Proposal: Please fix the "XP / PP / GM star credit" disparity between scenarios and Thornkeep / Emerald Spire


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages 5/5 5/5

Actually..the 1 prestige for Master of the Fallen Fortress is an improvement I think. If I remember correctly in the beginning it didn't even give 1 since no faction missions = no prestige back then.

Now at least you get one for showing up.

Grand Lodge 3/5

I might be a little off, but I think the issue regarding PFS and particularly modules in general is the 'all or nothing' approach that the current exp system entails. Let me explain by way of example...

Some of the comments have included issues with the Emerald Spire Super-dungeon which I am currently running as a GM. The only issue I have with it, regarding exp, is that the current system is not scalable. They either get 3 exp (1.5 for slow tract) and 4 pp (or 2) and move on. In my opinion, while it might take a bit more work, exp should be scalable to fit the actual accomplishments of the party (for a module).

This is typically not an issue with scenarios, which are limited to 1 exp, but in a module with large amounts of content perhaps having a scalable exp system would be better- not unlike the old faction rewards system. For example- completing objectives 1-4 earns players 2 exp and 3 PP and completing objectives 5-6 earns a player 1 additional exp and PP. Which was included in only 1 level of the Spire.

I have run the Spire with 2 different groups for PFS- one which treated levels 1-3 as a classic dungeon crawl and really 'played' the module. The second group treated it like a sprint to see who could smash the most stuff- and while they paid the price on a couple of times (KIA), they left some areas unexplored. If it would have been allowed- I would have rewarded different amounts of exp and PP to each group.

@Jeff Merola- I too like the way Risen from the Sands allows for varying exp. Maybe this could be the new standard.

Quick Correction- the 'Godhome' level of the Spire does an excellent job with scalable exp. I wish more levels would have followed this model- which I meant to mention in my original post.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

FWIW, at least one level of Emerald Spire does have scalable XP, GP & PP.

Silver Crusade 3/5

Socalwarhammer wrote:
the 'Godhome' level of the Spire does an excellent job with scalable exp. I wish more levels would have followed this model- which I meant to mention in my original post.
trollbill wrote:
FWIW, at least one level of Emerald Spire does have scalable XP, GP & PP.

I think that is another topic entirely. Those rewards are more "bug" than "feature", IMO. They throw a complete monkey wrench into the campaign.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic

Revvy Bitterleaf wrote:

Actually..the 1 prestige for Master of the Fallen Fortress is an improvement I think. If I remember correctly in the beginning it didn't even give 1 since no faction missions = no prestige back then.

Now at least you get one for showing up.

Indeed MOTFF used to be 0 prestige.

Nowadays you could even get one of your Faction Card checkboxes checked!

5/5 *****

Jeff Merola wrote:
There's a reason the most recent one (Risen from the Sands) can reward up to 2pp.

Is that to offset the fact that it is insanely dangerous? It makes for a pretty terrible introduction.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

The Fox wrote:
Socalwarhammer wrote:
the 'Godhome' level of the Spire does an excellent job with scalable exp. I wish more levels would have followed this model- which I meant to mention in my original post.
trollbill wrote:
FWIW, at least one level of Emerald Spire does have scalable XP, GP & PP.
I think that is another topic entirely. Those rewards are more "bug" than "feature", IMO. They throw a complete monkey wrench into the campaign.

Since, if you don't go half xp for at least 2 levels of Emerald Spire, you will level out of the adventure, I think 'Godhome' is a viable alternative to this.

Also, Socalwarhammer's edit regarding Godhome wasn't there when I initially replied.

Silver Crusade 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
trollbill wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Socalwarhammer wrote:
the 'Godhome' level of the Spire does an excellent job with scalable exp. I wish more levels would have followed this model- which I meant to mention in my original post.
trollbill wrote:
FWIW, at least one level of Emerald Spire does have scalable XP, GP & PP.
I think that is another topic entirely. Those rewards are more "bug" than "feature", IMO. They throw a complete monkey wrench into the campaign.
Since, if you don't go half xp for at least 1 level of Emerald Spire, you will level out of the adventure, I think 'Godhome' is a viable alternative to this.

The problem arises if you are all on track, and you get to that level and earn exactly 1 XP or 2 XP. You can't go slow track part way through a character level. So now I have 13 or 14 XP. (Or I could start going slow track and have 12.5 or 13 XP.) I need to play one or two scenarios outside of Emerald Spire just to get my XP back to divisible by 3. And then I still have to go slow track to get my character level lined up with the higher dungeon levels.

I think it causes way more problems than it solves. (In fact, I'm having trouble thinking of any problems that it solves.)

