"Chronicle fishing". What is it, and why it is a bad thing?


Pathfinder Society

151 to 200 of 286 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
1/5

Chris Mortika wrote:
trik wrote:


You'd have to define the sport to call it unsportsmanlike. Some people enjoy the character creation/concept portion of Pathfinder as much or more than the roleplaying part. Excelling at whatever they focus their build on is part of their "win" condition. To this type of player, an opportunity to build a character with something unique is of more entertainment value than being surprised by what happens in a given scenario.

As we are all playing for the entertainment value (hopefully), I don't think any of the players here have the authority to say their form of entertainment is cheating or breaking some "unwritten rule".

Sorry to disagree with you, trik. But I'll stand by my words. Reading a scenario in order to find out important plot points like boons or treasure and use that to your advantage is cheating.

You are required to tell the GM, when you sit at the table, if you're already familiar with the scenario. If I'm the GM, I'll ask you what the circumstances are.

Good reasons:
"I prepped it to GM."
"I'm burning a GM star replay."
"I played it in Standard Mode, and this is Core Mode."
"I'm playing a pre-gen to help get the table up to 4 legal players."

Bad reasons:
"I was hunting for a wand of magic missiles at CL 5"
"I hate being surprised."

If you have a good reason, I'll ask you to keep your plot insights to yourself. If you don't have a good reason, I'll ask you to leave the table.

I doubt you're sorry to disagree with me. That said, I believe you're within the rules to deny someone from your table for having foreknowledge of the scenario for any reason. If I was at a table and someone else at it was asked to leave for having foreknowledge, I would likely leave the table as well with the reason "I don't want to play under this GM". I'd be happy to tell you why I wouldn't be playing as well, if you wanted to know. This is a game played for fun. Domineering GMs are an absolute turnoff for me. In my opinion, the GM is on the same team as the players. Everyone wins when everyone has fun.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For the record, I, too, would think that "I ran this outside of PFS" is just as good a reason as "I ran this inside PFS."

And I am indeed sorry to disagree with you.

I wouldn't ask someone to leave for having foreknowledge. There are, as I say, good reasons for that. It's spoiling an adventure for no reason other than spoiling it, or to gain an advantage when playing.

I think we agree about a lot of other things, too. I like a game where the GM and players are all on the same side, having fun and telling stories. But have you ever run a table where most / all of the players have already played the adventure, and where they're all just going through the motions, waiting for the Chronicle to drop?

Shadow Lodge

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
trik wrote:
As we are all playing for the entertainment value (hopefully), I don't think any of the players here have the authority to say their form of entertainment is cheating or breaking some "unwritten rule". If it was a rule, it would be written.

Actually, if you read John Compton's post earlier in this thread, what he is essentially saying is that it *is* an unwritten rule, because if he were forced to make it an official, written rule, the outcome would be too harsh.

So he's asking you to be mature and use your best judgement, with the understanding that you should avoid reading Chronicle Sheets (and the rest of the scenario) ahead of time whenever possible.

1/5

pH unbalanced wrote:
trik wrote:
As we are all playing for the entertainment value (hopefully), I don't think any of the players here have the authority to say their form of entertainment is cheating or breaking some "unwritten rule". If it was a rule, it would be written.

Actually, if you read John Compton's post earlier in this thread, what he is essentially saying is that it *is* an unwritten rule, because if he were forced to make it an official, written rule, the outcome would be too harsh.

So he's asking you to be mature and use your best judgement, with the understanding that you should avoid reading Chronicle Sheets (and the rest of the scenario) ahead of time whenever possible.

I view reading a chronicle to make sure you are able to apply any cool boons to your character that makes the most sense (or allows you to do something cool that you wouldn't otherwise be able to do) differently than reading through the details of the entire scenario and the combats involved. If the replay rules weren't as limiting, I would likely view it differently. However, when you're basically given one play opportunity to earn a boon on a chronicle, I don't see the issue with "making it count" so to speak. I simply don't see it as cheating and any potential spoilers on the chronicle are pretty minor. However, I do think people should refrain from sharing any spoiler knowledge they have with the rest of the players at the table.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Reading the chronicle and reading the scenario when you are the player ARE two different things. They are still both considered poor form by the campaign leadership.

