You Used to Play PFS, But Now...

Matthew Pemrich wrote:

I used to play Pathfinder Society. I used to play weekly when I was living in Dallas ... DFW is still a big PFS area and I know why: Dedicated players and GMs.

It is, indeed, Matt. I posted in this thread a while back when I was still living in Houston. Now, I've moved to Dallas, and -as you said- there is a thriving and active community in Dallas. I just gotta work out sharing the car with my GF so I can get to those games.

I'm certain that you're missed within the local group in DFW. It's very close-knit.

They've said as much in the Yahoo group. I miss playing there.

The truth is, though, I miss playing. I got a taste at playing again this past weekend and it was really fun. Even though my character was paralyzed for more than half of the scenario.

But even if I could move back to Dallas... NM needs someone as dedicated as me. At least to kick things off and get the ball rolling.

W.: Get in contact with other players. Or Jon. I'm sure there's someone there you can carpool with. Or... I think the bus runs on Saturdays, but I know most games are now in the Fort Worth area, and I've never bussed out there, let alone on a weekend.

it is really just a 4 hour metagaming session.

Ouch. Sorry to hear your experience was like that, but could you do us all the courtesy of not turning it into a campaign-wide generalization? If I were to comment on your home games without having sat at your table, and said "it is really just a 4 hour _________ session", I'm pretty sure there's not much I could put in that blank that you wouldn't find offensive.

Given that you haven't played with most of the thousands of PFS participants, please apply the Golden Rule and don't make generalizations you wouldn't want leveled against yourself.

Thanks.

Had a kid! Good trade-off.

They've said as much in the Yahoo group. I miss playing there. ....

W.: Get in contact with other players. Or Jon. I'm sure there's someone there you can carpool with. Or... I think the bus runs on Saturdays, but I know most games are now in the Fort Worth area, and I've never bussed out there, let alone on a weekend.

"I used to Play PFS, but now ..." I'm getting back into it. Matthew, in fact, this very weekend, I am going to play at A-Kon on Friday afternoon 'til about midnight! (I'm hoping for a Convention Boon!) And with wonderful luck, I happen to live by the train that will take me straight there!

PFS has soured a bit for me in the last year+. Take my POV at face value, please. These are not presented in any particular order.

1) There have been too many cases of "the mod says so" for my taste. It seems like in each case there was either lazy writing or someone wrote the encounter(s) in question to thwart tactics observed from a player or group of players the authors (or editors) know. Solution: If you go outside the rules which have been *painstakingly* clarified for the players' use, at least make up a reason why they don't apply in this particular case. When a GM utters "because the mod says so," I get one step closer to other campaigns.

2) The "gotcha" rules - (example) where if you forget to state a particular action (e.g. power attack) prior to each and every use, despite having done so every combat round for 20+ in a row you are penalized. I understand wanting to prevent abuse, but this goes too far. One GM wouldn't even allow me to put it on a tent in front of my character sheet, just in case I forgot -- I had to actually say it every time.

3) There is a smugness among certain GMs RE: PC deaths. Don't brag about them for <insert Deity's name>'s sake. Walking around a con claiming to be the most deadly GM in PFS (or somesuch) is not only annoying and pathetic, but it does nothing to encourage new players to sit at your table.

Related to above, no I have never lost a PC in PFS. But I did witness a new player relating the story of their "first and last" game of PFS for this reason.

4) Similar to #3 - and I can't believe I have to add this one -- not enough distance between the GM and the NPCs/monsters.

I have been in more than one game this past year.5 or so where the GM actually got defensive about the big bad going down. So much so that the rules and procedure for the game changed almost instantly in both cases. GM complaining about how spells are supposed to work, about procedure for adding and removing conditions despite being clearly described in the rules, altering their own clearly established procedures that they have used since the beginning of the event, among others.

