I have some issues with recent changes to Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Society

151 to 200 of 407 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain aka TwilightKnight

Findas wrote:
Why have any restrictions on replay at all? Are there that many people out there “abusing” the system that there is a danger of it falling apart? Does it matter if someone replays a scenario more than once or twice? How does this hurt the game?

It's about balance and whether or not you play more for the fun of the game or the rewards at the end. One of the primary issues with other OP (and why most people I know are leaving LFR)is free replay. There are a lot of horror stories about GM's running a game for a table of replay'ers who know the entire mod. They tend to be disengaged and push forward to the rewards. Traps and unique mod issues are lost due to meta-gaming. Might as well just hand them the chronicle and move on. It can be even worse if you have a couple of replay'ers at a table with n00bs. It can really turn a player off to OP if the others at the table are using their knowledge. Sometimes it is easy to see and the GM can squash it, but a smart player can influence the group's decisions without making it obvious he/she's using meta-knowledge.

Sczarni

Todd Morgan wrote:

I just wanted to chime in from a different perspective.

We may have one or two people that aren't pleased with the new rule, but they also play a lot of PFS on their own, which is something an organizer has no control over.
If...

Let me first say I appreciate what you do, very much, Todd. Now I'm going to agree to disagree.

...For the record over the last calendar year I have a total of 22 Chronicle Sheets. Several of which are replays. In total, it averages out to about 1.5 'new mods' per month over the last calendar year. That's hardly excessive play. This is a minuscule amount, by way of comparison, to the multitude I used to play in either LG & LC.

Yes, you only get credit (as a GM) once. But, honestly, to us old-timers if you 'ate' a mod in LG or LC you didn't get anything. We can discuss the pitfalls of replaying year 0's over & over off list.

I believe some of the main problems here are: inflexibility of 'what classifies as' playing within APL & a lack of modules. I very much like the idea of sanctioning adventure paths.

EDIT: re-running year 0's

5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson aka Sir_Wulf

Findas wrote:
I’d like to ask a few questions, partly out of naïveté and partly to just look at this issue from a different perspective. Why have any restrictions on replay at all? Are there that many people out there “abusing” the system that there is a danger of it falling apart? Does it matter if someone replays a scenario more than once or twice? How does this hurt the game?

In WotC's Living Forgotten Realms campaign, replay is allowed. Some people feel that this rule tends to focus games on the "tactical miniatures battle" aspect of the scenarios, causing roleplaying and puzzle-solving to be neglected in LFR play. There's no point in putting twists, puzzles, or surprises into a scenario when many of the players know exactly what happens ahead of time. Because the players who replay regularly have already played through the roleplaying aspects of the scenario, such interactions grow boring. Like Fred Savage's character in Princess Bride, they want to get to the "meat" of the adventure and often want to "skip ahead" to quickly finish the less-exciting aspects.

People's fear is that emphasizing replay will lead to more hack-and-slash play and fewer roleplaying encounters. Puzzles and twists will become irrelevant because a minority of replayers already knows what's going to happen and finds it difficult not to metagame.

While only a few people grossly abuse the replay system, this small minority can be surprisingly annoying. In my encounters with such individuals, I have seen them browbeat other players to take more "useful" characters, comment about the availability and location of treasure items, or make a beeline for secret doors, short-circuiting encounters.

Realistically, such irritants can be reduced by holding the players accountable for their behavior. Under Pathfinder Society rules, those sharing information about the scenario can be thrown out. By using their discretion to slightly alter scenarios, gamemasters can make metagaming extremely hazardous to the abusive player character...

"As you open the secret door, a massive figure of living stone lunges forward to grab you, its eyes filled with evil glee. Does 28 beat your CMD?"

"Hey! There was supposed to be the sorcerer in that room, not the elemental!"

"Silly me! I must have misread the map. We'll just have to go on from where we are..."

The Exchange

Findas wrote:
Maybe someone with more experience dealing with organized play can point out how the potential negatives outweigh the positives here. Does the entire organized play system really suffer so much that it’s necessary to institute these kinds of restrictions on replay?

I know I'm not the bravest person in the world, but nothing fills me with more dread than allowing more replay for credit. I'm fine with rarely used "replay, no credit, have fun".

After seeing firsthand how quickly it destroyed LFR (I played a lot of LFR) and especially the LFR module experience, I can't recommend against it enough. Sadly, some people underestimate the deleterious effects on the campaign and how many people will abuse it.

Nearly everyone will abuse it. Give it time and it will be abused. To argue otherwise foolishly contradicts human nature...and especially geeky powergamer nature.

It will hurt what should be the best thing about PFS: the shared experience of going through a module for the first time. There is nothing more important to the game than that, IMHO.

The fluff and the story make PFS great...they will be the first things lost (just like they were in LFR) if replaying for credit ever comes to pass. The second thing lost, just like in LFR, will be your judges and their motivation to judge.

What really gets my goat about the replay for credit is that it's a bad solution to the problem. And if we thought about the problem more, we might find better solutions.