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

By Living Greyhawk standards most of you would be considered 'filthy rotten replayers" just for playing a mod after you GMed it.

5/5 5/55/55/5

trollbill wrote:
By Living Greyhawk standards .

Isn't that an oxymoron?

*ow ow ow kidding ow ow ow...*

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

I wear it proudly.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, United Kingdom—England—Chester aka Paz

trik wrote:
any potential spoilers on the chronicle are pretty minor.

This might be part of the problem, and why you're surprised by the level of disagreement, as some of the chronicles I've seen are full of spoilers.


While some chronicles are pretty bland, others that have special boons are full of info on what decision need be made to earn said boon. I believe shades of ice is like that.

It's one thing to know that scenario x has a boon of y. That is hard to control for because players will talk about the cool new boon they got. Hopefully players will keep their mouths shut about what they had to do to get it.

If you came to my table and I overheard you talking about what choice needed to be made to get the boon in the scenario, I would boot you from my tables.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
I wear it proudly.

Put. the pink. underwear. Back.

Lantern Lodge 5/5

Forum drinking game:
Things were different in Greyhawk. Drink!

At some point, this comparison is outdated.

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
trik wrote:

...I believe you're within the rules to deny someone from your table for having foreknowledge of the scenario for any reason...

...This is a game played for fun...

...Domineering GMs are an absolute turnoff for me.

I think part of the problem is that you think a GM enforcing the rules is domineering if it impedes on your sense of fun. Not that you're alone in that opinion. But I disagree and my opinion is just as valid as yours.

There have been countless arguments on different subjects (fudging dice, reskinning, to name a couple) over whether fun trumps rules or vice versa. But when you have up to 8 different people at a table, making sure everyone is having fun can be impossible. Whose 'fun' gets priority? Some say the players over the GM. Some say the paladin over the necromancer. I think it's rarely that simple.

The bottom line in this case is that a player is required to disclose foreknowledge of the scenario. The chronicle sheet is included among that knowledge. What happens next is up to the GM's discretion.

Which is to say even if 'chronicle fishing' isn't cheating, not disclosing it certainly is.

You've acknowledged this, while at the same time turning your nose up at Chris for choosing to exercise the option.

Players similarly give GMs grief for 'choosing' to not have a creature conspicuously forgo the last two of its five attacks on a downed PC (when no player at the table once did the same). Or for reducing the gold earned because the PCs failed to recover items. Or for withholding prestige because the PCs failed to meet their secondary condition.

GMs have to make a lot of calls in a game. I'm not going to argue that an ambiguous call shouldn't go the way that's most fun. But I will argue that every player has to be included in that decision--including the GM.

4/5 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This brings to mind one of my worst adventure experiences, there were many factors that went into it, boon hunting was one of them. For the sake of spoilers I'll not mention the exact action, scenario, or boon acquired but give the general idea of how I saw it at the time.

During the course of the adventure, we found people being tortured within a dungeon. First thing that happened was openly Andoran aligned character took a branding iron, appraised it for a moment, then struck one of the prisoners at random. The GM then noted that he now had a +1 inherent bonus to any stat of his choice in addition to the moral ramifications of the action.

It was a good boon and he wanted it. The chronicle sheet pretty clearly outlined what he needed to do to acquire that +1 stat along with all the negatives he would take from doing that. I honestly had no idea how to interact with that player anymore and it made a horrible game even more so.

At PaizoCon I was at a table with someone wielding Gamin the Misforged and the GM made the comment, "So are you going to take him through [Scenario Name] where you can fix him?" I can't fault that harshly since there is literally no other avenue to improve this item he went out of his way to purchase. I don't like it, but really think that for elements such as this, PFS needs a better way of transferring boons only useful for a small selection of people.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

9 people marked this as a favorite.

