My background: I've played in the RPGA for over ten years, stretching across three editions of D&D.
In PFS I see many of the same failures that led to the significant decline in RPGA participation, but perhaps moreso than any other issue, I find the full-page adventure log to be the largest offender. Rather than have four hours to play in a four hour session, we are forced to give up thirty minutes of time to do arbitrary paperwork, wasting hundreds of sheets of paper per convention and cluttering character folders all in the name of "protecting" us from the cheaters.
In my experience with RPGA, I have found that, no matter what precautions the campaign might take, if people want to cheat, they will. No DM is going to demand to check the character logs of every single player that sits down at their table, as not only would it generally be a tremendous waste of play time, but also it would be quite insulting to the players involved. Considering the insignificant portion of the player base that resorts to cheating and also the utter failure of the log sheet system to prevent that insignificant percentage from cheating, I suggest we eliminate the log sheet system entirely.
The second major issue I have is with the way treasure is handled (another holdover from Living Greyhawk I might add). In the current model, if the party finds a particular item, they can't just take that item; instead, they have to sell that item for half its value, then purchase the item with their own coin. This leads to situations, especially at higher levels, where authors can give their NPC's immensely powerful magic items which they don't have to worry about the characters acquiring, because the characters will never be able to afford them. Again, the premise here is "protection" of players from the greed of other players, as well as to prevent characters from becoming overly powerful from acquiring too many magic items. Instead, such a system leads to adventures that become increasingly unfair at higher levels, with enemies carrying entire arsenals of magic equipment and characters who are too poor to afford more than a few low level items and barely enough coin for the material component of the almost guaranteed to be eventually needed raise dead.
Oftentimes I've heard campaign staff reply that, due to the vastness of scope, living campaigns can not be run like standard campaigns. Now, while I somewhat agree with this sentiment, I do not agree with the methods you've chosen to implement. Every player is fully capable of tracking their own gains of treasure and experience; they do not need the PFS staff to hold their hand in this matter. Don't punish the vast majority of honest players by making them jump through hoops that the dishonest players can already easily circumvent. And if you are concerned characters might get too many magic items, tell your authors to stop giving those items willy-nilly to NPC's.
Frankly, to me, it comes down to an issue of trust, and the current system to me illustrates the lack of trust the campaign staff has for its players. The vast majority of us are grown up enough to be civil and fair with our fellow player, without resulting to cheating or bullying others to get a particular magic item. If you'd just let us show you, I think you'll find a much happier and much more devoted player base. And if the miniscule population of players that are dishonest want to cheat, let them. Neither you nor I can stop them, but eventually they will simply wake up one day to find that no one else wants to play with them.
Anyways, that's my two cents, and I hope someone in charge takes my words to heart. At times, the RPGA has provided me with some of the most memorable fun I've had, and I hope eventually PFS can do the same.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really have to disagree. This is my first time playing an RPGA style format, and I have to admit that I was VERY hesitant. But, ingave it a fair shake and have really enjoyed it. I like the treasure distribution system and wish I could realistically put it in my campaign as my group suffers from the greed issue.
PCS is for fun. Just that, plain and simple. If someone wants to cheat, they'll find a way. Just enjoy it for what it is and have fun. It's up to the GMs to do their job properly and check their players. Expect them to do so and move on.
|
Wow having been part of the RPGA with Living Greyhawk and the Pathfinder Society I completely disagree with you.
I for one like the AR's or Chronicles that you get for each mod they are a handy way to keep track of your character. They also serve as a great reminder of past adventures. I flip back through them and remember details of LG mods I played 4-5 years ago who the GM was and my character at that time. All told I have about 200 of them.
They take about 5 minutes to complete
Your ideas about items and access have some flaws. Prior to the LG AR's there were certs, find an item some one at the table gets it. The common experience was that some players would bully the table to get the more desirable items and as such would throw off the wealth curve. If 2 or 3 players want one item what then?
Another common problem was that some mods just don't have items for every class and there may not be enough gp's to go around and make up the difference. The Chronicles solve this issue.
PFS also handles access much better than LG did by using Prestige Points by helping your faction you gain access, gone are the days of hoping to find the access on an AR. The faction points you have now correlate to a max gp value of any legal item.
