Home Games vs. PFS

[Mythic Evil Lincoln]

Well, I can play games sober.

It's interacting with strangers that I think is greatly enhanced by the widely agreed upon social lubricant.

I'd be a lot more accepting of some of the common gamer foibles if I had two drinks in me.

[Jib916]

I perfer home games.

PFS definitely has its perks. Its great when you are starting out as a player and need to find people to play with. Its also good for new GMs. The scenarios are great little adventures that actually teach you alot about GMing and are (usually) well written. The xp/level system is also genius, and I still use this method today in my homegames.

I have found however (in around 100 games both side of table), that PFS isn't the style I perfer, and to be honest its not so much the rules, its the players. PFS tends to bring out some of the wors... my least favorite, type of players. Rules Lawyers, Power Gamers/Min maxers, and people who dont even try to roleplay their characters. Every game is a crabshoot, and the odds are not in my favor.

[EvilTwinSkippy]

bad Lt. Aldo Raines impression wrote:

You know, playin' in a comic shop offers a lot of disadvantages. First one bein', you're playin' in a comic shop.

I greatly prefer home games, mostly because the atmosphere is generally more relaxing and considerably better: better lighting (not sitting under fluorescent tubes for four hours), less noisy, can get up and move around and get food and drinks as you like, can play music or have access to all your game books and materials, and most importantly, ready access to bathroom, something a lot of local comic/game store venues lack.

There is also the aspect of character/group development and story continuity. Characters within groups develop a certain dynamic over time, learn to play of each others' strengths and weaknesses. I enjoy this process and the social aspect of gaming. That's why I play tabletop RPGs, rather than just sitting at home doing video games.

That said, home games generally require a bit more commitment. I don't have a problem with that, but I've seen enough home groups go south for one reason or another, whether it's a problem player or people's schedules or whatever. PFS lets you change it up pretty regularly, which isn't a bad thing. Also, the rules are fairly set in stone, which is also a good model for home games, I think.

[Serisan]

So, I want to put out there that people who prefer home games tend to express the opinion that you're not consistently tabling with familiar characters in PFS. This may vary by region or FLGS, but the store I most frequently play at hosts 2-3 tables a week, maybe 4, and there are consistent character developments between sessions.

Hrolfir, the barbarian who thinks he's a cleric is consistently at a table. He saw a successful Command and, being dumb, yelled "DIE!" as he attacked an enemy and killed them. Obviously, "the spell" worked. Hrolfir and my skald, Heiki, have worked together numerous times and have a bit of a shared history because of it.

There's a foursome that plays at a single table with their own continuity that I joined last weekend. Players 5 and 6 rotate at their tables, obviously, but they're basically doing a home game in PFS by always tabling together.

[Jericho Graves]

Me and my wife do skype-based play by post PFS through the week because not all of us have a free day in the schedule. While we do play everything legally, and I fax out the chronicle sheets to the other players, we treat the PFS as our house-campaign rules so that rulings are mostly consistent.

On top of that, my wife, I, and two other friends of ours still do a home campaign bi-weekly on Roll20.

After our first session we actually enjoyed the 1 shot stories and may branch out with "carbon copies" of our PFS characters into a home-game one day, but right now we are enjoying the tales of Season 1 Scenarios.

[Lemmy]

I dislike the house-rules of PFS. I dislike the idea of the GM having to accept every instance of RAW, no matter how poorly designed it is. I dislike gaming with complete strangers (It's fun to do once in a while, but that's it).

Therefore, I dislike PFS. Never played it, probably never will. For me, it's basically a life-boat. You use it in emergencies. Like when you really want to play Pathfinder but don't have anyone to game with... As long as that's not my case, I see no reason to try PFS.

I'm glad it exists so that more people can enjoy this hobby, but I fortunately don't need it.

[Undone]

I prefer the no house rules by the RAW PFS over a bunch of home rules. Makes character building more fun.

[Lemmy]

PFS has its own sets of house-rules, though. Most of which I really dislike. And there is nothing the GM or the players can do but to accept them.