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

The Fox wrote:
trollbill wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Socalwarhammer wrote:
the 'Godhome' level of the Spire does an excellent job with scalable exp. I wish more levels would have followed this model- which I meant to mention in my original post.
trollbill wrote:
FWIW, at least one level of Emerald Spire does have scalable XP, GP & PP.
I think that is another topic entirely. Those rewards are more "bug" than "feature", IMO. They throw a complete monkey wrench into the campaign.
Since, if you don't go half xp for at least 1 level of Emerald Spire, you will level out of the adventure, I think 'Godhome' is a viable alternative to this.

The problem arises if you are all on track, and you get to that level and earn exactly 1 XP or 2 XP. You can't go slow track part way through a character level. So now I have 13 or 14 XP. (Or I could start going slow track and have 12.5 or 13 XP.) I need to play one or two scenarios outside of Emerald Spire just to get my XP back to divisible by 3. And then I still have to go slow track to get my character level lined up with the higher dungeon levels.

I think it causes way more problems than it solves. (In fact, I'm having trouble thinking of any problems that it solves.)

I don't understand. If you don't get full XP from Godhome then there is no need to go half on any of the other levels. You will not level out of the module and you may even have more gold than if you went half XP through 2 levels.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Not true trollbill. If you get stuck doing every level after Godhome at full XP, you will level out of some segments and be unable to complete the entire dungeon on the same character.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Not true trollbill. If you get stuck doing every level after Godhome at full XP, you will level out of some segments and be unable to complete the entire dungeon on the same character.

My bad. You are correct. You still have to go half at least 2 levels of the adventure.

Wait, that's not right either. There are 16 levels to the dungeon and the dungeon caps out at 13th level, so you can't be higher than 13th when you play the 16th level. So you would have to go half xp for at least 6 levels normally unless you got less in Godhome and then you only have to go half xp for 4 levels.

Did I calculate that right?

Edited to take Fox's data into account.

Silver Crusade 3/5

Here are the level ranges directly from the Chronicles. (I've changed the dungeon levels to dungeon "floors" to avoid confusion.)

Quote:


Floor 1: The Tower Ruins 1–2
Floor 2: The Cellars 1–3
Floor 3: Splinterden 2–4
Floor 4: Godhome 3–5*
Floor 5: The Drowned Level 3–5*
Floor 6: The Clockwork Maze 4–6
Floor 7: Shrine of the Awakener 5–7
Floor 8: The Circle of Vissk-Thar 6–8
Floor 9: The Spire Axis 7–9
Floor 10: The Magma Vault 8–10*
Floor 11: The Tomb of Yarrix 8–10*
Floor 12: The Automaton Forge 9–11*
Floor 13: The Pleasure Gardens 9–11*
Floor 14: The Throne of Azlant 10–12*
Floor 15: Order and Chaos 10–12*
Floor 16: The Emerald Root 11–13

Let's go through and award XP by dungeon floor. I'll keep a running total of the XP, and what level the characters are when they start that dungeon floor.

Floor 1: (1–2) Level 1, 3 XP.
Floor 2: (1–3) Level 2, 6 XP.
Floor 3: (2–4) Level 3, 9 XP.
Floor 4: (3–5) Level 4, 10 XP. <-- We only earned 1 XP in Godhome, now we will see what the consequences of that are.
Floor 5: (3–5) Level 4, 13 XP.
Floor 6: (4–6) Level 5, 16 XP.
Floor 7: (5–7) Level 6, 19 XP.
Floor 8: (6–8) Level 7, 22 XP.
Floor 9: (7–9) Level 8, 25 XP.
Floor 10: (8–10) Level 9, 28 XP.
Floor 11: (8–10) Level 10, 31 XP.
Floor 12: (9–11) Level 11, 34 XP.
Floor 13: (9–11) Level 12, ... XP. <-- We have leveled out here. I guess we can skip this floor.
Floor 14: (10–12) Level 12, 37 XP.
Floor 15: (10–12) Level 13, ... XP. <-- We have leveled out here too. I guess we can skip this floor also.
Floor 16: (11–13) Level 13, 40 XP.

What am I missing?

Silver Crusade 3/5

trollbill wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Not true trollbill. If you get stuck doing every level after Godhome at full XP, you will level out of some segments and be unable to complete the entire dungeon on the same character.

My bad. You are correct. You still have to go half at least 2 levels of the adventure.

Wait, that's not right either. There are 15 levels to the dungeon and the dungeon caps out at 12th level, so you can't be higher than 12th when you play the 15th level. So you would have to go half xp for at least 6 levels normally unless you got less in Godhome and then you only have to go half xp for 4 levels.

Did I calculate that right?

