How does Pathfinder Society help the Pathfinder RPG? How does it harm the game?

[Chris Mortika]

This is mostly idle questioning. I know that PFS serves as a marketting tool, yes. (I suspect that Paizo would be selling fewer Character Folios if not for PFS.)

It's probably also useful in terms of getting a collected group of GMs and players who are playing the game under reasonably similar situations. We probably provide useful playtesting after products get released.

But does PFS have any downsides, as far as the game is concerned? Are there pressures to make the game "safe for PFS" or "usable in PFS"? Would Paizo be putting out more cool, GM-discretion-required material, (I'm thinking of things like the alternate spell-building system in Ultimate Magic, or Mythic rules) with less pressure to make things that are usable in the PFS environment? Are fewer Paizo fans running adventure paths, or home-built campaigns, in lieu of Pathfinder Society?

(I am reminded of watching, again and again, players who simply refuse to play Pathfinder, even with Paizo authors GMing the games, once they find out there isn't a Chronicle sheet involved.)

[LazarX]

If it weren't for Pathfinder Society, Paizo would be putting out a lot less of everything. It's not only a "marketing tool" it's probably The primary marketing engine for the game.

Are there downsides, sure. You have less control than you would over a home game, but I suspect that without PFS, Pathfinder would be just another niche D20 contender.

[Majuba]

Woe: PFS makes the default assumption for play far too inclusive of optional rules (i.e. APG/Ult's).

Weal: I had a bit of hesitation about the "usable in PFS" aspects, but mostly they seem to energize players to be interested in the setting and the game - I can't fault that. Good thing overall.

Weal/Woe: Lots of potential players available from PFS, but I am fairly sure I'd be running a 2nd AP if it weren't for PFS.

[Viskous]

In the Sacramento region it seems that PFS has acted as a gateway into further Paizo products. Last year at this time there was a lot of PFS play. This year almost every player that was in PFS is now in an Adventure Path group of some sort and rarely attending PFS events anymore. I know that we have 3-5 Runelord, 2 Jade Regent, Council of Thieves, Wrath of the Righteous, Carrion Crown(might have dissolved) campaigns running with people who were PFSers last year.

A lot of the players say there isn't enough scenarios but with a few exceptions most only have one or two characters that can participate in 7-11 games. So, I think that PFS got them hooked but it's restrictions lead the players into forming home games where they can be evil mermaids or lawful good drow paladins...

[CRobledo]

There is also a little tangent in this conversation which is the opposite of what Chris was talking about: is PFS too constrained or restricted by what Pathfinder in general puts out.

For example, new classes or races are put out by the core line of products, and PFS is forced into adopting them because it's what is expected.

In the past, we have seen examples like the Gunslinger. Guns barely exist in Golarion. I believe that when UC was in playtest, there was debate on whether they would be allowed in PFS or not. But the fact was that it won and we have gunslingers today.

Thinking ahead, we have Advanced Class Guide due next summer. You can bet that there will be pressure from players to incorporate all classes into the game. Does that mean that PFS will be "pushed" into adopting it just because it was added in the core line?

[Jiggy]

CRobledo wrote:

There is also a little tangent in this conversation which is the opposite of what Chris was talking about: is PFS too constrained or restricted by what Pathfinder in general puts out.

For example, new classes or races are put out by the core line of products, and PFS is forced into adopting them because it's what is expected.

In the past, we have seen examples like the Gunslinger. Guns barely exist in Golarion. I believe that when UC was in playtest, there was debate on whether they would be allowed in PFS or not. But the fact was that it won and we have gunslingers today.

Thinking ahead, we have Advanced Class Guide due next summer. You can bet that there will be pressure from players to incorporate all classes into the game. Does that mean that PFS will be "pushed" into adopting it just because it was added in the core line?

Slight tangent:

I'm rather curious about Blood of the Moon. As far as I know, this will be the only Pathfinder race to be created in a "splat book". Used to be, races were either CRB or Bestiary, so there was an easy line to draw as to what should be a PC race and what should be NPC-only (or boon-based). But with skinwalkers, it's in neither the CRB (player race) nor the Bestiary (NPC/monster/boon race). It's clearly a rare/exotic race, yet also being presented as a PC race in a Player Companion book (and again, unlike with Blood of Fiends and such, it's not adding onto an existing Bestiary race).

I'm very curious to see which way PFS goes with this, and which direction of public outcry will be the loudest.

[LazarX]

CRobledo wrote:

In the past, we have seen examples like the Gunslinger. Guns barely exist in Golarion. I believe that when UC was in playtest, there was debate on whether they would be allowed in PFS or not. But the fact was that it won and we have gunslingers today.

On the other hand BECAUSE guns are rare, none of the gun using archetypes of the other classes are allowed. Because guns DO exist because of Alkenstar, what we have is the measured approach of giving only one class access to them, the class which devotes it's full time to thier mastery.

Despite the vocal protests of a small number of players on this board, Paizo has not changed its stance on broadening firearms access in the campaign.