OTOH, the house-rules I use in my games were created, adapted, modified and specifically designed by me and my players, for me and my players.

Anyway... PFS is not for me. It's fortunate that it exists, but I honestly hope I never have to resort to it.

[TriOmegaZero]

There are a number of house rules in PFS that I would enjoy porting to my own home games, actually.

You know, if I actually used XP. ;)

[thejeff]

Serisan wrote:

So, I want to put out there that people who prefer home games tend to express the opinion that you're not consistently tabling with familiar characters in PFS. This may vary by region or FLGS, but the store I most frequently play at hosts 2-3 tables a week, maybe 4, and there are consistent character developments between sessions.

Hrolfir, the barbarian who thinks he's a cleric is consistently at a table. He saw a successful Command and, being dumb, yelled "DIE!" as he attacked an enemy and killed them. Obviously, "the spell" worked. Hrolfir and my skald, Heiki, have worked together numerous times and have a bit of a shared history because of it.

There's a foursome that plays at a single table with their own continuity that I joined last weekend. Players 5 and 6 rotate at their tables, obviously, but they're basically doing a home game in PFS by always tabling together.

Of course, by doing so you're bypassing much of what others have touted as the main advantages of PFS: portability, social nature, to steal from Jiggy's early post.

And not gaining most of what some have been touting as the advantages of home games: ability to directly affect the game and have it tailored for you and your characters. It's not just "consistently tabling with familiar characters". It goes far beyond that.

Other than the adventures being more disjointed, which can be somewhat minimized, with such a set up you're approaching playing a home game using published modules/APs which the GM runs scrupulously by the book with no customization for the characters actions.

[LazarX]

I think we can agree that some of us like PFS and others don't.

I think we SHOULD be able to agree that everyone is entitled to their own prejudices and preferences, and close this down.

No one is telling home players to abandon their games for PFS, and no one should be telling the others likewise either.

And especially no one should be saying that one MUST choose between one or the other, as quite a few of us manage both.

[TOZ]

LazarX wrote:

No one is telling home players to abandon their games for PFS, and no one should be telling the others likewise either.

That would be an unmitigated disaster. I mean, imagine having a PFS murderhobo ruining your home game! Or a PFS noob coming into The Dalsine Affair and complaining that his dwarf brewer was useless right up until he was unfairly murdered.

[deusvult]

Home Game or PFS isn't a binary consideration.. the main strength of PFS is that it's always available, however much or little time you want to spend in it.

The other main strength is the sheer chaos that is inherent in essentially random scenario play and party makeup. Chaos isn't necessarily bad. It definitely can offer new things in a way that home campaigns rarely can.

Paizo offers an anti-PFS in the form of Adventure Paths. Everything is preplanned, chargen to retirement. An AP is not a homegame starter kit, it's an entire home game. Just add the humans.

A great irony is that APs and PFS are completely compatible.

Another aspect mentioned upthread is that exposure to different ways of playing makes you better. On both sides of the GM screen. Actually, ESPECIALLY on the GM side of the GM screen.

[Serisan]

thejeff wrote:

Of course, by doing so you're bypassing much of what others have touted as the main advantages of PFS: portability, social nature, to steal from Jiggy's early post.

Optionally bypassing. More like supplementing. I can choose to go and play at any other game store or play a PFS-legal home game (like 2 continuous levels of Emerald Spire, as I GM'd on Black Friday). Opting to consistently table with familiar folks but occasionally have to play elsewhere is part of the experience.

Quote:

And not gaining most of what some have been touting as the advantages of home games: ability to directly affect the game and have it tailored for you and your characters. It's not just "consistently tabling with familiar characters". It goes far beyond that.

Other than the adventures being more disjointed, which can be somewhat minimized, with such a set up you're approaching playing a home game using published modules/APs which the GM runs scrupulously by the book with no customization for the characters actions.

There are some railroad-y bits that aren't customizable and it's true that you can't directly impact the campaign at a single table, I think it's a stretch to say that you can't customize the scenarios and modules to some degree. NPCs are given tactics, not rote scripts, and there is an acceptable level of table variance to be seen all around.

