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


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
4/5

With the introduction of Thornkeep and the Emerald Spire, we have seen a series of scenarios which take one session to play, but which are worth the same credit as a full module or sanctioned AP requiring at least and likely three sessions. This creates the potential for GMs and players to "maximize efficiency" by only playing or running Thornkeep and Emerald Spire. As more Free RPG modules are released, this problem gets worse.

I propose that the XP and PP rewards of Thornkeep, Emerald Spire, and all Free RPG Day modules be reduced to 1XP, 2PP, and 1 GM star credit - in other words, the same as PFS scenarios. This is more in keeping with the actual time spent and experience gained by playing these scenarios, which with few exceptions occur within a single game session like PFS scenarios do.

Sanctioned modules and sanctioned APs would remain at 3XP, 4PP, and 2 GM star credits as they currently are.

I would suggest that this would not be retroactive, but confess I don't know all of the issues surrounding this as far as the reporting system goes.

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really don't see the problem. If you want to level up fast you just.. level up fast . What does it hurt?

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Assuming you mean that people will try to fast track their way to 5 stars by only doing these, you are overlooking the fact that you need to have GMed 50 different scenarios/modules to earn your fifth star, and 10 specials as well. Those alone will seriously slow people down on any attempt at that.

Aside from that, I completely disagree with you, and my reason is KISS.

1. The more special cases of how much exp/fame things earn, the longer and more confusing that part of the guide is.
2. People will feel slighted cause they dont get full levels like people who played earlier did.
3. With Emerald Spire (and Thornkeep to a lesser extent) this messes up the entire point of the thing, in that its a dungeon that will take you from 1 to 14ish. by making each level a single exp, that will no longer be possible in PFS (which btw, was one of the points they made when promoting the thing on kickstarter).

3/5

I personally don't see a problem, and don't feel the need to change anything.

I've seen Thornkeeps that take 10 minutes. I've also seen them take 6+ hours. Besides, some of those Thornkeep monsters are nasty enough that if you can survive them, you deserve a module of rewards, imo.

4/5

BNW: I believe it hurts new people, who grow up thinking PFS is a slugfest with no background. Accelerated leveling also hurts others at the table later on, when they have played their high-level PC 1/3 the time that they "should" have, so they are that much less familiar with the PC.

Seth: Some good points. On KISS - why is it inherently simpler to give some people 1 XP for a game session and other people 3 XP for the same game session at a different table? The term "module" doesn't really apply to the individual sections as sanctioned for PFS.

I agree there is a retroactive issue, and I'm not sure of the best way to solve that. I understand that Emerald Spire is a campaign... but if you're playing the Emerald Spire campaign, why do you need the PFS campaign? I believe that the downside of 3XP for PFS outweighs the few people who will run it as a campaign and not play anything else.

(As an aside: I actually like both modules - I plan to incorporate both of them into a Kingmaker-esque campaign set in Ustalav I've been working on. This is not a quality issue, it is really about the interface between them and the OP environment, and what that should look like.)

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

Lamplighter, the issue is that the XP system is fundamentally broken by the 3xp per level model used in PFS.

This is not a fix for that.

Time at the table is very much not the metric tracked by XP. CR of defeated encounters is. I find this a fatal flaw in your proposal.

The fact that the "adaptable" solution chosen for PFS is to map things to "module play" exacerbates the issues of the flattened XP per level model.

This is not fixable in a reasonable fashion in year 7 of the campaign.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you personally feel like you're leveling up to fast, why not use slow progression for a while?

The Exchange 5/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Belafon

GM Lamplighter wrote:
BNW: I believe it hurts new people, who grow up thinking PFS is a slugfest with no background.

That is completely a function of GM and not of the scenario. I have had Thornkeep GMs who gave us time to explore the town of Thornkeep and to interact with the denizens of the dungeon. You can add all the Fort Inevitable you want to Emerald Spire.

I've also had GMs for Thornkeep who give no introduction and just say "new room, roll initiative." But they are the same way with normal scenarios. They hurry through the box text, say "3 days later you come to a bend in the river and see 6 gnomes. Roll initiative."

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No.

I am going to speak from the perspective of someone involved in an Emerald Spire campaign.

As it stands now, Emerald Spire is essentially a distinct campaign from PFS, but uses the PFS rules for advancement, wealth, etc. This is a good thing, in my opinion.

