|
And of course, you have to use them all, every round, no matter what, correct?From what I've seen, pretty much. I don't think that druids optimize their pets to NOT use them to dominate combats. Mithril barding, some bestiary feats, and they are good to go.
Some of us are very careful to not have our ACs dominate combat.
My druid (now L14 after having gone through Eyes of the Ten) took VERY good care of her animal companion. She viewed her Lion as her younger sister. Obviously she gave it mithril barding to help protect it, feats to protect her, etc.
But she went entire levels without the AC doing ANYTHING of any substance. The cat guarded the rear, guarded the prisoner, or just accompanied us. Sometimes she was allowed to essentially play with some underpowered chumps. As long as the group had melee characters capable of dealing with the threat of COURSE I wouldn't have my sister hurt herself.
If the situation warranted it she became the furry buzz saw of doom that you're describing. But every time that happened the players were all quite happy. Either nobody had a front liner or the front liners were in trouble and quite glad to get the help.
But treat the cat badly? She cared more for the cat than for her companions. And her companions all knew that.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I hope that is not the case. There should never be a non-hardmode PFS scenario that cannot be handled by a table of nothing but Core Iconics, let alone one that is composed of well built Core characters.I highly doubt that people who cry about over powered characters will have a fun time in any season 4-6 high tier stuff (6-7, 7-8, 8-9, 10-11) because they will highly probably die.There are a very small number of scenarios that perhaps can't be handled by a group of decently built core characters.
Try the silver mount collection with 4 level 4 pregens, if you select the wrong 4 iconics....
|
I feel that the disconnect between people under NDA who have been discussion this issue for quite some time (and as professionals now present a unified front) and everybody else.
A campagin with a very limited rules set seems like a good idea to draw in more people (I personally don't agree, but I understand, that it is a popular idea) but I suspect, that they quickly learned, that such a campaign needs GMs and players. Since a lot of players would not willingly give up all the choices they have grown accustomed to, they added the incentive to replay.
I could be dead wrong, but this feels right.
So those who are happy about this seem to fall in two camps:
- A chance to replay and/or to play more PFS since even if your have not played a normal scenario, this might result in more PFS events.
- A chance to play/GM PFS without class/spell/race/item XYZ and being tired of players roflstomping their scenarios. And are willing to lose a number of welcome options.Obviously there is some overlap, but I suspect, that the "we want to replay " group, is far bigger.
I think if everyone saw the behind the scenes discussions and debates about this they would feel more comfortable. But NDA so moving on.
I feel i can say that replay is not the sole purpose of this. neither is helping new people. Nor is it trying to lure GM's. It is not even primarily directed at perceived power creep. The Core campaign is about ADDING something new to PFS that HELPS address all these issues. We know they are not going to release another version of PF anytime soon. And a hard reboot would be just dumb. More scenarios = more time and money. So without bringing a hammer down the thought is to introduce something else and let it settle in. If it brings people great, if it hasn't ..... those who enjoy extreme optimization of their characters can still play them. I truly do see this as another path for people to have fun with PFS
|
|
What is this "making scenarios hard again?" I never understood this. Go play a core season zero and tell me it has challenging combats with its 1st level warrior mooks with straight 10s for stats and nothing but a short sword and padded armor. And the tier 4-5 version just had 3 more warrior levels. Old scenarios were easy when they first came out. Core is supposed to be about reducing the money and rules barriers for entry of new players as well as letting old players be nostalgic. It was never claimed to be an attempt to balance or make anything more difficult.I've just heard some talk about "getting rid of power creep".
It certainly doesn't eliminate all powerful builds. But it reduces the power level somewhat and eliminates lots (NOT all) of the over powered characters who can really dominate the game. Even wizards and druids lose some significant bennies with Core only.
[Pedantic Mode] Pretty much be definition, it DOES eliminate power creep. If one defines Core as the starting point :-) [/Pedantic Mode]
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Really? No one sees forcing a friend and trusted companion to die for you because you're too lazy to do it yourself as an evil act? There is a mechanic for that...I've never seen this enforced. That makes it a non-rule. Give the druid some temp neg levels or SOMETHING.