Here's a big advantage, though: as a GM, you don't painstakingly craft a world just to have the PCs promptly ignore the things you prepared to have them do.

[Umbral Reaver]

There is no PFS where I live.

[thejeff]

Serisan wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Of course, by doing so you're bypassing much of what others have touted as the main advantages of PFS: portability, social nature, to steal from Jiggy's early post.

Optionally bypassing. More like supplementing. I can choose to go and play at any other game store or play a PFS-legal home game (like 2 continuous levels of Emerald Spire, as I GM'd on Black Friday). Opting to consistently table with familiar folks but occasionally have to play elsewhere is part of the experience.

Quote:

And not gaining most of what some have been touting as the advantages of home games: ability to directly affect the game and have it tailored for you and your characters. It's not just "consistently tabling with familiar characters". It goes far beyond that.

Other than the adventures being more disjointed, which can be somewhat minimized, with such a set up you're approaching playing a home game using published modules/APs which the GM runs scrupulously by the book with no customization for the characters actions.

There are some railroad-y bits that aren't customizable and it's true that you can't directly impact the campaign at a single table, I think it's a stretch to say that you can't customize the scenarios and modules to some degree. NPCs are given tactics, not rote scripts, and there is an acceptable level of table variance to be seen all around.

Here's a big advantage, though: as a GM, you don't painstakingly craft a world just to have the PCs promptly ignore the things you prepared to have them do.

That last is a great advantage. Though it applies to any published module/AP, if you're prepared to railroad enough.

You may be able to customize scenarios to some degree, but it pales by comparison to what can be done in a home-brewed campaign.

[LazarX]

deusvult wrote:

Paizo offers an anti-PFS in the form of Adventure Paths. Everything is preplanned, chargen to retirement. An AP is not a homegame starter kit, it's an entire home game. Just add the humans.

Adventure paths are not Anti-PFS. In fact, many adventure paths, modules, and mini-APs such s Dragon's Demand have sanctioned rules and chronicles for PFS play.

[deusvult]

LazarX wrote:

deusvult wrote:

Paizo offers an anti-PFS in the form of Adventure Paths. Everything is preplanned, chargen to retirement. An AP is not a homegame starter kit, it's an entire home game. Just add the humans.

Adventure paths are not Anti-PFS. In fact, many adventure paths, modules, and mini-APs such s Dragon's Demand have sanctioned rules and chronicles for PFS play.

Hence the irony I mentioned about them being compatible.

Yet, in paradigm, they are the opposite of PFS. You play an entire continuous story unbroken by random unconnected scenarios and with the same GM and same players without random comings & goings of people into the campaign (beyond what's normal for a home campaign, anyway).

So, yeah, APs are basically the opposite of PFS. They're the same thing as a completely pre-planned home campaign (just without all the copious planning required by the GM). An Anti-PFS, as I called it :)

[Kthulhu]

Jiggy wrote:

Remember, it's an actual campaign. Are there PC options you don't allow in your campaign? I know there's plenty I don't allow in mine. How are your restrictions any less "arbitrary" than those in PFS?

Everyone who plays in or runs a "home" campaign has some degree of input into those restrictions. Whereas with PFS, the overwhelming number of people who play AND run them, do not.

[Kthulhu]

thegreenteagamer wrote:

Thejeff more or less adequately responded to your questions, Jiggy, but there's one in particular I felt I should address...

Jiggy wrote:

How are your restrictions any less "arbitrary" than those in PFS?

Well, I don't change them for no apparent reason based on the season, for one thing. Let's take my example of the tiefling, and their holier cousins, the aasimar.

What, exactly, was broken about them before Blood of Angels and Blood of Fiends came out, to where they were forbidden?

Whatever it was, did those two books "fix" it to make them more balanced? If ANYTHING, it made them considerably more powerful, yet they were added as acceptable races.

Change of the season, however, and suddenly they're broken again, and not allowed, despite nothing in particular coming out making them more powerful.