I don't want my Emerald Spire character to need to switch back and forth between Emerald Spire and PFS scenarios just to advance. What you are proposing would require just that. One session of Emerald Spire, two unrelated scenarios far away. Another level of Emerald Spire, then two more scenarios far away.

Right now, we can explore the levels of the Emerald Spire superdungeon and have it feel like a superdungeon. We can follow up on all of the quests (which my group is doing), and play it as slow as we want. If we switched to 1 XP per level, I know for a fact that my group would not want to follow up on those quests. We just don't have the patience for that if we also need to spend another 8 to 10 hours on scenarios outside of Emerald Spire just to level up our characters so they are ready to adventure on the next dungeon level.

I am not in support of this proposal.

An alternative proposal that I would support: Allow players the option to take an alternative chronicle sheet instead of the standard Emerald Spire chronicle. The alternative would reward 1 XP, 2 PP, 1/3 the gold, and not have the Land Rush boons. But the standard sheet would still be available as well.

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

GM Lamplighter wrote:

BNW: I believe it hurts new people, who grow up thinking PFS is a slugfest with no background. Accelerated leveling also hurts others at the table later on, when they have played their high-level PC 1/3 the time that they "should" have, so they are that much less familiar with the PC.

Seth: Some good points. On KISS - why is it inherently simpler to give some people 1 XP for a game session and other people 3 XP for the same game session at a different table? The term "module" doesn't really apply to the individual sections as sanctioned for PFS.

I agree there is a retroactive issue, and I'm not sure of the best way to solve that. I understand that Emerald Spire is a campaign... but if you're playing the Emerald Spire campaign, why do you need the PFS campaign? I believe that the downside of 3XP for PFS outweighs the few people who will run it as a campaign and not play anything else.

(As an aside: I actually like both modules - I plan to incorporate both of them into a Kingmaker-esque campaign set in Ustalav I've been working on. This is not a quality issue, it is really about the interface between them and the OP environment, and what that should look like.)

As someone who is going to play Emerald Spire level 5 later today ( well it can't be a worse experience than level 4), has GMed Emerald Spire 1-4 and has prepped a good deal more, I have to disagree on a couple of points.

First we have a PFS group who plays spire, and aside from my character, all those characters have not played any scenarios outside of it (I just love my paladin so I slow track). Tonight a new player will be joining us, he the last time and first time, that he has played with us was 2 weeks ago (Storming the Diamond Gate?).
If we had played this superdungeon as part of a regular campaign, adding a new PFS character would not have been possible at this point.

-

My second consideration would be the amount of GM prep, these adventures can be quite time intensive to prepare, especially since some use some rarely used rules.
The printed PFS shared prep documents for some levels are much larger than the levels themselves.
-

The lower levels weren't all that much fun to run, level 1 can be devastating depending on the races of your player characters.
Level 2 repeats a certain tricks a little bit too often, and I would not suggest it to level 1 characters.
Level 3 is a slaughter (I think our local record, is clearing this level in 27 rounds or something like that), especially since this is when the players can access heavy armor.
And let's not talk about level 3 and the problem it creates (I suggested a change to the XP track rules partly because of this level).

-

Looking back at it, scaling the rewards of all those Emerald Spire levels to 2 XP (and accordingly scaled rewards) would have been a good choice, but changing it after the fact is frankly too late.

-

I have considered offering Emerald Spire as a special PFS event, with the stipulation, that we play until the time runs out (at a recent convention that was level 4, but circumstances were hardly ideal, I prepared everything up to level 10) and force slow track for everybody (I know as a GM I can't force players to do so, but unless they agree I will not run it).

-

So, yeah running modules (even looking at the sanctioned parts of Dragons Demand, that can be cleared in decent time) is more "effective" than running scenarios, but they are a better experience for everyone involved (and offer boons and chances to check your faction cards).

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

GM Lamplighter wrote:

This creates the potential for GMs and players to "maximize efficiency" by only playing or running Thornkeep and Emerald Spire. As more Free RPG modules are released, this problem gets worse.

Actually, could you explain this? I can see the advantage of playing modules and scenarios with the right APL (to avoid the situation where your APL is juuuust a little bit to high to force the group into high tier), but players can already do that (once they have played PFS for a while) and it increases the problem of having relatively few 7-11 scenarios.

And regarding table credit, people can already run replayable scenarios 10 times in 8 hours, run APs for campaign mode (with 250 point buy etc.) or run something like We be Goblins for their 11 year old nice and their friends... (which should result in a TPK after mere minutes).