I for one think that this new system put place as of PFSCG 2.0 works
|
I personally did not see a decline in RPGA membership over the years and in fact saw things growing if not at least staying the same. There is a game balance issue as well as fairness issue with the ARs or Chronicles. You sure you played LG in year one or two? It was rife in cheating, power gaming and people getting messed over by not getting an item they really could use because only one person actually got "the item". You also had people who always insisted on roling for X item because "while not a item I would use all the time, I still want it." Who do you want winning the boots of speed after a fight? The fighter, ranger or the battle cleric? I would want the fighter or ranger but sure enough there would be a cleric or bard who thought they should roll also.
I must admit when I joined and played at first it rubbed me a little raw too but over a short time I saw the usefulness and balance inherant in the system. The current system allows the control of items in some fashion so instead of every single fighter having boots of haste or mithral full plate there is some variety based on accesses people either had or not. It also allows module writers to use certain items in more than just one or two mods and worrying that every single X class will now have that item. I knew people who had access to scarabs of golem bane several times but never had the money or inclination to buy them and thus we never had one when needed. I also knew people who never in 15 levels ever even had access to get one. Writers did not need to worry to much about placing one in an adventure because they knew the item would not become overly common and thus golems always remained viable mobs in modules. If you revert to rolling for items found in mods then after 2 whole adventures with a scarab of golem bane golems become a non-viable mob as your parties become saturated with this item.
The system now, still keeps some real sense of value to certain items when you have to "acquire" access to the item instead of "at X level, X character class should have X item" or they are behind the curve." Worse yet would be after 2 or 3 mods with boots of haste or scarabs of golem bane no module writer can ever again (or for several years) use those items because "the world is already saturated" with said item. I have become a big fan for playability, fairness and balance of this system.
|
|
The second major issue I have is with the way treasure is handled (another holdover from Living Greyhawk I might add). In the current model, if the party finds a particular item, they can't just take that item; instead, they have to sell that item for half its value, then purchase the item with their own coin. This leads to situations, especially at higher levels, where authors can give their NPC's immensely powerful magic items which they don't have to worry about the characters acquiring, because the characters will never be able to afford them. Again, the premise here is "protection" of players from the greed of other players, as well as to prevent characters from becoming overly powerful from acquiring too many magic items. Instead, such a system leads to adventures that become increasingly unfair at higher levels, with enemies...
as herald said above, you really should check out the campaign guidelines, as they work somewhat differently from what you assume in this post.
I've read the campaign guide quite thoroughly, and I am intimately familiar with both the AR system and the cert system that came prior. My concerns are a result of those observations, and not, as has been inferred, contrary to them.
I understand many of you are comfortable with the AR system, but just because something is familiar does not mean it is automatically conducive to good play. Before you automatically dismiss what I have to say out of hand, I would suggest you take a step back and consider what might be done not only to improve play, but to create a friendlier environment more likely to attract and keep new players.
|
|
Delroland, I stick to the guidelines, but I agree with you about the current treasure distribution methods and trusting players and DMs to do what is right. I think the current treasure system really takes the players out of the game and puts them into "accounting mode" rather than roleplaying the treasure distribution.
If a player finds a mithril shirt, it would be better if the party could figure out who keeps it. That should be part of the game. If they really can't work it out, or if someone is not playing nice, the DM needs to step in and arbitrate. The modules would probably have to cut back on the number of items used, but they could implement charges, buffs, or something similar to match the stats needed in the modules.
Another point about keeping the treasure is the roleplay opportunities and stories that go along with the items players pick up. I can hear my players saying, "Yeah, I ran Shana the Slayer through and keep her sword to this very day! It's a fine weapon, even if it does have a black past. See right here it says Shana on the hilt?" Every week, they would add something to their character's history and back story. That makes for more interested players who stick around as opposed to saving the gold distribution to buy a generic masterwork longsword...
Just my 2 coppers.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Before I became involved with PFS, my most recent exposure to organized play as Living Arcanis, which uses paper certificates to represent the loot the party finds during the adventure. In that case, the greatsword carried by the half-elf barbarian foe in Act 2, along with all the other party treasure, is taken by one PC after the adventure. They player keeps a written cert for each item his player owns.
Given the choice between the two, I can really see people's points that the certed-item system could be abused. I concede that some dink of a player might try to obtain expensive items his PC can't use. But, having run a bunch of PFS adventures at events, I just don't see that happening very often. Those aren't the kinds of players who come to sit at my table.
Speaking for myself, the certed-item system makes more sense to me than the current PFS system. Right now, the party might run into an NPC with, oh, just as an example, masterwork half-plate, but they don't get the chance to keep it after the adventure. Or they might find a useful ring of protection, and, because that item [/i]is[/i] purchasable, suddenly the entire party is wearing clones of the ring.