To the campaign leadership:

Please consider a convention boon that would allow a player to "transfer" a boon from one character's Chronicle to another PC of commensurate level.

3/5 5/5

Actually, would it be appropriate for hints to be dropped in the scenario description where the boon builds on a certain previous boon?

For example, in the case of repairing the Misforged, the scenario that allowed it to be repaired could have had the line "NPC X is known to be a master smith whose ability to repair damaged or misforged items is legendary." Something innocuous that would make no sense to someone without the item, but would make a player with the item go "ooooh". In-game it'd make sense that the VCs would send an agent whom they thought would have an especial motivation in seeing said NPC rescued, or for an agent seeking to have the sword repaired to volunteer himself for a mission in which he might come across such a smith.

Dark Archive

FiddlersGreen wrote:
Actually, would it be appropriate for hints to be dropped in the scenario description where the boon builds on a certain previous boon?

Indeed. Alternatively, such clues can be provided in the prologue/VC briefing and folks may actually have an opportunity to role play fielding an appropriate team before setting out.

It'll still keep the surprise of a nice boon embedded in the scenario, but give folks a chance to do some Nancy Drew to get their preferred character into the game.

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

trik wrote:
DubiousYak wrote:
I feel calling boon fishing cheating is likely too severe, I expect that it might be more accurate to call it unsportsmanlike.

You'd have to define the sport to call it unsportsmanlike. Some people enjoy the character creation/concept portion of Pathfinder as much or more than the roleplaying part. Excelling at whatever they focus their build on is part of their "win" condition. To this type of player, an opportunity to build a character with something unique is of more entertainment value than being surprised by what happens in a given scenario.

As we are all playing for the entertainment value (hopefully), I don't think any of the players here have the authority to say their form of entertainment is cheating or breaking some "unwritten rule". If it was a rule, it would be written. You may not enjoy the same form of entertainment, but as long as it isn't detracting from your entertainment, what does it really matter? What if they find losing an opportunity for a unique build option something that hurts the entertainment they gain from Pathfinder? That said, I do agree that if someone is saying things to the extent of "We need to do X and Y and don't kill Z." with the only reason as to why being "uh, just because", it could detract from other players' entertainment.

Pathfinder is a very large game, encompassing many different aspects of play. People are bound to find different parts more enjoyable and one aspect isn't "better" than another innately. My opinion is relax a bit and just enjoy the game. If something is actually preventing you from enjoying the game (not just potentially), then share your experience, see what other people think and if there is some sort of majority consensus, attempt to turn it into an actual PFS written rule.

Actual PFS written rules that apply:

Do Not Cheat wrote:
Do not falsify rolls, do not falsify your Chronicle sheets, and do not add new items to your inventory without buying them properly. Do not lie to a GM under any circumstances. Keep good records of your character and make sure to bring all of your Chronicle sheets to every event or session of Pathfinder Society Organized Play. If you forget your Chronicle sheets, you will be unable to play your character, though you may be able to play a pregenerated character or start another character within Society rules. GMs rely on accurately kept Chronicle sheets to keep the campaign honest, fair, and fun for everyone. So keep your records safe, keep them accurate, and keep them with you when attending Pathfinder Society Organized Play events. (We suggest a binder that can be completely sealed between scenarios.)
Replaying Scenarios wrote:

• If you have already played a scenario and wish to replay to help make a table legal, you must inform the GM that you have already played the scenario. Some GMs may not be comfortable running an adventure for players who have foreknowledge of what is to come. If your GM is not comfortable with you replaying a scenario, the GM has the right to deny players the opportunity to replay a scenario for any reason. All GMs are encouraged to be as flexible as possible when replay is the only option that allows them to seat the minimum legal number of players at a game table.

• If you spoil the plot for the table, the GM has the right to ask you to leave the table. Be very careful about character knowledge versus player knowledge. If you’re concerned about possibly spoiling something during the course of play, take the GM aside and ask how she would like it handled. Remember: the goal of replay is to make sure fun gaming happens, not to remove the fun from gaming.