There are plenty of ways to get GM credit, if you are too worried, just lobby for a change to the guide, that requires a number of scenarios for lower level GM stars (like requiring 30 separate scenarios to get your 3rd star).

4/5

By "maximize efficiency", I was trying to use a less inflammatory term than "game the system to get as many points/rewards as possible as fast as possible so I can win Pathfinder". The double/triple rewards that these scenarios provide encourages a certain segment of GMs to game the system, because it is technically legal (just like the recent aasmiar grandfathering race was technically legal).

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas aka kinevon

GM Lamplighter wrote:
BNW: I believe it hurts new people, who grow up thinking PFS is a slugfest with no background. Accelerated leveling also hurts others at the table later on, when they have played their high-level PC 1/3 the time that they "should" have, so they are that much less familiar with the PC.

So, for this problem, are you also going to want to ban campaign mode, especially for the newer 64 page modules?

I have two PCs, one from GMing, and one from playing, Dragon's Demand in campaign mode, that both have a multiple level gap between when I last played them and the level they reached with the DD chronicles.

One was played through the full First Steps series, when it was legal, but got Feast of Ravenmoor credit to 3rd, then player chronicles from DD to reach 7th level. So, I played him at 7th, which locked him in, but with a 5 level gap in play history.

One was played, one and off (some GM scenario credit) from 1st to 3rd level, but then got my DD GM chronicles, so he was next played at 7th level, a gap of 4 levels. And, now, it appears, he gets the option of a free rebuild, at 8th level, since he is my Rogue...

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

GM Lamplighter wrote:

By "maximize efficiency", I was trying to use a less inflammatory term than "game the system to get as many points/rewards as possible as fast as possible so I can win Pathfinder". The double/triple rewards that these scenarios provide encourages a certain segment of GMs to game the system, because it is technically legal (just like the recent aasmiar grandfathering race was technically legal).

So what exactly happens when they "win" Pathfinder, and how does it negatively affect the PFS community as a whole? Scenarios scale according to APL and number of players, faction cards really make this even more ineffective, since you can only cross 1 thing per 3 XP (2 if you are using slow track). And in the worst case, this results in a higher number of high level characters who had to slog through a number of combats.

From my point of view, players just want to play their characters (yes the lower levels are for many builds quite boring) most of those modules offer little to no chance to RP (especially the sactioned parts of some APs), of course if your aim is just to get a seeker level character and be done with it... well godspeed to those people, their unconventional desires don't really affect me.

And as I mentioned above, anyone who wants to game the system can find more efficient ways than Emerald Spire and similar modules.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I went through Thornkeep: The Accursed Halls. There is more than enough xp to take a party of four PC on Medium advancement to 2nd level. Why do you feel that a party of 4-6 PCs who complete the challenges required to advance a level, shouldn't advance a level? How is that fair?

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas aka kinevon

Mystic Lemur wrote:
I went through Thornkeep: The Accursed Halls. There is more than enough xp to take a party of four PC on Medium advancement to 2nd level. Why do you feel that a party of 4-6 PCs who complete the challenges required to advance a level, shouldn't advance a level? How is that fair?

I suspect it is because, like many of the Thornkeep & Emerald Spire levels, they are only 8 pages long, and the right party can power through them in 4 hours or less.

Personally, I don't have the same opinion, especially since I have seen Accursed Halls runs take 6-8 hours, or longer, to run.

Heck, after one recent 6 hours of running, the party had only made it through one lobe of the Accursed Halls...

Dark Archive 5/5 5/55/5

As someone who gms Emerald Spire, I must say the time to prep/run ES is much less than run/prep 3 pfs Scenarios, but that is also the case with We be goblins, where a clever GM could potentially farm his fist Star in under a day because the TPK by achemist is legal and incharakter for this scenario. I think it is much easyer to say all modules count as 3XP/4PP/2ToC becuase it would otherwise open a con of worms -> But i must say it feels wierd how fast you get your ToC if you master Emerald Spire and some Mods.

5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't really see the problem with the existing setup. Do some people power through them? Yes. Are they having fun wrong? No.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

Lamplighter: is this abuse that you're so worried about, actually taking place?

