Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
With Mark and Hyrum working on PF Modules being sanctioned for Pathfinder Society, what would you like to see converted.
Personally, I would like the Kobold King series, but those would require conversion to the PF rules; I don't expect to see that. But Crypt of the Everflame or Realm of the Fellknight Queen would be great. Any others you think would make good PFS sanctioned modules?
|
With Mark and Hyrum working on PF Modules being sanctioned for Pathfinder Society, what would you like to see converted.
Personally, I would like the Kobold King series, but those would require conversion to the PF rules; I don't expect to see that. But Crypt of the Everflame or Realm of the Fellknight Queen would be great. Any others you think would make good PFS sanctioned modules?
Would like to see some Higher then level 12 Mods, so we can see our PFS characters at higher then level 12 play.
The Witchwar Legacy would work nice.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Dragonmoon, there's no requirement that we need to play our PFS characters through any of the "approved" modules; they're nothing more than free XP as a reward to the player for playing the module. (As a matter of fact, if you send a clone of your PFS OP character through the module and he dies, that hardly affects your actual PFS OP character at all.)
So, you don't need official sanction to take a copy of your PFS 12th-level PC, raise it to 15th level, and play in a high-power adventure, even now. And if Hyrum or Mark were to officially sanction a high-level adventure for PFS OP credit, all that would mean is that you could apply free XP to some other character. (Because 12th-level PFS OP characters don't get experience anyways.)
Director of Brand Strategy
|
We have a 14th-level module coming out in a few months. Would you folks like to see that opened up for PFS credit with either a new or retired PFS character?
|
|
We have a 14th-level module coming out in a few months. Would you folks like to see that opened up for PFS credit with either a new or retired PFS character?
YES! Definitely yes. Even though my highest character is level 9, I would still love to have this available when he reaches 12/13.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
We have a 14th-level module coming out in a few months. Would you folks like to see that opened up for PFS credit with either a new or retired PFS character?
Yes, please.
But, please-please-pretty-please write faction missions up for it and give it an intro other than, "Ah! Monsters! Get 'em!" In other words, make it feel like a PFS adventure, please.
|
|
We have a 14th-level module coming out in a few months. Would you folks like to see that opened up for PFS credit with either a new or retired PFS character?
Please! But only for 'retired' PFS characters (i.e. lvl 12).
I firmly believe that for this campaign to exist and grow, there needs to be appropriate risk and rewards.
If released, please have consumables expend and death 'count'.
-Pain
|
We have a 14th-level module coming out in a few months. Would you folks like to see that opened up for PFS credit with either a new or retired PFS character?Please! But only for 'retired' PFS characters (i.e. lvl 12).
I firmly believe that for this campaign to exist and grow, there needs to be appropriate risk and rewards.
If released, please have consumables expend and death 'count'.
-Pain
+1, I agree with Pain.
Make for either level 12 or 13. The last part of The Eyes of Ten Series comes out in May, so maybe it could be for those that finish that? Or just those that have a second 12 level character already?
Nathan
NYC
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
All right. I admit, I don't understand. Painlord, walk me through this:
Let's say that I and three of my friends all have 12th-level (retired) PFS characters. Right now, without any permission, we can take those characters and run them through a 14th-level adventure. (Given the deadliness of the author's previous work, the GM might well invite us to add a level or two to the PCs first.) Afterwards, they would still be retired PFS OP PCs.
What advantage would there be, to make the module "PFS-legal", but with the credit only going to those PCs? (Well, I suppose the GM could get PFS credit or something.)
|
We have a 14th-level module coming out in a few months. Would you folks like to see that opened up for PFS credit with either a new or retired PFS character?Please! But only for 'retired' PFS characters (i.e. lvl 12).
I firmly believe that for this campaign to exist and grow, there needs to be appropriate risk and rewards.
If released, please have consumables expend and death 'count'.
-Pain
+1
Totally agree. As I have stated before, No Challenge = No Fun! Without risk, there is no challenge.|
|
All right. I admit, I don't understand. Painlord, walk me through this:
Let's say that I and three of my friends all have 12th-level (retired) PFS characters. Right now, without any permission, we can take those characters and run them through a 14th-level adventure. (Given the deadliness of the author's previous work, the GM might well invite us to add a level or two to the PCs first.) Afterwards, they would still be retired PFS OP PCs.
What advantage would there be, to make the module "PFS-legal", but with the credit only going to those PCs? (Well, I suppose the GM could get PFS credit or something.)
Yo Chris--
I am happy with two potential outcomes (preferring the first):
1) Level 12 PFS characters take on the module as is for guts and glory, gaining *nothing* save a chronicle, PA, and gold for them to add to their character. To me, that'd be a cool accomplishment and a challenge. If they die or fail, then they die and fail...I would hope the module is a fun experience.
2) Level 12 PFS characters take on the module as is and get to apply the chronicle to another PFS character with sliding tier/gold. If they die or fail, they don't get anything to apply to another character. If they die, they die.
I truly believe in risk and reward. I would expect that 6 lvl 12 PFS characters to have a good fun time with the module.
-Pain
|
|
All right. I admit, I don't understand. Painlord, walk me through this:
Let's say that I and three of my friends all have 12th-level (retired) PFS characters. Right now, without any permission, we can take those characters and run them through a 14th-level adventure. (Given the deadliness of the author's previous work, the GM might well invite us to add a level or two to the PCs first.) Afterwards, they would still be retired PFS OP PCs.