Let's be fully honest. A lot of the seasonal things that are allowed for PFS are nothing less than not very subtle strategies to sell more of certain books.

[Kadasbrass Loreweaver]

I like both, home games and PFS.

I do prefer the nature of organized play. It is nice to run something that just last a single session, doesn't matter who makes it and who doesn't. Start a story and finish in a single day. Multiple scenarios can be done that tie together to form a larger story but its like a soap opera in that missing a session or two isn't critical fumble for the individual. However there are times I look at what it gives me or what it says the bad guys do and I just twitch cause it feels like the bad guys are intentionally holding back or wish I could change it even if its just to make it more dramatic.

Now when running non society games (I don't use the term home games since I haven't played a rpg in anyone's home for years, I used to call it Sandbox Sunday or Modular Monday) I have little more free reign to add and take away as I see fit. But there is the problem of people coming and going, not making it for weeks at a time, people stopping by, asking if they can join then disappearing next time (The down side of running stuff in a public place). It all gets annoying when trying to tell a larger story.

When I start doing non society games again I'm going to try to work in smaller stories that can be done in one or two sessions like the episodal feel of PFS. But in a manner that gives me and the players more free reign to be and do what we want.

[Jiggy]

Kthulhu wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Remember, it's an actual campaign. Are there PC options you don't allow in your campaign? I know there's plenty I don't allow in mine. How are your restrictions any less "arbitrary" than those in PFS?

Everyone who plays in or runs a "home" campaign has some degree of input into those restrictions. Whereas with PFS, the overwhelming number of people who play AND run them, do not.

A statement which is true, yet is in no way an answer to the question posed in the post whose "reply" button you clicked.

[born_of_fire]

Husband DM's our home game so, for 20 years, I have not been able to play with him. PFS gives us the opportunity to both play characters while someone else DM's.

[Marroar Gellantara]

Well I have never played PFS, but I have played home games.
Therefore home games are objectively better.

[thejeff]

deusvult wrote:

LazarX wrote:

deusvult wrote:

Paizo offers an anti-PFS in the form of Adventure Paths. Everything is preplanned, chargen to retirement. An AP is not a homegame starter kit, it's an entire home game. Just add the humans.

Adventure paths are not Anti-PFS. In fact, many adventure paths, modules, and mini-APs such s Dragon's Demand have sanctioned rules and chronicles for PFS play.

Hence the irony I mentioned about them being compatible.

Yet, in paradigm, they are the opposite of PFS. You play an entire continuous story unbroken by random unconnected scenarios and with the same GM and same players without random comings & goings of people into the campaign (beyond what's normal for a home campaign, anyway).

So, yeah, APs are basically the opposite of PFS. They're the same thing as a completely pre-planned home campaign (just without all the copious planning required by the GM). An Anti-PFS, as I called it :)

Yes and no. They're probably as far as you can get with published work. OTOH, they're still published work and as such, without modification, miss a lot of the advantages of home brewed games. Especially when you play them PFS-style.

The more you take an AP off the rails and tailor it to your players, the less it'll be like PFS. It's that "completely pre-planned" part that sinks it, in my mind, since you're not letting the PCs drive where it's going to go.

[Oly]

I personally hate railroading.

Pure sandbox games can require too much GM effort to make many potential stories that won't be played; and if the players aren't adventurous enough, they can go too long without action-- though that is the players' fault.

For me (and this is just my taste; I certainly don't expect everyone to have the same taste), a game should be about 70-80% Sandbox (leaving 20-30% "scripted" or railroaded). The party's actions should definitely be able to affect future plots.

To enjoy PFS, you have to be able to accept 80%+ railroading, and no long-term effects on the fantasy world. I also like House Rules that the GM and players discuss, which in PFS every player at the table can want a House Rule (or to eliminate a PFS House Rule), the GM can agree it's a good idea, and it doesn't matter: It still can't be done.

As others who aren't PFS fans have said, I'd play PFS if I had no other PF options, or maybe to meet people to include/be included by in home games. I understand how people can be in that position. I may find myself there at some point. It's a great concept for people in that position and I'm glad it exists. But it's hard for me to see why people wouldn't prefer a good home game.