There is a difference between using your animal companion as a missile and losing them due to bad luck. Punishing players for losing them sounds like a bad idea, unless you want the same for summoners, conjurers, familiar owners...
The funny part for me is I have 2 characters that just happen to be essentially core only. Well... They were Core only almost through their entire career. The one learned a non-CRB spell and feat at level 9 the other has purchased some minor non-CRB magic items.
But both would have been perfectly viable without those few non-CRB things.
I think it is amusing the number of people that claim X is impossible, hopeless, or unplayable without all the books. MOST for the PFS scenarios just aren't so tough that they require tweaking to the nth degree.
Also, you can have a different AC every day if you want, so there's nothing in RAW that necessitates that you view your Animal Companion as anything OTHER than a useful tool granted by your bond with nature. Perhaps some people are reading too much into the use of the term "companion". Technically, if you break bread with someone once, they are your companion.
|
Also, you can have a different AC every day if you want, so there's nothing in RAW that necessitates that you view your Animal Companion as anything OTHER than a useful tool granted by your bond with nature. Perhaps some people are reading too much into the use of the term "companion". Technically, if you break bread with someone once, they are your companion.
yes, it's true you can part ways with your AC and show up with a new one every session.
But that's presuming a mutual parting of ways. We were discussing earlier "expending an AC like a tool". That's a whole different ball of wax and there were attempts to twist words "well, if it dies in combat, that's suddenly evil?".
A good rule of thumb is if you're not allowed to do it to another PC, a druid shouldn't be doing it to his AC. And if he insists on doing it anyway, then be prepared for consequences.
|
|
Also, you can have a different AC every day if you want, so there's nothing in RAW that necessitates that you view your Animal Companion as anything OTHER than a useful tool granted by your bond with nature. Perhaps some people are reading too much into the use of the term "companion". Technically, if you break bread with someone once, they are your companion.yes, it's true you can part ways with your AC and show up with a new one every session.
But that's presuming a mutual parting of ways. We were discussing earlier "expending an AC like a tool". That's a whole different ball of wax and there were attempts to twist words "well, if it dies in combat, that's suddenly evil?".
A good rule of thumb is if you're not allowed to do it to another PC, a druid shouldn't be doing it to his AC. And if he insists on doing it anyway, then be prepared for consequences.
Other PCs don't respond to the pet trick system, so I don't quite understand this statement. As for treating the AC like a party member, SOMEONE has to be the first one in the room, right? And given that barding stacks with natural armor, the animal will frequently have the best armor class in the group. Hence, fire-and-forget.
"There is a difference between using your animal companion as a missile and losing them due to bad luck."
I'm just saying it's hard to tell that difference given how powerful animal companions are. When the animal is significantly better than a fighter, why be careful with it?
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Even in the Normal campaign, I tended to use mostly Core classes and feats. For me, the biggest impact of playing in the Core campaign will be the lack of access to Ultimate Equipment.
For me, the biggest impact by far would be the Advanced Player's Guide; I think the only one of my 14 characters that doesn't have something from there is the L5 credit baby that hasn't been built yet. My closest-to-core character is probably the L7 Barbarian I built to run through Emerald Spire, and even he has Furious Focus and Raging Vitality (both from the APG), and Hard to Kill (from Champions of Purity).
I'd definitely put Ultimate Equipment second on the list, though.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that the disconnect between people under NDA who have been discussion this issue for quite some time (and as professionals now present a unified front) and everybody else.
A campagin with a very limited rules set seems like a good idea to draw in more people (I personally don't agree, but I understand, that it is a popular idea) but I suspect, that they quickly learned, that such a campaign needs GMs and players. Since a lot of players would not willingly give up all the choices they have grown accustomed to, they added the incentive to replay.
I could be dead wrong, but this feels right.