What advantage would there be, to make the module "PFS-legal", but with the credit only going to those PCs? (Well, I suppose the GM could get PFS credit or something.)
You can't officially play your PFS characters in anything but PFS sanctioned mods. You can take a "clone" of your character and play in any mod you want with them but it would not count towards any rewards in PFS.
If they release higher level sanctioned mods, then our retired PC's would get another shot at officially playing. If the mod was sanctioned, then the retired PC's could still get rewards and possibly even level (I agree with your comment on the deadliness of other mods).|
|
If they release higher level sanctioned mods, then our retired PC's would get another shot at officially playing. If the mod was sanctioned, then the retired PC's could still get rewards and possibly even level (I agree with your comment on the deadliness of other mods).
No way to circumvent the level 12 cap please.
|
|
We have a 14th-level module coming out in a few months. Would you folks like to see that opened up for PFS credit with either a new or retired PFS character?
As I already said, I would like Modules of higher then level 12 opened up to PFS, but unlike a few others in this thread I am against limiting them to Level 12 or retired only.
One of the main reasons of opening up Modules was to help with those who have less scenarios to run because of running out, or other circumstances, and limiting them to a certain level only would go against the concept. There are a few other reasons, but I have gone through those in other threads.
If you do open higher level modules up, I would like them to be the same as the others, with the ability to make level appropriate characters with existing characters just for that module.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
We have a 14th-level module coming out in a few months. Would you folks like to see that opened up for PFS credit with either a new or retired PFS character?
I'd love to see it work for Post 12th level PFS characters (they would be 13th level after running through the Tier 12 arc.
|
|
If you do open higher level modules up, I would like them to be the same as the others, with the ability to make level appropriate characters with existing characters just for that module.
[emphasis mine]
Why? I can register a brand new PC at level one, but no recorded sessions, then boost it to a level appropriate for the mod. This language is, IMO, unnecessary.
|
|
One of the main reasons of opening up Modules was to help with those who have less scenarios to run because of running out, or other circumstances, and limiting them to a certain level only would go against the concept. There are a few other reasons, but I have gone through those in other threads.
If you do open higher level modules up, I would like them to be the same as the others, with the ability to make level appropriate characters with existing characters just for that module.
Admittedly, Dragnmoon, I already know you and I are going to politely (though snarkily) disagree on this. With that said, and becuz we can understand that, I will argue a bit with you on this.
I'm just not sure how you can want to apply a different rule to converted modules and not feel the same about all scenarios...everything.
By the above logic, we should allow people to up their characters for all the 7-11 tiered modules as well.
I'm just not sure why you feel there is any real difference betwixt PFS scenarios and converted modules.
I prefer to have a consistent and intelligently planned ruleset...and making random unnecessary exceptions for these just makes no sense.
-Pain
|
|
If I am understanding Dragnmoon correctly:
He is asking that you deal with the high level modules the same way they dealt with "Godsmouth Heresy". Which is for Godsmouth Heresy, you can play it with a level 1 version of any character, but it gets a chronicle for the actual level. So why not allow play of the level 14 module, where you play through it with a 14th level version of your character, and then get a chronicle for the actual level of the character.
I would agree with this suggestion. I don't want to have to wait until I get to 12th level to play a module of 14th or higher level. At my current rate, it will be at least another 2 years before I could play said module, and by then, I will have moved on to the next one. If the point is to allow people who have run out of scenarios another one to play, then this makes more sense to me. And as a secondary point, wouldn't this make more sense if you wanted to sell more modules?
|
|
I prefer to have a consistent and intelligently planned ruleset...and making random unnecessary exceptions for these just makes no sense.
This.
I know there is some middle ground concession done here for making mods PFS legal and I understand why it was done, but it just add complexity where there should be elegance.
Godsmouth is for level 1 characters (maybe level 2) so you need a legal level 1 or 2 character to play it.
Cult is for level 8 (maybe 7-9) so you need a level 7-9 character to play it.
Iron Medusa is for level 14 characters, can't be played by legal PFS characters. As Chris pointed out there is nothing to stop you from taking your level whatever character and leveling them up to 14 and having a great time playing the mod. You just won't get a Chronicle for that.
*plonk*
|
|
I prefer to have a consistent and intelligently planned ruleset...and making random unnecessary exceptions for these just makes no sense.This.
I know there is some middle ground concession done here for making mods PFS legal and I understand why it was done, but it just add complexity where there should be elegance.
Godsmouth is for level 1 characters (maybe level 2) so you need a legal level 1 or 2 character to play it.
My point though, is that with Godsmouth, you can play your level 7 character and get credit for it as a level 7 character. You just have to play the mod with a level 1 version of that character. Why can't we do the same for high level mods? Same rules, consistant and intelligently planned, not adding any random unnecessary exceptions that are not already in the ruleset.
|
|
Admittedly, Dragnmoon, I already know you and I are going to politely (though snarkily) disagree on this. With that said, and becuz we can understand that, I will argue a bit with you on this.
I'm just not sure how you can want to apply a different rule to converted modules and not feel the same about all scenarios...everything.
By the above logic, we should allow people to up their characters for all the 7-11 tiered modules as well.