(Note to GMs - if you are asking "could that have been me?" it probably wasn't you. If you are saying to yourself "that couldn't *possibly* have been ME," it possibly could have... )

I know these are all individual items or instances/persons and maybe I have just had bad luck recently. But the question was asked and I am answering honestly. I also know I am not the only one who feels this way about PFS play.

The game is about players. Not plots, not combats, not who has the coolest stuff. Keep the players and make them want to show up.

Just one old guy's opinion.

wow.
Datroll - sorry to see it, and I am guessing you have gotten some bad games of late. Everything you discribe is there. But you can also find all of it there in home games.

I am resisting the advice bit.

I hope things turn around some for you. Come play with me - we'll have some fun...

Don't get me wrong - I have had plenty of fun too. But after rereading what I posted, I can whittle all of that down to one point.

This is a game. Don't take it or yourself too seriously.

Much less time wasted in reading too. :)

wow.

Datroll - sorry to see it, and I am guessing you have gotten some bad games of late. Everything you discribe is there. But you can also find all of it there in home games.

I am resisting the advice bit.

I hope things turn around some for you. Come play with me - we'll have some fun...

Nimon wrote:

it is really just a 4 hour metagaming session.

Ouch. Sorry to hear your experience was like that, but could you do us all the courtesy of not turning it into a campaign-wide generalization? If I were to comment on your home games without having sat at your table, and said "it is really just a 4 hour _________ session", I'm pretty sure there's not much I could put in that blank that you wouldn't find offensive.

Given that you haven't played with most of the thousands of PFS participants, please apply the Golden Rule and don't make generalizations you wouldn't want leveled against yourself.

Thanks.

Not really a generalization. You have 4 hours to complete x task. That is a PFS game. I spent 6 hours in my last home game session roleplaying in town. Big differance. Metagaming is not a "badword" dont have to censor it, the definition is printed in the Gamemaster Guide. Metagaming is using player knowledge or knowledge outside of charcter. Are you telling me at your PFS tables you do not have some guy saying something along the lines of "Hey move over here your next turn so I can charge...ect" Which is fine if thats the type of game you want. It is what it is.

Thanks for the feedback, duhtroll. I'm sorry things went sour for you, and I'd like to ask for your help on a couple of these:

1) There have been too many cases of "the mod says so" for my taste. It seems like in each case there was either lazy writing or someone wrote the encounter(s) in question to thwart tactics observed from a player or group of players the authors (or editors) know. Solution: If you go outside the rules which have been *painstakingly* clarified for the players' use, at least make up a reason why they don't apply in this particular case. When a GM utters "because the mod says so," I get one step closer to other campaigns.

If you're aware of a specific scenario being too restrictive, please go to its product page on this site and review it. That's the best way to get feedback to the right people to make future scenarios better. :) If you think it's the GM just not doing enough prep work (or whatever), consider politely asking them about it after the event and giving constructive feedback.

2) The "gotcha" rules - (example) where if you forget to state a particular action (e.g. power attack) prior to each and every use, despite having done so every combat round for 20+ in a row you are penalized. I understand wanting to prevent abuse, but this goes too far. One GM wouldn't even allow me to put it on a tent in front of my character sheet, just in case I forgot -- I had to actually say it every time.

This one really concerns me, as there's nothing in PFS rules requiring that level of scrutiny. It sounds like more of an issue of either a paranoid GM (been taken advantage of one too many times) or vindictive one. In either case, the nice thing about organized play is accountability: if the GM doesn't respond to a polite discussion after the game, you can bring it to the attention of your local VC, or even the campaign coordinator himself if need be. Not in an accusatory manner, of course, but an open discussion about the GM's motivations and coming to a common understanding and expectation.

For comparison: I hardly ever hear someone announce Power Attack; they just say "Does XX hit?" and then roll damage if you say yes.

3) There is a smugness among certain GMs RE: PC deaths. Don't brag about them for <insert Deity's name>'s sake. Walking around a con claiming to be the most deadly GM in PFS (or somesuch) is not only annoying and pathetic, but it does nothing to encourage new players to sit at your table.