[hogarth]

thegreenteagamer wrote:

Between arbitrary decisions of what is and isn't allowed that varies season-by-season (Tieflings, anyone?), the absolute constraint to use premade modules defined per season, and the inability to develop a true rapport with your teammates and GM, it just falls short for me on many levels.

In my 30+ years of D&D experience, I have invariably found the average quality of premade modules to be better than the average quality of "GM making stuff up" modules. (There's wide variation in both, of course.)

[Kthulhu]

Most premade modules are just stuff that a GM made up, that's then published.

[thejeff]

hogarth wrote:

thegreenteagamer wrote:

Between arbitrary decisions of what is and isn't allowed that varies season-by-season (Tieflings, anyone?), the absolute constraint to use premade modules defined per season, and the inability to develop a true rapport with your teammates and GM, it just falls short for me on many levels.

In my 30+ years of D&D experience, I have invariably found the average quality of premade modules to be better than the average quality of "GM making stuff up" modules. (There's wide variation in both, of course.)

"average quality" is strange measure. Would that be better phrases as "You find premade modules to be more to your taste than GM home-brewed modules"?

I find the two approaches almost incomparable. The great thing about home-brewed campaigns is that they can adapt to the characters' actions. That's something a premade module can't do to the same extent and that increases as the campaign goes on. A good GM in a home game can alter the modules to compensate, but the more he does so, the closer he comes to actually home brewing a campaign.
If the GM railroads through his home game anyway, this advantage obviously doesn't exist.

Home brewed games, at least in my experience, also don't really break neatly into modules, so the comparison is even odder.

Personally, I've had much better experiences in home-brewed campaigns than in the few I've played that are module/AP based. I don't know if that's the same thing as "average quality of premade modules to be better than the average quality of "GM making stuff up" modules". But if it's not, it's a more important thing.

[LazarX]

Oly wrote:

But it's hard for me to see why people wouldn't prefer a good home game.

Because believe it or not. Some of us belong to very good PFS circles and wouldn't give up the joy of engaging with those communities of players.

Yes, some PFS groups are absolutely crap, but that goes for home games as well.

Again when you can't understand why someone prefers something you dislike, try to remember that first and foremost, that someone isn't you.

[Kthulhu]

I've not played in a lot of PFS games, but the ones I prefered were those that were played in my regular group that generally ran a home game.

[pickin_grinnin]

I prefer home games (running and playing). I have no interest in ever running a PFS game.

I have played in PFS games a few times at conventions, but probably won't do so again unless I get in a situation where I need to find a new home game and am not having luck finding a GM and/or players any other way.

[Uwotm8]

PFS, conceptually, in and of itself is fine to me. I have an annoyance with how it's grown and the people within it that keep me at bay. It's gained some measure of prominence within Paizo itself. That wouldn't be bad if it weren't for the fact that, yes, it is just a campaign. It's a menagerie of rules meant for a particular implementation of rules and story. That it gets recycled back into the core game is backwards as it then colors how future campaigns are ran. Then, the VO system muddies the waters immensely. It is a blend of Paizo employees and non-Paizo volunteers to help orchestrate games. Again, in and of itself, that's fine. However, there is rampant narcissism and nepotism which I would assert has lead to a kind of corruption. It wouldn't be so bad if it were just people with inflated egos. However, it works the other way as well in that Paizo folks have used these connections to gain perks outside of their purview which makes the VOs feel entitled and it's now to a back and forth that's wholly unacceptable. I would rather PFS, as a whole, be spun off and entirely community ran with no direct Paizo involvement. Paizo should just keep writing modules (not specifically for PFS) and adventures which the wholly volunteer PFS leadership would then vote on and include in future seasons.

[Dennis Deadsky]

Umbral Reaver wrote:

There is no PFS where I live.

Yes there is.

[Avatar-1]

I keep seeing tidbits from people saying that, in PFS, you must play everything as written.

