You Used to Play PFS, But Now...


Pathfinder Society

151 to 164 of 164 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

To clarify my point Eric, as posted by M and M, if you post your game public then its open to whomever applies. It may not have the Con time restriction but still qualifies as a public event. This is where things get sticky as an online game then enters a nebulous territory where it has features of both home and public games. On this point M and M ruled that it must be run publicly if posted online therefore being run more like a Con game than a home game.

Good luck jumping into online PFS. There are a lot of really cool people out there despite the disagreement Im describing above.

Silver Crusade

nosig wrote:


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

Slight thread-jack:

Sorry you had a rough go of it at a Con. If you are ever in California for a Con, look me up. I do my best to be friendly as a GM and as a player, and our Con staff is *amazing*! (They bring cookies and cake, for Desna's sake!)

End threadjack.

Now, I took a long hiatus from PFS, mostly due to other commitments, such as school, as well as a bit of GM burnout. I also had a rash of player deaths at my hands, and I wanted to take a bit of time to determine if I was playing the monsters right and the dice fell funny, or if I was being a brutal GM.

With school out for the summer, Aspis Consortium beware, for Damocles roams again...


J-Bone wrote:

To clarify my point Eric, as posted by M and M, if you post your game public then its open to whomever applies. It may not have the Con time restriction but still qualifies as a public event. This is where things get sticky as an online game then enters a nebulous territory where it has features of both home and public games. On this point M and M ruled that it must be run publicly if posted online therefore being run more like a Con game than a home game.

Good luck jumping into online PFS. There are a lot of really cool people out there despite the disagreement Im describing above.

while I understand your point, there is nothing stopping you from gathering a group of like-minded online players and creating your own group and message boards; my understanding is that the rules of using the message board are inclusiveness vs. exclusiveness. If you want to use a resource you should be willing to follow the rules.

There are options available to continue your PFS play vs. not playing if you truly enjoyed the game.

Liberty's Edge

Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:


while I understand your point, there is nothing stopping you from gathering a group of like-minded online players and creating your own group and message boards; my understanding is that the rules of using the message board are inclusiveness vs. exclusiveness. If you want to use a resource you should be willing to follow the rules.

There are options available to continue your PFS play vs. not playing if you truly enjoyed the game.

I suppose. I'd have to be sneaky this time so that I dont hurt the powergamers feelings again.

I actually have a solid group I play with now. We have fun and sometimes engage in PFS.

Its just a policy that drove me away from playing as I had before. Its unlikely the we will always agree with rules and system mechanics. In PFS you really have to agree with all of them. Simply put I dont agree with enough of them that PFS is no longer for me. I love Pathfinder, just not PFS anymore.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
J-Bone wrote:

To clarify my point Eric, as posted by M and M, if you post your game public then its open to whomever applies. It may not have the Con time restriction but still qualifies as a public event. This is where things get sticky as an online game then enters a nebulous territory where it has features of both home and public games. On this point M and M ruled that it must be run publicly if posted online therefore being run more like a Con game than a home game.

Good luck jumping into online PFS. There are a lot of really cool people out there despite the disagreement Im describing above.

See, that's what I wanted you to quote, because I'm not reading any "ruling" by Mike or Mark. In his post, Mark says he's posting his opinion, not as an official of PFS or Paizo. Mark even tells how to weed out those you don't want by having them contact you off-list and making the online game private.

Lass mentioned that you have to take it first come first serve. Again, I haven't seen anything like that mentioned. Online games I've played in/run always had a ton of people apply and the GMs got to pick and choose who to accept. I used to play on RPOL.net and one I can't remember now, both were the same way.

I'm really trying to see where you're coming from, but I just can't see it from what I've read.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You should follow the Jiggy link where they make it clear about the difference between public and private games. The instance that lead to the huge argument behind all of this was a person getting passed up for a game based on playing a synthasist. He was a player I had played with before, our play styles did not mesh. When he was passed up as another was they complained.

I later started to post in my recruitment please no summoners as I was getting an excessive amount of the min/max'd ones with all the physical stats at 7s, mental stats max'd - opposite on the eidelon. The group I regularly play with had front line fighters already signed up. When the Summoners were not allowed, one particular person complained on the forum leading to M and M making a clear distinction about public games and private games and what is allowed in recruitment.

So if Im not allowed to put restrictions on recruitment, how can it be anything but first come first serve? Also that was supposed to be the implied culture of the website.

So the story goes back a ways Erik. This is a abridged version and sorry for its implicit drama.

Dark Archive

J-Bone wrote:

You should follow the Jiggy link where they make it clear about the difference between public and private games. The instance that lead to the huge argument behind all of this was a person getting passed up for a game based on playing a synthasist. He was a player I had played with before, our play styles did not mesh. When he was passed up as another was they complained.

I later started to post in my recruitment please no summoners as I was getting an excessive amount of the min/max'd ones with all the physical stats at 7s, mental stats max'd - opposite on the eidelon. The group I regularly play with had front line fighters already signed up. When the Summoners were not allowed, one particular person complained on the forum leading to M and M making a clear distinction about public games and private games and what is allowed in recruitment.

So if Im not allowed to put restrictions on recruitment, how can it be anything but first come first serve? Also that was supposed to be the implied culture of the website.

So the story goes back a ways Erik. This is a abridged version and sorry for its implicit drama.