I'm just not sure why you feel there is any real difference betwixt PFS scenarios and converted modules.
I prefer to have a consistent and intelligently planned ruleset...and making random unnecessary exceptions for these just makes no sense.
-Pain
Because they are Different, they are not written with PFS in mind, they have a tendency to be more deadly and last a lot longer, the rules take that into account. Also they are not an addition to Regular Scenarios they are a supplement to the regular scenarios to help for those who need to find additional resource of play, therefore I have no issue with the different rules, in fact I encourage it!
Here is a repost of my opinion of them
Why I like the Module Rules as Is.
Rules for Conditions, Death, and Expendables
1. The modules are not made to the same standard as PFS modules and have a tendency to be more deadly. There is a very good chance that a PFS character made to PFS rules will be killed in the modules, I have already killed tons in Godsmouth *MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*. Because of that inconsistency this rule is really needed.
2. Because the modules are so long and may take multiple sessions, if you had to count Conditions, Death, and Expendables, it would make those PFS characters locked in the module until it was done *Could be a long time* and unable to play normal PFS scenarios with the same character because the tracking between to different games at once is very difficult.
Making level appropriated character of existing PFS characters
1. I think this is the best part of them all! It allows me to run it now and not wait for my players to have characters that are at the right level, and makes it a great solution for those that are running out of scenarios.
2. This will allow us in the future make Concept higher then level 12 versions of our PFS characters. This I love! It is great that once some higher then level 12 Modules are allowed I can play say a Level 14 version of my PFS rogue when normally I won't.
These modules are an additional resource to be used in PFS games, separate from the normal resources. Something else to try and still get PFS credit, but adding more depth to things you can do!
I think the rules are great and I encourage Hyrum to continue adding more!
Edit: I am now over 4000 posts and did not even realize it, woot!
|
|
My point though, is that with Godsmouth, you can play your level 7 character and get credit for it as a level 7 character. You just have to play the mod with a level 1 version of that character. Why can't we do the same for high level mods? Same rules, consistant and intelligently planned, not adding any random unnecessary exceptions that are not already in the ruleset.
Shieldknight, I don't know you the way I sort of know Dragnmoon so plz don't take anything I say too seriously.
Quick point: my argument is *not* so much for Godsmouth as it is for non-1st level modules. I think it is silly, but much less silly. My thoughts apply directly to CotED and any future module adaptations.
I just don't get why that is necessary at all. Why not wait until they have characters at the right level (or + or - 1 level)?
If you want to make this argument for these scenarios, why shouldn't they apply to all PFS scenarios...everything from tiers 5 to 9 and 7 to 11?
It is very arbitrary. And unnecessary.
-Pain
|
|
Quick point: my argument is *not* so much for Godsmouth as it is for non-1st level modules. I think it is silly, but much less silly. My thoughts apply directly to CotED and any future module adaptations.I just don't get why that is necessary at all. Why not wait until they have characters at the right level (or + or - 1 level)?
If you want to make this argument for these scenarios, why shouldn't they apply to all PFS scenarios...everything from tiers 5 to 9 and 7 to 11?
It is very arbitrary. And unnecessary.
-Pain
Don't worry Pain, I've read your posts before. ;)
I guess my question for you now is, if we aren't going to make this exception for high level mods, then why did we make it for Godsmouth?
In all honesty, I agree that you should play the mod at the level it is written (+/- 1 level). But since they opened the door with Godsmouth, I don't see why they can't do the same for high level mods. Your not changing any rules that aren't already in place.
I guess I just see modules as a way for people to have "replay" options without having replay.
Also, the last point you make scares me, because that's what RPGA did with LFR and now look at RPGA. *shiver, makes sign of the cross*
|
|
Make sure you play in one of my games at PaizoCon or GenCon, because your character needs to die because of your insolence! ;)
Shieldknight, I don't know you the way I sort of know Dragnmoon so plz don't take anything I say too seriously.
Oh man, I so want to be at that table. Wish I could make it to GenCon or PaizoCon. Someday, someday...
|
|
Because they are Different, they are not written with PFS in mind, they have a tendency to be more deadly and last a lot longer, the rules take that into account.
This makes no sense to me, Dragnmoon. There are plenty of 'deadly' PFS modules (and plenty of deadly PFS judges), but that doesn't mean we need to extend special protections for them.
[snark] "Uhm...Kyle is judging?! I think I'll declare this scenario 'deadly' and make death irrelevant."[/snark]
If people are worried about dying, then they should avoid the module or find a judge that they feel comfortable with. We don't need to eliminate reward vs. risk to cater to people.
Why I like the Module Rules as Is.
Rules for Conditions, Death, and Expendables
1. Point 1
2. Point 2Making level appropriated character of existing PFS characters
1. Point 3
2. Point 4
Point 1: Deadly? See above.
Point 2: I think characters *should* be locked in while playing those mods. It makes sense to me and worked fine back in LG. To create special rules to avoid this is silly...just have characters locked while the characters are someplace else.
Point 3: [snark] Outstanding! Don't you think we should allow this for all modules and scenarios for all tiers? In fact, we should probably do away with XP altogether and just let players build characters at any level all of the time. [/snark] I just don't see why this shouldn't apply to everything if it applies to converted modules.
Point 4: I like this point the best. However, if you want to do this, there is plenty of outside Pathfinder content you can play and we don't need to make special rules for character creation to make it happen. It's just unnecessary in Organized Play.