If the problem is "not enough mods for our weekly game group", then numbered solutions might look like this:

1) Encourage Paizo to amp up their release schedule (up to 40-44 per year).
2) Play for no credit.
3) Allow conversions of other Paizo mods/APs for PFS play (in discussions, I believe).
4) Switch to a different adventure path for a month, return to PFS in one month.
...
...
...
5,341) Feed your player base psychotropic-laced vitamin water and then tell them that was the mod.
5,342) Release hordes of Manticores upon the player base to keep them hospitalized so they don't play mods as quickly.
5,343) Allow unlimited replay.

If there is some other problem, put it up.

We can find better solutions.

-Pain

p.s. I've been one of the judges at a table of LFR replayers. NEVER AGAIN. NEVER EVER AGAIN will I judge for that.

Liberty's Edge

+1 Painlord.

I also have no interest in running scenario's for replay players. The once in a while person we had over the past year was not too bad, but if it was unlimited, it would ruin the fun for me.

There are many other options that can be considered before we frag out PFS with unlimited replay.


Guys, sadly, saying "Release more mods" and "No replay" is a complete Catch-22.

1) In order for more modules to be released, there must be more games played.

2) In order for more games to be played in the low end, there must be brand new players.

Since, while PFS IS growing it doesn't appear to be doing so fast enough to allow new players to be seated in low-level modules without any form of replay, there can't be more modules. Since the production schedule can't be increased, we will inevitably start finding it difficult to seat new players. And without new players, we can't seat the additional tables to get the production schedule increased.

I'll be the first to agree that unlimited replay is bad for the game. But as things stand now, the rule is effectively (please, no statements to the contrary on this one, most people won't use the current rule) back to no replay at all and growing anecdotal evidence suggests that's not sustainable with the current production schedule.

Grand Lodge

Chris Kenney wrote:
I'll be the first to agree that unlimited replay is bad for the game. But as things stand now, the rule is effectively (please, no statements to the contrary on this one, most people won't use the current rule) back to no replay at all and growing anecdotal evidence suggests that's not sustainable with the current production schedule.

The current rule is unlimited replay. If you choose to replay, you do so for no credit. That's a choice the player has to make, just like lots of other choices they have to make. Every individual has personal responsibility over their character. If they choose to play PFS at a rate which is greater than the publishing schedule then they are going to run into problems at some point. To expect local GMs, store owners, Venture-Captains, staff Developers and Event Managers to continue to cater around this greed is beyond ridiculous. And I'm not saying that's what you are doing or asking for Chris. I'm just tired of this, think about the players stuff when it comes to replay. Players tend to maximize the risk/reward equation in their favor as much as possible.

Since the change to 1 and 1 I've personally seen a very large increase in offers from my local players to also run games. It's fantastic to have this many people offering to help out. While the 1 and 1 rule change may not be directly responsible, they certainly understand that this is the official route for them now to get more than 1 XP for a mod.

Sovereign Court

I do like the idea suggested for two credits worth, be it from GMing or playing.

That gives enough wiggle room to be able to accommodate PPP! so that people are not turned away, rewarding every reasonable instance of play, and minimizing the problems with unlimited replay.

Some people are awful at GMing, but are solid players that always contribute to the enjoyment of the game, so allowing them two credits per module will let them be able to sit in on low level games with new players.

Likewise, if a GM runs the mod twice and gets credit both times they can spread their activity around to several characters and have a solid strata of characters to grab for whatever situation arises.

The overall point is to get enough grease into the wheels to make putting tables together a pain free experience and avoid turning people away.

I know that you can technically replay to your hearts content right now, but I'll happily say that one, among many foundational pillars of D&D is the accumulation of power. It isn't the only one that holds up the whole endeavor, but it is one important one. As I said before, I have to commute an hour each way for a PFS game, and I just don't see doing it if I show up and have to be turned away.

One of the things I've really enjoyed about PFS over Living Greyhawk is the flexibility that this campaign has had to accommodate players. Living Greyhawk seemed to be born out of hyper-refereed tournament style play. That fussy attention to rules and legalities is something I wouldn't want PFS to morph into. Keeping it as laid back and promoting a relaxing atmosphere of fun is key.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads aka Darius Silverbolt

Where in the PFS guide states there is no credit for replay?

The Exchange

Darius Silverbolt wrote:
Where in the PFS guide states there is no credit for replay?

Darius -- somewhere in a thread there is a post by either Hyrum or Mark stating that the replay rules have changed... I am on my laptop and dealing with limited copy/paste function so I'm sure one of the other multi-posters can find it and post a link to it.

my opinion is that I like the new ruling... has a GM for my fellowship and home game I was eating mods (which I chose to do and had no problem doing) however it meant that I'd see people play and replay and in a couple instances replay a mod so in effect getting three chronicles then if they'd step up to judge (rarely happened to be honest) they'd get a 4th while I was sitting there with one chronicle for the mod.

So the fact that I have the option of playing a mod after I judge it is awesome -- I probably won't as it would be wierd lol, but I have that option. The fact that other people won't be super by-passing me with chronicles is awesome.

I still say that there are two sides to this that are just never going to agree or see eye to eye on the replay ruleing.. In the end both sides have to realize that Paizo is going to make the decision based on what is best for OP and the players.. while taking into account the gamestore; but that is not their main focus when making these rules.