So, looking at the chronicle sheet before playing or GMing a scenario may reveal spoilers about the scenario.

So, in order to stay within the rules of PFS, you'll need to let your GM know if you have done so, abide by his decision as to whether that is considered to be replaying, and whether he will allow you to play at his table. In addition, in order to stay within the rules of PFS, you cannot allow your foreknowledge, from the chronicle, to affect how you play your PC, nor to spoil anything for the rest of the table.

I have seen chronicles that, do, indeed, give spoilers for potentially major things in the scenario or module. In those cases, I would want to discuss the ramifications of this activity with the player(s) involved. Usually, if there was some reasonable explanation of why you had seen the chronicle, and you did your best to keep your play and discussion spoiler-free, you will be fine at my table.

If, on the other hand, your explanation is, "Because I wanted to, in order to make sure I played this scenario with the right PC." and your knowledge affects your PC's activities in the game, don't expect to be welcome at my table in the future. Mainly because, it is likely that your actions have negatively impacted the fun of multiple other people.

Paizo Employee 5/5 Developer

saltyone wrote:
FiddlersGreen wrote:
Actually, would it be appropriate for hints to be dropped in the scenario description where the boon builds on a certain previous boon?

Indeed. Alternatively, such clues can be provided in the prologue/VC briefing and folks may actually have an opportunity to role play fielding an appropriate team before setting out.

It'll still keep the surprise of a nice boon embedded in the scenario, but give folks a chance to do some Nancy Drew to get their preferred character into the game.

And if the boon isn't something apparent at the beginning of the adventure? In the case of the Gamin follow-up, at least, the individual who triggers the boon is a complete unknown to anyone in the Society, and that character only appears partway through the adventure.

I ask this with considerable seriousness and a hint of befuddled concern, as I can see this entering dangerous territory—a slippery slope argument** that I recognize could be dismissed as a fallacy yet nonetheless triggers some "I can imagine people demanding this" neurons. Please pardon the following tongue-in-cheek strawman:

Uncomfortably transparent product description wrote:
The Pathfinders travel to Varisia, where they explore a Thassilonian ruin said to hold an ancient scroll MacGuffin. Along the way, the PCs can recover a long-forgotten intelligent weapon that would appeal to paladins, warpriests, and a select subset of clerics and inquisitors. The ruin lies beneath the a Shoanti arsinotherium ranch frequented by rangers with animal companions.

Would I get flak for not mentioning that there's a spellbook that has a few non-Core spells in it that Core Campaign wizards might want? What about the boots of mighty fists +1 that appears as a reward in the third encounter? Basically, where's the line of what's being requested? Do we only care about the intelligent items and class-option boons (e.g. animal companion options), or does this extend beyond that?

**:
My logical fallacies aren't intended to discredit an idea so much as illustrate my concerns regarding where this could go.

Paizo Employee 5/5 Developer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Chris Mortika wrote:

To the campaign leadership:

Please consider a convention boon that would allow a player to "transfer" a boon from one character's Chronicle to another PC of commensurate level.

Definitely something I'm investigating

Shadow Lodge 4/5

This reminds me. I've been on the lookout for pieces of the Sky Key and trying to get them on the same char has brought me nothing but grief. From playing up to playing as a pregen to giving a character gm exp on a level I'd prefer to have been playing instead(had hit the sweet spot), it's been a mess. Currently, I think I'm causing a session to be postponed just so I can still play both a Sky Key scenario and a different one on the same level.

In hindsight, I suggest to not metagame these things. Or have a really solid gameplan when approaching multi-scenario boons.

I hope the bragging will be worth it.

3/5 5/5

John Compton wrote:
saltyone wrote:
FiddlersGreen wrote:
Actually, would it be appropriate for hints to be dropped in the scenario description where the boon builds on a certain previous boon?

Indeed. Alternatively, such clues can be provided in the prologue/VC briefing and folks may actually have an opportunity to role play fielding an appropriate team before setting out.