In good faith with snark,
-Pain
|
|
Point 1: Deadly? See above.Point 2: I think characters *should* be locked in while playing those mods. It makes sense to me and worked fine back in LG. To create special rules to avoid this is silly...just have characters locked while the characters are someplace else.
Point 3: [snark] Outstanding! Don't you think we should allow this for all modules and scenarios for all tiers? In fact, we should probably do away with XP altogether and just let players build characters at any level all of the time. [/snark] I just don't see why this shouldn't apply to everything if it applies to converted modules.
Point 4: I like this point the best. However, if you want to do this, there is plenty of outside Pathfinder content you can play and we don't need to make special rules for character creation to make it happen. It's just unnecessary in Organized Play.
In good faith with snark,
-Pain
They are exceedingly more deadly based on the limitation of PFS creation compared to PFS scenarios.
I just can't agree with this, Locking someone in in a module that could take many months is cruel and not needed.
No, that is just silly, You need to separate that the Modules are the same as the scenarios, because they aren't they are supplement to the rules to help with play not an addition to them.
And, it is a much larger encouragement to have people play these in org play then out of org play, you know that and have seen that said before, I do not agree with the advice people give here that if they run out of Scenarios they should just play APs or modules, people are looking for more Org play not Non org play.
|
|
Don't worry Pain, I've read your posts before. ;)
:). Sweet.
I guess my question for you now is, if we aren't going to make this exception for high level mods, then why did we make it for Godsmouth?
Honestly, I don't like it for Godsmouth, but don't mind it as it's a first level module and you can always play a lvl 1 character with it. I don't really like that you can apply the credit up...I don't think it's necessary.
In all honesty, I agree that you should play the mod at the level it is written (+/- 1 level). But since they opened the door with Godsmouth, I don't see why they can't do the same for high level mods. Your not changing any rules that aren't already in place.
I hoped that Godsmouth was an aberration, rather than the norm. Sadly, CotED was released under the same ruleset *despite* near unanimous dissent from the VCs. I don't think Mark/Hyrum like it either (they have yet to vocalize any real support of the idea) and not sure why it is being implemented.
Also, the last point you make scares me, because that's what RPGA did with LFR and now look at RPGA. *shiver, makes sign of the cross*
Scares the piddlespot out of me too. Next thing you know we're going to have unlimited retraining and be able to start characters at any level. **SHIVERS**
I just strongly believe that for Org Play to survive and be meaningful:
1) Character choices should matter;
2) Reward must equal risk;
3) There *must* be something to work towards...aka, a goal.
Sadly, with the rules for Godsmouth and CotED, they are attacking principles #2 and #3 and that makes me sad. #3 especially...higher level modules are *meant* for those players who have characters who have *earned* their way there. No, it's not elitist (Shieldknight, obv not talking to you about this...but others feel that way), it's just they way things work better.
-Pain
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I can't speak to whether PF modules are more or less deadly than PFS scenarios. There are some scenarios that have racked up a pretty decent body-count.
Moreover, the "play PF adventures for PFS credit" problem only crops up when people have run low on level-appropriate PFS scenarios. That is to say, when players have played a lot. Just restricting PFS credit to PFS scenarios isn't a problem for people new to Pathfinder.
So, the modules may be deadly --I'm not sure about that -- but the only people who need to worry about playing them for PFS credit are people who are already experienced and skilled with their characters.
I'd like to make explicit: I don't have any problem with Mark and Hyrum making PF modules available for 3 XP of PFS credit, for the character who plays through the adventure. But it doesn't make sense that I can play "Godsmouth Heresy" with a brand new 2nd-level character, and then apply 3 XP to, say, my 7th-level PFS character.
One aspect of this situation is that PCs rise in experience levels, without being played at all. On other threads in this forum, people have complained that players advance their characters up to 7th or 9th level, and don't understand how the game play is different than it is at low levels. (I can testify that I applied some GM credit to one of my PCs recently, and I hounded Thea until she would run the newly-3rd-level PC and some other characters through a module in which I was playing down, to make sure I understood how the class worked at 3rd Level.)
Allowing someone to play two or, in the months to come, three modules, and jump their main PFS PC two or three levels without ever working through a combat, is going to make that problem worse.
|
|
They are exceedingly more deadly based on the limitation of PFS creation compared to PFS scenarios.
Again, Dragnmoon, many modules/scenarios are quite deadly for 4 1st level characters...both Godsmouth and others. The creation rules are irrelevant, especially when your judge, your player experience level, and your character levels have *much* more influence on the deadliness of modules than the creation rules.
This is a bad point. Why do we need special rules for deadly modules as opposed to scenarios when greatest factors of success/failure are common to both?
I just can't agree with this, Locking someone in in a module that could take many months is cruel and not needed.
Well, it's unlikely, but possible that a character could be locked for *months* by a module, but I would submit this would be a rarity...and if this were the case, they should instead opt to take a Chron for the time served (a portion of the total XP/PA/gold) and move on.
I don't think we're asking too much to have characters locked. They have a way out at any time.
No, that is just silly, You need to separate that the Modules are the same as the scenarios, because they aren't they are supplement to the rules to help with play not an addition to them.
It's still a fair point. With your logic, we should allow all players to create characters at any level to play in any tier.