[ElyasRavenwood]

Guns are a very divisive issue in much of a similar way psionics is a divisive issue.

I think there are lots of players and GMs alike who would be perfectly happy to see guns removed from PFS play. So I think there would be by extension be a bit of a backlash if the campaign cordinators began making more "gun" archtypes and guns more available beyond the occasional boon sheet.

But again this is just my opinion.

[LazarX]

Myles Crocker wrote:

Guns are a very divisive issue in much of a similar way psionics is a divisive issue.

I think there are lots of players and GMs alike who would be perfectly happy to see guns removed from PFS play. So I think there would be by extension be a bit of a backlash if the campaign cordinators began making more "gun" archtypes and guns more available beyond the occasional boon sheet.

But again this is just my opinion.

And I could also say that there are probably lot of players and GMs who want guns expanded. Right now, the campaign exists in the middle ground where it will probably stay for the near future.

[CRobledo]

Back to Chris' original post, I actually think PFS does a great job in keeping things that don't make sense limited or outside the campaign entirely.

Like others have said on other threads, I am sure that sanctioning Wrath of the Righteous would have sold some more books. Or opening up more races for everyone would have sold more ARGs. But Mike and John have decided to keep those out, for the good of the campaign.

As for Skinwalkers, Jiggy, my guess is we won't see them opened up for play, maybe after a future convention boon.

[ahayford]

If your objective at a con is to play a lot of PFS games to level your character, I can understand a player choosing to run PFS Scenarios over non-chronicled content. I think you'd get a lot fewer people attending cons just for "Paizo" if PFS didn't exist at all. People's free time, particularly time at a con, is precious.

Now, if you were to talk to that person outside of the con environment, I bet they'd be more open to non-organized play...assuming they had time to dedicate both to PFS and an open play (sometimes we have to make tough choices, particularly as we age).

Personally, I find the 4 hour scenario model awesome...both from a community aspect as well as, "fits my style of play" point of view. Right now, I really don't have a lot of time to prepare as a GM. The 4 hours modules are just the right length for my group...and it allows me to swap people in and out relatively painlessly since they are very episodic in nature. I *love* PFS and Shadowrun Missions. Wish more RPGs embraced this type of content.

[Mike Franke]

Chris Mortika wrote:

(I am reminded of watching, again and again, players who simply refuse to play Pathfinder, even with Paizo authors GMing the games, once they find out there isn't a Chronicle sheet involved.)

Of course you can now get chronicle sheets for APs and stand alone modules so this should pretty much disappear.

At least for me a consistent home game is superior and Pathfinder society is a back up for when I don't have a group or the group is not meeting or not consistent. When the too worlds cross it is just gravy.

The one real advantage of Pathfinder Society for me is that you can chage GM's. If you are the usual GM for your group and would like to be a player occasionaly Pathfinder Societly allows you to do that.

[Saint Caleth]

I think that PFS, beyond being a marketing scheme for paizo, is especially good not just for Pathfinder, but for the hobby as a whole as a major OP organization making a positive effort to be relevant beyond big cons/the USA. It is not just Pathfinder that benefits from growing gaming communities is far-flung places.

The con is that there are probably a bunch of consistent home groups that play a bunch of PFS, which is a shame just for the opportunity cost of being able to play a real campaign without all the mechanical and flavor restrictions of PFS. I never understand when people who have any options refuse to play anything non-PFS. The purpose of this wide outreach by PFS should be to grow local gaming communities to the point where they are stable enough to get real campaigns off the ground.

Mike Franke wrote:

At least for me a consistent home game is superior and Pathfinder society is a back up for when I don't have a group or the group is not meeting or not consistent. When the too worlds cross it is just gravy.

The one real advantage of Pathfinder Society for me is that you can chage GM's. If you are the usual GM for your group and would like to be a player occasionaly Pathfinder Societly allows you to do that.

Basically this. Since I don't circulate on the big con circuit, this modularity of PFS is the one advantage it has left over a real campaign.

[Mike Franke]

Saint Caleth wrote:

The con is that there are probably a bunch of consistent home groups that play a bunch of PFS, which is a shame just for the opportunity cost of being able to play a real campaign without all the mechanical and flavor restrictions of PFS.

And I believe if you play a Pathfinder Module you can get PFS credit even if you play a non PFS eligible character. Let me know if I am wrong someone who knows better.

[Saint Caleth]

Mike Franke wrote:

Saint Caleth wrote:

The con is that there are probably a bunch of consistent home groups that play a bunch of PFS, which is a shame just for the opportunity cost of being able to play a real campaign without all the mechanical and flavor restrictions of PFS.

And I believe if you play a Pathfinder Module you can get PFS credit even if you play a non PFS eligible character. Let me know if I am wrong someone who knows better.

Its only for sanctioned APs, but it is an encouraging sign that the leadership seems to recognize the problem and are trying to mitigate it.