If you get less than a full reward in Godhome, then you are unable to go slow unless you first do scenarios. Why? because if your XP total is not divisible by 3, you are not allowed to choose to go slow.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Fox wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Not true trollbill. If you get stuck doing every level after Godhome at full XP, you will level out of some segments and be unable to complete the entire dungeon on the same character.

My bad. You are correct. You still have to go half at least 2 levels of the adventure.

Wait, that's not right either. There are 15 levels to the dungeon and the dungeon caps out at 12th level, so you can't be higher than 12th when you play the 15th level. So you would have to go half xp for at least 6 levels normally unless you got less in Godhome and then you only have to go half xp for 4 levels.

Did I calculate that right?

If you get less than a full reward in Godhome, then you are unable to go slow unless you first do scenarios. Why? because if your XP total is not divisible by 3, you are not allowed to choose to go slow.

Ah, okay, that is a problem.

5/5

I disagree with this suggestion. I am currently running ES for a group attempting to play the entire thing on the same characters. The first levels went fast, but they are going slower and slower the deeper the delve. We complete a level about every other week now, and I expect it to get slower still.
I look at the 2 tables of credit toward a star that I get from We Be Goblins, for example, as making up for the 2 tables of credit I got from running book one of Carrion Crown over a month and a half, or the 6 tables of credit I got from running Dragon's Demand in campaign mode over two and a half months. It balances out. So someone gets their stars a little faster than someone else... Who is actually spending their time worrying about this?
My VL spent the better part of 20 hours preparing Ruby Phoenix Tournament, and another 12 hours running it. He earned 2 tables of credit. However, I've run confirmation so many times that I can run it with about ten minutes prep and run it in about 4, 4.5 hours. So I earn one table of credit. He doesn't complain about the disparity of the amount of time we each spend earning one table of credit.
And as far as player reward, Emerald Spire and Thornkeep can both be incredibly dangerous. Additionally, there's a metric ton of combats involved, with commiserate drain of resources. Add to that the impossibility of gaining full prestige, and you're significantly behind on fame. If you die, it'll be impossible to catch up on prestige. Certain items you get access to later because of the lack of fame. All these serve as balancing factors.

Grand Lodge 3/5

I guess I missed the point here... so no matter what the players do (or more specifically don't do) during the course of a module, then they should get full exp because it might throw off their levels? It is easy to see how that can really change the idea of role-playing. Just show up and get your 3 exp- you may only do 1/4 of the module, but hey we don't want to screw up your progression, so here is your 3 exp.

When designing a scenario, there is a reasonable correlation between difficulty, and time (to be played) which equals 1 exp under the PFS system. (Note)- I am aware that it is not a perfect system by any means, but works fairly well in my experience). A module gives 3 times the experience, so if a party is only completing portions (say less than half), they should still get full exp? I would say no. I would reiterate that if the Godhome level (reward structure) was the rule and not the exception, the Spire would still work well- and perhaps better. If players knew that 'completing' certain objectives would ensure full exp- they might play (adventure) accordingly.

And by the way Fox, if each level had independent exp rewards, 2 or 3 as I suggested, the issue you described would be largely averted.

Grand Lodge 4/5

@Socalwarhammer:

If they don't complete the level, you scale it like someone who misses one or more sessions of a multi-session game.

Complete less than 3 encounters: 0 XP, 1 PP
More than 2 encounters, up to 1/3 of the level: 1 XP, 2 PP
More than 1/3, less than 2/3rds of the level: 2 XP, 3 PP
More than 2/3rds to the full level: 3 XP, 4 PP

Godhome just adds some extra information for completion, specific to that level.

And Splinterden could, potentially, be nominally completed for a total of 0 XP, 1 PP, with the right die rolls.

Grand Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just don't understand why there is a push to negatively effect your GM pool. This will do nothing to encourage people to GM more. If their stars are why they are GMing, then you are just making people less likely to GM.

Grand Lodge 3/5

kinevon wrote:

@Socalwarhammer:

If they don't complete the level, you scale it like someone who misses one or more sessions of a multi-session game.

Complete less than 3 encounters: 0 XP, 1 PP
More than 2 encounters, up to 1/3 of the level: 1 XP, 2 PP
More than 1/3, less than 2/3rds of the level: 2 XP, 3 PP
More than 2/3rds to the full level: 3 XP, 4 PP

Godhome just adds some extra information for completion, specific to that level.

And Splinterden could, potentially, be nominally completed for a total of 0 XP, 1 PP, with the right die rolls.

Kinevon- I would agree with you, my point is it would be much easier if the 'scale' was included in the GM resources for the module. Rather than having to push back against what many players have come to (too often) expect... 3 exp for a module.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Socalwarhammer wrote:
kinevon wrote:

@Socalwarhammer:

If they don't complete the level, you scale it like someone who misses one or more sessions of a multi-session game.