It's a matter of organization and pre-planning what mods are going to be played. People will come for the games they can play and probably won't for the ones they can't thereby opening up spots for the ones that can play. Yes it's easy to say that more mods need to be released; but until they do we as players and GMS need to make adjustments and work within the system.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads aka Darius Silverbolt

Thea Peters wrote:
Darius Silverbolt wrote:
Where in the PFS guide states there is no credit for replay?

Darius -- somewhere in a thread there is a post by either Hyrum or Mark stating that the replay rules have changed... I am on my laptop and dealing with limited copy/paste function so I'm sure one of the other multi-posters can find it and post a link to it.

I do prefer a limited replay rule myself. I posted all about replay when Josh first brought it up a while back. That isn't my issue here. Look at the part of your post I quoted.

"Somewhere in a thread", that is not the proper place to make major changes. Game changes (revisions to current PFS guide) need to be made in a easy to find LOCKED an STICKY thread.

I found the original post and low and behold I was about 10-14 days before I even noticed it.

Information to PFS needs to be released in official methods not on some post somewhere on the forum. I know there are rule changes buried but I think as this game grows that it would be easier for Paizo to not make game changing announcements like this. We need to reduce the amount of confusion not add to it.

We all knew when modules are being cancel. Can we not do the same justice to other rules changes?

The other problem here is what is the % of players that read this forum?

I have no intent of trying to play search for that rule. I don't have that much spare time. For now like all my players it is best just to use the current printed rule set and change things as the printed rules change.

The Exchange

Darius Silverbolt wrote:
Thea Peters wrote:
Darius Silverbolt wrote:
Where in the PFS guide states there is no credit for replay?

Darius -- somewhere in a thread there is a post by either Hyrum or Mark stating that the replay rules have changed... I am on my laptop and dealing with limited copy/paste function so I'm sure one of the other multi-posters can find it and post a link to it.

I do prefer a limited replay rule myself. I posted all about replay when Josh first brought it up a while back. That isn't my issue here. Look at the part of your post I quoted.

"Somewhere in a thread", that is not the proper place to make major changes. Game changes (revisions to current PFS guide) need to be made in a easy to find LOCKED an STICKY thread.

I found the original post and low and behold I was about 10-14 days before I even noticed it.

Information to PFS needs to be released in official methods not on some post somewhere on the forum. I know there are rule changes buried but I think as this game grows that it would be easier for Paizo to not make game changing announcements like this. We need to reduce the amount of confusion not add to it.

We all knew when modules are being cancel. Can we not do the same justice to other rules changes?

The other problem here is what is the % of players that read this forum?

I have no intent of trying to play search for that rule. I don't have that much spare time. For now like all my players it is best just to use the current printed rule set and change things as the printed rules change.

I believe the changes to the guide are mixed in amongst trying to put out more modules (per demand), re-doing the iconics (per demand), making the changes to the year 0 mods to PFS rules, and a multitude of other office/work duties for the two that we as a community know of that are handling all of it. Should the thread be locked and stickied sure, but they haven't as of yet and so it falls to the community that reads the boards to enlighten the parts of the community that do not.

I can't tell you what to do or what not to do; however, I will tell you that it is my believe that you are doing a disservice to your players as it has been stated that the new replay rule is in effect (and you know about it). By not following it you are opening those players up for possible issues if a judge does bychance audit their characters before a module (never heard of it happening but it's still w/in the judges right to do so).

If that happens and the character is deemed not legal due to replay who are they going to blame? Paizo made the rules true that they did not publish them yet. You? you knew about the replay rule yet did not either inform them or enforce the ruling and allowed them to continually replay against the rule. It's a total catch-22 as to who is ultimately at fault and one I'm not willing to debate -- bringing it up as an example. However, the point is the player is the one that is going to suffer for it by their character possibly being declared not legal for play.

I know I personally would be supper annoyed with my coordinator for knowing there was a change to the rule and not informing me of the change and letting my continue to replay and make subsequent character technically illegal for play

Paizo Employee Director of Brand Strategy

Darius Silverbolt wrote:
"Somewhere in a thread", that is not the proper place to make major changes. Game changes (revisions to current PFS guide) need to be made in a easy to find LOCKED an STICKY thread.

We are currently working on implementing an easy-to-navigate system of FAQs and rules changes and will update the campaign documentation to point all players at this resource once it goes live.


Mark Moreland wrote:
Darius Silverbolt wrote:
"Somewhere in a thread", that is not the proper place to make major changes. Game changes (revisions to current PFS guide) need to be made in a easy to find LOCKED an STICKY thread.
We are currently working on implementing an easy-to-navigate system of FAQs and rules changes and will update the campaign documentation to point all players at this resource once it goes live.

Honestly, Mark, I don't think this is going to help much. An absolutely shocking number of players and GMs don't read the board regularly. And about as many don't actually consider postings on it, by anyone, the official rules until it is put into the Guide.

Paizo Employee Director of Brand Strategy

The real issue is the amount of time necessary to make even small updates to the pdf campaign documentation. It requires Hyrum or I to actually write the revision, then a second person to develop those words, someone to redo the layout of the document, and then at least one edit pass. Then the web team has to update the file on their end and send out a detailed list of what changes have been made to everyone who has downloaded the previous document.