[Chris Mortika]

Mike, that's only with the new modules (of which we have only one, "Dragon's Demand".)

Yeah, I was afraid that this was going to be sort of confusing, so I'll try to make that rule clear.

For modules at least 6 months old:
* If you play it with your PFS character...
* If your PC is within the level range of the module (for a module advertised for nth-level characters, the level range is usually n-1 to n+1)...
Then you can get PFS cedit for the module.

All costs and expenses "count" for your PC. If you get all the way through, you earn 3 XP and 4 PP.

[Pax Veritas]

Hey Chris Mortika! Pax here.

Let me see if I can summarize each with a single sentence imho:

> PFS--the wildly-popular, highly mainstream way to find and meet other gamers any night of the week for a quick, albeit shallow for roleplaying, one-shot, four-hour, on-the-rails quasi-dungeon crawl involving every type of player style imaginable that conforms to previously promulgated convention-style rules that promote the use of plenty of eye-candi minis, books, flip-mats and other Paizonian regalia, always resulting in successful completion of a mission and the award of fractional increase in level via chronicle sheet. (Everyone is welcome.)

And by contrast...

> Homebrew Pathfinder RPG--the literal and figurative home of classic roleplaying and creativity within a sandbox-esque style, less restrictive, full-bodied flavor of (mostly) the GM's original imagination and world setting or the use of Pathfinder APs/Modules or excertps from any edition of AD&D to 3.5 which is fully compatible and supplemented by the available time, and continuity of sessions to form a full campaign if desired. (Attendance (typically) by invitation only, based on the game style preference of the GM with (typical but not always) avoidance of rules-lawyers, munchkins, min-maxers, optimizers and any such type barrack mentality.)

Summary----the PFS welcomes everyone, equally as strangers and adventuremates for 4 hours per session. If people are skipping out of games beacuase they do not offer a chronical sheet, its because they do not prefer homebrew Pathfinder. And that's okay. Let them go!! Its best they seek out an officially sanctioned PFS table than ruin a prefectly good homebrew game. Each style game meets the needs of differet style of players--thus Pathfinder RPG is for everyone!
The difference with homebrew is that the composition of the party can be more selective, and the reign of the GM somewhat more authoritarian. While PFS plays lip-service to the GM as the final arbiter, in a homebrew, the GM simply is the law, is the rules, is the game (and yes, of course there is a continuum including GMs who run homebrew the same way they run PFS). Again, there is nothing wrong with either style, but the public games aren't designed for true sandbox play, and do restrict both players and GMs to a greater degree in general. In many ways, both styles (PFS and homebrew) compliment each other. Many homebrew groups are started by a couple PFS players who share common play style. Conversely, PFS is the go-to place between homebrew campaigns, and is certainly a refuge for GMs experiencing homebrew burnout to go and just be a player for a while. The key is to help gamers get the game they're expecting to play. Once that happens, the magic begins!

Kind Regards,
Pax Veritas

[Mike Franke]

Chris Mortika wrote:

Mike, that's only with the new modules (of which we have only one, "Dragon's Demand".)

Yeah, I was afraid that this was going to be sort of confusing, so I'll try to make that rule clear.

For modules at least 6 months old:
* If you play it with your PFS character...
* If your PC is within the level range of the module (for a module advertised for nth-level characters, the level range is usually n-1 to n+1)...
Then you can get PFS cedit for the module.

All costs and expenses "count" for your PC. If you get all the way through, you earn 3 XP and 4 PP.

So for the new modules starting with Dragon's Demand you can play a non PFS character and get credit.

For older modules (6 months or older) you need to play a PFS character of the appropriate level range and complete the adventure.

Even with the limitations, I like where Paizo is going. We will be able to play at home with appropriately sanctioned modules without the limitations of PFS and get credit for when we do want to play PFS with our PFS legal characters. The best of both worlds and hopefully they keep going in that direction.

[Ernest Mueller]

The benefits of Organized Play include spreading the game through play opportunities at conventions, increased regular play options for those without regular gaming groups, and provides adventure content quickly consumable by GMs. It also provides a sense of community among the participants that make them stickier to Pathfinder and other Paizo products.

There are downsides to Organized Play too however. Let me preface this by saying "yay Organized Play is good, its adherents should not be drowned in drainage ditches or anything." This isn't an argument against it. I'm sure people will trip out, but just because you like something doesn't mean you shouldn't be advised of its side effects, just like any other medication :-)

However, I've been involved in organized play for a long time (RPGA, including Living Greyhawk Triad duty), and here's some issues I see coming from it. It's mostly an extention of "Walmart/McDonald's syndrome" (Or now "Netflix syndrome") - the kind of specific decisions you have to make to create something that works impersonally at scale become predominant and affect even smaller venues because they set specific expectations.