Perhaps it's fairer, but it sure makes less sense to me.
Having said all that, I think it is indeed important for the organized play environment to track experience. I think the current sheets are perfectly reasonable. (And yes, at Gen-Con, I did indeed check the previous record sheets of all my players. And yes, some of them weren't being honest.)
If I had a suggestion to make, I would include a one-paragraph blurb about the adventure on the certificate, to help players remember which adventure was which.
(For example, for "The Prince of Augustana, the blurb could read.
|
|
The second major issue I have is with the way treasure is handled (another holdover from Living Greyhawk I might add). In the current model, if the party finds a particular item, they can't just take that item; instead, they have to sell that item for half its value, then purchase the item with their own coin. This leads to situations, especially at higher levels, where authors can give their NPC's immensely powerful magic items which they don't have to worry about the characters acquiring, because the characters will never be able to afford them. Again, the premise here is "protection" of players from the greed of other players, as well as to prevent characters from becoming overly powerful from acquiring too many magic items. Instead, such a system leads to adventures that become increasingly unfair at higher levels, with enemies carrying entire arsenals of magic equipment and characters who are too poor to afford more than a few low level items and barely enough coin for the material component of the almost guaranteed to be eventually needed raise dead.
Hey delroland, welcome to the boards! I'm your friendly neighborhood cleric of Calistria from "Shipyard Rats". I'm glad to see you registered Tattoo. I appreciate 1st level barbarians who can deal 19 damage on a regular hit, even if they...
I usually post under my original messageboard name (and real name) "Derek Poppink", but I thought I'd jump in here on my PFS character since we played together Saturday.
I'd encourage everyone else here to treat delroland and his concerns with respect. He and three of his friends played Pathfinder for the first time at Gen Con this weekend and I know they came away feeling somewhat disappointed (partly rules related, partly society related). They all have experience with multiple organized play systems (LG, Living City) and the fact that delroland came here to talk about it is a positive sign.
As I mentioned Saturday, Pathfinder Society is the only organized play system I've played, so I don't have much to offer on the issue of sheets vs. certs. My own experience with the chronicle sheets has been positive, as most GM's just sign off on the treasure and prestige earned and allow players to track the rest.
Regarding your question about items found in the module, I'm looking back at two of the scenarios I've run to see whether the half price or market price is used when valuing items. I'll post again in a few minutes.
Given the choice between the two, I can really see people's points that the certed-item system could be abused. I concede that some dink of a player might try to obtain expensive items his PC can't use. But, having run a bunch of PFS adventures at events, I just don't see that happening very often. Those aren't the kinds of players who come to sit at my table.
Unfortunately, I believe the experience RPGA had with the FR-based Living City campaign where you did have cert abuse going on, is what led to the AR method and buying the items in Living Greyhawk. It wasn't just a case of building the structure out of thin air, it was in direct reaction to experience.
That said, there were other games running during Living Greyhawk that still used certs. The Living Force campaign did. On the other hand, most stuff you could get was a little tech here and there, maybe a heavy blaster, stuff not nearly as huge as magical equipment becomes to D&D characters. So the certs were OK. If they concentrated in certain players, no big deal.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
It occurs to me that the PFS system of obtaining magic items through expending Faction Prestige ameliorates a lot of the gear-hog issues. Someone who takes all the best loot --because of post-adventure gear-distribution die-rolling luck-- doesn't prevent his allies from having nice things; he just makes them spend FP points for it.
|
|
Back again as my normal avatar...
Looking a one tier 1-2 encounter, the party finds a +1 quarterstaff, potion of cure serious wounds, and scroll of lightning bolt (2300 + 750 + 375 = 3425gp). At the end of the scenario they are rewarded 310gp for finding these items, which would be equivalent to a group of 5.5 characters selling the items for half price and splitting the gold.
Looking at one tier 6-7 encounter, the party finds 600 pp, potion of cure moderate wounds, +1 dagger, elixir of sneaking, +1 studded leather, 200 gp (6000 + 200 = 6200gp cash, 150 + 2302 + 250 + 1175 = 3877gp items). At the end of the scenario they are rewarded 1,371gp for finding these items. Assuming a party of 6 divided the cash evenly (1033gp), they are again getting between 1/5 and 1/6 of the value of selling the items for half price.