I'm not really concerned with what people currently consider official, in any case. We've made it clear to date what rules people need to be following and they're expected to be doing so. When we have an easier way to organize these clarifications that don't require the addition of more work on the plates of every department in the company, those will be considered official rulings. When it comes down to it, it's up to players, GMs and organizers to ensure they are using the most current rules; we can't force anyone to change anything, whether it's in a new pdf download of a messageboard post.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads aka Darius Silverbolt

Mark Moreland wrote:
Darius Silverbolt wrote:
"Somewhere in a thread", that is not the proper place to make major changes. Game changes (revisions to current PFS guide) need to be made in a easy to find LOCKED an STICKY thread.
We are currently working on implementing an easy-to-navigate system of FAQs and rules changes and will update the campaign documentation to point all players at this resource once it goes live.

I know Mark you guys got your hands full on this ever so growing program. Just things are moving slower than hoped but alas you and Hyrum only have 4 hands to type between the both of you.

I am not wanting to sound negative but it can be frustrating as a DM but I am sure it is the same on your side of the fence as well if not more so.


Mark Moreland wrote:

The real issue is the amount of time necessary to make even small updates to the pdf campaign documentation. It requires Hyrum or I to actually write the revision, then a second person to develop those words, someone to redo the layout of the document, and then at least one edit pass. Then the web team has to update the file on their end and send out a detailed list of what changes have been made to everyone who has downloaded the previous document.

I'm not really concerned with what people currently consider official, in any case. We've made it clear to date what rules people need to be following and they're expected to be doing so. When we have an easier way to organize these clarifications that don't require the addition of more work on the plates of every department in the company, those will be considered official rulings. When it comes down to it, it's up to players, GMs and organizers to ensure they are using the most current rules; we can't force anyone to change anything, whether it's in a new pdf download of a messageboard post.

Mark,

Here is a thought for you. We know that whenever a Paizo pdf gets an update, an email is automatically sent out to everyone who has downloaded the file previously. Is there any way you and Hyrum can access the list of people who have downloaded the current version of the Guide and send out a simple mass-mailing announcing this one official rule change?

Oh, and what people are talking about is not a system of FAQs and such, but just a simple stickied, and probably locked, thread in this forum that lists this new rule and perhaps also states "more to come soon" and it could be called Pathfinder Society Organized Play Rules FAQ v4.0+.


Pathfinder Society is a much better organized play system than any alternative that I've seen, and I like the faction system (if not always the fine points of its implementation) as promoting the setting, and the adventures (with a few exceptions) have been quality adventures and not just OP adventures.

That having been said, there are things about the overall PFS and about some of the regulars that concern me.

I get the feeling that you can't be a causal PFS GM. People, even venture captains, criticize GMs that don't read the boards on a daily basis to catch any new rulings. GMs that don't know the current rulings or what adventures people have played ahead of time are doing a disservice to their players.

Of course, the Guide to Organized Play never mentions that you have to read the forums every day, or at least before every session, to make sure there aren't any rules updates.

If you are a player in PFS, you are being "greedy" if you want all of your sessions to count towards a character, and you aren't "giving back" if you don't take a turn as a GM. So you can't be a casual PFS player.

This is just my opinion, and you can completely discount it, but I honestly don't think that any major rules changes should be made to the OP rules unless there is an updated guide ready to go with notification e-mails sent out on it.

The biggest recent issue, the replay ruling, wasn't a ruling or a clarification. A clarification would have answered, "can a GM replay a scenario that he has already run under the replay rules." The "clarification" was a major rules change.

That only appears on the forums. And many people who are on the forums all of the time see no problem with this because really dedicated GMs should be on as much as them, and should scan every thread that might have some kind of ruling in it.

I think its a huge mistake to make any kind of rules change outside of the one document that we currently have for legal guidelines for play. I also think its a huge mistake to assume that people that don't GM if they have played for a while, that don't read the forums every day, or can't figure out how to schedule so that their regulars can continue to participate aren't investing enough time and effort into their "work."


Enevhar Aldarion wrote:

Is there any way you and Hyrum can access the list of people who have downloaded the current version of the Guide and send out a simple mass-mailing announcing this one official rule change?

Rather than delve into the 'I read it somewhere on the boards that the rule is now ____' mess, why not attack this on a few fronts:

1. Have a central FAQ that's maintained. (I know this is in the works)

2. Have a regularly scheduled update of the society guide and have that be the one and only source of 'rulings'. The FAQ above would clarify things but if a player/judge has the guide then they have all the society rules until the next scheduled update (which could even be listed in the guide.. good until date X).

3. When the society has a special rule, explain why it was considered needed. While not required, this would give the rules as intended which is much more helpful than rules as written. (Take for example the day job roll... I'm still not sure what normal modifiers to a PCs skill check apply and what normal modifiers do not apply.. and I have no idea where the line is drawn or why).