1. Strongly sets a playstyle that disallows GM flexibility/fiat in favor of rules adherence; this is pretty much unavoidable due to the format. This allows a strong focus on character optimization to flourish and become a default way of looking at the game. This isn't all PFS, but I believe a lot of the rise of RAW/CharOp playstyle from fringe to majority in the last decade has been as a result of the strong 3e/3.5e/PF Organized Play movement. When 3e came out, no one dreamed of using the CR system, or wealth by level, or any of those things as a straitjacket, but now that's common. Optimization was mentioned only in terms like "min-maxing" or "munchkin" beforehand, now it's a major part of almost all rules discussion. Of course, if you love RAW rules theory and CharOp this isn't a downside. But it's clearly a side effect.

2. Normalization of rules. Authors are loath to put non-legalese rules into products because it'll be unsuitable for OP use; this means fewer cool experimental rules, fewer rules that depend on GM adjudication, and more fuel on the fire of the expectation that RPG rules should be a legally complete document. Whatever books are allowed by PFS, players feel entitled to use and feel ripped off if a home game doesn't allow them. Third party publishers, since not allowed in PFS, are marginalized in home games too. Long term, this normalizing pressure ends up leaving us with more Quarter Pounders than home-cooked meals. I'm happy that things like Mythic are still being put out but just not allowed for PFS; it would be easy to be pressured into decisions that don't let that happen. The more that PFS is tapped for playtests, etc. the more that can happen.

3. Promotes cookie-cutter adventures. To be fair, PFS innovates within the strict time/XP/treasure format a lot more than RPGA Living adventures did, but even so, there is a strong driver towards a very common "4 scenes 2 combats 1 RP 1 puzzle" or similar formula. When I lament the death of Dungeon Mag, James Jacobs says "well use some PFS adventures!" With respect, the PFS modules don't compare favorably with Dungeon adventures in terms of raw diversity. And they're not supposed to; like everything else for Organized Play they have to be crafted for large scale, transactional use, with little prep required and change allowed from page to play. And that's good for PFS but tends to drown out deviations.

Now, I'm not saying OP has killed all third parties or interesting adventures or people that make RP decisions over rules ones. But it has clearly influenced the hobby in specific directions. There's restaurants other than McDonald's still, and stores other than Walmart, and movies you can't see on Netflix. But the existence of a somewhat homogeneous monolith does create downward pressure on other types of gameplay. In our FLGS there's seriously maybe 40 people a weekend playing PFS that "can't find a home game." There's 40 of you there, sure you can - it's just not as repeatable as that Quarter Pounder, so we go for the QP.

What's interesting, besides the arguing over "IT DOES NOT!!!" I'm sure there will be, is figuring out how to run OP in a way that mitigates these three effects. I think there have been some steps in this regard already; being able to sanction home play of APs and still putting out rules that aren't PFS-safe are great. And I am sure this isn't the intent of many of the venture-captains and all, who work hard to provide interesting and customized experiences especially at big cons with interactive events and such. What else can be done to have an OP that doesn't go "full McDonald's?"

[ahayford]

I think, there is an emphasis to allow alternative solutions to encounters that don't involve combat/etc...and GMs have more leeway than I think a lot of them tend to think they do....at least based on some of the "this awesome thing happened at my PFS game today" threads I've read.

However, I have had situations, as a GM, where I would just hand wave and move on if it were a home game...where I have felt compelled to waste time looking up the real rules because its PFS...potentially to the detriment of the immediate needs of the game.

And things like rogues wanting to steal etc which kind of falls outside the bounds of the wealth limits placed on the scenarios...

Or trying to integrate new level 1 players into an existing PFS legal group...

[TriOmegaZero]

I can say I wouldn't still be playing Pathfinder without PFS. I was selling my hardbacks when I joined the organized campaign.

[LazarX]

Ernest Mueller wrote:

Now, I'm not saying OP has killed all third parties or interesting adventures or people that make RP decisions over rules ones. But it has clearly influenced the hobby in specific directions. There's restaurants other than McDonald's still, and stores other than Walmart, and movies you can't see on Netflix. But the existence of a somewhat homogeneous monolith does create downward pressure on other types of gameplay. In our FLGS there's seriously maybe 40 people a weekend playing PFS that "can't find a home game." There's 40 of you there, sure you can - it's just not as repeatable as that Quarter Pounder, so we go for the QP.

IF PFS didn't exist at all, those same 3PP's wouldn't be in buisness either, because Pathfinder would be little more than another niche D20 game.

[Tarma]

I imagine that PFS harms the game when for whatever reason it doesn't match up with the scheduled books for the year. For example, while Mythic Adventures and Ultimate Campaign may be incredibly useful books for home games, in PFS very little from those books are actually used. If you have someone who is a primary PFS player and finds out nothing from those books are used, they're most likely not going to buy it. That in turn effects sales and what hardbacks we may receive in the future.

[John Compton]

This is an enlightening discussion, and I appreciate reading it.

[Baron Ulfhamr]

I think it's great for drawing new players into Pathfinder for casual, non-committal campaigning. I've met some great players at our local chapter (as well as a couple not-so-great ones, haha). My wife and I very much enjoyed D&D Encounters previously, as this was the majority of her RP experience.