Complete less than 3 encounters: 0 XP, 1 PP
More than 2 encounters, up to 1/3 of the level: 1 XP, 2 PP
More than 1/3, less than 2/3rds of the level: 2 XP, 3 PP
More than 2/3rds to the full level: 3 XP, 4 PP

Godhome just adds some extra information for completion, specific to that level.

And Splinterden could, potentially, be nominally completed for a total of 0 XP, 1 PP, with the right die rolls.

Kinevon- I would agree with you, my point is it would be much easier if the 'scale' was included in the GM resources for the module. Rather than having to push back against what many players have come to (too often) expect... 3 exp for a module.

Maybe my players are different than yours. I had no issue when we had to end an Accursed Halls game, after 6 hours, but without completing the level, with my players accepting that their PCs only got 2 XP for it...

Silver Crusade 3/5

Socalwarhammer wrote:
And by the way Fox, if each level had independent exp rewards, 2 or 3 as I suggested, the issue you described would be largely averted.

On the contrary, you would be more or less required to skip parts of some levels just to stay in tier. As a player, I would prefer to explore the whole level. As a GM, I would prefer that my players explore the whole level.

Also, as a GM, I would prefer to give my players full XP rewards for solving their problems in ways other than kill everything on site.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

trollbill wrote:
The Fox wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Not true trollbill. If you get stuck doing every level after Godhome at full XP, you will level out of some segments and be unable to complete the entire dungeon on the same character.

My bad. You are correct. You still have to go half at least 2 levels of the adventure.

Wait, that's not right either. There are 15 levels to the dungeon and the dungeon caps out at 12th level, so you can't be higher than 12th when you play the 15th level. So you would have to go half xp for at least 6 levels normally unless you got less in Godhome and then you only have to go half xp for 4 levels.

Did I calculate that right?

If you get less than a full reward in Godhome, then you are unable to go slow unless you first do scenarios. Why? because if your XP total is not divisible by 3, you are not allowed to choose to go slow.
Ah, okay, that is a problem.

I proposed a change to the slow/fast track rule

here.

Being aware of the issue, when I played and GMed this level, well let's just say that it took us about 7 rounds of miserable combat to clear lat level.

And even considering that, I could not play level 5 yesterday with the character I actually wanted, since I used her to play a scenario (overflow archive with 3 Paladins and a Calvaier - I regret nothing^^) and switchingto slow track would have been pretty impossible after that.

4/5 *

Michael Thompson wrote:
I just don't understand why there is a push to negatively effect your GM pool.

Actually, the main impetus behind this suggestion is to strengthen the GM pool. Right now, there are a few people only GMing the double-credit scenarios. They are becoming higher-star GMs with half the time put in as other people, which devalues the GM reward system (and just feels wrong). There are also players preferentially playing the 3XP, single-session modules to level faster, who are "learning" that PFS is all about combat and getting points (levels) with nothing else being relevant. This style of player has caused problems in my experience, as other GMs stop wanting to run more PFS-relevant scenarios because the players just kick in the door and fight everything.

I get that there are several ways to play PFS, even if I obviously have a preference for a particular style. However, right now there is an in-game incentive to play PFS by rolling initiative at the start of the night and just fighting until you're done. To me, that isn't all that PFS is about.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Michael Thompson wrote:
I just don't understand why there is a push to negatively effect your GM pool.

Actually, the main impetus behind this suggestion is to strengthen the GM pool. Right now, there are a few people only GMing the double-credit scenarios. They are becoming higher-star GMs with half the time put in as other people, which devalues the GM reward system (and just feels wrong). There are also players preferentially playing the 3XP, single-session modules to level faster, who are "learning" that PFS is all about combat and getting points (levels) with nothing else being relevant. This style of player has caused problems in my experience, as other GMs stop wanting to run more PFS-relevant scenarios because the players just kick in the door and fight everything.

I have personally seen no evidence to suggest that any of these problems are actually real problems rather than hypothetical ones in PFS. And you have still not supplied any evidence to suggest that any of these problems are actually real problems. Hypothetical problems are fine and dandy when one is initially setting policy, but once policy has been set, it costs time and money to change it. That means problems need to be real, not hypothetical, in order to warrant change. So please either supply this evidence or quit pretending this is actually a real problem.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Michael Thompson wrote:
I just don't understand why there is a push to negatively effect your GM pool.

Actually, the main impetus behind this suggestion is to strengthen the GM pool. Right now, there are a few people only GMing the double-credit scenarios. They are becoming higher-star GMs with half the time put in as other people, which devalues the GM reward system (and just feels wrong). There are also players preferentially playing the 3XP, single-session modules to level faster, who are "learning" that PFS is all about combat and getting points (levels) with nothing else being relevant. This style of player has caused problems in my experience, as other GMs stop wanting to run more PFS-relevant scenarios because the players just kick in the door and fight everything.

