an indeterminate period of time. Attempts to change people this way just don't work.
That's directly at odds with what it actually says. If I run subtier 4-5 and apply the credit to my level 1 character, I get a tier 1-2 chronicle sheet not a tier 4-5 one. If I run it at tier 1-2 and apply it to my level 5 character, I get tier 4-5 not tier 1-2. What my character gets is entirely based on that character's level and explicitly not connected to the subtier I ran the scenario at or what the players got *in any way whatsoever*. This point is very clear. I wish people would stop saying that the two things are connected when they very explicitly are not.
That is not the case. Read it again. A question was asked. An opinion was stated. Backing for that position was asked for. I stated no definite opinion because I could find nothing to back any definite position in the document I have.
That is very obviously not the intent.
That's not an unreasonable guess but it is a guess and requires reading a version of the Organized Play document which is no longer available from Paizo.
It sounds like you think a GM applying a credit to a 1st level PC gets all the items, even the 4-5 ones.
None of that actually answers or addresses this question. The quote on handling player credit is simply irrelevant and inapplicable since it talks about the subtier the scenario was run at which is explicitly irrelevant to GM credit. It's simply inapplicable and irrelevant. You are the one saying that the character definitely wouldn't be able to get those items. Burden of proof is on you, not me. I don't have to disprove what you claim. You have to prove it. It does say that the GM character does not get a day shop check explicitly but does not say that the GM character does not get items. that implies an omission more that it implies that GM characters don't get items at all. That doesn't actually logically follow unless you include an additional principle that isn't stated anywhere in the document. If that principle actually applied, the part about day job checks would not be needed at all. They could simply be left unmentioned which would mean that you don't get one since it doesn't say you do. Clearly that principle doesn't actually apply here. So are you saying GM characters do not get any items at all? From any tier? That is where your argument logically ends. Are you saying that? I have never seen anything of the sort stated or implied anywhere by anyone from Paizo ever. Considering the apparent intent of giving GM credit, I very much doubt it is the case at all. It would be a disincentive to GM which is entirely inconsistent with the apparent intent of giving GMs "full credit" in the first place. So the real answer is that the Organized Play document doesn't say.
People don't want to deal with the inventory tracking sheet now. Adding another tracking sheet won't increase compliance. In order to actually prove ownership, the sheet would have to be checked each session and updated as needed. Otherwise, it wouldn't prove ownership at all. It would just prove that at some point the player showed someone a copy of that book that he might still own and might have never actually owned. That would mean the player would have to produce all their books each time to be checked again which would mean they have to bring them all anyway making this a waste of time. If it's a GM's signature, this whole exercise is just a waste of time and paper to satisfy a few people that the rules are being followed. Anyone inclined to bypass the rules could easily get a buddy to sign off on it in exchange for signing off on his. It would only work for people who are inclined to follow the rules and none of this is needed for them anyway. Those sites might not have it but pirated PDFs certainly do. It wouldn't take more than a minute to find that information. |