The PFS guide used to have a section in it called "Run As Written", and a later version of the guide removed it and replaced it with "Table Variance".

Since then, I've heard stories from every corner of PFS talk about how things are run differently for convenience, sanity, and to give players a good time. Those 3 things appear to be paramount. The "unspoken" rules, if you like. I actually wish this was clearer in the guide.

That's not to say you can say "I don't like that fireball does 1d6 per caster level damage, I'm changing it!"

But you can say "hrm, does anyone know how this is meant to work? no? okay, let's rule it like this". Or, "hrm, you guys have invalidated this bad guy's tactics, he'll now do something different". Or, "hrm, should spring loaded wrist sheathes be able to hold a potion? I can't tell, but I'll rule this way...".

It's not just character rules either. GMs can adjust descriptions of areas, they can add flavour, they can adjust measurements if it makes sense to do so, or even if it's just a more-fun thing that they know won't disrupt a table.

There is some flexibility in PFS. It is not always run as written. We've got to remember we're playing a game, and it's supposed to be fun, too.

And if you don't like playing public games, you can find some friends just like you would a regular game and play from level 1 to level 12 and beyond with only those people. Nobody is telling you you have to mix it up other than yourselves, if you don't want to.

[wraithstrike]

Avatar-1 wrote:

I keep seeing tidbits from people saying that, in PFS, you must play everything as written.

The PFS guide used to have a section in it called "Run As Written", and a later version of the guide removed it and replaced it with "Table Variance".

Since then, I've heard stories from every corner of PFS talk about how things are run differently for convenience, sanity, and to give players a good time. Those 3 things appear to be paramount. The "unspoken" rules, if you like. I actually wish this was clearer in the guide.

That's not to say you can say "I don't like that fireball does 1d6 per caster level damage, I'm changing it!"

But you can say "hrm, does anyone know how this is meant to work? no? okay, let's rule it like this". Or, "hrm, you guys have invalidated this bad guy's tactics, he'll now do something different". Or, "hrm, should spring loaded wrist sheathes be able to hold a potion? I can't tell, but I'll rule this way...".

It's not just character rules either. GMs can adjust descriptions of areas, they can add flavour, they can adjust measurements if it makes sense to do so, or even if it's just a more-fun thing that they know won't disrupt a table.

There is some flexibility in PFS. It is not always run as written. We've got to remember we're playing a game, and it's supposed to be fun, too.

And if you don't like playing public games, you can find some friends just like you would a regular game and play from level 1 to level 12 and beyond with only those people. Nobody is telling you you have to mix it up other than yourselves, if you don't want to.

The PFS forums seem to disagree at least the last time I asked about it. How long have these new changes been in?

[Artanthos]

I enjoy both PFS and home games. They are vastly different experiences, each with their good points and their bad.

In PFS, I get to play with and meet a wide range of people of all play styles. This is both the highlight and downside of PFS and something I usually enjoy, when I can get to a game.

Home games offer consistency and the ability to build around specific groups and playstyles.

[The Human Diversion]

This thread smells of "stop liking what I don't like"

[Message board troll]

The Human Diversion wrote:

stop liking what I don't like

YEAH!!!!!

[Dead Horse Beater]

The Human Diversion wrote:

This thread smells of "stop liking what I don't like"

Nah, mate. Just people who don't like deceased equines giving it the old heave-ho!

[ElyasRavenwood]

I may as well toss my two cents in.

The pattern for most threads seem to be, with the first 50 posts or so, people discuss things, then beyond that often threads devolve into a " This is what I think, I am right you are wrong".

Well more on topic. PFS VS home games.

I doubt I am going to add anything that hasn't been said up thread.

PFS

Pros:

Meet new people.

Learn new things.

Cons:

Tends to have lots of rules lawyers and min maxers,

The rate at which materiel is "leagalized" is daunting. Its a challenge to try and keep on top of everything.

I know this is an over simplification.

Home Games

Pros:

Game is at home.

Pros:

You are playing with your friends,

As a GM in a home game you have much more control over your game.