I get that there are several ways to play PFS, even if I obviously have a preference for a particular style. However, right now there is an in-game incentive to play PFS by rolling initiative at the start of the night and just fighting until you're done. To me, that isn't all that PFS is about.

Hey, get off me, why don't you?

But you're right, we shouldn't be rewarding "fake" GM's! If they don't GM scenarios and just modules they're doin' it wrong! And while we're at it, let's be more restrictive and judgmental of players that want to play differently! It's not like murderhobo-ism isn't already going to bite them in the butt anyways! [/sarcasm]

4/5 *

Just because my opinion is different than yours, there's no reason to insult me for it. I never called them "fake" Gm's, you did. I never said they were doing it wrong, you did. Don't be a jerk, to quote a rule.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

you might've been more polite about it, danced around a bit linguistically, but you did say that more or less:-)

4/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just went back and reviewed every post I've made in this thread, and I can't see where I said anything of the sort. And with due respect, politeness is something that the boards could do with more of in any case.

4/5 *

trollbill wrote:
I have personally seen no evidence to suggest ...

I'm not going to name names in a public forum like this - what sort of evidence would you like? I can tell you as an organizer I have had GMs who only sign up for double-credit scenarios, and when confronted about it told me it's for the extra GM credit. Technically legal, but not a healthy attitude for the community at large.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
trollbill wrote:
I have personally seen no evidence to suggest ...

I'm not going to name names in a public forum like this - what sort of evidence would you like? I can tell you as an organizer I have had GMs who only sign up for double-credit scenarios, and when confronted about it told me it's for the extra GM credit. Technically legal, but not a healthy attitude for the community at large.

Well, that is certainly better than anything you have supplied so far. but this begs other questions:

1) What percentage of the GM population is represented by this? If it is only a few individuals it is likely not a problem worth fixing.

2) Do you have any evidence this is not strictly a local problem? If it is strictly local, then the issue is best fixed through your local VO rather than a policy change.

The biggest problem I have had so far with this entire thread is that I haven't seen anyone other than you state this is an actual problem they have experienced.

5/5

GM Lamplighter wrote:

I just went back and reviewed every post I've made in this thread, and I can't see where I said anything of the sort. And with due respect, politeness is something that the boards could do with more of in any case.

GM Lamplighter wrote:
Right now, there are a few people only GMing the double-credit scenarios. They are becoming higher-star GMs with half the time put in as other people, which devalues the GM reward system (and just feels wrong).

My apologies, you didn't call them fake, just wrong. You're still passing judgment over them. There is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater over a few isolated incidents of a handful of GM's preferring modules. I'm looking at running modules to avoid cutting into the number of scenarios that get used up by local players outside of game days, does that make me wrong too?

Silver Crusade 5/5

trollbill wrote:

The biggest problem I have had so far with this entire thread is that I haven't seen anyone other than you state this is an actual problem they have experienced.

This.

4/5 *

1. Rough number is 5% of GMs, and 10% of public tables. When I was an organizer, I had several GMs who would only offer to run Goblins and Fallen Fortress, and then the ES/TK series.

2. I agree, this makes me think it is a relatively isolated issue (much like the aasimar/tiefling marathon was only seen in a few places, including here). One of my reasons for putting this out was to see if it is indeed a widespread issue or not. I don't think there's anything for my V-Os to do, since as-is the behavior is completely legal and endorsed by the system.

(Although - because this is an issue with the system, everyone *has* experienced it, they may just not have identified this as the cause. How many people have played with a person who has no idea how to play their 9th-level PC? I'd be interested in seeing how many of those issues correlate with how many levels of Emerald Spire/Thornkeep/Free RPG Day modules the person has played, but that sort of evidence is unlikely to be available. Of course, it's hard to disentangle the various factors at play, and local issues would likely dominate anyway.)

The discussion has convinced me there isn't a lot of support for the proposal campaign-wide, and that's fine. (Although, Asculaphus' idea of raising the Free RPG modules to 2PP has a lot of merit, so at least some good came out of this!)

Silver Crusade 5/5

GM Lamplighter wrote:

Although, Asculaphus' idea of raising the Free RPG modules to 2PP has a lot of merit, so at least some good came out of this!

This, I can agree with, I'm glad it looks like this is the trend they're takng with the Free RPG Day modules, at least based on Risen From the Sands. I don't mind the WBG series only giving one PP though.

Grand Lodge 5/5

GM Lamplighter wrote:
trollbill wrote:
I have personally seen no evidence to suggest ...