Shadow Lodge 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
By "maximize efficiency", I was trying to use a less inflammatory term than "game the system to get as many points/rewards as possible as fast as possible so I can win Pathfinder". The double/triple rewards that these scenarios provide encourages a certain segment of GMs to game the system, because it is technically legal (just like the recent aasmiar grandfathering race was technically legal).

And I find it a benefit to keep those kinds of GMs corralled in Emerald Spire/Thornkeep play away from the general populace.

Grand Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been GM:ing Emerald Spire for two groups. The other group is at level 9 and the other at level 7. I've also run the first level a couple extra times and because of this I've collected a lot of GM credits.

I don't think I'm gaming the system because of this. I've prepared the levels extremely well, I'm spending my time organizing for two groups and making sure everybody (including me) are having fun.

I enjoy my four stars, but the stars are not the reason why I GM. Sure it was fun at first to gain new stars quickly, but the main thing is that you have fun, your players have fun and you keep learning new skills about GMing. Somebody that just GMs We Be Goblins will still learn new ways to GM, new ways to RP the humorous NPCs and will still learn social skills.

And as it has been said, getting five stars is harder than to just run the same scenarios over and over.

So let's just keep the current system in place. A new system would just confuse everyone (I know that I'm still confused about the ACG-classes :D) and just have fun. Because that's why we all play these games.

5/5

TOZ wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
By "maximize efficiency", I was trying to use a less inflammatory term than "game the system to get as many points/rewards as possible as fast as possible so I can win Pathfinder". The double/triple rewards that these scenarios provide encourages a certain segment of GMs to game the system, because it is technically legal (just like the recent aasmiar grandfathering race was technically legal).
And I find it a benefit to keep those kinds of GMs corralled in Emerald Spire/Thornkeep play away from the general populace.

This seems like a needlessly offensive dig at people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:
TOZ wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
By "maximize efficiency", I was trying to use a less inflammatory term than "game the system to get as many points/rewards as possible as fast as possible so I can win Pathfinder". The double/triple rewards that these scenarios provide encourages a certain segment of GMs to game the system, because it is technically legal (just like the recent aasmiar grandfathering race was technically legal).
And I find it a benefit to keep those kinds of GMs corralled in Emerald Spire/Thornkeep play away from the general populace.
This seems like a needlessly offensive dig at people.

Porky Pig might have something to say about that.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

andreww wrote:
This seems like a needlessly offensive dig at people.

If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, kick it to the curb.

5/5

TOZ wrote:
andreww wrote:
This seems like a needlessly offensive dig at people.
If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, kick it to the curb.

How exactly does the shoe fit. If someone chooses to run Emerald Spire for people who want to run Emerald Spire why exactly is that a problem?

Shadow Lodge 5/5

andreww wrote:
How exactly does the shoe fit.

I can't tell you if you fit the profile. Only you can know that.

4/5

Ascalaphus wrote:
Lamplighter: is this abuse that you're so worried about, actually taking place?

Yes it is. EDIT: but it isn't abuse, it is perfectly legal.

Sovereign Court

I'm skeptical about how much of a problem this really is because the majority of these modules aren't repeatable. The one thornkeep one that is repeatable has some particularly nasty encounters in it, too.

Shadow Lodge

Maybe they could just give yellow stars with holes in them to people that do that so we can know they're cheesers.

Scarab Sages 5/5 Venture-Agent, United Kingdom—England—Thames Valley aka chris manning

i have run emerald spire L1-16 online, and 2 extra runs of L1 face 2 face.

i didnt do it to get GM credits, i did it because its a cool module and i was excited to run it after reading it.

to be honest, after the massive amount of prep work and playing time, i would probably NEVER run the complete thing again. Most of our sessions ran to about 5h, and several would have gone much longer without some handwaving on my part.

Scarab Sages 5/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Netherlands aka Woran

So what if someone only runs emerald spire to farm GM credit?
They would still need at the least three separate runs of the whole spire, with three different groups to get the numbers up. (32 GM credits for a full spire run is 96 credits). Add in some thornkeep or We be Goblins and they someone reaches their fourth star.
That is three groups that get to play.

And then? Then they have four GM stars to their name. They wont reach a fifth star like that. Are the GM star chronicles so overpowered in their rewards? Most people I've heard like them, but they are not exactly game breaking. Also, they are a use once deal.

Is the one +4 on a reroll game breaking? Its only once per game. Sure, if you save it for the save or die moment and the +4 helps you make the roll, that is really nice. But you can also roll crap a second time and not make it.