This can be sticky. Some are bantering good-naturedly with people they know will have a good time with it. Others are actually prizing PC deaths. If you believe a given GM is the latter, then once again, please talk to them (or someone higher up the chain). The hierarchy of organized play is a resource; please use it, if not for your own sake then for the sake of others still in the campaign.

4) Similar to #3 - and I can't believe I have to add this one -- not enough distance between the GM and the NPCs/monsters.

Can you guess what I'm going to say here? ;)

-----+-----

The campaign can only get better if there's feedback. We have avenues for said feedback. Everyone, please talk to each other and we can make things better! :)

If you're aware of a specific scenario being too restrictive, please go to its product page on this site and review it. That's the best way to get feedback to the right people to make future scenarios better. :) If you think it's the GM just not doing enough prep work (or whatever), consider politely asking them about it after the event and giving constructive feedback.

Thanks - I thought of that but it doesn't change anything for the future. I am just asking authors (and editors, TPTB, whoever) to stop saying simply "the mod says so" ESPECIALLY if they are going against game rules. I have two examples in mind of the many I have encountered, but I don't want to get bogged down in specifics.

I suppose it could have been lack of prep work, but in each case I did ask the GM for clarification that the reason for some occurrence was only "the mod says so."

This one really concerns me, as there's nothing in PFS rules requiring that level of scrutiny. It sounds like more of an issue of either a paranoid GM (been taken advantage of one too many times) or vindictive one. In either case, the nice thing about organized play is accountability: if the GM doesn't respond to a polite discussion after the game, you can bring it to the attention of your local VC, or even the campaign coordinator himself if need be. Not in an accusatory manner, of course, but an open discussion about the GM's...

When it is a vindictive GM, I ashamedly admit I enjoy turning it around on them when they forget something at a critical moment, usually as a result of #4, above.

In one case I had forgotten to add a modifier until after a die roll (which had happened to several people during the same game, including the GM) and was subsequently accused of cheating by the same GM -- like I have the time and forethought to be able to do so.

You are right - the problem is mostly people -- not PFS itself, and while I would like to separate them you can see why they must accompany each other.

Jiggy wrote:

If you're aware of a specific scenario being too restrictive, please go to its product page on this site and review it. That's the best way to get feedback to the right people to make future scenarios better. :) If you think it's the GM just not doing enough prep work (or whatever), consider politely asking them about it after the event and giving constructive feedback.

Thanks - I thought of that but it doesn't change anything for the future. I am just asking authors (and editors, TPTB, whoever) to stop saying simply "the mod says so" ESPECIALLY if they are going against game rules. I have two examples in mind of the many I have encountered, but I don't want to get bogged down in specifics.

Specifics like this are actually super helpful, TBH. As the guy who develops the line, knowing what encounters or rules elements didn't work or, in this case, were turn-offs for the entire campaign, I can work to ensure those same problems or ones similar don't show up down the road. While this thread may not be the place for the specifics for be detailed, a new thread on this specific issue or a post in the relevant product/GM discussion threads would be greatly appreciated by those of us still working hard to make the campaign as good as it can be.

In one case I had forgotten to add a modifier until after a die roll (which had happened to several people during the same game, including the GM) and was subsequently accused of cheating by the same GM -- like I have the time and forethought to be able to do so.

Andy I didn't accuse you of cheating. I specifically stated then and there that I wasn't accusing you of cheating. You rolled your attack roll and then wanted to choose a bonus from blessing of fervor. I was trying to be consistent to the rules of the game which I admit I'm not always (and I challenge anyone to claim they are). Had you been using the +2 bonus to attack rolls in previous rounds, I would have probably let you keep that going.

If you'd like to discuss this further, I'd be more than happy to exchange PM's or emails.

Thanks, but the GM I was referring to in this case was not you, but was the same one who insisted I announce everything beforehand. If I had a name, I could tell you but it has been over a year now.