-James

4/5 Venture-Agent, United Kingdom—England—Gloucester aka Findas

I just want to thank TwilightKnight, Sir_Wulf, and Painlord for their considered responses. I only got into organized play about a year before the end of Living Greyhawk, and I never played in LFR. In that time I didn’t personally experience any of the problems you describe. That doesn’t mean they weren’t there of course, but I was happily unaware of any “geeky powergamer nature” on display when it came to replaying scenarios.

I do see your point regarding the role-playing and discovery aspects of each adventure and how those can be lost with repeated replays. I guess I’m just a perpetual optimist regarding other’s behaviour, and have been blessed with unselfish players most of the time. I envision replay being something someone would do to help fill out a table or let a newcomer learn the game, not as simple grinding for loot and prestige as seen in many MMORPGs. But since plenty of folks are willing to do that in a video game I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that they’re just as willing to do it at a gaming table. The fact that so many people would rather not play at all if they don’t get credit should have told me all I need to know.

Thanks again for your comments. This has been an interesting and informative thread and I’ll continue to follow along and see where it goes.

5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson aka Sir_Wulf

Findas wrote:

I do see your point regarding the role-playing and discovery aspects of each adventure and how those can be lost with repeated replays. I guess I’m just a perpetual optimist regarding other’s behaviour, and have been blessed with unselfish players most of the time. I envision replay being something someone would do to help fill out a table or let a newcomer learn the game, not as simple grinding for loot and prestige as seen in many MMORPGs. But since plenty of folks are willing to do that in a video game I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that they’re just as willing to do it at a gaming table. The fact that so many people would rather not play at all if they don’t get credit should have told me all I need to know.

"Problem players" are a small minority: There really aren't that many out there. Unfortunately, they're frustrating enough to drive out some of the more reasonable players and can even discourage GMs from staying with a game.


Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
KnightErrantJR wrote:
I think its a huge mistake to make any kind of rules change outside of the one document that we currently have for legal guidelines for play. I also think its a huge mistake to assume that...

Very well said. I concur completely.

To address another point mentioned, we should resist the urge to codify everything. One of the major advantages of PFS is its open feel, which allows both casual and hardcore play. Obviously it is a balancing act, so as long as we are sensitive to this I think we should be fine.

Best.

The Exchange 4/5

KnightErrantJR wrote:


I think its a huge mistake to make any kind of rules change outside of the one document that we currently have for legal guidelines for play. I also think its a huge mistake to assume that...

This. I can understand and sympathize with the difficulty of releasing new organized play guides every time a minor rule is changed, but knowing that this is a limiting factor means that rules changes need to be compiled privately and not released until a new guide is ready to be produced.


Demoyn wrote:
KnightErrantJR wrote:


I think its a huge mistake to make any kind of rules change outside of the one document that we currently have for legal guidelines for play. I also think its a huge mistake to assume that...
This. I can understand and sympathize with the difficulty of releasing new organized play guides every time a minor rule is changed, but knowing that this is a limiting factor means that rules changes need to be compiled privately and not released until a new guide is ready to be produced.

I agree, too. I'd rather keep an existing problem in the official rules rather than having two official-looking sets of comments that contradict each other.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads aka Darius Silverbolt

Demoyn wrote:
KnightErrantJR wrote:


I think its a huge mistake to make any kind of rules change outside of the one document that we currently have for legal guidelines for play. I also think its a huge mistake to assume that...
This. I can understand and sympathize with the difficulty of releasing new organized play guides every time a minor rule is changed, but knowing that this is a limiting factor means that rules changes need to be compiled privately and not released until a new guide is ready to be produced.

Agreed. Less confusion = more fun for all

1/5

Mark Moreland wrote:

The real issue is the amount of time necessary to make even small updates to the pdf campaign documentation. It requires Hyrum or I to actually write the revision, then a second person to develop those words, someone to redo the layout of the document, and then at least one edit pass. Then the web team has to update the file on their end and send out a detailed list of what changes have been made to everyone who has downloaded the previous document.

I'm not really concerned with what people currently consider official, in any case. We've made it clear to date what rules people need to be following and they're expected to be doing so. When we have an easier way to organize these clarifications that don't require the addition of more work on the plates of every department in the company, those will be considered official rulings. When it comes down to it, it's up to players, GMs and organizers to ensure they are using the most current rules; we can't force anyone to change anything, whether it's in a new pdf download of a messageboard post.

Not creating and maintaining a single, consistent, and authoritative source for the campaign's rules is mistake.

1/5

KnightErrantJR wrote:
I think its a huge mistake to make any kind of rules change outside of the one document that we currently have for legal guidelines for play.

This. I'm honestly surprised this is at issue. The only outstanding question is: How much pain will be required to teach this lesson? :(

Grand Lodge

Well, as requested, there is now an Official Stickied Post

Hopefully, that will help clarify things until the new FAQ system gets rolled out or the Guide to OP gets updated.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain aka TwilightKnight

Chris Kenney wrote:
An absolutely shocking number of players and GMs don't read the board regularly. And about as many don't actually consider postings on it, by anyone, the official rules until it is put into the Guide.

