You know, I was wondering if there is or if anyone has every tried to start a Grand Pathfinder Society. The current one definitely is a good cause. However, it lacks in three areas, at least from my point of view:
1) It does not incorporate all of core Pathfinder, thus it requires you to learn a new set of rules to participate in it;
2) It does not even attempt to incorporate the many adventures, feats, etc... that third parties have created; and
3) It only goes to 12th level.
I know there are probably many well intentioned reasons for PFS to be as it is. However, I just envision a grander society for more open play that I would think has to interest others. Maybe not.
I am just wondering what other people's thoughts are on a Grand Pathfinder Society.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
I don't exactly understand by what you mean by the term. You haven't said anything that defines the difference between what you propose and the standard setting and/or rules mechanics.
Pathfinder Society does not incorporate all of the ruleset for a variety of good reasons. These are two of the biggies.
1. Not all of the rules fit in the campaign setting. The full scope encompasses a greater span of time, culture, and technology than fits in what is considered present-day Golarion.
2. Not all of the rules set fits within a network campaign, because of the impracticality of managing certain things such as item creation among a player base that numbers in the thousands.
You also have some things wrong. While the standard scenarios top out at 11th with a retirement arc that ends at 12, Play above 12th level is still possible with sanctioned events and modules. There are PFS characters who have reached 17th level.
The Society as it exists is pretty Grand. It has had adventures which have spanned continents, and cultures, and have put player heroes up against legendary figures from the past. The game is as grand as the players are willing to take it.
Yes, like I said originally, there are probably reasons for why PFS is set up the way it is. That does not mean that PFS is the only way that large scale gaming can be accomplished.
Actually, I think that the greatest thing that PFS has going for it is organization and a dedicated group of GMs. However, if another society were started with the same type of dedicated GMs, it could no doubt encompass a greater range of pathfinder gaming if it wanted to.
As for the difference between what I propose and PFS, I refer back to my original list: 1)Gaming to 20th level, 2)Some third party material and allowed; 3) All pathfinder material allowed.
I would even propose that a player need not start at first level and advance to higher levels. Players could play at whatever level the wished to join in on.
With that said, I am partly just asking for a discussion on the topic to see if anyone else has ever thought about an alternative society and what they thought the value of one might be.
Driver,
If I understand, you are thinking of another Organized Play Campaign?
I think there are some other Organized Play campaigns out there other then Pathfinder Society Organized PLay.
I think there is something called "Living Arcanis", and i have heard of "Legend of the Shining Jewel".
Unfortunately I do not know very much about these other campaigns,
I hope this helps,
Elyas
LazarX wrote: You also have some things wrong. While the standard scenarios top out at 11th with a retirement arc that ends at 12, Play above 12th level is still possible with sanctioned events and modules. There are PFS characters who have reached 17th level. Yup. Can play up to level 15 at Pacificon in a couple weeks.
Driver 325 yards wrote:
1) It does not incorporate all of core Pathfinder, thus it requires you to learn a new set of rules to participate in it;
How so? I haven't seen much in the Core Rulebook that wasn't allowed in PFS, apart from the item-creation feats.
Calybos1 wrote:
How so? I haven't seen much in the Core Rulebook that wasn't allowed in PFS, apart from the item-creation feats.
I think he means all of Pathfinder from Paizo, not just the core rulebook.
But then I think there's a reason for much of it getting the axe.
The problem with the suggestion is that he is demanding a lot of GMs. Already there is an intimidating pile of rules with which you need to be familiar to run PFS. I've been burned in the past as GM because a player was using a technique and I didn't know it well enough to know the counter. The more rules you allow, the more the GM has to be expert with so as to avoid this sort of problem.
Though as someone who runs a (small) living campaign in my area, I also believe the OP has no idea how much work he's talking about.
So there are other gaming societies. Interesting.
Yes, I did mean all of Pathfinder from Paizo, not just the core rulebook. Although, I don't think that even all of the core rule book is included. Just based on my limited knowledge of the PFS rules, for instance, a cleric can not exist without a deity in PFS but could do so in normal home games.
I do appreciate the comment about the amount of work setting up a society would take. I also appreciate the fact that running an everything is open to play society would take GMs that were very knowledgeable. It might even require a pay to play scenario.
Really, I am just brainstorming. I have looked at other post in this general section and they seem to be great brainstorming threads.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Driver 325 yards wrote: So there are other gaming societies. Interesting.
Yes, I did mean all of Pathfinder from Paizo, not just the core rulebook. Although, I don't think that even all of the core rule book is included. Just based on my limited knowledge of the PFS rules, for instance, a cleric can not exist without a deity in PFS but could do so in normal home games.
I do appreciate the comment about the amount of work setting up a society would take. I also appreciate the fact that running an everything is open to play society would take GMs that were very knowledgeable. It might even require a pay to play scenario.
Really, I am just brainstorming. I have looked at other post in this general section and they seem to be great brainstorming threads.