Con:

you may not like everyone you play with. often you are stuck with them.

Same people.....same people....same people.

I play both PFS and home games. I like them both. In my home game which i GM i got to terrorize my players with a carrion crawler. I can't do that in a PFS game.

With a PFS game, I just need to sign up for a game on war horn, grab my character and go. Here in the Raleigh/ Durham area PFS games are offered every day of the week except Saturdays. In terms of GMing, I prepare my scenario, and I will often have new players at the table whom I haven't met before.

Well there we are.

[gamer-printer]

I'm purely a homebrewer. I prefer to play in worlds I design, within whatever racial and class limitations I feel appropriate for the setting, sometimes completely inventing new races, classes and archetypes, even new mechanics and subsystems for the PF games I play. I have a regular gaming group, the same 6 people for the last 10 years (half of those I've been playing with for the past 25 years).

So all this states, I wouldn't touch PFS with a 10 foot pole. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but not playing in Golarian by itself, nor using any of the APs are enough reasons to justify not needing PFS.

I often allow as much 3PP as I do Paizo material, and I don't always authorize all of Paizo material, which is another solid reason not to use PFS.

[LazarX]

gamer-printer wrote:

I'm purely a homebrewer. I prefer to play in worlds I design, within whatever racial and class limitations I feel appropriate for the setting, sometimes completely inventing new races, classes and archetypes, even new mechanics and subsystems for the PF games I play. I have a regular gaming group, the same 6 people for the last 10 years (half of those I've been playing with for the past 25 years).

So all this states, I wouldn't touch PFS with a 10 foot pole. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but not playing in Golarian by itself, nor using any of the APs are enough reasons to justify not needing PFS.

I often allow as much 3PP as I do Paizo material, and I don't always authorize all of Paizo material, which is another solid reason not to use PFS.

That's fine, do you have anything other to say than "I like what I like, and people should play what I like or GM how I GM?"

Everyone can argue their own preferences until they are blue in the face, and all that will happen is that this thread will go nowhere. There seems to be this American fixation that all questions MUST be resolved to one extreme or another and answers in the middle are simply not allowed. I refuse to roll that way on this issue, I play both home gaming and PFS, and enjoy both for what they are, and can accept what they can't be of the other.

Not that this thread started anywhere other than being someone's personal rant.

[thegreenteagamer]

LazarX wrote:

Not that this thread started anywhere other than being someone's personal rant.

Guilty as charged.

Somewhere in there I kinda, sorta, in a roundabout way implied that I would like to know why people disagreed with me. Somewhat. A little. Well, I mean, you need to read between the lines.

But yeah, mostly a rant.

Mostly I wanted to use my metaphors. Metaphors I have since been told are inappropriate and will not use in the future on these boards, I promise! (Well, at least the life support one wasn't mentioned to be wrong, so I will hang on to that one.)

[Message board troll]

LazarX wrote:

That's fine, do you have anything other to say than "I like what I like, and people should play what I like or GM how I GM?"

Everyone can argue their own preferences until they are blue in the face, and all that will happen is that this thread will go nowhere. There seems to be this American fixation that all questions MUST be resolved to one extreme or another and answers in the middle are simply not allowed. I refuse to roll that way on this issue, I play both home gaming and PFS, and enjoy both for what they are, and can accept what they can't be of the other.

Not that this thread started anywhere other than being someone's personal rant.

THIS IS MERICA QUIT TRYIN TO FORCE COMMON SENSE ON US!!!!

[gamer-printer]

LazarX wrote:

That's fine, do you have anything other to say than "I like what I like, and people should play what I like or GM how I GM?"

I could care less if anyone plays what I like or GM how I GM - I prefer that people GM however best for their table to have fun, no matter what methodology works best for them. I'm simply stating how I do it, in regards to which I prefer in Homebrew vs. PFS. (Of course my answer is homebrew, but that only applies to me). I don't have a conformist bone in my body, and no desire to proliferate my style versus anyone elses.