Maybe I'm just too rigid or uncompromising, but I feel that one of the expectations of organized play is that you, whether a player or GM or coordinator or whatever, keep up to date with current rules and guidelines. This means reading the PFS boards. I am not saying that you must read every post line by line, but with the move towards an official FAQ for PFS, it should be expected that we at least read the sticky posts and FAQ. Since they flag when new material is added, it shouldn't be that difficult. Most events I see are monthly or bi-weekly, with a few weekly, so casual player/GM's need only check the boards once every week or two. I don't think that is too much to ask considering the effort being put forth by Hyrum, Mark, and the rest of the Paizo staff.

Scarab Sages

TwilightKnight wrote:
Chris Kenney wrote:
An absolutely shocking number of players and GMs don't read the board regularly. And about as many don't actually consider postings on it, by anyone, the official rules until it is put into the Guide.
Maybe I'm just too rigid or uncompromising, but I feel that one of the expectations of organized play is that you, whether a player or GM or coordinator or whatever, keep up to date with current rules and guidelines. This means reading the PFS boards. I am not saying that you must read every post line by line, but with the move towards an official FAQ for PFS, it should be expected that we at least read the sticky posts and FAQ. Since they flag when new material is added, it shouldn't be that difficult. Most events I see are monthly or bi-weekly, with a few weekly, so casual player/GM's need only check the boards once every week or two. I don't think that is too much to ask considering the effort being put forth by Hyrum, Mark, and the rest of the Paizo staff.

Given the people I see at my tables, asking people to drop by the boards would be to much. I would go into detail, but they have complaints about the site layout that really doesn't belong in this thread.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 Venture-Captain, Texas—San Antonio aka Dragnmoon

Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:


Given the people I see at my tables, asking people to drop by the boards would be to much. I would go into detail, but they have complaints about the site layout that really doesn't belong in this thread.

Only one person in my group goes to the boards, but that said, Not everyone needs to, Just the organizer needs to. People may not like it, but that is how it currently works.

Basically I read the boards to keep update to rule changes and clarifications and pass that along to our players and other players if asked. It really does not take a lot of effort.

The Exchange

EDIT: Sorry this got so long.

TwilightKnight wrote:
Chris Kenney wrote:
An absolutely shocking number of players and GMs don't read the board regularly. And about as many don't actually consider postings on it, by anyone, the official rules until it is put into the Guide.
Maybe I'm just too rigid or uncompromising, but I feel that one of the expectations of organized play is that you, whether a player or GM or coordinator or whatever, keep up to date with current rules and guidelines. This means reading the PFS boards. I am not saying that you must read every post line by line, but with the move towards an official FAQ for PFS, it should be expected that we at least read the sticky posts and FAQ. Since they flag when new material is added, it shouldn't be that difficult. Most events I see are monthly or bi-weekly, with a few weekly, so casual player/GM's need only check the boards once every week or two. I don't think that is too much to ask considering the effort being put forth by Hyrum, Mark, and the rest of the Paizo staff.

While I mostly agree, I can't enforce rules that are hidden in a thread 100+ posts long. To expect everyone, to read multiple threads, with tens or hundreds of posts is fantasy. NOW, if they switch the rule system over to a consolidated FAQ and one sticky thread, then yes, I would expect people to at least keep up on a weekly basis. But these threads get long, and people just keep adding to them. The sticky thread would have to be clean and concise (no extra posts, only rule posts).

I don't have time to sit down and read these long threads. I have spent a week or two without visiting the boards before, and it takes hours to get through everything and get caught back up if you don't read the boards every day or at least every other day. (That's more than just the PFS threads.) I have gotten to the point where if I'm behind on a thread, I ignore what everyone is writing and just look for posts by Paizo staff or DougDoug, or similar "higher-ups". This shortens the amount of time spent looking but it still takes awhile.

On a side note, I still have players who go by the current rules in the printable guide, and ignore the message boards. They have their reasons, and you would have to ask them why. I don't believe that the guide needs to be changed every time a rule is made or changed, but maybe it should have been redone right away for this one, being it is so significant. We have now been told that a revised guide will not likely be published until after the new year. I believe that there will be groups that will continue to use the current printed rules and ignore the changes found on the boards. Perhaps this will give groups more time to test the new rule and give their findings to Paizo so that the rule can be tweaked/changed to best fit Paizo's mission.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

TwilightKnight wrote:
I feel that one of the expectations of organized play is that you, whether a player or GM or coordinator or whatever, keep up to date with current rules and guidelines.

You're not alone in that opinion, TwilightKnight. Last month, a week went by when I read comments by no less than three seperate people, all advocating the same position. Since then, I've seen someone advocate for it at least once every week.

Myself, I cannot agree. There are notices, rulings, and actual rules changes riddled all through the messageboards, both on the organized play environment and the underlying game mechanics. (There's a great deal more than "sticky posts and FAQs," I regret.) Insisting that GMs and players keep up-to-date on all of that is a heavy burden.

In particular, frequently shifting play environments are bad for OP. If my character's signature stunt is legal one week, illegal the next week, modified by new equipment rules the week after that, and then eventually legal again, that doesn't make me want to play in the Society.

The expectations for GMs: bring a copy of -- and be conversant with -- the core rule book, "Seekers of Secrets", the OP Guide, the basic Traits document, and the scenario in question. The expectations for players is even simpler.