On the other hand, the need for table-to-table conformity DOES cramp GM creativity and ingenuity. Also, it limits much of my favorite content (races/archetypes/spells/items) to align it with Golarion, an apparently human-centric world which bans certain things as "evil", yet embraces a nation of devil-worshippers (whom I assume are all Lawful Neutral?).

I wish there was a "second tier" of PFS that allowed groups that play consistently together to eschew some of these restrictions (if they wish, and we do) for more enjoyable play, yet still receive credit/recognition.

I dislike homebrew imbalance, but I DO like oddball characters that don't always quite fit the mould, and am not alone in this!

[Avatar-1]

The thing I really like the most is the "mission" style play. It's not quite the same as playing a mission in a regular campaign.

A short stint where you feel like you've made an accomplishment with good all-rounder rewards at the end that you can keep to yourself feels great every time you play it.

There's something strangely appealing about the experience point system as well, I think - so much simpler to guarantee level up every 3 scenarios rather than by what you may or may not "earn" in regular campaigns.

[lastblacknight]

Nice thread topic;

PFS gives me the opportunity to; meet new people, try out character concepts and enjoy new challenges as a DM/GM. As a GM I have to accept that I will get any mix of PC's and concepts at a table and then make the story work.

In Campaigns I am freer sometimes but also occasionally more restricted by GM's who don't like the snowball spell, or who struggle with a summoner being broken.

I am playing more Pathfinder (or 3.75) than I ever did in the past. I GM regional Cons and my a regular game at a local FLGS.. and I am in campaigns with those people I made friends with. (I usually play twice a week and once each weekend - I have an understanding wife).

I struggle with PFS a bit in only that a minority (or choir on the boards can get changes pushed through to the society as a whole). I understand why parts of content have to be locked down (it's a maturity issue) but sometimes we lose nice toys because someone cheeses why can't I use three weapon cords on my pistols etc.... But this annoyance is balanced by me being able to still play any type of PC allowed in PFS. I am grateful that PFS exists.

[thejeff]

Baron Ulfhamr wrote:

I think it's great for drawing new players into Pathfinder for casual, non-committal campaigning. I've met some great players at our local chapter (as well as a couple not-so-great ones, haha). My wife and I very much enjoyed D&D Encounters previously, as this was the majority of her RP experience.

On the other hand, the need for table-to-table conformity DOES cramp GM creativity and ingenuity. Also, it limits much of my favorite content (races/archetypes/spells/items) to align it with Golarion, an apparently human-centric world which bans certain things as "evil", yet embraces a nation of devil-worshippers (whom I assume are all Lawful Neutral?).

I wish there was a "second tier" of PFS that allowed groups that play consistently together to eschew some of these restrictions (if they wish, and we do) for more enjoyable play, yet still receive credit/recognition.

I dislike homebrew imbalance, but I DO like oddball characters that don't always quite fit the mould, and am not alone in this!

If you're playing a home PFS game and aren't going to play the character in other PFS games, who cares about credit/recognition? Make your oddball character, play PFS scenarios, abide by whichever PFS restrictions you prefer and have fun.

[Greasitty]

For my gaming group, PFS has helped us incorporate some Pathfinder material into our home campaign. I don't think we would have if it hadn't turned our friend (a VL) into a bit of an evangelist.

The biggest negative effect has been an association between the term "Pathfinder" and PFS. People will say dismissively of some character option or home rule "oh, you can't do that, it's Pathfinder". Pathfinder as a whole gains the reputation of PFS - restrictive, often forcibly shallow, doesn't make much sense oftentimes.

So when my friend says, "Hey, let's play Pathfinder for our next big campaign!" a lot of people respond with "erhnnh" or some other non-commital and vaguely negative noise. This is true despite the fact that they know the world their characters (from another D20 system) adventure in is entirely Pathfinder! The term still evokes the wrong image, though.

The second issue has been on of world adoption. On our group's limited budget, we have to assemble a collection of hardback, rules centric books to make the characters advertised by the PRD's haunting calls legal. We need enough copies to split up at cons. This means the only setting book we own is the Inner Sea Primer, and we learn only bits and pieces about the world, tangentially. That's fine for our home brewed, pathfinder including home games, but doesn't lend towards wanting to play an AP or anything like that. We certainly won't be basing a game in Golarion.

[Castilliano]

Baron, they're Lawful Oppressed.
The backstory is they were in anarchy, with death and destruction rampant.
Devil-backed powers offered them order, and they took the bait.
Now they have their stability, at the cost of some freedoms. (Or many freedoms, as time goes by.)
Essentially it went from Neutral people being ravaged by Chaotic Evil, to Neutral people being dominated by Lawful Evil. Lawful Evil, being more cunning, insidiously spreads among them, with the emphasis on Law to candy-coat the Evil.
As for the PFS members of that faction, I've seen a large mix of motivations, including taking them down from the inside.