I'm not going to name names in a public forum like this - what sort of evidence would you like? I can tell you as an organizer I have had GMs who only sign up for double-credit scenarios, and when confronted about it told me it's for the extra GM credit. Technically legal, but not a healthy attitude for the community at large.

So, basically if this is adjusted in the fashion you suggest, you'll lose a GM. I don't see an advantage to losing a GM over them getting a few extra table credits. Eventually they'll get bored running the same things. Then they will either run other stuff or stop, solving the perceived problem one way or the other.

Why is running games for double credit bad for the community?

Silver Crusade 3/5

How much are the gold stars worth? Maybe we should just get rid of them if they are causing this much trouble.

Sovereign Court 2/5

GM Lamplighter wrote:
1. Rough number is 5% of GMs, and 10% of public tables. When I was an organizer, I had several GMs who would only offer to run Goblins and Fallen Fortress, and then the ES/TK series.

It sounds like this cultural issue is the real problem at hand. Perhaps this thread would be more useful in trying to come up with suggestions to help you alleviate this problem.

Quote:
So, basically if this is adjusted in the fashion you suggest, you'll lose a GM. I don't see an advantage to losing a GM over them getting a few extra table credits. Eventually they'll get bored running the same things. Then they will either run other stuff or stop, solving the perceived problem one way or the other.

I think the opposite actually. If this volunteer wants to do nothing but run a small subset of content, then that limits (to what extent is unclear) the options the organizer has for potential scenarios to run. In which case this GM is a detriment to the community because they are making it more difficult to expose "standard" content to the players.

I'm sure that the players will get more bored of running the same things over and over long before this GM gets tired of doing nothing but running high table credit yielding scenarios.

But of course if whats happening is that the organizer says "this game day we can do this one 2 table scenario" and that GM is volunteering for something that was already predetermined to be available, then its a non issue.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

GM Lamplighter wrote:


I don't think there's anything for my V-Os to do, since as-is the behavior is completely legal and endorsed by the system.

It doesn't hurt to bring the issue up with your VO. If he/she feels that such behavior is not in keeping with the spirit of PFS then there are polite ways of nudging people in the right direction without having to resort to policy changes.

Quote:
(How many people have played with a person who has no idea how to play their 9th-level PC? I'd be interested in seeing how many of those issues correlate with how many levels of Emerald Spire/Thornkeep/Free RPG Day modules the person has played, but that sort of evidence is unlikely to be available.

There has always been a population of players who don't have a good idea how to play their characters. This has been the case long before Emerald Spire or Thorn Keep. Of the many causes, I would say 'fast leveling' isn't the biggest one. I can personally think of several players that have been playing PFS for years and still fall into this category.

As to your concern that new players to PFS may get the wrong impression about how a standard PFS game plays out, since you are the organizer, I would recommend you not organize any of these adventures for newbs. Steer them instead towards into mods. If they have their heart set on playing these adventures, for whatever reason, then just explain how these adventures are not typical.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
(Although - because this is an issue with the system, everyone *has* experienced it, they may just not have identified this as the cause. How many people have played with a person who has no idea how to play their 9th-level PC? I'd be interested in seeing how many of those issues correlate with how many levels of Emerald Spire/Thornkeep/Free RPG Day modules the person has played, but that sort of evidence is unlikely to be available. Of course, it's hard to disentangle the various factors at play, and local issues would likely dominate anyway.)

Alright, I'll bite. I know of two players who never really developed an understanding of their characters who leveled up to 7 with Thornkeep. One was playing a white-haired witch based on a build he found online. He eventually stopped playing the character because he never could get it to do what he wanted. The other was a Wizard whose spell list might have been composed solely of Magic Missile for all I ever saw cast. Neither of these, in my opinion, were really the fault of Thornkeep itself. Both were newer players playing characters they were new to, in a convention environment where the games tended to be back to back to back. Tell me you wouldn't stumble a bit going from level 2 to level 7 in 72 hours.

I myself am playing my first ever witch in Emerald Spire. I'm having so much fun playing my witch, I think I'm going to make it my "Eyes of the Ten" character. I would love to be able to play her more, but not if it meant having to break immersion and play other things in between levels. We play once a week at most (usually more like 1-2 times a month) so I don't have to rush to level her up between games. I think the time crunch at a convention, or general player inexperience is where the problems come in.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

GM Lamplighter wrote:
Michael Thompson wrote:
I just don't understand why there is a push to negatively effect your GM pool.

Actually, the main impetus behind this suggestion is to strengthen the GM pool. Right now, there are a few people only GMing the double-credit scenarios. They are becoming higher-star GMs with half the time put in as other people, which devalues the GM reward system (and just feels wrong). There are also players preferentially playing the 3XP, single-session modules to level faster, who are "learning" that PFS is all about combat and getting points (levels) with nothing else being relevant. This style of player has caused problems in my experience, as other GMs stop wanting to run more PFS-relevant scenarios because the players just kick in the door and fight everything.