Is it that they can replay four scenarios for credit? Sure, replaying for credit is really nice. But having them replay (if they are interested in that at all) for credit four times wont break the game. Sure, they might cherry pick a scenario to get that one chronicle with that one item, but for that matter, so can anyone with a GM star to their name.

Is it the stars next to their name here on the forum? Wrongly earned bragging rights? Sure a lot of people have put in more time and effort to earn GM stars, but your amount of GM stars do not make you a better persone. Or a better GM for that matter. They are just a visiual way to track the experience someone has.

I will probably run two groups trough the Emerald spire myself. Not because I want to farm my GM credit, but because people really like the idea of doing a superdungeon with a dedicated character, with a dedicated group. Both groups mostly consist of other GMs. Because they all really want to play before they GM. I dont mind GMing before I play.
Is this wrong? Should I cancel all those tables because I might get more GMstars this way? Am I have badwrongfun? Because it looks like I am.

4/5

By all means, play it, run it, whatever you want. Enjoy. I just feel that it isn't three times as valuable to the campaign as someone running scenarios, which are designed for PFS, which aren't just slugfests, which include things beyond initiative. Isn't that what the credit is for, really, for the time and effort spent running games for PFS?

Scarab Sages

GM Lamplighter wrote:

By "maximize efficiency", I was trying to use a less inflammatory term than "game the system to get as many points/rewards as possible as fast as possible so I can win Pathfinder". The double/triple rewards that these scenarios provide encourages a certain segment of GMs to game the system, because it is technically legal (just like the recent aasmiar grandfathering race was technically legal).

In my experience - characters who do a lot of module play falls behind on the prestige/fame curve. And for that matter on the gold cu

A character who only plays emerald spire/modules (and doesn't slow play) has 16 fame at 5th level out of a potential 24. That means that 5th level character is not getting an item needing 18 fame (like a +2 stat item) until 6th level. That is not an good situation to be in.

(Emerald spire has

Spoiler:
a few extras to get you more fame at the cost of prestige, so not as bad)

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

GM Lamplighter wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Lamplighter: is this abuse that you're so worried about, actually taking place?
Yes it is. EDIT: but it isn't abuse, it is perfectly legal.

You're going to have to go into more detail to convince me. So far I haven't heard anything that looks like a real issue to me.

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

GM Lamplighter wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Lamplighter: is this abuse that you're so worried about, actually taking place?
Yes it is. EDIT: but it isn't abuse, it is perfectly legal.

Let's rephrase the question:

Do you have evidence that people are deliberately gaming the system by running these mods specifically to gain GM credits rather than their intended purpose of running them for fun? If so, please present that evidence.

GM Lamplighter wrote:
BNW: I believe it hurts new people, who grow up thinking PFS is a slugfest with no background. Accelerated leveling also hurts others at the table later on, when they have played their high-level PC 1/3 the time that they "should" have, so they are that much less familiar with the PC.

So your suggestion is to remove the fast-play option for those who may actually want/enjoy that kind of game because it is wrong/bad/fun?

There are many ways to have fun in PFS and restricting options doesn't help anyone. I played Library of the Lion and successfully completed it without a single combat. It was fun. I just played 5 levels of Emerald Spire at a Con this last weekend and, while it does actually have role-playing in it, it was mostly combat. It was fun, too. And, quite frankly, I like the variety.

A note regarding free Game Day mods. The extra GM rewards for these adventures is meant to be incentive to get people to run them during free RPG day. Due to that I doubt Paizo is going to change their policy on that. I suppose they could limit it to only the current gameday adventure, but is it really worth the effort?

Silver Crusade

There is a lot of time and effort involved in Emerald Spire. Even if you are able to accomplish 1 level per session, that is 16 weeks of play. And, to do that, you really need to have a group of regulars who are available week after week.

Your proposal would stretch that out to almost a year, and would require that we spend 2/3 of that time playing those characters in scenarios outside of Emerald Spire.

That would be an awful way to run the Emerald Spire campaign. The campaign benefits from the continuity of a superdungeon.

If it is the gold stars you are worried about, petition to disallow the gold stars. But please don't mess with the rewards for players because you think that other people are getting gold stars more easily than you did.

Silver Crusade

GM Lamplighter wrote:
I just feel that it isn't three times as valuable to the campaign as someone running scenarios, which are designed for PFS, which aren't just slugfests, which include things beyond initiative. Isn't that what the credit is for, really, for the time and effort spent running games for PFS?

bolded for emphasis

Wait, are we talking about stars or XP?