You can play consistently together, however you like. Why would you need PFS credit?

[Tamago]

For me, personally, the best thing about PFS is that it doesn't require a ton of commitment. I very much prefer a home game with a big, continuing story. But if I'm free on a Friday night with nothing better to do, I'll hop on down to the game store. Or if my Sunday night gaming group can't play because someone's out of town or sick, well, there's a whole slew of ready-made one-shot adventures!

[Baron Ulfhamr]

Castilliano wrote:

Baron, they're Lawful Oppressed.

The backstory is they were in anarchy, with death and destruction rampant.
Devil-backed powers offered them order, and they took the bait.
Now they have their stability, at the cost of some freedoms. (Or many freedoms, as time goes by.)
Essentially it went from Neutral people being ravaged by Chaotic Evil, to Neutral people being dominated by Lawful Evil. Lawful Evil, being more cunning, insidiously spreads among them, with the emphasis on Law to candy-coat the Evil.

So Cheliax is the USA? It all makes sense now... (That's as close as I get to real world poitics here, haha- couldn't resist! SORRY!)

Also, no one NEEDS PFS credit, but it would be fun to continue playing "sanctioned" organized games with a variety and maturity level on [par with the people we consistently play with.

Our old D&D Encounters experience included weekly sign up of the same 5 regulars (and occasionally a floating 6th random walk-in) who became a tight-knit unit. We went off the beaten path more often than not, had a DM who was more than up to it, and had a blast. THAT is what I would hope to recapture in PFS.

[Eric Saxon]

Baron Ulfhamr wrote:

...On the other hand, the need for table-to-table conformity DOES cramp GM creativity and ingenuity. Also, it limits much of my favorite content (races/archetypes/spells/items) to align it with Golarion, an apparently human-centric world which bans certain things as "evil", yet embraces a nation of devil-worshippers (whom I assume are all Lawful Neutral?)...

Umm... PFS is not Golarion nor is Golarion all that human centric. PFS is human centric. I think this distinction needs to be made.

When you play PFS, you are playing a member of a human centered organization based in a human city, in a human nation, on an island.

That's a lot different than saying the Orcs of Belkzen are not there. They simply can't join PFS because an orc walking into a human city, would likely get him killed long before he arrived. And PFS is not a ruling faction in the City of Absalom. Therefore if the Ruling Council of Absalom says "no orcs within the city gates" then PFS is limited in whom they can accept.

A lot of limits placed in PFS are simply political due to Absalom not being so tolerant that they would allow orcish barbarians within their city gates or other monstrous PCs. A goblin with his penchant for setting things on fire, certainly would not be allowed nor would kobolds be allowed to openly walk through the city streets, without being molested.

Furthermore, PFS does not allow for evil members. Absalom doesn't have an issue with this and neither does Golarion but the actual organization has such a limit as they do not want its members to betray the organization for personal gain. So while Cheliax may be a LE nation, LN or LG Cheliaxians are welcome in PFS while LE members of the Empire are not. Also, just because some of the highest echelons of Cheliax deal with devils, that is hardly the norm for most common men and women of the empire.

[The Fox]

Baron Ulfhamr wrote:

I wish there was a "second tier" of PFS that allowed groups that play consistently together to eschew some of these restrictions (if they wish, and we do) for more enjoyable play, yet still receive credit/recognition.

If you have a steady group of regulars, consider playing one of the Adventure Paths. You can play it with whatever house rules you want, whatever races you want, whatever alignment you want, and you get chronicles that you can apply to other characters if you desire.

[Netopalis]

I think that there is a disconnect between the perceived strictness of PFS and the actuality of it. In theory, PFS is very strict. You are limited based on what races you can choose, what classes you can choose, etc. GMs cannot modify encounters. There's a lot of paperwork. To an outsider looking in, this all is very complicated and unnecessary.

However, I think that the reputation which PFS has gained is in large part due to a number of players and GMs who seem to have this zealotry for absolute rules perfection that is really unnecessary. These people become obsessed with whether or not the player character at their table really had that piece of chalk before they sat down or whether or not the newbie player at their table had an easier time because the GM fudged a crit. In a home game, these aren't issues that come up.

Conversely, however, PFS is more free in a lot of respects. As a player, I have a vast number of options to choose from. In the home games I have played, some third party resources are allowed, but it's never selecting from *anything* you want. You always have to get GM approval. In some campaigns I have played, the character choices are more restrictive than PFS, with many more classes and races banned. As a GM, I cannot modify encounters, true. I do not, however, have to write encounters either. I don't have to worry about finding a group of players to play with. I have a large community of other GMs that I can rely on who have GMmed these adventures before and who can give me tips about giving my players a truly excellent experience. The benefits far, far outweigh the restrictions.

I think that, moving forward, we must always remember to watch what we say in public. When we get into petty rules squabbling over inconsequential things, we contribute to PFS' reputation for rules lawyering. We can't let paperwork and rules obsession outweigh the fun of the game. Instead, the best way to grow PFS is to simply have a blast, making sure that you provide a great game for your players as a GM, or you contribute to everybody else having a great time as a player.