And, it is a much larger encouragement to have people play these in org play then out of org play, you know that and have seen that said before, I do not agree with the advice people give here that if they run out of Scenarios they should just play APs or modules, people are looking for more Org play not Non org play.
I agree with you here, Dragnmoon. I want people to play more Org Play, however I strongly believe that for OP to be strong, the following must be sacred:
1) Character choices should matter;2) Reward must equal risk;
3) There *must* be something to work towards...aka, a goal.
Yeah, I repeat myself, sorry. :(
-Pain
|
|
I am new. so maybe in two to three years my opinion will change. But I agree with Pain. Play the mods you can play when you can play them legally. don't advance artificially. if you do not have a level 12 retired PFS character, then you are not out of options for play. if you do have a level 12 then opening up a level 14 mod makes sense. by advancing to level 13, a single level advancement not 2 or more, you can play it. then give the xp/pa/gold/purchasable items reward to a lower level character.
to me there should be no reason you can not play for credit unless you have retired more than one character. there are three seasons of sessions out there. to have played them all means you have a lot of characters or one to two retired characters and another low to mid level character playing everything as soon as it comes out. neither of which are bad. in fact i tip my hat to such a devoted player. but do not make major changes that effect the rest of us, just for a small minority of players please. most of us will never see a lack of playable sessions and need said rules changes. and by that last i mean, if you can advance a character artificially, your level x character now has a sheet with level 14 items for purchase without a level 12 retired character getting them for you (call him your new characters mentor if you want) at risk to his/her own life (permanent death). no mentor, no access to such (excuse the language) Uber gear.
Under the artificial advancement rules we could conceivably see mid level characters running around with overbalancing items. or more gold than they should have. forcing the writers to compensate and write tougher CR encounters, making some one who does not have the Uber gear a liability at the table.
Nah just open the high level mods for retired characters only and scale the rewards(gear/gold) down (level 14 now becomes level x item, etc.) for the characters they are "mentoring". no retired character? then no mentor. its simple, prevents power gaming, and still allows those who have retired a character to dust them off from time to time and play them for credit. oh yeah and if the mentor dies? well he is dead, permanently and no reward at all. risk for reward!
|
|
I am new. so maybe in two to three years my opinion will change. But I agree with Pain. Play the mods you can play when you can play them legally. don't advance artificially.
I don't understand the Advance Artificial part, or other having issue with making new characters with and getting them to level 2 right away.
For one, a Module is much longer and the time frame of play is equivalent to playing 3 scenarios, which actually means you lose out in playing a Mod on PA and Money! Much better to play 3 scenarios then to play 1 Mod.
I am really not seeing the issue with being able to give credit to a newly made level 1, once gain you actual lose with doing that!
And it gets even worse if you die during the Mod, which In my experience happens a lot!
|
|
good stuff ;)I don't understand the Advance Artificial part, or other having issue with making new characters with and getting them to level 2 right away.
For one, a Module is much longer and the time frame of play is equivalent to playing 3 scenarios, which actually means you lose out in playing a Mod on PA and Money! Much better to play 3 scenarios then to play 1 Mod.
I am really not seeing the issue with being able to give credit to a newly made level 1, once gain you actual lose with doing that!
And it gets even worse if you die during the Mod, which In my experience happens a lot!
I think we got something crossed. I am not referring to the gods mouth heresy mod. I am referring to a level 14 mod. to me to compare the two is apples oranges. one is advancing a character beyond level 12 cap who is lower than level 12 (apples) the other is playing a level one version of an existing character to get credit for a low level mod (oranges). Which by the way is more to the Replay rule than the advancing to level 14 just to play something new. I am addressing the Apples. not the oranges. :)
Apples: again giving a newly made level one credit for a level 14 mod is ok.... IF you have a level 12 retired PFS mentor to run the module. if not, why do you need it? as you say
Much better to play 3 scenarios then to play 1 Mod.
UNLESS you are getting UBER rewards for the level 1 character from the level 14 mod. which is just wrong on so many levels. sorry but your own argument supports Pain and myself more than it justifies a rules change.
as to the death. heck yeah! at high levels death should be a characters closest companion, courted even. heck i understand not killing the player who walks in off the street and grabs a pregen to learn how to play, but if you are an experienced gamer of any type, chance of death is reality, and reality makes fantasy that much more exciting.
Addressing the oranges. I agree unless there are no more low level scenarios you can play for credit, playing a mod seems economically dumb. but if you play so much that you are waiting with bated breath every month for a new tier 1-5 or 5-9 session, then i guess it is better than nothing.
|
|
I think we got something crossed. I am not referring to the gods mouth heresy mod. I am referring to a level 14 mod. to me to compare the two is apples oranges. one is advancing a character beyond level 12 cap who is lower than level 12 (apples) the other is playing a level one version of an existing character to get credit for a low level mod (oranges). Which by the way is more to the Replay rule than the advancing to level 14 just to play something new. I am addressing the Apples. not the oranges. :)
Apples: again giving a newly made level one credit for a level 14 mod is ok.... IF you have a level 12 retired PFS mentor to run the module. if not, why do you need it? as you say
What? Huh? I don't understand what you are saying here, Why are you even mentioning replay? had nothing to do with it, Even if they did allow a Level 14 Mod, you would not be allowed to replay it, that is reserved for Level 1 Mods only.