All great points.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

@J-Bone:
The first time around, the main thing I remember being frustrated with was that a lot of people were blowing M&M's words out of proportion and protesting restrictions that weren't actually being set. People were complaining about oppressiveness that wasn't there. Some people were just innocently overanalyzing their word choices instead of taking the spirit of what M&M were trying to get at (while others I think just wanted an excuse to cry about how evil it is to have rules, but I digress).

I think you're making the same error of thinking the "ruling" is more restrictive than it is (which is what I was trying to get across with the post I linked, but it seems that's not what got communicated to you).

I believe that all M&M are really trying to say is "please don't make PFS look elitist". I really don't think, from my (admittedly incomplete) impression of your situation and understanding of M&M's position, that the restrictions you're talking about are really there or as cut-and-dried as you seem to think.

I could be wrong. But I think if (and I can't believe I of all people am saying this) you step back for a second and read M&M's comments in more of a "big picture" way and less of a "list of rules" way, you might discover that they allow more freedom than you think.

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:


I could be wrong. But I think if (and I can't believe I of all people am saying this) you step back for a second and read M&M's comments in more of a "big picture" way and less of a "list of rules" way, you might discover that they allow more freedom than you think.

Perhaps Jiggy, but the one thing that makes PFS different than regular games is the strict adherence to RAW. If the Powers-That-Be come down with a ruling, even going to an external website to post a lengthy Open Letter to the Collective telling us to behave because this is how its done. Well, not much wiggle room there.

PFS is not a game of RAI, its a game about RAW.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

And yet the first thing mark said in that open letter is he was posting not as a paizo employee but as just another member of that community. He was giving his personal opinions, not rulings from on high. You could choose to ignore everything Mark posted in that letter if you want. That's why I wanted quotes from you, but you can't give them, because from my reading, they aren't there. I've got to agree with Jiggy on this. Sometimes when you read into something too much all you're doing is digging yourself a hole you can't see out of.

Liberty's Edge

Here you go Eric:

Jiggy wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

I think people are overanalyzing things.

Use a little common sense:

A private game is people you invited. A known quantity. An existing group. No surprises. It's, you know, private.

A public game is open for someone you didn't explicitly invite to join. Chance of new blood. Surprises could happen. Meeting people you didn't already know. It's, you know, public.

Two key points to remember, people:
Don't try to disguise your public game as a private one.
Don't try to pretend that your private game is getting labeled as public so you can complain about restrictive rules.

Those are the only two issues I predict arising from this. M&M's statements are sufficiently clear for those without an agenda.

Thanks Jiggy. Very well said. This above 100%

that was posted in the link from Jiggy. The last part with the "This above 100%" came from Mike Brock.

If a letter to the Collective from Moreland doesnt tell you were the creative director of PFS stands on the issue then maybe he needs to club you over the head a few times for it to sink in. Seemed pretty straight forward to me and quite a few others on that site. If you follow the reactions to it you'll see how many people felt exactly how I did and left.

The Exchange 5/5

boy, people are sure negitive today...

maybe I should just go back to work?

Shadow Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
J-Bone wrote:

Here you go Eric:

Jiggy wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

I think people are overanalyzing things.

Use a little common sense:

A private game is people you invited. A known quantity. An existing group. No surprises. It's, you know, private.

A public game is open for someone you didn't explicitly invite to join. Chance of new blood. Surprises could happen. Meeting people you didn't already know. It's, you know, public.

Two key points to remember, people:
Don't try to disguise your public game as a private one.
Don't try to pretend that your private game is getting labeled as public so you can complain about restrictive rules.

Those are the only two issues I predict arising from this. M&M's statements are sufficiently clear for those without an agenda.

Thanks Jiggy. Very well said. This above 100%

that was posted in the link from Jiggy. The last part with the "This above 100%" came from Mike Brock.

If a letter to the Collective from Moreland doesnt tell you were the creative director of PFS stands on the issue then maybe he needs to club you over the head a few times for it to sink in. Seemed pretty straight forward to me and quite a few others on that site. If you follow the reactions to it you'll see how many people felt exactly how I did and left.

Yeah, I read that, and think you're missing the bolded part.

Also from the open letter.

Mark Moreland open letter wrote:


It is entirely possible to use the forum as it currently exists,
maintaining the open and welcoming spirit in which it was created, and
still offer your own games without whatever specific character choice
you find offensive. If you want to run a game without summoners, or
without any female characters, or in which no one has a pet, or in
which no character has the TWF feat chain, great! You can do that.
Just state that you want to run a private game of [Scenario title] and
request folks email you off-list if they're interested.
Then it's
between you and the others involved in that private conversation to
agree on what character choices you'll all adhere to. Since there are
literally thousands of character choices, there will always be orders
of magnitude more elements that aren't present at a given table than
there are that are present; if a table agrees that none of them will
play gnomes, even though they're legal, that's simply a character
choice everyone playing at that table chose not to make. But it
doesn't affect anyone who wants to play a gnome character, and those
who want to play gnomes don't even need to know that there's a group
of players who despise their preferred PC race to such an extent—
because the decision to "ban" gnomes was made in private.

Am I missing anything else? I don't see M&M having listened much to the minority, but obviously you did, or you'd have just ignored them (the squeaky wheels) By quitting, it looks like you let them win, instead of standing up to them. But I guess I'm just easy about who I game with. Sorry the squeaks drove you away.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

nosig wrote:
maybe I should just go back to work?

Yes, what were you thinking. Get back to work!!! :crack:

151 to 164 of 164 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / You Used to Play PFS, But Now... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.