There really are good reasons that certain rules are removed from Pathfinder Society. The example you just gave is about a Cleric not having a deity.. the reason that the PFS organizers decided to require a deity is because without a deity, you're essentially free to choose any two Domains you want (because in PFS you don't have direct GM oversight to say "no, those two domains don't work together, pick a different one"), and some domains shouldn't be combined. For instance, two different domains that grant you a companion, or familiar, should not be allowed to be taken on the same character, because then you end up either with an extremely overpowered companion from doubling up on levels, or you miss out on one entire companion's effectiveness.
Seriously, if you want to do Pathfinder organized play on your own, that's fine, but PFS does a VERY good job of it already, and I doubt you'll get a ton of people interested.
cartmanbeck wrote: Seriously, if you want to do Pathfinder organized play on your own, that's fine, but PFS does a VERY good job of it already, and I doubt you'll get a ton of people interested. Well that's an opinion.
If you want to pick and choose which resources you use, I think the best option is to just run a home campaign.
Trying to organize anything on a larger scale would get you entangled in all the discussions, debates, and personal preferences that you see here on the forum. And I'm not sure anyone but Paizo has the resources and manpower to take on all those headaches.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Calybos1 wrote: If you want to pick and choose which resources you use, I think the best option is to just run a home campaign.
The problem being, is that he wants to use EVERYTHING. And quite simply, not everything, especially godless clerics fits in Golarion. Not to mention the administrative nightmare that crafting mechanics would entail.
Ahh, I see. Well, that approach has problems of its own, i.e., "Whoever owns the most obscure rulebooks wins." We saw quite a bit of that in 3.0 and 3.5 D&D.
Just for starters, in my mind I envision such a society:
1) Starting small. It would have to anyway given that interest would likely start off small.
2) Include mostly everything. Would there have to be some limitations (maybe), but not as many a PFS. The clerics without a diety just as an example. If the reason for that rule to prevent a person from having two different animal companions or a companion and a familiar from two different domains, then just say you can't have both from domain selection. The blanket bans, however, would not be instituted.
3) Since the rules would follow those rules, FAQs and blogs of Paizo, I beleive the ruling issues could be kept to a minimum in such a society. I also feel that people familiar with standard rules would feel more comfortable bringing their characters to an organized game.
4) Include third party material. I kind of hate the fact that there is all this potentially interesting stuff out there that doesn't get used by Pathfinder gamers because it is not a part of the "official" Pathfinder. What would an android phone be if it were not for all of the independant aps that are created for peoples use.
5) Custom Items issue. There would be no unsanctioned custom items. A rule I happen to agree with that PFS has adopted. Though I would not mind if the society accepted custom item requests from its members and accepted and published such items for its members to use. Hah, individual creativity infiltrating into the game and being spread to others.
6) Enter into the game at whatever level you want to. Hey, some people don't enjoy low level pathfinder. Why not allow them to bring in an eigth level character?
Of the top of my head, that is what I have for now.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
You pretty much lose me at 2. The very notion of Godless Clerics I find aesthetically repulsive. Something that was thrown in to please two groups of people, munchkins and children of Christian Fundamentalists.
1. This sounds like a great idea for a home campaign, and that's probably the size it would work best.
2. See above.
3. The more rules you use, the more the rules debates will be generated. This is not avoidable.
4. It's not used for very good reason. It would require GM's to be aware of a greater amount of material. And much of it is not held to the same standard of balance as official Paizo materal.
5. I'm glad that you see the necessity of at least ONE network play convention.
6. Because of the resentment that's usually generated on behalf of people who have worked to make eighth level characters the hard way? The original Living Forgotten Realms campaign leveled characters by fiat. It turned out not to be an endearing factor of said campaign.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
LazarX wrote: You pretty much lose me at 2. The very notion of Godless Clerics I find aesthetically repulsive. Something that was thrown in to please two groups of people, munchkins and children of Christian Fundamentalists.. Does it really hurt you for people to play godless clerics? I'm none of those things and I actually like the idea. Saying that someone completely loses you for giving the players extra options that don't at all hurt you personally is pretty extreme dontcha' think? Worse, you insult the people who do like the concept of a concept cleric.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MrSin wrote: LazarX wrote: You pretty much lose me at 2. The very notion of Godless Clerics I find aesthetically repulsive. Something that was thrown in to please two groups of people, munchkins and children of Christian Fundamentalists.. Does it really hurt you for people to play godless clerics? I'm none of those things and I actually like the idea. Saying that someone completely loses you for giving the players extra options that don't at all hurt you personally is pretty extreme dontcha' think? Worse, you insult the people who do like the concept of a concept cleric. I don't read Harlequin romance novels, but I don't disparage people that do. A campaign that allows godless clerics is something I would not join, but I would not knock other people for playing them.
I reserve the right to my own aesthetics, just as I allow others the same.
And quite frankly, when concept clerics are mentioned on this board, it's seldom with the primary intent of creating an interesting roleplaying idea, it's mainly about grabbing two particular domains that the player wants in one character and trying to cover that with a lackluster roleplaying excuse.
LazarX wrote: I don't read Harlequin romance novels, but I don't disparage people that do. A campaign that allows godless clerics is something I would not join, but I would not knock other people for playing them.
I reserve the right to my own aesthetics, just as I allow others the same.