[Drogon]

Netopalis wrote:

Insightful things

I 99% agree with all of this. My only divergence from the opinion is with the GM's position.

The players in PFS have an incredible amount of freedom, as Netopolis put so well. This freedom, I think, is awesome for the Pathfinder game. It gives them a taste of everything they can do, and creates a desire to play options they may never have considered ever before. I have watched more than one player blossom from "I only play human fighters" to "Have you seen what you can do with an aasimar druid? It's awesome!" This broadening of the spectrum, obviously, creates a lot of sales for Paizo and a lot of excitement for players when new books come out.

The GMs, on the other hand, are under more strictures. As Netopolis mentioned, in a home game it is up to the GM whether something is okay or not, and shackling GMs to the strictures of PFS play (which is necessary, obviously) can have a detrimental effect on that environment, I think. My own view of a fantasy world used to line up very nicely with Paizo's, circa 2008-2009. As Paizo has published more options, freeing players up to do more, I have become more "strict" in my home games, and some players may chafe under that. Because I won't allow tieflings or gunslingers, for instance, I may lose a player who may have been fine playing with me 5 years ago, when those options weren't available.

So, there is a balance to the idea of PFS being good or bad for those who play, as there always is to everything.

Overall, I can assure you that PFS is awesome for the Pathfinder Role Playing Game. PFS is solely responsible for driving about 75% of my PFRPG sales, and many home games spawn from players getting together and deciding to run this Adventure Path or that module, generating even more sales. The people sitting at tables in my store playing PFS (and being very animated in their play) generates yet more sales, as customers ask what those people are doing, having so much fun.

If it weren't for PFS, I firmly believe that the PFRPG would simply be another "filler game" that occupied shelf space until the next iteration of D&D came out to take that shelf space back.

[Drogon]

The Fox wrote:

Baron Ulfhamr wrote:

I wish there was a "second tier" of PFS that allowed groups that play consistently together to eschew some of these restrictions (if they wish, and we do) for more enjoyable play, yet still receive credit/recognition.

If you have a steady group of regulars, consider playing one of the Adventure Paths. You can play it with whatever house rules you want, whatever races you want, whatever alignment you want, and you get chronicles that you can apply to other characters if you desire.

There is also nothing stopping you from using PFS publications as a basis for your home game. Use the PFS rules you want to use, institute other rules you think SHOULD be used, and run the games with PFS scenarios, handing out chronicles and boons just like you regularly do.

Just don't report the games, and don't take the characters that result into sanctioned play.

Just because it says "Pathfinder Society" on the cover does not mean you can't do with that writing what you do with everything else that gets published for games: make use of it however you will.

[godsDMit]

The Fox wrote:

Baron Ulfhamr wrote:

I wish there was a "second tier" of PFS that allowed groups that play consistently together to eschew some of these restrictions (if they wish, and we do) for more enjoyable play, yet still receive credit/recognition.

If you have a steady group of regulars, consider playing one of the Adventure Paths. You can play it with whatever house rules you want, whatever races you want, whatever alignment you want, and you get chronicles that you can apply to other characters if you desire.

If that is what you want to do, go for it. Just dont show up with those non-PFS-legal characters at a normal PFS-legal event and expect everything to work the same.

[Chris Mortika]

Eric Saxon wrote:

Furthermore, PFS does not allow for evil members. Absalom doesn't have an issue with this and neither does Golarion but the actual organization has such a limit as they do not want its members to betray the organization for personal gain. So while Cheliax may be a LE nation, LN or LG Cheliaxians are welcome in PFS while LE members of the Empire are not. Also, just because some of the highest echelons of Cheliax deal with devils, that is hardly the norm for most common men and women of the empire.

That's not my understanding, Eric. The in-world Pathfinder Society is not a good-aligned organization. It includes a number of evil-aligned characters. It's just that the organized play environment doesn't let us role-play any of those agents.

Remember, the rebellious Shadow Lodge consisted of current and former Pathfinder agents, and was not any more evil-aligned than the parent organization. We just kept running into evil-aligned Shadow Lodge members during our adventures. (I was waiting, waiting, for an encounter with a good-aligned Shadow Lodge member, who wanted to replace the stodgy Decemverate with people who would break open the armory and treasure vaults and use the stuff there to close the Worldwound, send House Thrune and its pet devils packing back to Hell, and wipe out a few evil dragons for good measure. As it turned out, I was talking about the Silver Crusade.)

[Eric Saxon]

I believe that PFS does not allow evil NPCs either. The fact that some of them might be Aspis guys, who have obfuscated their alignment with spells (aka spies) and guys who have gone down the wrong path, does not mean that PFS actually tolerates members who have gone to the dark side.