This is a small sample size, but it would seem to confirm that the scenarios assume the party sells everything for half value (while characters have to repurchase the same items for full value). Perhaps Josh or one of the contributing authors can verify whether this is always the case.
|
I feel that the recordkeeping strikes a good balance, and I actually like the Chronicle Sheets. They aren't simply a way of catching people cheating; in fact, I'd say that isn't even their primary purpose. Aside from helping catch errors, Chronicle Sheets create, well, a chronicle of what your character has done and seen. Much of the work can also be done up-front. I've found that a focused group can wrap up the paperwork accurately in 10 minutes.
Treasure acquisition is also as good as any organized play campaign I've seen. Players fighting at the table, or uneven distribution over time would be a real GM headache.
Chronicle Sheets could use a few updates:
------------------------------------------------------
* The expenditure of Prestige Awards needs to be recorded.
* Max/current PA also need to be tracked independently.
* Add a place for day job income (I was putting it under "items sold," but it could use it's own line in there).
|
|
Yes, unless the adventure design changed a great deal in between seasons, the assumption is that every item that your character finds is sold, and you get the gold for said item, to cut down on the time it would take to find someone and sell them and do the paperwork on them. So from a gold piece point of view, if an item shows up in a scenario, you don't loose any gold piece value, you just get the gp instead of the item.
|
|
Yes, unless the adventure design changed a great deal in between seasons, the assumption is that every item that your character finds is sold, and you get the gold for said item, to cut down on the time it would take to find someone and sell them and do the paperwork on them. So from a gold piece point of view, if an item shows up in a scenario, you don't loose any gold piece value, you just get the gp instead of the item.
Right. And delroland's initial point is that while the author can equip a villain with a +5 sword (or something less generic but more troublesome to the party), the party doesn't have the option of letting one person keep it. They have to sell the sword for half price and then the person that wants it has to repurchase it for full price. That is the party losing value. In essence, they have to kill two villains wielding +5 swords in order to gain the benefit of a single +5 sword.
|
|
Chronicle Sheets could use a few updates:
------------------------------------------------------
* The expenditure of Prestige Awards needs to be recorded.* Max/current PA also need to be tracked independently.
* Add a place for day job income (I was putting it under "items sold," but it could use it's own line in there).
I don't have them on me today, but as I recall the chronicle sheets for the new Season 1 scenarios do track Max/Cur PA. Day job income and prestige award expenditures still need to be record in Items sold and Items purchased, I think.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right. And delroland's initial point is that while the author can equip a villain with a +5 sword (or something less generic but more troublesome to the party), the party doesn't have the option of letting one person keep it. They have to sell the sword for half price and then the person that wants it has to repurchase it for full price. That is the party losing value. In essence, they have to kill two villains wielding +5 swords in order to gain the benefit of a single +5 sword.
It's a tradeoff. Your choice is
1) Let a player take the +5 sword, and have a fight with the other players over who, exactly gets to keep it. This promotes unbalancing between characters, because if only one person can have the powerful item, they will be more powerful than the other characters who missed out.
or
2) Have the +5 sword sold for half value, but allow every player the option of purchasing a very similar looking +5 sword. There's no arguing and there's no character imbalance. Similarly, since everyone only gets half price, where's the problem? What's the party losing value relative to?
|
|
I don't have them on me today, but as I recall the chronicle sheets for the new Season 1 scenarios do track Max/Cur PA. Day job income and prestige award expenditures still need to be record in Items sold and Items purchased, I think.
As far as I (or any of the other Gencon judges to whom I spoke) could tell, they track max PA only. I could be mistaken, though. :)
|
|
It's a tradeoff. Your choice is
1) Let a player take the +5 sword, and have a fight with the other players over who, exactly gets to keep it. This promotes unbalancing between characters, because if only one person can have the powerful item, they will be more powerful than the other characters who missed out.
or
2) Have the +5 sword sold for half value, but allow every player the option of purchasing a very similar looking +5 sword. There's no arguing and there's no character imbalance. Similarly, since everyone only gets half price, where's the problem? What's the party losing value relative to?
The problem is that when you play in a game with other players you trust (most home games), you have the option to do what's best for the party. Currently you are compelled to do what's half best for everyone. This goes back to delroland's original concern that the campaign doesn't trust the players to work things out.
The other problem is that NPC's get to use gear that is up to twice as valuable as normal as that in a home game, because players can't just keep it. This is more a concern for how the scenarios are authored.
|
|
As far as I (or anyone else there I spoke to) could tell, they track max PA only. I could be mistaken, though. :)
I don't have them on me today, but as I recall the chronicle sheets for the new Season 1 scenarios do track Max/Cur PA. Day job income and prestige award expenditures still need to be record in Items sold and Items purchased, I think.