It'll still keep the surprise of a nice boon embedded in the scenario, but give folks a chance to do some Nancy Drew to get their preferred character into the game.

And if the boon isn't something apparent at the beginning of the adventure? In the case of the Gamin follow-up, at least, the individual who triggers the boon is a complete unknown to anyone in the Society, and that character only appears partway through the adventure.

I ask this with considerable seriousness and a hint of befuddled concern, as I can see this entering dangerous territory—a slippery slope argument that I recognize could be dismissed as a fallacy yet nonetheless triggers some "I can imagine people demanding this" neurons. Please pardon the following tongue-in-cheek strawman:

Uncomfortably transparent product description wrote:
The Pathfinders travel to Varisia, where they explore a Thassilonian ruin said to hold an ancient scroll MacGuffin. Along the way, the PCs can recover a long-forgotten intelligent weapon that would appeal to paladins, warpriests, and a select subset of clerics and inquisitors. The ruin lies beneath the a Shoanti arsinotherium ranch frequented by rangers with animal companions.
Would I get flak for not mentioning that there's a spellbook that has a few non-Core spells in it that Core Campaign wizards might want? What about the boots of mighty fists +1 that appears as a reward in the third encounter? Basically, where's the line of what's being requested? Do we only care about the intelligent items and class-option boons (e.g. animal companion options), or does this extend beyond that?

Well, I actually have not played or even know which scenario that is, so it was a bit of an off-the-cuff and largely hypothetical suggestion. I do see where you're coming from with those concerns. Maybe don't make it a rule in every instance, but suggest to writers that if appropriate and if the society has the appropriate knowledge beforehand, it might be worth considering dropping an innocuous hint to certain boon-holders in the scenario description, but don't make any general promises about it. Completely optional but recommended if appropriate for the scenario, and make it subtle. =)

In all seriousness, I think you (and Mike Brock by extension) are in positions where you tend to get flak one way or the other for the decisions you make. Regrettably, I reckon it comes with the job and the nature of it. For what it's worth, thanks for doing it. =)

Paizo Employee 5/5 Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Muser wrote:

This reminds me. I've been on the lookout for pieces of the Sky Key and trying to get them on the same char has brought me nothing but grief. From playing up to playing as a pregen to giving a character gm exp on a level I'd prefer to have been playing instead(had hit the sweet spot), it's been a mess. Currently, I think I'm causing a session to be postponed just so I can still play both a Sky Key scenario and a different one on the same level.

In hindsight, I suggest to not metagame these things. Or have a really solid gameplan when approaching multi-scenario boons.

I hope the bragging will be worth it.

This is definitely something I've been keeping in mind while writing up the product descriptions for the Sky Key scenarios, most of which have some reference to the recovery of a broken relic or component. The aim has been for anyone familiar with the basics of the Sky Key storyline to look at the blurb and say, "Ah, I'm betting this is one of them."

By bragging rights, are you referring to pure bragging rights, in-game rewards, or the upcoming Special The Sky Key Solution?


John Compton wrote:
saltyone wrote:
FiddlersGreen wrote:
Actually, would it be appropriate for hints to be dropped in the scenario description where the boon builds on a certain previous boon?

Indeed. Alternatively, such clues can be provided in the prologue/VC briefing and folks may actually have an opportunity to role play fielding an appropriate team before setting out.

It'll still keep the surprise of a nice boon embedded in the scenario, but give folks a chance to do some Nancy Drew to get their preferred character into the game.

And if the boon isn't something apparent at the beginning of the adventure? In the case of the Gamin follow-up, at least, the individual who triggers the boon is a complete unknown to anyone in the Society, and that character only appears partway through the adventure.