Andy I didn't accuse you of cheating. I specifically stated then and there that I wasn't accusing you of cheating. You rolled your attack roll and then wanted to choose a bonus from blessing of fervor. I was trying to be consistent to the rules of the game which I admit I'm not always (and I challenge anyone to claim they are). Had you been using the +2 bonus to attack rolls in previous rounds, I would have probably let you keep that going.

If you'd like to discuss this further, I'd be more than happy to exchange PM's or emails.

If you used to play or GM Pathfinder Society games, but don't now, why? Please try to be as specific and detailed as possible.

I'll start! I used to GM a fair bit, but since June of last year, I've only run a handful of games and have only played about the same. Reasons I stopped:

• My work life changed quite a bit, requiring more of my free time.
• I started focusing on getting healthy and losing weight (which takes up a lot more free time than I wish it did)
• After running 100+ games, I simply needed a break.
• I got tired of the local player base. It seemed like the worst players at game days scared away the better players, and much like Idiocracy, the worst players multiplied.
• The person who got me into PFS, who pushed me to be a better GM, and who I shared a lot of road trips with quit playing.

Just figured this thread needed to be re-railed.

having viewed this thread for some days... I can find nothing good coming from it. But I have been wrong before - and perhaps someone is getting something from it.

Hope you all have fun gaming this month! PFS or non-PFS!

Thanks, but the GM I was referring to in this case was not you

Thanks for the clarification! It sounded so eerily similar to our discussion at the table. I'd prefer to remember the evening in three ways:

1) How 60-ft of movement resulted in the odd circumstance of you getting buried by tons of earth.
2) The "mighty" cleric of Desna standing toe-to-toe with a dragon while the rest of his party fled in terror except for:
3) The fallen Hell Knight who bravely gave his life so the rest of his party could live.

You will have to yell much louder, bug your eyes out and try to correct every player about their own character sheets while GMing before you earn the honor being "ranted" about by this random player.

Or waste half the slot auditing PCs at the table with no probable cause, as they say, but that is another story.

duhtroll wrote:

Thanks, but the GM I was referring to in this case was not you

Thanks for the clarification! It sounded so eerily similar to our discussion at the table. I'd prefer to remember the evening in three ways:

1) How 60-ft of movement resulted in the odd circumstance of you getting buried by tons of earth.
2) The "mighty" cleric of Desna standing toe-to-toe with a dragon while the rest of his party fled in terror except for:
3) The fallen Hell Knight who bravely gave his life so the rest of his party could live.

I removed a personal attack and responses to that attack. Claiming you were talking about a "random" unnamed person does not excuse insulting and abusive posting. Let's keep this thread about how Pathfinder Society can be improved rather than taking it to a personal level.

I used to run a lot of PFS games online using maptools and voice software. But then it was ruled that posting games online was not like a home game and therefore I could not be selective about who I invite and how I want my games to run. I still play from time to time, sadly a lot of my friends no longer do.

1. When I played at a Con it was always a race to the end. In fact at GenCon last year when I first tried it, me friends and I sat at our table and began getting into character and RPing. THe rest of the group and GM glared at us and we failed the mission. Apparently RPing at a Con is bad.

2. I tried again with online gaming with J-Bone and had a great time. There was time for RP and character interaction. I even formed some great friendships. But when online games were ruled that they had to be run like Con games and the GM had no control over recruitment to weed out powergamers and flavour of the month builds. It lost its fun. Wasnt pleased playing in parties with 5 Synthasist Summoners and me.

I don't see anything in the Campaign Guide where it says you have to run a table if you don't want to...

I don't see anything in the Campaign Guide where it says you have to run a table if you don't want to...

Yes but if an open recruitment for players is posted, apparently we have to accept all players on a fist come first served basis, even if its an online game.

I refer to this ruling by Mark Moreland on the Google Group Online Pathfinder Society Collective.