So those who are happy about this seem to fall in two camps:
- A chance to replay and/or to play more PFS since even if your have not played a normal scenario, this might result in more PFS events.
- A chance to play/GM PFS without class/spell/race/item XYZ and being tired of players roflstomping their scenarios. And are willing to lose a number of welcome options.Obviously there is some overlap, but I suspect, that the "we want to replay " group, is far bigger.
I think if everyone saw the behind the scenes discussions and debates about this they would feel more comfortable. But NDA so moving on.
I feel i can say that replay is not the sole purpose of this. neither is helping new people. Nor is it trying to lure GM's. It is not even primarily directed at perceived power creep. The Core campaign is about ADDING something new to PFS that HELPS address all these issues. We know they are not going to release another version of PF anytime soon. And a hard reboot would be just dumb. More scenarios = more time and money. So without bringing a hammer down the thought is to introduce something else and let it settle in. If it brings people great, if it hasn't ..... those who enjoy extreme optimization of their characters can still play them. I truly do see this as another path for people to have fun with PFS
I appreciate the honesty, and I suspect, that most of us don't expect any sinister plot behind the CORE idea. It just feels like the discussion is already done, and we didn't get a chance to voice our concerns.
Once some time has passed we will see the results, but some players (me included) are just worried that this will at least partly replace the existing tables.|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
What is this "making scenarios hard again?" I never understood this. Go play a core season zero and tell me it has challenging combats with its 1st level warrior mooks with straight 10s for stats and nothing but a short sword and padded armor. And the tier 4-5 version just had 3 more warrior levels. Old scenarios were easy when they first came out. Core is supposed to be about reducing the money and rules barriers for entry of new players as well as letting old players be nostalgic. It was never claimed to be an attempt to balance or make anything more difficult.I've just heard some talk about "getting rid of power creep".It certainly doesn't eliminate all powerful builds. But it reduces the power level somewhat and eliminates lots (NOT all) of the over powered characters who can really dominate the game. Even wizards and druids lose some significant bennies with Core only.
[Pedantic Mode] Pretty much be definition, it DOES eliminate power creep. If one defines Core as the starting point :-) [/Pedantic Mode]
"Boy that CRB is filled with power creep, I think I will just keep using the beta rules"
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Today, I contacted one of our stores where we have a pretty solid presence. I said, "hey, on day such and such, we already have two tables during the afternoon, and 2 at night. Could I get one more table in the afternoon to run a Core game?"
The answer: "Sure thing! No problem!"
It didn't cost me a single table of regular PFS.
Now, this store is very flexible, it's in central Indianapolis, it's easy to get to, and always has good turnout. Adding another table wasn't a problem. I recognize that some areas, particularly with smaller stores and/or smaller player/GM bases can't do that.
But, here, I didn't have to displace an existing regular PFS table for it.
Now, I have stores where that is not really an option - I'll likely need to restructure the schedule to include a core game. Or, I could just say, CORE will only be at this one store, and it's regular PFS at other stores. I don't know. I'm going to be flexible with the schedule until we find that balance that works.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The funny part for me is I have 2 characters that just happen to be essentially core only. Well... They were Core only almost through their entire career. The one learned a non-CRB spell and feat at level 9 the other has purchased some minor non-CRB magic items.
But both would have been perfectly viable without those few non-CRB things.
I think it is amusing the number of people that claim X is impossible, hopeless, or unplayable without all the books. MOST for the PFS scenarios just aren't so tough that they require tweaking to the nth degree.
For me, it is not the case of having to optimize or over build due to scenarios being hard, it is that some people I have played with either have had horrible builds that are never beneficial or the player himself is of no benefit. It is more of a I want to be able to survive half the party being bad. Because some of the people I play with do similar builds to not just survive but thrive, we end up with overpowering parties.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Today, I contacted one of our stores where we have a pretty solid presence. I said, "hey, on day such and such, we already have two tables during the afternoon, and 2 at night. Could I get one more table in the afternoon to run a Core game?"