I ask this with considerable seriousness and a hint of befuddled concern, as I can see this entering dangerous territory—a slippery slope argument** that I recognize could be dismissed as a fallacy yet nonetheless triggers some "I can imagine people demanding this" neurons. Please pardon the following tongue-in-cheek strawman:

Uncomfortably transparent product description wrote:
The Pathfinders travel to Varisia, where they explore a Thassilonian ruin said to hold an ancient scroll MacGuffin. Along the way, the PCs can recover a long-forgotten intelligent weapon that would appeal to paladins, warpriests, and a select subset of clerics and inquisitors. The ruin lies beneath the a Shoanti arsinotherium ranch frequented by rangers with animal companions.
Would I get flak for not mentioning that there's a spellbook that has a few non-Core spells in it that Core Campaign wizards might want? What about the boots of mighty fists +1 that appears as a reward in the third encounter? Basically, where's the line of what's being requested? Do we only care about the intelligent items and class-option boons (e.g. animal companion options), or does this extend beyond that?...

No no, they are valid concerns. Honestly, there is no good answer. The best one I can think of is a two parter:

1)Brief description of setting and any majorly relevant factions so that characters can be played right for feel.
"This is an urban adventure featuring the Dark Archives" lets me know more than enough to know that Maratis Vitosia, Taldan lancer, will not be at home here and that Merek Delfansia, Hellknight guntank, may be a better option.

2) A method of transferring boons.
"So this boon grants access to a unique lance. Glad that Merek can give this to the Society so that Maratis can use it!"

I feel that this would encourage players to play what's right for a scenario without punishing them for not playing what is right for the boon.
Also note to keep plot spoilers out of the title (I'm looking at you, Drow of the Darklands Pyramid).

Paizo Employee 5/5 Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:
Also note to keep plot spoilers out of the title (I'm looking at you, Drow of the Darklands Pyramid).

Oh, I do try. Very soon after being hired, I wrote this blurb for a hypothetical scenario as a joke to show my awareness of how disruptive spoiler-heavy titles can be:

#5-XYZ The Doppelganger's Prey
Cover art features the Bestiary doppelganger.
Scenario blurb: A doppelganger has taken the place of Sheila Heidmarch and sends the PCs to their dooms at the claws of countless powerful creatures.
Box Text: Sheila Heidmarch tells the PCs to—
PCs (interrupting as one): We kill the doppelganger.

3/5 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Compton wrote:
Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:
Also note to keep plot spoilers out of the title (I'm looking at you, Drow of the Darklands Pyramid).

Oh, I do try. Very soon after being hired, I wrote this blurb for a hypothetical scenario as a joke to show my awareness of how disruptive spoiler-heavy titles can be:

#5-XYZ The Doppelganger's Prey
Cover art features the Bestiary doppelganger.
Scenario blurb: A doppelganger has taken the place of Sheila Heidmarch and sends the PCs to their dooms at the claws of countless powerful creatures.
Box Text: Sheila Heidmarch tells the PCs to—
PCs (interrupting as one): We kill the doppelganger.

GM: Actually, that was the real Sheila Heidmarch. The doppelganger doesn't start impersonating her till halfway through the scenario.

Players: Oh. Um... Uh-oh.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FiddlersGreen wrote:
John Compton wrote:
Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:
Also note to keep plot spoilers out of the title (I'm looking at you, Drow of the Darklands Pyramid).

Oh, I do try. Very soon after being hired, I wrote this blurb for a hypothetical scenario as a joke to show my awareness of how disruptive spoiler-heavy titles can be:

#5-XYZ The Doppelganger's Prey
Cover art features the Bestiary doppelganger.
Scenario blurb: A doppelganger has taken the place of Sheila Heidmarch and sends the PCs to their dooms at the claws of countless powerful creatures.
Box Text: Sheila Heidmarch tells the PCs to—
PCs (interrupting as one): We kill the doppelganger.

GM: Actually, that was the real Sheila Heidmarch. The doppelganger doesn't start impersonating her till halfway through the scenario.

Players: Oh. Um... Uh-oh.

It's ok, we know she can afford a resurrection.

By the way Sheila, I need help opening this chest I found in the dungeon...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I will say that I don't know what the best solution is, but I will say that some of the ones proposed seem like poor ideas.