My mistake. It's on the character sheet in the back of the Season 1 Guide.
|
|
The problem is that when you play in a game with other players you trust (most home games), you have the option to do what's best for the party. Currently you are compelled to do what's half best for everyone. This goes back to delroland's original concern that the campaign doesn't trust the players to work things out.The other problem is that NPC's get to use gear that is up to twice as valuable as normal as that in a home game, because players can't just keep it. This is more a concern for how the scenarios are authored.
In my opinion, it's better to have the rules in place to prevent the - hopefully rare - outbreaks of selfishness and greed that can and will crop up in games than to lack such rules. I have no problem with the campaign not trusting players to work things out; the simple fact is that some players (I would hope a very small minority) will have no compunction with screwing other players over if given the chance. This goes double for Con games, where you may be playing with people that you will never have to see again. Feel proud that you're not the type of person these rules are aimed at, and then move on.
As to the second concern, I have't yet played a scenario where I've felt that we have been overpowered by the NPCs due to the value of their gear. If a complaint is raised about that occuring, then that would be the time to consider the issue. For now, you're only speculating that this may cause problems. As such, I believe your concerns have no current demonstrable merit.
|
|
The problem is that when you play in a game with other players you trust (most home games), you have the option to do what's best for the party. Currently you are compelled to do what's half best for everyone. This goes back to delroland's original concern that the campaign doesn't trust the players to work things out.
The other problem is that NPC's get to use gear that is up to twice as valuable as normal as that in a home game, because players can't just keep it. This is more a concern for how the scenarios are authored.
But, here is a counter problem. You "do what's right" and let another player have an expensive magic item out of whack to the rest of the party instead of collecting the gold for it by selling it.
Then, in another scenario, it make sense for another player to get something expensive instead of selling it to "do what's right." Its a living campaign, so you are dealing with a new set of players at, say, a different convention at this point.
Now, you play a third adventure, and yet again, in the moment, it seems to be "right" to give yet another player the expensive magic item that you get no part in.
Sure, at this point you can complain that you never get the good magic item, or your share of the gold, but to "table three" above, that doesn't matter, because they don't play with you on a regular basis.
So you just went a whole level, and three sessions, without getting your share of what you should have gotten, because the "good" magic item made more sense to let another character have instead of selling. On top of that, I understand the concern that the rules may not "trust" players to work things out themselves, but I'm not sure I would just trust someone that I haven't played with to come into a session and assure me that he never gets the good item, so we should all give up the item to him, because he's taken one for the team several times in the past, without us there.
Plus, even fiddling with how much the item might be worth, in game, having player's appraise it and debate if its worth more sold or used, is a time sink and part of why the current system is used as well.
|
|
Also, regarding a few posts above that make good points. Sure, nine times out of ten you may have a really good table that works well together and does what is best for X or Y, but what about that tenth time (or twentieth, or whatever)?
Almost all of my PFS sessions have been a lot of fun to run, but I can say that if you have one session that really strains your nerves from players bickering and not working together and pushing the rules limits and the like, it can burn you out for a while. Why invite more of this by hoping that everyone, every time, can work things out on their own?
Given that the individual (volunteer) GMs have to administer this system, and that there isn't really any formal intermediary between the GMs and Josh, that means the GMs potentially have to adjudicate a lot of issues that might come up, and if they don't do it satisfactorily, that Josh has to deal with a lot of potential problems that he really doesn't have time for.
I can sympathize with the OP's problems, but I'm not really sure that those problems can be addressed in the manner that he seems to want them to be addressed. On the other hand, it is interesting to get the input from someone that has had the chance to look at this (organized play) from a different angle.
|
|
Thanks for everyone's responses. I originally jumped into this thread because I didn't think delroland's concerns were getting a fair hearing, and I knew from my game Saturday that he and his friends are quality players that I would enjoy playing with again. I hope he comes back to see how the thread has progressed.
At this point I have no problem with how Pathfinder tracks adventures or provides rewards, but I've only played six scenarios and run four (all at tier 1-2). I can see how it might look odd to some players if an adventure contains 120,000gp worth of equipment and each player gets 10,000gp from it, particularly if it's a table of four players.