The answer: "Sure thing! No problem!"
It didn't cost me a single table of regular PFS.
Now, this store is very flexible, it's in central Indianapolis, it's easy to get to, and always has good turnout. Adding another table wasn't a problem. I recognize that some areas, particularly with smaller stores and/or smaller player/GM bases can't do that.
But, here, I didn't have to displace an existing regular PFS table for it.
Now, I have stores where that is not really an option - I'll likely need to restructure the schedule to include a core game. Or, I could just say, CORE will only be at this one store, and it's regular PFS at other stores. I don't know. I'm going to be flexible with the schedule until we find that balance that works.
Yeah tables space is certainly an issue, but doesn't it also require a GM willing to run core and 3+ players? If those people simply turn up for CORE and would not have participated otherwise awesome, but if losing some potential players to core results in a table with only 2 players... well you get my paranoia.
|
|
Yeah tables space is certainly an issue, but doesn't it also require a GM willing to run core and 3+ players? If those people simply turn up for CORE and would not have participated otherwise awesome, but if losing some potential players to core results in a table with only 2 players... well you get my paranoia.
Considering I am the GM likely to run that table, it's not a problem. We will clearly advertise the table in advance.
Me, I'd prefer to GM Core tables over standard tables anyway. I have some GMs who will only want to GM standard tables. So, I doubt this will be much of a problem.
|
Contributor
|
Try the silver mount collection with 4 level 4 pregens, if you select the wrong 4 iconics....
For what it's worth...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth... ** spoiler omitted **
Try the silver mount collection with 4 level 4 pregens, if you select the wrong 4 iconics....
Our team didn't have any way to defeat it, so we induced it to leave the kid and we ran away, dragging him with us.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
For what it's worth... ** spoiler omitted **
Try the silver mount collection with 4 level 4 pregens, if you select the wrong 4 iconics....
I think that adventure stands or falls by the parties ability to deal with the hardness 10 enemies. It seems like the Harsk dedided to be smart and use his axe ^^, I have no idea how you managed to teapot the creature (an intelligent robot swarm, kinda like the grey goo concept, it really does not help, that the creature only speaks a language that is not PFS legal).
In any case, well done. ^^
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
It remains to be seen how many of our local GMs will sign up to GM Core tables. It's a chance for them to earn a chronicle (we have a fair number of GMs who won't GM a table they've already run, as they can't get a chronicle for it), but that chronicle is only useful to them if they have a Core character. Many of those same GMs seem to be wedded to extremely complicated character builds, and will eagerly scour each monthly release from Paizo to see if there's anything new they can use.
But we also have some current GMs (and, I believe, a few potential candidates in the playerbase) for whom the simplified requirements of the Core campaign (both in dollar cost of the books and the amount of rules-fu expected) will be very welcome; I can see them spending more time at Core tables than at Normal tables.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Try the silver mount collection with 4 level 4 pregens, if you select the wrong 4 iconics....I hope that is not the case. There should never be a non-hardmode PFS scenario that cannot be handled by a table of nothing but Core Iconics, let alone one that is composed of well built Core characters.I highly doubt that people who cry about over powered characters will have a fun time in any season 4-6 high tier stuff (6-7, 7-8, 8-9, 10-11) because they will highly probably die.There are a very small number of scenarios that perhaps can't be handled by a group of decently built core characters.
This is somewhat moot. You can find yourself in trouble in a lot of adventures if you have a bad party balance even if you aren't playing iconics.
You should theoretically be able to do any scenario with the Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard iconics. This is the cornerstone balanced party configuration that D&D has revolved around since AD&D came out.
|
|
Try the silver mount collection with 4 level 4 pregens, if you select the wrong 4 iconics....I hope that is not the case. There should never be a non-hardmode PFS scenario that cannot be handled by a table of nothing but Core Iconics, let alone one that is composed of well built Core characters.I highly doubt that people who cry about over powered characters will have a fun time in any season 4-6 high tier stuff (6-7, 7-8, 8-9, 10-11) because they will highly probably die.There are a very small number of scenarios that perhaps can't be handled by a group of decently built core characters.