What else is there to say? Your response to my post seems to indicate that I have some kind of agenda in my post - I don't. I'm just responding to the OP with my preference. I thought that's what this thread was about.

If I had middle ground comment to offer, I'd offer, but I don't see it as an extreme to prefer homebrew - I see it as quite normal and average way of playing.

LazarX wrote:

Everyone can argue their own preferences until they are blue in the face, and all that will happen is that this thread will go nowhere. There seems to be this American fixation that all questions MUST be resolved to one extreme or another and answers in the middle are simply not allowed. I refuse to roll that way on this issue, I play both home gaming and PFS, and enjoy both for what they are, and can accept what they can't be of the other.

Who's arguing? I'm not. (There's no chance for my face to turn blue short of a medical problem.) Aside from stating which one prefers "homebrew vs. PFS", I cannot see this thread as having any kind of meaningful destination beyond that. There isn't going to be referendum for one style of play versus another. Why would you think this thread could go anywhere at all?

Again, I have nothing against PFS. Heck, if I used Golarian and didn't create 3PP material, so wouldn't think to use 3PP material, I am sure PFS would be a perfectly fine way to run a PF game. Since a major part of being a GM (to me) is creating my own worlds, races, concepts, and mechanics (and has been for me for almost 30 years), being restricted in any way aside from my own choosing means PFS is not for me, but not for any lacking quality regarding PFS. Play the way you want, using whichever subsystem of the game that work best for you - whatever that may be.

I personally don't know anyone who plays PFS, but then because I don't need to, I haven't even looked. I only play on one table.

[Realmwalker]

Umbral Reaver wrote:

There is no PFS where I live.

Same here.

[The Human Diversion]

thegreenteagamer wrote:

Somewhere in there I kinda, sorta, in a roundabout way implied that I would like to know why people disagreed with me. Somewhat. A little. Well, I mean, you need to read between the lines.

I'll bite. I run a long-term home game (Pathfinder, set in Faerun, once a week, using Mythic stuff) and I play a lot of PFS. I like PFS because of the portability. By "portability" I mean the characters I create in PFS here at home are good in any other PFS table. If I want to take Breebrinkle Brodie, my halfling shining knight paladin, and play him in California when I fly out to visit friends, I just have to prove he's a legal PFS character and maybe show my Chronicle Sheets. If I want to go to a big con and play Jorza Wood, my lying, self-serving jerk-of-a-cleric of Calistria I just have to prove he's legal for PFS play and I'm good to go. Can't do that with a home game. I also know what I'm getting with PFS - it's never going to be some strange new DM-created creature that is sure to TPK the whole party. I can expect 3-4 combats per adventure with some RPing and a set number of XP and gold at the end.

While I prefer the flexibility and uniqueness of home games, I like the stability and comfort of PFS.

[Avatar-1]

wraithstrike wrote:

The PFS forums seem to disagree at least the last time I asked about it. How long have these new changes been in?

You're right - it's a very common misconception.

I only know of this because I asked about it in this thread and I've been following the rules for running as written closely when I used to enforce them heavily and then realised many of the guys running PFS advocate "follow the rules, but keep it fun", vs the common mentality of "100% run as written or else you're doing it wrong".

I'd have to look up when the chapters changed that section. I think it was in between seasons 3 and 4.

[wraithstrike]

Avatar-1 wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

The PFS forums seem to disagree at least the last time I asked about it. How long have these new changes been in?

You're right - it's a very common misconception.

I only know of this because I asked about it in this thread and I've been following the rules for running as written closely when I used to enforce them heavily and then realised many of the guys running PFS advocate "follow the rules, but keep it fun", vs the common mentality of "100% run as written or else you're doing it wrong".

I'd have to look up when the chapters changed that section. I think it was in between seasons 3 and 4.

I will check the thread. I don't want to add any houserules to PFS because I think its not fair and not what PFS is for. However, if the bad guy knows that the PC's will invalidate his written tactic such them all being able to see invisible creatures then it would make no sense to cast invisibility. Things like that are the types of things that have stopped me from GM'ing a PFS game. Thanks for the link.