Advancing the Character? Once again Huh? You advance the character to meet the Level of the Mod, for the Mod only, just so you can play the mod only, you don't keep those levels.
And why need it? For the fun of it, that is all, It is fun to play a level 14 Mod, and not everyone can do that because they don't have level 12 characters. The idea of the Mods is to open More gaming opportunities, not restrict them. To add more to the Society Play, and Additional option outside the regular scenarios.
UNLESS you are getting UBER rewards for the level 1 character from the level 14 mod. which is just wrong on so many levels. sorry but your own argument supports Pain and myself more than it justifies a rules change.
as to the death. heck yeah! at high levels death should be a characters closest companion, courted even. heck i understand not killing the player who walks in off the street and grabs a pregen to learn how to play, but if you are an experienced gamer of any type, chance of death is reality, and reality makes fantasy that much more exciting.Addressing the oranges. I agree unless there are no more low level scenarios you can play for credit, playing a mod seems economically dumb. but if you play so much that you are waiting with bated breath every month for a new tier 1-5 or 5-9 session, then i guess it is better than nothing.
Uber Reward? What Uber reward? there is no Uber reward, you are rewarded the equivalent of based on the level your character is that gets the credit.
And Death is a Possibility, But once again, there is a difference between A difficult Scenario and a The Modules which assume more powerful characters then you can have in PFS.
|
|
We have a 14th-level module coming out in a few months. Would you folks like to see that opened up for PFS credit with either a new or retired PFS character?
YES!!! Of course, only if you let us advance past 12th level. Otherwise it's just a technicality.
|
|
And Death is a Possibility, But once again, there is a difference between A difficult Scenario and a The Modules which assume more powerful characters then you can have in PFS.
Yeah, I know that we are arguing past one another, but your point is just false, and even if it were true, there is a better solution than "no death, no consumables".
Why is it false?
1) We really don't know if there are any (if any) differences in module vs. PFS scenario difficulty. You're assuming it, but that doesn't make it true...if there is proof, I've missed it.
2) There are many bigger factors into a module being more difficult than construction, those include, but are not limited to:
a) Your judge;
b) Your player's skill level (how well they work as a team, know rules, etc);
c) Your character's average party level (APL);
Now, even if it were true that modules were, in general significantly more difficult than PFS scenarios, then a better solution than "no death and no consumables" would be to just raise the PFS expected APL by 1 and be done with it.
That is, if we are really worried about tons of deaths in CotED, make it for APL 9, rather than 8, when played for PFS credit. Isn't that a much better and more reasonable and consistent fix?
A solution like that is within better alignment of good practice for Organized Play and assuages some of the fears, right?
-Pain
Edit: In retrospect, probably the best solution would be to release the next module without "no death, no used consumables" rules and compare death rates against established PFS norms and *then* make a rational and informed decision. This is why we report, right?
|
|
Dragonmoon. my understanding of the whole thread is as follows:
a level 14 mod is being made available for pfs play for retired characters.
the players rejoice....
some one wants to make it legal to play a lower level character artificially advanced rather than a retired character in the level 14 mod for credit.
much wailing and gnashing of teeth as arguments ensue about rules and feasibility and other stuff. I agree with Pain in his posts on these things.
simply put I want a level 14 mod for players with retired characters. I want them to get a form of credit for playing it. either for their level 12 retired character who is playing the mod or a lower level character as that characters mentor. reward to be scaled to the receiving characters level to prevent power gaming.
I DO NOT want some one who does not have a level 12 retired character playing said level 14 module for credit of any kind. And as i have read Pains posts that seems to me to be what he is saying also, hence why i agree with him. now maybe my brain is not working correctly, maybe i am mis-reading things. but the original point of the thread is whether we want a level 14 mod made available for PFS credit. and I do. as long as the rules do not change to allow the credit to be given to people who have not gotten a legal character to that level.
|
|
I think all your negatives don't out weigh the positives of the Mod rules as they are.
1. You get the play the modules as another option no matter what character levels your group has if you have problems with scenarios left to play due to huge difference in levels or running out of scenarios due to fast burning.
All I see is that being a good thing especially for those that are arguing so much for replay which is not going to happen.
What you guys want limiting the levels that can play these just takes that right out, therefore there is no positive in playing these. Especially since it is actually better to play 3 regular scenarios then 1 Mod which is about the same time frame.
2. The current rules for Rules for Conditions, Death, and Expendables in Mods still allow you to play the Mod and play the character at the same time in your normal PFS play, taking that out once again makes the Mods unplayable because you lose your character for a long time. For some people 3 Sessions could be 3 Months! *That is the extreme*. With out this rule the Mods become once again un playable.
The way I see it, what you guys want make the Modules useless and unplayable, and at that point you might as well not add any.
I can't agree with you guys on this, you are taking a perfect situation for an additional experience and making it unplayable.
I think you guys are just associating the Modules and scenarios as the same thing, which they are not and that is why we need different rules for them, you can't have the same rules because of, length of Play, difficulty level and less reward you get for them.