If there are new rulings or guidelines from Mark or Hyrum, the event coordinators should know about them, and they should be incorporated into the OP Guide when they become active.


Shieldknight wrote:
While I mostly agree, I can't enforce rules that are hidden in a thread 100+ posts long. To expect everyone, to read multiple threads, with tens or hundreds of posts is fantasy.

This is one of the reasons why I put up this thread:

{PFS Update} Official Replay Rules

Plus it's "sticky", making it even easier to find.

Hyrum.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Hyrum Savage wrote:
Shieldknight wrote:
While I mostly agree, I can't enforce rules that are hidden in a thread 100+ posts long. To expect everyone, to read multiple threads, with tens or hundreds of posts is fantasy.

This is one of the reasons why I put up this thread:

{PFS Update} Official Replay Rules

Plus it's "sticky", making it even easier to find.

Hyrum.

Hyrum,

I know this might be too much to ask given yours (and Mark's) current workload, but is there any chance we can get a clean-up on the stickies? I'd rather have a sticky with just yours and Mark's (or Josh's if they still apply) comments, and then clarifications to the stickies from other threads should they arise. It would be exceptionally handy if this was done to all the existing stickies, or posts that you, Mark, or Josh have made in the past that you all consider super-important.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 Venture-Captain, Texas—San Antonio aka Dragnmoon

I think part of the problem is that in the past we just got Clarifications to the rules on the messageboards we did not get changes to the rules.

The FAQ thread was the one place stop for a clarification of a rule, it was easy to scan through because you just needed to look for Joshs post.

The only times we ever got a change was a brief introduction to a new rule going in shortly before the Guide was changed.

At the time of the GM Vs Player Credit and replay rule we were all just asking for a clarification on the rule in the Guide, and instead we got a full out change to the rule, that IMO does not work well with the current PPP replay rules in the guide, though that is exactly they are asking us to do, mix the current replay rules with the changes to the Player/GM credit rules.

Basically we got a patch before they where ready to actually fix the problem, and with that set a precedence for rules changes to the guide in the forums many months before they are even ready to actually change the guide.

They really should have just stuck with clarifying the current rule in the guide in the FAQ thread and done their huge change to the rules when they where ready to push out the new format of the guide. All of this is just my opinion.

That said, I still don't think it is difficult for one person Organizer/GM to keep up to date on rules and clarifications, to update their players. You just ignore all the fluff and pay attention to Hyrum and Mark and Doug Doug if you wish. Many of the Venture-Captains when they post don't make the clarifications themselves, they just reiterate what has already been said by Josh or Hyrum/Mark, so they are a not a bad post to keep an eye on either.


MisterSlanky wrote:

Hyrum,

I know this might be too much to ask given yours (and Mark's) current workload, but is there any chance we can get a clean-up on the stickies? I'd rather have a sticky with just yours and Mark's (or Josh's if they still apply) comments, and then clarifications to the stickies from other threads should they arise. It would be exceptionally handy if this was done to all the existing stickies, or posts that you, Mark, or Josh have made in the past that you all consider super-important.

Ok, I've cleaned up the replay one and I'll get to the others as time permits.

Hyrum.


Hyrum Savage wrote:
MisterSlanky wrote:

Hyrum,

I know this might be too much to ask given yours (and Mark's) current workload, but is there any chance we can get a clean-up on the stickies? I'd rather have a sticky with just yours and Mark's (or Josh's if they still apply) comments, and then clarifications to the stickies from other threads should they arise. It would be exceptionally handy if this was done to all the existing stickies, or posts that you, Mark, or Josh have made in the past that you all consider super-important.

Ok, I've cleaned up the replay one and I'll get to the others as time permits.

Hyrum.

Hyrum,

Maybe something to add to your notes for changes to the next version of the Guide. Perhaps put something in the Guide saying that rules changes that are posted and stickied in the PFS GD forum officially replace the one in the Guide until an updated version of the Guide comes out? That would kill a lot of the rules lawyering that happens over what is legal and what is not.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads aka Darius Silverbolt

I would also suggest making the thread were the updates to the PFS guide be locked so there isn't debate on rulings on there and keeps the posting clean. This would make it the 1-stop place to check to see any update or clarification between the PF guide revisions. When new Guides are posted you blank out the thread until further changes are done.

Players can ask,complain, gripe, or high five points on another thread.

1/5

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:


Hyrum,

Maybe something to add to your notes for changes to the next version of the Guide. Perhaps put something in the Guide saying that rules changes that are posted and stickied in the PFS GD forum officially replace the one in the Guide until an updated version of the Guide comes out? That would kill a lot of the rules lawyering that happens over what is legal and what is not.

No, please don't (no offense).

Batch the rules changes and delay their implementation. Make the guide update process simpler. Or both. Or neither. Just do whatever it takes to keep the guide the one-stop, authoritative source of the rules of society play. That's why it exists.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads aka Darius Silverbolt

bugleyman wrote:
Enevhar Aldarion wrote:


Hyrum,

Maybe something to add to your notes for changes to the next version of the Guide. Perhaps put something in the Guide saying that rules changes that are posted and stickied in the PFS GD forum officially replace the one in the Guide until an updated version of the Guide comes out? That would kill a lot of the rules lawyering that happens over what is legal and what is not.