Now, having said that, this is only my opinion but I believe a legitimate one. Now, will some guys slip through the cracks, sure. And PFS is certainly no cloud of angels, but its not a nest of vipers like the Aspis Consortium, either. PFS is a N agency with certain NG tendencies as it does not allow for powerful artifacts to fall into the hands of the E aligned guys, while the Aspis have NO moral compass other than greed and self-interest.

[BigNorseWolf]

In first steps part III you had a semi member of the society that was evil. You had to escort him across the island.

[El Baron de los Banditos]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

semi member of the Society that was evil.

Though aside from being a jerk, he never really seemed all that evil. Just... lazy. I never even noticed until a player who had also ran it pointed it out.

[Rogue Eidolon]

Eric Saxon wrote:

I believe that PFS does not allow evil NPCs either. The fact that some of them might be Aspis guys, who have obfuscated their alignment with spells (aka spies) and guys who have gone down the wrong path, does not mean that PFS actually tolerates members who have gone to the dark side.

Now, having said that, this is only my opinion but I believe a legitimate one. Now, will some guys slip through the cracks, sure. And PFS is certainly no cloud of angels, but its not a nest of vipers like the Aspis Consortium, either. PFS is a N agency with certain NG tendencies as it does not allow for powerful artifacts to fall into the hands of the E aligned guys, while the Aspis have NO moral compass other than greed and self-interest.

The PFS definitely has evil agents, and the acts of evil definitely go all the way to the top.

[Eric Saxon]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Eric Saxon wrote:

I believe that PFS does not allow evil NPCs either. The fact that some of them might be Aspis guys, who have obfuscated their alignment with spells (aka spies) and guys who have gone down the wrong path, does not mean that PFS actually tolerates members who have gone to the dark side.

Now, having said that, this is only my opinion but I believe a legitimate one. Now, will some guys slip through the cracks, sure. And PFS is certainly no cloud of angels, but its not a nest of vipers like the Aspis Consortium, either. PFS is a N agency with certain NG tendencies as it does not allow for powerful artifacts to fall into the hands of the E aligned guys, while the Aspis have NO moral compass other than greed and self-interest.

The PFS definitely has evil agents, and the acts of evil definitely go all the way to the top.

And you are generally sent to dispatch them and not aid in their evil doing though. So are there evil PFS members? Yes. Is it your job to put them down, like a rabid dog? Yes.

Therefore we can assume that evil is not encouraged or tolerated. At least in my experience. I know the Seeker scenarios get into some evil twisted stuff but that's not standard PFS stuff.

[Mattastrophic]

Mark Seifter wrote:

The PFS definitely has evil agents, and the acts of evil definitely go all the way to the top.

I can testify to this fact, ohhhh yes. And you certainly don't get a chance to squash their evil, that is for sure.

-Matt

[Tarma]

I'm gonna throw in another opinion at the risk of a thread jack. I really don't understand the desire to play evil characters in PFS and I think that's hurting the game a little bit as well. If the desire to have evil characters is to play some of the classes that have evil has a requirement, maybe there's something that can be done to get around that.

But as someone who has played several games with evil characters, once an evil character gets introduced the game goes downhill completely. To a causal player, when someone complains about not being evil characters they see them as saying one of two things. Either it's "I want to be the complete star of this show" or "I am going to be an unmitigated terror to play with at your table." None of these encourage people to play.

[Eric Saxon]

I would agree Tarma, personally, when people complain about not being allowed to play evil is because they aren't allowed to play a jerk. And we already have a rule for that.

[Conman the Bardbarian]

There is a solution to wanting to play evil characters.

GM

[The Fox]

Seth Gipson wrote:

The Fox wrote:

Baron Ulfhamr wrote:

I wish there was a "second tier" of PFS that allowed groups that play consistently together to eschew some of these restrictions (if they wish, and we do) for more enjoyable play, yet still receive credit/recognition.

If you have a steady group of regulars, consider playing one of the Adventure Paths. You can play it with whatever house rules you want, whatever races you want, whatever alignment you want, and you get chronicles that you can apply to other characters if you desire.

If that is what you want to do, go for it. Just dont show up with those non-PFS-legal characters at a normal PFS-legal event and expect everything to work the same.

What I was getting at is that you can apply the chronicles to PFS-legal characters, NOT the ones that are played in the home game. My understanding is that this is not only legit, but the design of the sanctioned APs.

Here is a quote from the Rise of the Runelords Chronicle:

Rise of the Runelords Chronicle wrote:

Alternatively, if you are participating in the Rise of the Runelords Adventure Path with an ongoing group undertaking the entire, six-chapter campaign, you may receive credit for playing the sanctioned portions of the adventure as if you had played a pregenerated character. In this case, GMs running the Adventure Path are not bound to the rules of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign (such as 20-point buy, unavailability of hero points, etc.) when running the campaign or the sanctioned portion of the adventure. Pathfinder Society characters and characters from an ongoing Adventure Path campaign may not play in the same adventure.

So even though you played non-PFS characters, you can apply credit to PFS-legal characters following the guidelines for playing Pregens.