This is somewhat moot. You can find yourself in trouble in a lot of adventures if you have a bad party balance even if you aren't playing iconics.
You should theoretically be able to do any scenario with the Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard iconics. This is the cornerstone balanced party configuration that D&D has revolved around since AD&D came out.
I'm pretty sure that the level 4 Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard would TPK in the Silver Mount collection. That scenario is murder, even if you bring weapons that work against
|
|
Try the silver mount collection with 4 level 4 pregens, if you select the wrong 4 iconics....I hope that is not the case. There should never be a non-hardmode PFS scenario that cannot be handled by a table of nothing but Core Iconics, let alone one that is composed of well built Core characters.I highly doubt that people who cry about over powered characters will have a fun time in any season 4-6 high tier stuff (6-7, 7-8, 8-9, 10-11) because they will highly probably die.There are a very small number of scenarios that perhaps can't be handled by a group of decently built core characters.
This is somewhat moot. You can find yourself in trouble in a lot of adventures if you have a bad party balance even if you aren't playing iconics.
You should theoretically be able to do any scenario with the Fighter, Cleric, Rogue & Wizard iconics. This is the cornerstone balanced party configuration that D&D has revolved around since AD&D came out.
But you can't, because those iconics are built fairly poorly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It remains to be seen how many of our local GMs will sign up to GM Core tables.
John,
I'm one of your GMs. I would be interested in running Core games. However, my attraction to running Core games is that they would target new players. I have zero interest in running Core games so that all the expert players we know can get a replay. I'll let somebody else tackle that aspect.
I honestly considered creating a poster stand with a poster-sized display for our FLGS that said, "Interested in role playing games but intimidated by the pile of rule books needed to play? Come try 'Core Pathfinder' with a single rule book and simple pre-generated characters. Learn the ropes!" However, I realized that doing that might be an unspoken commitment by me to then provide those new players with a long-term, ongoing Core campaign, and I'm not prepared to do that. I just want to run something cool for newbs and then be done with it.
So no posters.
But I'll watch to see what management comes up with, and jump in if I can.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
It remains to be seen how many of our local GMs will sign up to GM Core tables.John,
I'm one of your GMs. I would be interested in running Core games. However, my attraction to running Core games is that they would target new players. I have zero interest in running Core games so that all the expert players we know can get a replay. I'll let somebody else tackle that aspect.
I honestly considered creating a poster stand with a poster-sized display for our FLGS that said, "Interested in role playing games but intimidated by the pile of rule books needed to play? Come try 'Core Pathfinder' with a single rule book and simple pre-generated characters. Learn the ropes!" However, I realized that doing that might be an unspoken commitment by me to then provide those new players with a long-term, ongoing Core campaign, and I'm not prepared to do that. I just want to run something cool for newbs and then be done with it.
So no posters.
But I'll watch to see what management comes up with, and jump in if I can.
I have had good results with 1 experienced player per newbie, it is pretty much like a big brother system. Of course you need the right kind of player for that job, ideally someone who is willing to play "support" to let the new guys shine.
From my very limited experience, I would personally choose Night Marsh of Kalkamedes or the Dissapeared for this kind of project.
|
Choice of words is important. My issue was with the negative nancy comment. I'm not thrilled with this option, but I'm willing to wait and see how this works. But some of the comment here and in the other thread are indicating that some VOs feel that he standard pfs is roll-playing, and if we aren't interested in core mode then we are wrong, while hand waving the fear that people who only want to play one mode or the other will not be able to find games.
I suppose these assumptions are part of the problem with text only as a form of communication.
I can assure you that nobody has actually said, indicated, or even implicitly stated this.
If you don't like Core mode, fine. If you have issues or concerns, fine.