And quite frankly, when concept clerics are mentioned on this board, it's seldom with the primary intent of creating an interesting roleplaying idea, it's mainly about grabbing two particular domains that the player wants in one character and trying to cover that with a lackluster roleplaying excuse.
Your still being insulting.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MrSin wrote: LazarX wrote: I don't read Harlequin romance novels, but I don't disparage people that do. A campaign that allows godless clerics is something I would not join, but I would not knock other people for playing them.
I reserve the right to my own aesthetics, just as I allow others the same.
And quite frankly, when concept clerics are mentioned on this board, it's seldom with the primary intent of creating an interesting roleplaying idea, it's mainly about grabbing two particular domains that the player wants in one character and trying to cover that with a lackluster roleplaying excuse.
Your still being insulting. How exactly am I being insulting? By pointing out I don't like something others do? Is your idea of being polite sharing the exact same aesthetic tastes? I have not personally come down on anyone for wanting to play concept clerics, only the idea of them themselves. If you can't make the distinction, then I suggest that you are putting too much personal identification into this issue. The fact that I mentioned that people do use them as a vehicle for nothing more than grabbing two domains they want is nothing more than a statement of fact.
LazarX wrote: How exactly am I being insulting? Its okay not to like something, its okay to express, its not okay to group everyone who likes it into a negative group, say its only creating because jerks, and that anyone who disagrees with me is taking it too personally. Stating that the above is a fact makes it worse.
I want to state, because of the tone of some of the responses that I have gotten, that I am not proposing a new society because PFS is horrible.
I am just envisioning what an alertnate society might look like. One that gives people a different option.
Think of it like McDonald and Longhorn Steakhouse. You don't have to hate McDonald's to think to yourself "Hey, every now and then people might what a steak instead of a burger."
Some may be so completely satified with PFS that they can't imagine ever playing in an alternative society. Ask my niece and she would eat Chipotle everyday for every meal.
As for people seeking options in domains, feats, etc... for the purpose of making a character, I don't have a problem with that. I don't think backstory has precedent over character build. Maybe PFS is the society where backstory does have precedent over character build. Maybe an alternative society is where character build has precedent over backstory. There would be nothing wrong with either.
LazarX wrote: ...
4. It's not used for very good reason. It would require GM's to be aware of a greater amount of material. And much of it is not held to the same standard of balance as official Paizo materal.
Did not have time to reply to everything and to some extent I don't want to because the point of my question is to see what people think and not neccesarily to convince them of anything.
However, your comment four I do wish you would think about a little.
Yes, it would require that GMs be exposed to more material. However, I believe that it is a task that is not that difficult. I hardly know every class in the game, but have no problem GMing people who are playing new character concepts or classes. Manytimes, new classes play off of existing classes. I have yet to see anything that is so new that I could not grasp it relatively quickly.
Second, how can we make a judgment on the quality of the alternative material when we exclude it out of society gaming? In fairness, PFS has obviously reached the judgement in many instances that standard Paizo rules are not balanced and need to be excluded. PFS also slowly intigrates Paizo material into its society. Why could PFS not (or more importantly for this thread) why could not an alterative society intergrate the good aspects of third party material?
I'd say the alternative to McDonald's is home cooking... because it's hard to scrape up the funds to start a separate chain restaurant with a different menu, especially when all you want is for your favorite potato skins to be an option for dinner every night.
IOW, start a home game and use whatever resources your group likes. If enough people like your choices, you might even expand to a local gaming club.
Driver 325 yards wrote: why could not an alterative society intergrate the good aspects of third party material? Who is the one who makes that distinction? Where do you draw the line?
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Driver 325 yards wrote: th that. I don't think backstory has precedent over character build. Maybe PFS is the society where backstory does have precedent over character build. Maybe an alternative society is where character build has precedent over backstory. There would be nothing wrong with either.
The problem is that it's really hard to design a character world built around a thousand "special snowflakes". PFS constrains character build in order to have a world which the characters have common consensus.
A world constrains character build by necessity due to it's flavor and setting. Golarion isn't the place for your character build idea being based on Jedi and Sith warriors as including such things has an impact on either the nature of the world, or the versimilitude on how characters arise in it.
LazarX wrote: The problem is that it's really hard to design a character world built around a thousand "special snowflakes". PFS constrains character build in order to have a world which the characters have common consensus. Well, just because the world itself doesn't have lots of special snowflakes doesn't preclude the players from being special snowflakes. Could you imagine PFS if every character build had to be one that already existed in a book?
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MrSin wrote: LazarX wrote: The problem is that it's really hard to design a character world built around a thousand "special snowflakes". PFS constrains character build in order to have a world which the characters have common consensus. Well, just because the world itself doesn't have lots of special snowflakes doesn't preclude the players from being special snowflakes. Could you imagine PFS if every character build had to be one that already existed in a book? Could you imagine a world in which every character was alien to it?
LazarX wrote: Could you imagine a world in which every character was alien to it? Yeah, easily actually. Luckily that's not (usually) Golarion, even with 3rd party materials. I usually don't let other peoples ideas get to me and praise the ones I like though, so I may be of a different bias.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules
|