Edit: In my mind Mods and Scenarios are 2 different things meant to bring 2 different types of game experience, the rules as is allow for that, you want to make them the same type experience for both of them and treat as the same, which removes the draw to play them, especially since they offer less reward then just playing scenarios.
|
|
Actually If I was to change one thing I would limit being able to receive credit for play Mods to Level 1-5 only, that would still allow everyone to play them and it would be less of a burden on the character, because at those levels the lesser reward you get for playing Mods is less of an impact on the character.
|
|
I think all your negatives don't out weigh the positives of the Mod rules as they are.
1. You get the play the modules as another option no matter what character levels your group has if you have problems with scenarios left to play due to huge difference in levels or running out of scenarios due to fast burning.
the rules as is allow for only two modules to be played. both are level one modules. there are no PFS legal modules outside of Pathfinder Module: Master of the Fallen Fortress (PFRPG) and Pathfinder Module: The Godsmouth Heresy (PFRPG).they want to add a third. it would be a level 14 module. I support that as stated above. how do two level one modules support the above argument. it makes no sense.
What you guys want limiting the levels that can play these just takes that right out, therefore there is no positive in playing these.
it is not limiting to make people play level appropriate characters, if it was as Pain said earlier why not just allow people to pick a name, and class and adjust the level each session to play the scenario or module being run. no need for experience rewards. just make the level character you need for each session and play. whether it is a single session or a mod this is applicable.
2. The current rules for Rules for Conditions, Death, and Expendables in Mods still allow you to play the Mod and play the character at the same time in your normal PFS play, taking that out once again makes the Mods unplayable because you lose your character for a long time. For some people 3 Sessions could be 3 Months! *That is the extreme*. With out this rule the Mods become once again un playable.
If you play once every 30 days playing a module would not make any sense to begin with. one of the best selling points for me in my area with pfs is single session play. 4 hours your done you have xp and you do not have to come back the next session to finish. running any type of campaign with 30 days between sessions is not advisable. players forget what happened, interest wains. no single session scenarios is the way to go then. as to expendables I am not clear on what the complaint is. my issue is soley with letting people play above the characters level for one session and credit.
Modules or sessions played back to back such as #02-01 and #02-02 give more of a campaign feel and provide a little variety for players who play more often. it is realistic that if my character is in the middle of either a module or a back to back session like Before the dawn. that he/she would not have time to run across the inner sea to do another adventure.
I think you guys are just associating the Modules and scenarios as the same thing, which they are not and that is why we need different rules for them, you can't have the same rules because of, length of Play, difficulty level and less reward you get for them.
Edit: In my mind Mods and Scenarios are 2 different things meant to bring 2 different types of game experience, the rules as is allow for that, you want to make them the same type experience for both of them and treat as the same, which removes the draw to play them, especially since they offer less reward then just playing scenarios.
I can not speak for Pain. but I do not want to make them the same, i want to make Modules compatible with PFS. this does not take away from the modules stand alone or home game value. nor does it make a PFS mod the Same as a PFS scenario. as stated above a stand alone scenario is different from a back to back or even three part scenario, which is what you say a mod is basically. i want to keep those differences for flavor. difficulty levels is basically to me a bonus. the harder the more fun. gm's can do things to make the difficulty less deadly if needed.
I would put to you that you want to make PFS OP the same as Home games. allowing GM's to customize scenarios and mods to cater to their players. rather than keeping them uniform for all players. if a player attends only one of my sessions a month, he will be treated with the same fair rules as the player who attends three times a month. I will not cater to him because he plays less. nor will i cater to the player who plays more and suddenly is unable to play for credit because he has played everything. I will not allow a player to change their characters level just to play a module or a single session scenario.
again I support bringing in a level 14 Module for retired level 12 characters to play. this would bring the total number of legal modules to three. two first level and one 14th level. then we can discuss adding in modules of levels in between and how to break the tiers down. I suspect that is why only level 1 modules (and hopefully soon level 14) have been made legal. because they do not want to have to revise the modules encounters for different tiers of party levels.
|
|
I believe that the choice of which modules were sanctioned is more a matter of timing than levels. MotFF was released as a PFS-compatible Free RPG Day module. When Paizo decided to try sanctioning modules for PFS, Godsmouth Heresy was the next release. And don't forget that there is an 8th-level module on that list: Cult of the Ebon Destroyers.
|
|
I agree with Dragnmoon in that the suggested modifications would make the Modules useless and unplayable. The addition of modules into PFS play with the rules as they are now has allowed me to run my PFS home game without having to worry about who wouldn't be able to play in PFS that week. I would like to see more risk in the adventures than what is in their currently. However, using the suggested rules some have thrown out, I would look at my party and see that their characters aren't the same level anymore, then I would stop running PFS and find something we can all can play. I'm not going to run a game for my friends when I have to keep leaving some of my friends out.
|
|
The module sanctioning was a response to those who felt that without replay, some players would have insufficient reason to play a session with new players, or insufficient low-tier scenarios to get their characters from one tier to the next.
The differences in length, difficulty and focus mean that it is best to not have people use only their Org Play characters for these sessions. Not having people risk their PFS characters allows for sanctioning of adventures that fall outside the scope of Org Play, whether it is because of level cap, or because the story of the module is not suitable for (in-game) Pathfinder Society involvement. It would also allow the recently announced goblin adventure to be playable for credit, without opening up new legal character races.
I don't think that modules could be wholly adapted for PFS play without far more time commitment on the part of the organizers than it would be worth. As such, I suspect the current format will stay in place, regardless of the nominal module level.