But lets please not start putting words into people's mouths who are only trying to be helpful and reassuring.
|
|
I'm willing to give it time to see how it will pan out. I think most of the other posters who share my concerns are willing to do the same. However I still think it's worthwhile to voice these concerns.
PFS is already competing against 5e for players and game slots. It competing against itself with core mode is a valid concern for scheduling, especially when local tables are routinely cancelled for normal pfs due to not having gms sign up or show up.
Absolutely. Feedback on the problems, issues, and concerns are very important so that we can make PFS, and now Core PFS as successful as possible.
But its a bit early to be touting problems that only might happen. Trust that the leadership of the campaign and the venture corps has well aware of the potential issues. And we are keeping a sharp eye out and will be reporting back to Mike and John the actual experiences from the field. And Mike and John will be quick to make any adjustments as necessary based on those reports.
Furthermore, reports from fellows like yourself will also be extremely important for areas that don't have direct Venture-Officer influence (and even for those that do.)
But lets let the core mode happen for a couple weeks and see what problems actually arise before we start panicking?
I can assure you, and I think I can speak for all venture-officers, that we don't want to let PFS become cliquish based on this new mode of playing the game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find myself oddly unconcerned about not being able to get a normal mode game. Either I'll run them myself, or failing that, stop playing this game and in the process quit giving Paizo money. Paizo needs to be careful with this.
A month ago, I thought nothing could ever make me try 5th ed DnD. But I'd play that over Core Campaign in a heartbeat.
|
|
Really? No one sees forcing a friend and trusted companion to die for you because you're too lazy to do it yourself as an evil act? There is a mechanic for that...I've never seen this enforced. That makes it a non-rule. Give the druid some temp neg levels or SOMETHING.
actually, it can make them an ex-Druid.
|
|
actually, it can make them an ex-Druid.Really? No one sees forcing a friend and trusted companion to die for you because you're too lazy to do it yourself as an evil act? There is a mechanic for that...I've never seen this enforced. That makes it a non-rule. Give the druid some temp neg levels or SOMETHING.
I see a lot of talky talky about this and never any doey doey. It's fine. I'll continue to hate druids and animal companions will continue to show up my PCs and everything will proceed as normal. Druid population alone makes me not want to touch Core Campaign with a 10-foot-pole.
|
|
I see a lot of talky talky about this and never any doey doey. It's fine. I'll continue to hate druids and animal companions will continue to show up my PCs and everything will proceed as normal. Druid population alone makes me not want to touch Core Campaign with a 10-foot-pole.actually, it can make them an ex-Druid.Really? No one sees forcing a friend and trusted companion to die for you because you're too lazy to do it yourself as an evil act? There is a mechanic for that...I've never seen this enforced. That makes it a non-rule. Give the druid some temp neg levels or SOMETHING.
Its unfortunate that your local community seems to have a prevailing attitude that you suggest, where I haven't experienced this attitude in several regions where I've played, GM'd, or at Paizocon, Gen Con, Gamicon, Gamehole Con, or JimCon.
Doesn't mean your experience doesn't exist or isn't real. I haven't gamed in your region in a long, long time.
But I think your experience is the exception, rather than the rule.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find myself oddly unconcerned about not being able to get a normal mode game. Either I'll run them myself, or failing that, stop playing this game and in the process quit giving Paizo money. Paizo needs to be careful with this.
A month ago, I thought nothing could ever make me try 5th ed DnD. But I'd play that over Core Campaign in a heartbeat.
If Core doesn't interest you, then don't play it. That's your choice.
I was reminded about the numbers I worked on here that found that one item, gloves of dueling, increased the DPR of the fighter by about 25%.
So that's going to change things a bit.
|
|
I see a lot of talky talky about this and never any doey doey. It's fine. I'll continue to hate druids and animal companions will continue to show up my PCs and everything will proceed as normal. Druid population alone makes me not want to touch Core Campaign with a 10-foot-pole.actually, it can make them an ex-Druid.Really? No one sees forcing a friend and trusted companion to die for you because you're too lazy to do it yourself as an evil act? There is a mechanic for that...I've never seen this enforced. That makes it a non-rule. Give the druid some temp neg levels or SOMETHING.Its unfortunate that your local community seems to have a prevailing attitude that you suggest, where I haven't experienced this attitude in several regions where I've played, GM'd, or at Paizocon, Gen Con, Gamicon, Gamehole Con, or JimCon.