I like the way things are looking now with prestige awards, and my sense from other GM's is that Pathfinder Society scenarios (with some exceptions) are less lethal and more generous than prior organized play campaigns. I just hope we're doing the best possible job welcoming players from former living campaigns, as it sounds like many of them are currently adrift.
|
I'm one of the people that loses out under the cert system. I would rather let someone have a cert than haggle for it. That's not fun for me.
I really enjoyed Blackmoor, Arcanis, Living City, Living Death and such, until the scissors (or cert cutters!) came out. I GM'ed a lot, so that cut down on that tension. But I still vastly prefer the campaign logs. Flipping back through them is a lot of fun, as someone has already mentioned.
Certs stink for the quiet guys.
EDIT: Now that I've had the chance to think it over, all the Living Death people I met were exceedingly nice. I never felt like there was cert bullying going on there.
|
|
My background: I've played in the RPGA for over ten years, stretching across three editions of D&D.
In PFS I see many of the same failures that led to the significant decline in RPGA participation, but perhaps moreso than any other issue, I find the full-page adventure log to be the largest offender. Rather than have four hours to play in a four hour session, we are forced to give up thirty minutes of time to do arbitrary paperwork, wasting hundreds of sheets of paper per convention and cluttering character folders all in the name of "protecting" us from the cheaters.
In my experience with RPGA, I have found that, no matter what precautions the campaign might take, if people want to cheat, they will. No DM is going to demand to check the character logs of every single player that sits down at their table, as not only would it generally be a tremendous waste of play time, but also it would be quite insulting to the players involved. Considering the insignificant portion of the player base that resorts to cheating and also the utter failure of the log sheet system to prevent that insignificant percentage from cheating, I suggest we eliminate the log sheet system entirely.
The second major issue I have is with the way treasure is handled (another holdover from Living Greyhawk I might add). In the current model, if the party finds a particular item, they can't just take that item; instead, they have to sell that item for half its value, then purchase the item with their own coin. This leads to situations, especially at higher levels, where authors can give their NPC's immensely powerful magic items which they don't have to worry about the characters acquiring, because the characters will never be able to afford them. Again, the premise here is "protection" of players from the greed of other players, as well as to prevent characters from becoming overly powerful from acquiring too many magic items. Instead, such a system leads to adventures that become increasingly unfair at higher levels, with enemies...
well, i spent about two hours writing a very in depth reply to this. critical, but respectful. apparently, though, the message system seems to have not liked that. so, i'll sum up (if it seems i'm being mean or confrontational, i assure, i do not have that attitude :) )
1. i think the assumption that ARs or Chronicles are designed to stop people from cheating is incorrect. the intention is to give PCs roughly equal opportunities and to keep their power scales relatively even.
2. i'm flummoxed as to why you would feel that campaign administration does not trust you. i'm sure that they have the utmost trust in 99.% of the player base.
3. your accusations of mod authors giving npc crazy magic items just because the PCs won't keep them is pretty silly, and a bit of a straw man argument. the quality of PFS mods is pretty close to their regularly published product, and on the whole they are much better written and designed than the majority of any other "living" campaign mods. i find it slightly hypocritical that you demand their trust, but don't seem to want to give them any.
4. i haven't seen any indication that the PFS player base would be any happier or more devoted if we got rid of Chronicles. i don't think that the it's really that much of an issue to most players. i think that the average PFS player is already pretty happy and devoted.
5. the closest extant system to the one you advocate is LFR, and that campaign is a big hot mess a good deal of the time.
6. what i'd really like to hear now that you've voiced what you don't like with the campaign (which is quite different that what is wrong with the campaign) is what you actually ENJOY about PFS.
i also used the word ameliorate somewhere in the original message, so someone owes me fifty cents. :)
again, if my comments sound "mean" at all, i'm just trying to quickly sum up two hours worth of writing so i can get to bed... i think everyone is entitled to their opinion and to share it... especially when i don't agree with it. ;)
|
|
Mat, I think you came off sounding reasonable. I too was wondering why someone would make that assumption? Generally I see such things as a paper trail for the staff to be sure they were right about choices made and balance of play in modules. *shrug*
As a long-ish aside:
I did RPGA for years... a good friend of mine, Cliff Caldwell, has written(and been paid for) over half a dozen modules for RPGA... but they always seemed to reduce them to "meat grinders for gear".
(Swan Song was a great "love gone wrong" module originally, that required the PC's to try to convince a banshee to give up her "vendetta" on her living beloved, by talking to it and him.... Bards actually were going to get some glory for once.... but they turned it into an undead death trap with possible character death for groups without a cleric. I gave up on RPGA after that.)