And one thing that I think people may forget is that some of the modules are written with a range of levels in mind. Home play characters may level up part way thru, where PFS characters would not have the opportunity to level until the end, when they receive their chronicle.
|
|
ok so i went back and read the guide for organized play. no where in there do i see any of these rules everyone is talking about concerning modules. has there been an update and it has not made it to the guide?
and if so can some one link it. because i am using the 3.0.2 version of the guide to pathfinder society. no where does it say you can play a substitute character for credit in a module. (that i could find.)
so maybe this is the core of confusion between dragonmoon and i. cause we are looking at different rule sets. I don't want a change to the rules but the rules i am looking at have (apparently) already been changed. so when i say don't change them everyone else reads change them back...
So i suspend my argument until i get caught up to current rules.
Edit: also an up to date official list of modules legal for PFS play would be nice the website only lists the two above as legal.
|
|
All
2raylyynsedai - you find the specific rules for Godsmouth Heresy at Godsmouth Heresy. They are a free download - at the bottom of the scenario description. You can also find similar rules in the Cult of the Ebon Destroyer. It just seems this module hasn't been added to the page with PFS modules yet.
I've been following the discussion here with great interest. I do understand where Painlord and Dragnmoon are coming from. I'm trying to find some middle ground.
First my background to better understand my position:
In the past I haven't been interested in Paizo Modules. They don't fit into my local group.
Making the modules legal for PFS play did suddenly place them high on my list of modules to play/own.
Since then I have both played and GMed the Godsmouth Heresy (and it added a purchase for a PDF for Paizo that they won't have had othervice_
I'm now interested to play/GM other modules
Level cap and don't allow leveling up:
In an ideal world I would go with Painlords suggestion - use the Iron Medusa for level 12 retired characters only. Unfortunately in the real world I say - under these circumstances Paizo might as well not bother. I do have a single player in my group who now has played two games in tier 7-11. I'm frantically working to get a fourth player up to level 5 to open up tier 5-9 play for my group. Unfortunately he missed the playing bonanza of last weekend - so he still trails by a game. I've got a huge influx of new players lately - they are close to be able to play tier 3-4 soon. I'm not even aware we would get a group together in the whole of the UK that has tier 12 characters eligible. I'm aware of a few players who like to 'jump in high' and don't like low level play.
So in summary - while I prefer Painlords idea of not allowing any leveling up - I'm firmly on the site of Dragnmoon here. It is just not realistic and not being able to use a lower level character / some high level pre-gen and applying credit to lower levels would be a game breaker for me (and likely many more). It would also mean I won't buy the module.
Faction Missions:
Painlord suggested to add Faction Missions to future Modules. Actually - I have done exactly that to Godsmouth Heresy - and the players loved it. You can find them described in the GM section. To be clear - my faction missions are optional and non official. In my view this is the only way it works. Here is my experience in generating faction missions for the Godsmouth Heresy as well as GMing them.
a) It takes extra time
b) I only managed to fit 3 missions to each faction using items/treasure/monsters/places already in the existing module. Retrofitting six will be a big stretch.
c) Normal PFS play assumes you go to every location where a faction mission happens - or at least you are close in case it is a non-linear plot. They never are in optional encounters. In a module somewhere between 20-40% of locations might be optional. This really goes against the idea of faction missions as it would mean you have to do a complete sweep to get them all
d) At least the group I played with didn't mind at all that they 'didn't count'. Some of the missions were followed more adamantely as missions in past PFS scenarios I GMed and the upset when Cheliax missed their dice role was real despite it 'not counting'.
e) I will generate these for other modules and share them if nobody else has done so by the time I GM the module. Are they 'good enough' coming from a fan. Well - try them and judge yourself.
Consumables:
This is a big bugbear of mine - having played it with three characters toting a wand of Cure Ligh Wounds. I do understand why it's done this way. After all - you get less gold as it assumes you used up consumables. At tier 1-2 you get 1250 GP compared to approx. 1500 GP playing three PFS scenarios. This assumes that you freely approx. 250(200?) GP on consumables.
What I don't like is - you could use up more expensive consumables. My lvl. 1 Barbarian (Drunken Brute) did own a Potion of Cure Serious Wounds when I played Godsmouth (bough with 2 PA). As mentioned - we did have 3 Wands of Cure Light Wounds. Scaling up makes it even worse as you could 'buy' lots of consumables ahead and use them with impunity.
In my view the solution is a rule similar to Deep Pockets for a Pathfinder Chronicler. You have a pool of consumables. The pool are ALL consumables you carry with you at the start of the adventure. For Godsmouth Heresy this total pool can exceed 250 GP (for example a wand of CLW is allowed to carry) - but you can only use up to 250 GP of consumables from that pool. Count in the pool potions, charges from wands (1 charge CLW = 15 GP) and Special Substances and Items. This should account for 90% of consumbales and should go half way towards what Painlord wants. After all - you already have been deducted that money from the reward.
I would have to check what the corresponding value for higher level tiers is - but that could be easily done.
Death and risk
I'm still contemplating how to better add a penalty for death that is workable and represents a real risk but fits with a game happening in parallel. I come back to that as soon as I think I have a workable solution.
I hope these are some constructive suggestions that lead to a workable compromise. Use or alter them as you see fit. And yes - Mr Shackelton now ninjad me for the first part of my post.
Thod