I get that there are several ways to play PFS, even if I obviously have a preference for a particular style. However, right now there is an in-game incentive to play PFS by rolling initiative at the start of the night and just fighting until you're done. To me, that isn't all that PFS is about.

Regarding GMs: I am not fully convinced, that any change would actually result in those people GMing more, it might actually have a negative effect, but since I honestly can't ever see me or a GM in my area do this...

Regarding players: Yeah, while I could run Emerald Spire for new players, the utter lack of RP in the sanctioned part (at least in the first levels) makes it a terrible introductions.

However I think the current solution - adding some particularly nasty optional encounters that people do not have to fight - and making it downright impossible to get 2 PP and some nice boons - is a good fix.
Just look at the overflow archives, a group of murderhobos will leaved that scenario with 1 PP 90 % of the time.

Sovereign Court 1/5 5/5

This reminds me of the guys that quit playing WoW because when they started playing things were 'harder' and now everything is 'spoon fed' to new players. "I had to level to 60 the hard way and now people can buy level 90."

I know it's not exactly the same, but pathfinder is what you personally make of it. I understand it's a community, and if you are seeing such a negative effect on your community, maybe you should find a better community to play with. It's not the rules of PFS that are damaging the quality of your games, it's the personnel. And if everyone in your area enjoys cheating the system, but you... then it sounds like you're the problem, not the solution. Let them have their fun.

PFS is the coolest thing in the world, you have a set of rules you have to go by, and as long as you stay within those confines, you can go play with anyone else in the world and have a good time. D&D was horrible, for the simple fact that you couldn't take your character and play it anywhere else, no reporting or logging of games etc. You had to stay within a single circle of friends with a character (obvious exceptions to that bold statement).

I have been through 10 levels of the Emerald Spire as of now, and it has been a nice break from the typical 'roleplay/skill check' heavy pathfinder scenarios. I enjoy roleplaying, I enjoy having skills, manipulating one of the female npc VCs into partaking in my celestial obedience (Arshea ftw). But there are times when I enjoy a good dungeon crawl, which is what those events give you and if you add up the experience for the kills within a level of the spire you will see it adds up proper.

The fact that I can take that Emerald Spire character and run a few scenarios with it outside of the spire makes it awesome. Sure I don't have the same fame/prestige as others my level, but I manage. And that character isn't an alpha for playing inside the spire for multiple levels before branching out, it just means I have to do most of my playing at slow progression. He has been on slow progression for a looooong time now, and would have been even without playing outside scenarios due to 16 levels of the spire and level restraints.

As for using 3xp modules to 'power level' your character or GM stars, that's just silly. Any GM can report/say, 'my 3 friends and I ran 6 scenarios this week,' and give themselves two levels. Any player can look at his nat 1 on a die and say, 'I got a 20, rolling to confirm.' If people want to cheat or abuse a system, they will always find a way. Those people aren't cheating anyone but themselves.

There will always be people that will use the 'God code' and never play the game the way it was intended... they usually find themselves quite lonely.

4/5

Clearly I run games slowly but I have never once run a level of Thornkeep in less than 8 hours and most took far longer (12+ in the case of Sanctum on both times I've run it). When I ran Thornkeep for my weekly group it took us 2-3 game nights per level.

In part this was frequently due to larger groups - but also due to the sheer number of combats, the large size of the first level and toughness of many of the levels (if, as I do, you take full advantage of the environment and don't pull any punches. I didn't have any TPK's but my players were definitely challenged.

I keep hearing about people running Thornkeep levels in the time of a regular PFS game and I can only think that we are playing entirely different games. Either they must be setting things up in ways that make it too easy for the players (I would guess they start combats with the PC's far closer and the enemies far more clustered than I typically do) and I can only guess that they are also ignoring all kinds of fun tactics/abilities etc built into many of the levels.

I haven't yet run Emerald Spire (and the whole concern about it being likely that you can't easily play the same character through every level if something bad happens on Level 4 is annoying) but Thornkeep is among my all time favorite Paizo products and modules (especially Sanctum of the Lost Age which I think is a fantastic dungeon with tons of opportunities for interesting encounters and roleplaying as well as great combats and set pieces.

I am most certainly not a fan of this proposal.

Scarab Sages 5/5 5/5 *** Venture-Captain, Netherlands

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Fox wrote:
How much are the gold stars worth? Maybe we should just get rid of them if they are causing this much trouble.