I think the hints will not work, unless you make it so obvious that you might as well have just said it. I have 7 PC's so far with dozens of chronicle sheets. I usually only get a few minutes at best to decide which table I will play at and which PC will be used. The odds of a subtle hint reminding me that this one PC has a sheet with something that sound similar seems remote.

I would be careful about making this another convention only boon. Those are starting to really aggravate some/many players. At least in my area, most of the players even very active players simply do not attend conventions.
"Ok we realized this is an issue for lots of people so we have this solution. But the only way you even have a chance to get this solution it to attend a convention whether you want to or not. Even then, you probably won't get"
I go to a few local conventions and would have a chance to get it. But there are already bad feelings over some of the convention boons that a few players have but no one else can get.
I would rather see no solution than this solution. I can't say for sure if any would quit, but I'm pretty sure the response would not be positive.

I would rather just see it as something added to the guide. use the cost as suggested by another poster. Spend 2 prestige on the giving and receiving character to transfer a boon from one to another. The receiving character must also pay any associated gold or other costs directly associated with the boon. The boon can not be used until the receiving character is at least as high of level as the character that one the sheet.

I think that would make the cost high enough that it won't be done for just everything, but it is still possible to get the special X with an appropriate character.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

John Compton wrote:
Muser wrote:

I hope the bragging will be worth it.

By bragging rights, are you referring to pure bragging rights, in-game rewards, or the upcoming Special The Sky Key Solution?

Oh just to the bragging about successfully catching them all under the same character. The joke is that it's not much of an achievement.

Thanks for the references to sky key parts by the way. They've been a big help and only From Under Ice's description has lead me astray.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I would like to say, that I am not promoting the idea of reading Chronicle Sheets.

Really, I am just saying, that if one is not changing their behavior whilst actually playing the scenario, not spoiling anything for anyone else, then I don't really see it as something truly terrible.

So, if it's not being used to gain some kind of advantage, other than possibly avoiding a useless Boon/Item for your PC, then I really can't see it as cheating.

Cheating is a dirty word, and should not be used lightly.

I understand that this action is associated with behavior that is, or at least, should be considered cheating.

I just don't find this one action, in itself, on that level.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
So, if it's not being used to gain some kind of advantage, other than possibly avoiding a useless Boon/Item for your PC, then I really can't see it as cheating.

Neither do we. But we find it an undesirable act to be avoided if possible.

I much prefer my players ask me what kind of characters would be good to play, or for them to GM to get such boons.

3/5

ElterAgo wrote:
I would be careful about making this another convention only boon. Those are starting to really aggravate some/many players. At least in my area, most of the players even very active players simply do not attend conventions.

Valid concern.

What would you think about maybe something akin to the generic GM star boons at 2 or 3 stars?

-TimD

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, I admit, I have read a number of Chronicle Sheets.

I honestly didn't know it was some kind of taboo.

This is especially true of Scenarios and Modules I purchase.

I think to myself, "Okay, I might play through this, so I will only look at the Chronicle Sheet, and not spoil anything for myself."

I even make sure I don't let it effect my actions during play, even if it would make a Boon unavailable to me.

I will even run a PC that might not gain a great advantage from the Boons/Items available, if running another PC would be detrimental to party composition.

So, when I looked at a Chronicle Sheet, I might say "Hmm, that would exceptionally beneficial to my X PC. I will run that PC through it, if I can."

Before now, I never thought this was considered such a foul thing, by the community.

In fact, with the pure vitriol, spewed by some, I am now even fearful, of having a Boon/Item be too beneficial, lest I be considered some kind of "cheater", whether or not I even knew what Boons/Items were available on the Chronicle Sheet.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Chris Mortika wrote:

To the campaign leadership:

Please consider a convention boon that would allow a player to "transfer" a boon from one character's Chronicle to another PC of commensurate level.

grrrrrrrr


blackbloodtroll wrote:
In fact, with the pure vitriol, spewed by some, I am now even fearful, of having a Boon/Item be too beneficial, lest I be considered some kind of "cheater", whether or not I even knew what Boons/Items were available on the Chronicle Sheet.