But then it was ruled that posting games online was not like a home game and therefore I could not be selective about who I invite and how I want my games to run. I still play from time to time, sadly a lot of my friends no longer do.

But when online games were ruled that they had to be run like Con games and the GM had no control over recruitment to weed out powergamers and flavour of the month builds. It lost its fun. Wasnt pleased playing in parties with 5 Synthasist Summoners and me.

Perhaps I missed it, but when was it said that you cannot invite/uninvite anyone you want to your game regardless of venue? Sure, at a convention it is not practical to be too choosey, but for local events, you can do what you want. An online game is nothing more than a game at your "virtual" house. Of course, if you alienate the players because you are being a jerky GM/organizer, you might have a challenge finding players.

If by "how I want my games to run" you mean changing encounters, then no, you cannot do that. But as long as you follow the core rules and the PFS guidelines, you can do what you want.

EDIT--Your link is not working for me

No encounters were being changed, was only selective recruitment in an effort to have less powergamers and more RP inclined players.

Follow the above posted link.

Todd Morgan wrote:

I don't see anything in the Campaign Guide where it says you have to run a table if you don't want to...

Yes but if an open recruitment for players is posted, apparently we have to accept all players on a fist come first served basis, even if its an online game.

I refer to this ruling by Mark Moreland on the Google Group Online Pathfinder Society Collective.

That link doesn't work but I believe you may be misinterpreting what Mark was saying. You can definitely choose whom you wish to invite into a private game. Convention games or games where you have an open signup, on the other hand, are different.

I guess I don't understand. Are you saying you want to have a public event, but reserve the right to reject a player because of character choice/build/play style?

I am refering to online games with a recruitment posted on a message board. And yes, I am saying in such games it would be nice to reject players that dont fit the playstyle/philosophy of the group I regularly play with.

link fixed

It's a fine line between asking for players because you need enough to game vs possibly allowing someone in who doesn't fit your play style. I guess my question is, how do you know how someone plays unless you game with them first? It seems like an open door policy would be good at first in that case and then invite back on the players you had fun with.

Yes... that was a policy that was used. That and posting asking for those playing the Synthasist build to apply with another class. We would find as many as 5 synthasists readily as first posters. However it seems that first-come first-served is how online games with recruitment posted on messageboards must be run.

I suppose its a mute point now. I have largely fallen off with PFS. It was fun while it lasted though.

Well, if you ever come back, you are always welcome to game at my tables :)

Yes... that was a policy that was used. That and posting asking for those playing the Synthasist build to apply with another class. We would find as many as 5 synthasists readily as first posters. However it seems that first-come first-served is how online games with recruitment posted on messageboards must be run.

Actually, I think this issue is a bit clouded. In general, there is no rule forcing you to accept anyone/everyone who wants to sign up for your game. In this case, you were using a specific messageboard, designed to facilitate PFS online play. By using that board, you agree to follow their recruitment rules. You could/can use other online avenues/messageboards to advertise you game and be selective on who you allow to join.

Lass wrote:

Yes... that was a policy that was used. That and posting asking for those playing the Synthasist build to apply with another class. We would find as many as 5 synthasists readily as first posters. However it seems that first-come first-served is how online games with recruitment posted on messageboards must be run.

Actually, I think this issue is a bit clouded. In general, there is no rule forcing you to accept anyone/everyone who wants to sign up for your game. In this case, you were using a specific messageboard, designed to facilitate PFS online play. By using that board, you agree to follow their recruitment rules. You could/can use other online avenues/messageboards to advertise you game and be selective on who you allow to join.

yeah... arbitrary rulings like this and the one featured in Lass' link. Thats a good reason why I've largely left PFS.

This again? Things aren't nearly so oppressive or restrictive as some of you seem to think.

This again? Things aren't nearly so oppressive or restrictive as some of you seem to think.