...leading to my OT question:
Will I actually find some role play here? Or should I stick with a home game? It's going to be over an hour to my nearest point of play, so I'd like to know.
|
|
Mat, I think you came off sounding reasonable. I too was wondering why someone would make that assumption? Generally I see such things as a paper trail for the staff to be sure they were right about choices made and balance of play in modules. *shrug*
As a long-ish aside:
I did RPGA for years... a good friend of mine, Cliff Caldwell, has written(and been paid for) over half a dozen modules for RPGA... but they always seemed to reduce them to "meat grinders for gear".(Swan Song was a great "love gone wrong" module originally, that required the PC's to try to convince a banshee to give up her "vendetta" on her living beloved, by talking to it and him.... Bards actually were going to get some glory for once.... but they turned it into an undead death trap with possible character death for groups without a cleric. I gave up on RPGA after that.)
...leading to my OT question:
Will I actually find some role play here? Or should I stick with a home game? It's going to be over an hour to my nearest point of play, so I'd like to know.
in general, you'll find a lot more roleplay than your average rpga mod. as always, this is somewhat dependent on who you have as a dm. but PFS mods are pretty quality adventures on the whole... there are usually plenty of rp opportunities, and the combats are rarely boring.
|
|
It seems to me that these are all good reasons NOT to participate in PFS unless you do so with the same group of people. I think that's why the RPGA will allow home games run by qualified and certified DMs to be a part of LFR. That way you're not playing with different people all the time and these issues never come up. Perhaps PFS should do the same?
there's no stricture saying that you can't play PFS with a home group.
you may be confusing the point that the RPGA allows players and dms to report home games as RPGA events (inherently different from LFR events), and get "credit" for them, not that there are really any rewards for that anymore... what you can't do in LFR is play a standard type home game then take that character to an LFR game, nor should you be able to either here or there. that exactly defeats the purpose of an organized play campaign.
|
|
Matt, thank you for your answer. I have decided to give it a try.
I know my brother Stratton enjoyed demoing it for GC. He, being a kind and loving brother, gave me a copy of the book.
(Being unemployed sort of puts dampers on so much, like going to GC or driving an hour to the nearest game... but I will somehow manage, just like going to Dagorhir every Sunday.) LOL
The second major issue I have is with the way treasure is handled (another holdover from Living Greyhawk I might add). In the current model, if the party finds a particular item, they can't just take that item; instead, they have to sell that item for half its value, then purchase the item with their own coin. This leads to situations, especially at higher levels, where authors can give their NPC's immensely powerful magic items which they don't have to worry about the characters acquiring, because the characters will never be able to afford them. Again, the premise here is "protection" of players from the greed of other players, as well as to prevent characters from becoming overly powerful from acquiring too many magic items. Instead, such a system leads to adventures that become increasingly unfair at higher levels, with enemies...
Of all the issues discussed, this is the one I want to address the most. In the current system, if the party finds an item, they can use the item for the remainder of the scenario. At the end of the scenario, however, that item is automatically sold and the gold is split and the PCs then get their "loot" in gold to spend on whatever they like. Your assumption that at higher levels "authors can give their NPC's immensely powerful magic items which they don't have to worry about the characters acquiring, because the characters will never be able to afford them" is flawed because (1) all of the scenarios are developed by me, regardless of author, and I'll remove anything above-tier power-wise, and (2) because I have a complete system built out that tells me exactly at what level the gold being handed out should be by tier and sub-tier for the life of a Pathfinder Society character. Your example above simply will not happen. In fact, in most cases, I find that once development is over, the NPCs have either just the right amount of gear they're supposed to have, or have just under the right amount of gear they're supposed to have. In no instance have I released a scenario where a high-level NPC had a super powerful magic item that would blow out his CR. It doesn't (and won't) happen.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
RPGA #'s were actually up this year from last year for Gencon. We added over 50 tables to the room from last year so while there might have been more empty tables we were actually sitting more tables then in previous years.
Thanks for the accurate scoop, David.
Forgive my asking, because I'm very ignorant about how Living Realms works, but how do you handle things like experience, loot and equipment in the RPGA these days?
David, I think a lot of folk's impressions are guided by the room size and the time of day that they pop in. I dream of a day when folks can look into a room as large as the Sagamore, see Pathfinder Society filling "only" half of the tables, and complain that the turn out seems down. :-) Great to see you cruising by the Paizo boards--wish I'd had time to stop by and say hi at Gen Con.
|
|
Forgive my asking, because I'm very ignorant about how Living Realms works, but how do you handle things like experience, loot and equipment in the RPGA these days?