You only get two tables worth of credit for each ES level, not three.

If we are talking about XP, then are you now saying that players are gaming the system by playing ES?

I guess I'm trying to sort out what is your actual complaint.

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

Conman the Bardbarian wrote:
Maybe they could just give yellow stars with holes in them to people that do that so we can know they're cheesers.

Yes. And at Cons we can make them ring little bells to warn everyone, just like they used to do with lepers.

Spoiler:
That was sarcasm, btw.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I know, we could also make scarlet colored M's (for "munchknin") that we can sew onto their shirt.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Southwest

3 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
By all means, play it, run it, whatever you want. Enjoy. I just feel that it isn't three times as valuable to the campaign as someone running scenarios, which are designed for PFS, which aren't just slugfests, which include things beyond initiative. Isn't that what the credit is for, really, for the time and effort spent running games for PFS?

I believe that it is a great thing that there are so many different types of play opportunities at the Pathfinder Society Buffet table.

Everyone's fun is a little bit different.

There is something for everyone.

5/5

GM Lamplighter wrote:
By all means, play it, run it, whatever you want. Enjoy. I just feel that it isn't three times as valuable to the campaign as someone running scenarios, which are designed for PFS, which aren't just slugfests, which include things beyond initiative. Isn't that what the credit is for, really, for the time and effort spent running games for PFS?

Having played through the entire thing and having run several levels I think you have a very blinkered view of what is involved. Certainly our play through involved a lot more than just "roll initiative, fight".

Shadow Lodge 5/5

C'mon Lamplighter, you should know better than to expect Paizo to fix any kind of disparity. :)

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Guys, let's keep the discussion friendly. The sarcasm is starting to sound a bit mean-spirited.

5/5

You think I'm mean spirited? You don't know TOZ.

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

4 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:

(just like the recent aasmiar grandfathering race was technically legal).

And there was nothing wrong with that.

This thread has the taint of elitism. And in my experience, elitism (and the exclusivity it engenders) has always been far more harmful to organized play campaigns than the few individuals who actually do game the system.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Now that I can agree with. I still think steps should be taken to prevent gaming the system, such as the lack of grandfather window on the APG Summoner. I just happen to disagree that changing the ES/TK chronicle rewards will contribute to that goal.

1/5

I do think that GMs should get one table of credit per level in these cases, though it's probably not worth complicating matters to achieve it.

I'd throw that in the "things we've learned for the next organized play campaign," along with things like "design your XP system to avoid the need for fractional values." Live and learn.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The only thing I want to amend in game day modules is the 1PP thing.

Master of the Fallen Fortress awards only 1PP, which is a lousy reward for what should be a good introductory adventure. That's... just not enough to actually buy a happy stick. Better play the Confirmation first, even though MotFF makes much more sense thematically.

It's not like MotFF is a cakewalk. I think it's a lot more dangerous than the Confirmation actually, and with fewer resources (guaranteed no level 2 PCs, no J-Bag, more and harder fights).

And there's even a sensible secondary success condition; rescue and exploration makes for two goals.

EDIT: I also feel that in the case of MotFF, double GM table credit is a bit silly. I'd rather get full prestige for everyone.

Grand Lodge 2/5

Ascalaphus wrote:

The only thing I want to amend in game day modules is the 1PP thing.

Master of the Fallen Fortress awards only 1PP, which is a lousy reward for what should be a good introductory adventure. That's... just not enough to actually buy a happy stick. Better play the Confirmation first, even though MotFF makes much more sense thematically.

It's not like MotFF is a cakewalk. I think it's a lot more dangerous than the Confirmation actually, and with fewer resources (guaranteed no level 2 PCs, no J-Bag, more and harder fights).

And there's even a sensible secondary success condition; rescue and exploration makes for two goals.

EDIT: I also feel that in the case of MotFF, double GM table credit is a bit silly. I'd rather get full prestige for everyone.

Seriously, this whole "only 1 PP for free RPG modules/scenarios" is a joke and insulting. All it does is stifle play for those games as no one wants to run/play them. (yes "no one" is an overstatement/exaggeration, but far fewer enough that it's not much of a stretch). I spend just as much time sitting at one of those games as I do a separate scenario. Why am I hamstringed and given a lesser reward?

Grand Lodge 4/5

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

1 to 50 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.