Yep and thats why PFS lost me. Sorry you have to relive something you werent a part of Jiggy.

Sad thing about this is. By ruling that an online game has to be run the same as a Con game with open enlistment misses several key points.

1. The game is not under the same time constraints as a Con game. Therefore if the people you game with prefer RP instead of a power game rush to the end, you can accommodate that as you can set the time aside to do so. Therefore not being allowed to be selective means that your regular group will now be legally obligated to let in that min/max'd player who has absolutely no interest in your style of game.

2. The amount of preparation time for a maptools online game is significantly greater than that of a Con game. The GM should be rewarded with more control of his game for the consideration of allowing him to play out his time investment without having that powergamer blasting through every encounter like a hot knife through butter.

3. Some people online just dont mesh with your personality. Something about the anonymity of being behind a screen often frees people to be let their worst side out. Read the boards here long enough and you'll end up drowned in snark for example. So if there is a person you find disruptive to your game, according to that ruling you have to let them play.

Sad thing about this is. By ruling that an online game has to be run the same as a Con game with open enlistment misses several key points.

1. The game is not under the same time constraints as a Con game. Therefore if the people you game with prefer RP instead of a power game rush to the end, you can accommodate that as you can set the time aside to do so. Therefore not being allowed to be selective means that your regular group will now be legally obligated to let in that min/max'd player who has absolutely no interest in your style of game.

2. The amount of preparation time for a maptools online game is significantly greater than that of a Con game. The GM should be rewarded with more control of his game for the consideration of allowing him to play out his time investment without having that powergamer blasting through every encounter like a hot knife through butter.

3. Some people online just dont mesh with your personality. Something about the anonymity of being behind a screen often frees people to be let their worst side out. Read the boards here long enough and you'll end up drowned in snark for example. So if there is a person you find disruptive to your game, according to that ruling you have to let them play.

This!

I also stopped playing online PFS because I had so much trouble finding groups that RP. I think now I see why that is so hard.

My point is, how do you know that you don't like someone's play style if you don't play with them first? Why not have an open enrollment to get new players and then start private invitations afterwords when you find people you like gaming with?

So J-Bone, Lass and Briit are having trouble finding good players for their online game then?

Its not a problem anymore. Ive largely stopped playing PFS as per the point of the topic, "You used to Play PFS, But Now..." Its a shame it ended that way but it is what it is. Where I am I don't have the luxury of local groups. Online gaming is my forum. For the reasons described above, Ive left PFS play for other games.

Sad thing about this is. By ruling that an online game has to be run the same as a Con game with open enlistment misses several key points.

I remember this discussion the last time, but I kept out of it, since its been years since I played online rpgs. But I've been considering jumping back into it with pfs. I read through the links provided, but I can't seem to find the ruling that you say makes it so you have to run it like a con game. Could you please clip the ruling and paste it here? Thank you.

I've removed a post that is doing nothing but trying to evoke negative emotions, reactions, and arguments. It isn't going to happen.

I understand you may not like PFS and choose not to play. PFS isn't for everyone and I wish you well on your search for a new game. However, these boards will remain civil.

I've removed a post that is doing nothing but trying to evoke negative emotions, reactions, and arguments. It isn't going to happen.

I understand you may not like PFS and choose not to play. PFS isn't for everyone and I wish you well on your search for a new game. However, these boards will remain civil.

And then the Sheriff laid down the law...

and the Society saw that it was good.

In looking over this thread, it looks like the OP was a question - basicly:

"why have you stopped/cut back playing PFS",

and some people are seeing it as:

"Please rally to the defense of PFS".

So:
Yes, I am playing (slightly) less PFS lately.
2 reasons.

1) A very bad experience at a CON has me really down on the thought of playing OPs at CONs with total strangers.

2) I've started up in another home game - so a little free game time is lost.

There... now, how about you -

"why have you stopped/cut back playing PFS?",

(if you don't have an answer for this question, why are you even posting on this thread?)