I just dont see how you could abuse them. That +4 or whatever one a single re-roll wont be game breaking.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Woran wrote:
The Fox wrote:
How much are the gold stars worth? Maybe we should just get rid of them if they are causing this much trouble.
I just dont see how you could abuse them. That +4 or whatever one a single re-roll wont be game breaking.

Especially if you are playing a module or AP segment, instead of a scenario...

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Woran wrote:
The Fox wrote:
How much are the gold stars worth? Maybe we should just get rid of them if they are causing this much trouble.
I just dont see how you could abuse them. That +4 or whatever one a single re-roll wont be game breaking.

#

And it is not like having more GM stars really gives you more forum credibility - personally I think it kinda creates a bit of an unfair expectation like "What did that 4 Star GM just say? I can't believe how someone with so many reported games can still say something so [description] " ...

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
And it is not like having more GM stars really gives you more forum credibility - personally I think it kinda creates a bit of an unfair expectation like "What did that 4 Star GM just say? I can't believe how someone with so many reported games can still say something so [description] " ...

Hey! I represent that remark! Although I guess I don't have "so many" since I've been sitting at 3 stars for over a year now.

Some folks just like to do the "sanctioned" material. Some like to explore the town and learn all the little plot connections. There's no wrong way to play besides outright cheating. "Alright guys, I have no idea what's in this next room, but for some reason I have a feeling the guy with the highest touch AC needs to go first."

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Woran wrote:
The Fox wrote:
How much are the gold stars worth? Maybe we should just get rid of them if they are causing this much trouble.
I just dont see how you could abuse them. That +4 or whatever one a single re-roll wont be game breaking.

#

And it is not like having more GM stars really gives you more forum credibility - personally I think it kinda creates a bit of an unfair expectation like "What did that 4 Star GM just say? I can't believe how someone with so many reported games can still say something so [description] " ...

Damn. There goes my delusions of thinking I had credibility.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Mystic Lemur wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
And it is not like having more GM stars really gives you more forum credibility - personally I think it kinda creates a bit of an unfair expectation like "What did that 4 Star GM just say? I can't believe how someone with so many reported games can still say something so [description] " ...

Hey! I represent that remark! Although I guess I don't have "so many" since I've been sitting at 3 stars for over a year now.

Some folks just like to do the "sanctioned" material. Some like to explore the town and learn all the little plot connections. There's no wrong way to play besides outright cheating. "Alright guys, I have no idea what's in this next room, but for some reason I have a feeling the guy with the highest touch AC needs to go first."

Represent or resent ? Depending in [description] I can see this go either way^^ :P

trollbill wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Woran wrote:
The Fox wrote:
How much are the gold stars worth? Maybe we should just get rid of them if they are causing this much trouble.
I just dont see how you could abuse them. That +4 or whatever one a single re-roll wont be game breaking.

#

And it is not like having more GM stars really gives you more forum credibility - personally I think it kinda creates a bit of an unfair expectation like "What did that 4 Star GM just say? I can't believe how someone with so many reported games can still say something so [description] " ...

Damn. There goes my delusions of thinking I had credibility.

Well, you have/lack the credibility you obviously have/lack, based on your actions at the table and your post here in the forum.

So yeah you are fine/doomed ^^ It is just, that the spiky things between your faction symbol and your username have nothing to do with it.

Of course if you were a VL or a VC, things would be different. Every positive remark would be received as expected (and kinda fake, since it is your job) of you, and every not 100 % courteous and professional, you are literally the an amalgamation of Adolf Hitler and the devil.

Isn't the internet fun ^^

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

trollbill wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Woran wrote:
The Fox wrote:
How much are the gold stars worth? Maybe we should just get rid of them if they are causing this much trouble.
I just dont see how you could abuse them. That +4 or whatever one a single re-roll wont be game breaking.

#

And it is not like having more GM stars really gives you more forum credibility - personally I think it kinda creates a bit of an unfair expectation like "What did that 4 Star GM just say? I can't believe how someone with so many reported games can still say something so [description] " ...

Damn. There goes my delusions of thinking I had credibility.

Heh, I just found out I'd been running the surprise round wrong in that people are flat footed even if they act. I don't assume any credibility.

4/5

where did you get that? The rules I have seen are pretty simple - if you are aware in a surprise round you act in initiative order - you are still flat-footed before you act, but after you have acted in the round you are no longer flat-footed. Unaware participants can't act in the surprise round and are flat-footed until they act in the first regular round of the combat.

I've never heard that people are flat-footed even if they act - that isn't in any of the rules I have seen (I think however there is a rogue talent that lets them treat people as flat-footed in the surprise or first round of combat even if they have acted)

51 to 100 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Proposal: Please fix the "XP / PP / GM star credit" disparity between scenarios and Thornkeep / Emerald Spire All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.