Not David, but I'll try my best to answer.
XP is more-or-less "set" by the specific module's level band and tier.
LFR has (or will have) 9 level bands for modules:
Heroic tier:
1-4
4-7
7-10
Paragon tier:
11-14
14-17
17-20
Epic tier:
21-24
24-27
27-30
Each module is designed to have two mod of play, low tier and high tier. Low tier seems to be, for the most part, for an APL 1 aboce the bottom level of the band, and high tier is targeted for the APL of the top level for the band. E.G. 1-4 would have options to play as APL2 or APL4. Note that the level bands are hard, not soft. If you have a 5th level PC, he will not be able to play any more modules from the 1-4 band.
Loot is handled quite a bit differently than LG did it. At th eend of the module, you get a set amount of gold, with an option to take an additional choice from a list. The choices include magic items found during the adventure, a potion of some sort with possible additional gold or a larger sum of additional gold.
However, it is not all a bed of roses. While you can get a free magical item out of the module, there are some limitations on it. Basically, you can take one of the found magic items per level, so if you use that slot in your first module, you might not be able to take anything more for another module or two, until you level up.
On the other hand, you can buy any magic item of your level or kess, as long as you have the gold for it.
Equipment is fairly open access. The only items I k ow of for sure that are not available for purchase would be artifacts and, possibly, intelligent items. All mundane equipment and magic items of your PC's level or lower are, in LG terms, Open access.
This includes most items from the published books, other than a few non-FR setting-specific items (Eberron stuff, for instance, related to Dragonmarks), but including non-Artifact items that are in articles in the compiled monthly issues of Dragon magazine.
As another example, the newest book, Adventurer's Vault 2, just released, is fully legal as an equipment resource for LFR play immediately.
|
|
Of all the issues discussed, this is the one I want to address the most. In the current system, if the party finds an item, they can use the item for the remainder of the scenario. At the end of the scenario, however, that item is automatically sold and the gold is split and the PCs then get their "loot" in gold to spend on whatever they like. Your assumption that at higher levels "authors can give their NPC's immensely powerful magic items which they don't have to worry about the characters acquiring, because the characters will never be able to afford them" is flawed because (1) all of the scenarios are developed by me, regardless of author, and I'll remove anything above-tier power-wise, and (2) because I have a complete system built out that tells me exactly at what level the gold being handed out should be by tier and sub-tier for the life of a Pathfinder Society character. Your example above simply will not happen. In fact, in most cases, I find that once development is over, the NPCs have either just the right amount of gear they're supposed to have, or have just under the right amount of gear they're supposed to have. In no instance have I...
Thanks for the detailed answer, Josh. That gives me what I need to explain the situation the next time I play with newcomers with questions. I noticed that in both the Third Riddle and Many Fortunes that a sizable portion of the treasure was not in the hands of enemies, but didn't want to extrapolate too far.
I knew there was a secret way to get that room. :-)
|
I knew there was a secret way to get that room. :-)
Dave's collection of "interesting" pictures and other compliance-inducing collateral is truly impressive. ;)
All kidding aside, you guys are doing a fantastic job with PFS. I have enjoyed all the scenarios (haven't had the chance to read the first four Season 1 releases yet, but overall, I thought Season 0 was excellent).
Most people probably don't appreciate just how difficult it is to get prominent, dedicated space at Gen Con inside the convention center for tabletop RPGs, especially in the last couple of years with all the construction. It's true that being in the Sagamore Ballroom is like being in heaven. Once you get past that, though, the competition for space is truly fierce (as well I know from my days working on Living Arcanis). The fact that Paizo has gotten its current assigned space, and gotten there in such a short period of time, is a real testament to your table count and the high level of player interest in PFS (and Pathfinder in general). I love the folks at Gen Con, but they don't make space assignments out of the goodness of their heart. For you guys to be where you are, means that you are kicking some serious butt.
Keep up the great work!
Talk to you later --
Sean
----
M. Sean Molley | sean [at] basementsoftware [dot] com
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
This is one of the many reasons why I quit playing [Living Forgotten Realms]. And before anyone flames me, I played from the day it was released until April of this year. I gave it a fair shot and found it lacking.
It seems like a perfectly reasonable solution to me, Sanakht. What, in specific, did you find unsatisfactory?