No, please don't (no offense).

Batch the rules changes and delay their implementation. Make the guide update process simpler. Or both. Or neither. Just do whatever it takes to keep the guide the one-stop, authoritative source of the rules of society play. That's why it exists.

I would prefer this myself as it would be easiest on the Paizo team and cause less confusion on the coordinators, GM's, and players.

1/5

Darius Silverbolt wrote:
I would prefer this myself as it would be easiest on the Paizo team and cause less confusion on the coordinators, GM's, and players.

Indeed. I think they'll eventually reach the same conclusion. I just don't want to be dragged by the horse for several miles while they figure out why their current direction is a bad idea.

I realize I'm not the most diplomatic guy, but please, please reconsider this choice. Changes and clarifications can keep until the guide can be updated. If they're so critical that they can't wait, then I submit that it's time to upgrade the guide anyway.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 Venture-Captain, Texas—San Antonio aka Dragnmoon

bugleyman wrote:


No, please don't (no offense).

Batch the rules changes and delay their implementation. Make the guide update process simpler. Or both. Or neither. Just do whatever it takes to keep the guide the one-stop, authoritative source of the rules of society play. That's why it exists.

And it was, until the current rule change. In the past the Boards where just used to clarify what was in the Guide, it was never used as a place to post a new rule, other then a preview of what was coming in a soon to be releaserd update to the guide.

I am not saying I don't like the new Rule, I think it is great *Though it needs some clearing up* I just wish they waited until they were ready to release the new update to the guide.


bugleyman wrote:


I realize I'm not the most diplomatic guy, but please, please reconsider this choice. Changes and clarifications can keep until the guide can be updated. If they're so critical that they can't wait, then I submit that it's time to upgrade the guide anyway.

100% agreed.

The Exchange

Everyone is definitely entitled to their own opinion, but part of the reason that I love Pathfinder Society so much is that you can ask for clarification on a rule and get a response that's official immediately instead of having to wait months for an "official pdf" ruling to come out. In other living campaigns that I've played in, questions would be asked to clarify the rules set, and answers would be given, but those answers wouldn't be "official" until the next update of the campaign document. I found that extremely frustrating and I hope PFS doesn't go this route in the future. I think that Enevhar's suggestion of putting something in the Guide saying that rules changes that are posted and stickied in the PFS GD forum officially replace the one in the Guide until an updated version of the Guide comes out is a much better idea than limiting updates and clarifications to only when a new pdf of the play guide is sent out. Just my two cents.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 Venture-Captain, Texas—San Antonio aka Dragnmoon

teribithia9 wrote:
Everyone is definitely entitled to their own opinion, but part of the reason that I love Pathfinder Society so much is that you can ask for clarification on a rule and get a response that's official immediately instead of having to wait months for an "official pdf" ruling to come out. In other living campaigns that I've played in, questions would be asked to clarify the rules set, and answers would be given, but those answers wouldn't be "official" until the next update of the campaign document. I found that extremely frustrating and I hope PFS doesn't go this route in the future. I think that Enevhar's suggestion of putting something in the Guide saying that rules changes that are posted and stickied in the PFS GD forum officially replace the one in the Guide until an updated version of the Guide comes out is a much better idea than limiting updates and clarifications to only when a new pdf of the play guide is sent out. Just my two cents.

I have no issue with them clairfying the rules in the guide, but I do agree full rule changes should wait until a new guide is ready to go out.

The Exchange

Dragnmoon wrote:


I have no issue with them clairfying the rules in the guide, but I do agree full rule changes should wait until a new guide is ready to go out.

I can see your point on that, but there are always people who will quibble over what's a rules change and what's a clarification, too.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 Venture-Captain, Texas—San Antonio aka Dragnmoon

teribithia9 wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:


I have no issue with them clairfying the rules in the guide, but I do agree full rule changes should wait until a new guide is ready to go out.
I can see your point on that, but there are always people who will quibble over what's a rules change and what's a clarification, too.

Only the people who where doing it wrong will quibble over clarification... IMO

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Dragnmoon wrote:


Only the people who where doing it wrong will quibble over clarification... IMO

The irony...

Please continue to post rules changes as they come. In this digital era there is a certain amount of responsibility on each of us to do our best to stay abreast of things on public sites like this one.

I don't want to have to wait 8 months for PFS's Fey Charge/Bloodclaw/teleportation-as-forced-movement fix.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 Venture-Captain, Texas—San Antonio aka Dragnmoon

Gallard Stormeye wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:


Only the people who where doing it wrong will quibble over clarification... IMO

The irony...

Please continue to post rules changes as they come. In this digital era there is a certain amount of responsibility on each of us to do our best to stay abreast of things on public sites like this one.

I don't want to have to wait 8 months for PFS's Fey Charge/Bloodclaw/teleportation-as-forced-movement fix.

I am not sure about the Irony part, but I have no issues with them posting rule changes on the board, I just think it may be a mistake to do so before they are ready to put it in the guide. I do think the boards are great place to clarify rules though.

151 to 200 of 407 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / I have some issues with recent changes to Pathfinder Society All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.