Doesn't mean your experience doesn't exist or isn't real. I haven't gamed in your region in a long, long time.
But I think your experience is the exception, rather than the rule.
It's been a while since I've seen a druid. I like it that way. I'm sure that would change in Core.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and if you have no interest in playing Core Mode... why are you posting so much in the Core Mode threads?
Partly expressing my concerns, partly letting people who think that it's a fix to "power creep" and "power builds" know that that's likely not the case.
I thought that Paizo might found have found this part interesting:
" Either I'll run them myself, or failing that, stop playing this game and in the process quit giving Paizo money. Paizo needs to be careful with this.
A month ago, I thought nothing could ever make me try 5th ed DnD. But I'd play that over Core Campaign in a heartbeat."
But clearly, I was wrong.
|
|
Oh, and if you have no interest in playing Core Mode... why are you posting so much in the Core Mode threads?If you can't see why Core only effects players who will have nothing to do with it I'm not sure what to tell you except that it will have vast potentially organized play ending impact.
1) If you aren't going to play Core Mode, and you aren't going to be part of the solution to the theoretical problems, then commenting on all the problems you foresee really is not helpful.
2) Hyperbole (see bolded above) is especially not helpful.
If you want to make comments on your concerns, fine. Do so, and campaign leadership and your venture-Corps will hear them, cogitate on them, and try to find solutions or reassurances.
But making comments with no potential solutions, and commenting about not being interested in even trying the new option (therefore no promise of you ever creating potential solutions), and communicating in ridiculous, chicken little, hyperbole, is completely not helpful.
I'm asking those who aren't willing to be part of the solution to please remove themselves from the conversation. If you want to be helpful, then coming up with potential solutions to perceived problems is better than just voicing concerns.
|
|
Oh, and if you have no interest in playing Core Mode... why are you posting so much in the Core Mode threads?Partly expressing my concerns, partly letting people who think that it's a fix to "power creep" and "power builds" know that that's likely not the case.
I thought that Paizo might found have found this part interesting:
" Either I'll run them myself, or failing that, stop playing this game and in the process quit giving Paizo money. Paizo needs to be careful with this.
A month ago, I thought nothing could ever make me try 5th ed DnD. But I'd play that over Core Campaign in a heartbeat."
But clearly, I was wrong.
I've found that threats of "I'm gonna quit and take my ball home with me if things don't go my way" type of comments don't go real far.
I hear your concerns. I understand the concern that this would potentially split the player base, and that adding options for a Mode of play you aren't interested in could potentially take away options for a mode of play you are interested in.
I completely understand how people are particularly concerned with small player communities and/or small game days. If only one or two tables are happening just once or twice a month, then you are probably going to run either Core or Normal, and not an equal offering of both from what you were offering of just Normal before Core became an option.
As a Venture-officer and organizer, this is certainly a concern that I need to deal with logistically when organizing game days. I need to take the temperature of my player base and find out what they want as a whole and do my best to accommodate as many interests as I can.
But starting out with, "I just might take my ball and go home if you don't do it the way I want you to do it," isn't going to make me want to accommodate you at all.
|
|
I thought that Paizo might found have found this part interesting:
" Either I'll run them myself, or failing that, stop playing this game and in the process quit giving Paizo money. Paizo needs to be careful with this.
A month ago, I thought nothing could ever make me try 5th ed DnD. But I'd play that over Core Campaign in a heartbeat."
But clearly, I was wrong.
You have formed that conclusion (that Paizo doesn't care to hear from you) in the 28 minutes since you posted that, despite no comment from a single Paizo employee to that effect?