My best advice there is to stop caring what they think.

To whit: I play mechanically strong characters with solid forethought to their composition and future rule component selections (feats, skills, traits, levels, ability increases, desirable items.) This results in my characters generally being ahead of the curve most tables at equal level (with some rare exceptions which delight me when I come across them.) It also means I get labeled a powergamer (or a rollplayer) and am the subject of scorn by people who believe their way of playing is superior to (or more right than) mine. I stopped caring what they think. Eventually, either they'll get over it, or I'll be ostracized entirely. I'm fine with either result. In the meantime, I get to dismiss their vitriol with the simple mantra: "Words are wind."

You should just do you. When someone gives you static about it, laugh at them, remind yourself that their opinion doesn't matter, and move on. Unless it's Paizo Administration/Venture Officers of your region. Their opinion matters insofar as it intersects with your continued participation in PFS. But the other players/forum trolls/VO's that don't oversee you specifically? They can pound sand.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

DubiousYak wrote:
I feel calling boon fishing cheating is likely too severe, I expect that it might be more accurate to call it unsportsmanlike.

Call it whatever nice way to put it you want, but other than trash talking, gamesmanship is largely cheating.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:
DubiousYak wrote:
I feel calling boon fishing cheating is likely too severe, I expect that it might be more accurate to call it unsportsmanlike.
Call it whatever nice way to put it you want, but other than trash talking, gamesmanship is largely cheating.

Do you really consider these ethically dubious methods to gain an objective, or using questionable expedients without actually violating the rules?

I am not sure I would fully consider avoiding a potentially useless Boon/Item, to be an "unfair advantage", and I would certainly avoid full on accusations of cheating.

Honestly, I find this kind of reaction to be overtly harsh, accusatory, and bordering on a personal attack.

Let's not move in a direction towards behavior such as that.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Actually, by claiming it to be gamesmanship, then it cannot also be cheating.

That's not how gamesmanship works.

5/5 RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Well, I admit, I have read a number of Chronicle Sheets.

I honestly didn't know it was some kind of taboo.

You didn't know what you were doing was considered wrong, but now you do. Past actions can't be reversed/corrected. It is all a matter of how you move forward. You basically have two options to stay within campaign rules.

The first is to continue with your past behavior, but moving forward you inform the GM that you have prior knowledge of the material you will be playing as outlined in the Guide. Unfortunately if a GM is uncomfortable with you playing at their table they will be within their rights to refuse to seat you at their game.

The safest option is to refrain from reading chronicle sheets before playing a game, unless you're actually GMing a scenario or performing a character audit.

1/5

Ryzoken wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
In fact, with the pure vitriol, spewed by some, I am now even fearful, of having a Boon/Item be too beneficial, lest I be considered some kind of "cheater", whether or not I even knew what Boons/Items were available on the Chronicle Sheet.

My best advice there is to stop caring what they think.

To whit: I play mechanically strong characters with solid forethought to their composition and future rule component selections (feats, skills, traits, levels, ability increases, desirable items.) This results in my characters generally being ahead of the curve most tables at equal level (with some rare exceptions which delight me when I come across them.) It also means I get labeled a powergamer (or a rollplayer) and am the subject of scorn by people who believe their way of playing is superior to (or more right than) mine. I stopped caring what they think. Eventually, either they'll get over it, or I'll be ostracized entirely. I'm fine with either result. In the meantime, I get to dismiss their vitriol with the simple mantra: "Words are wind."

You should just do you. When someone gives you static about it, laugh at them, remind yourself that their opinion doesn't matter, and move on. Unless it's Paizo Administration/Venture Officers of your region. Their opinion matters insofar as it intersects with your continued participation in PFS. But the other players/forum trolls/VO's that don't oversee you specifically? They can pound sand.

This is generally good advice for life. Caring what other people think of you isn't worth the time or effort. I don't do what I consider to be wrong. I may do some things that other people consider to be wrong. Most people fit into that description. However, I don't spend any time worrying that other people might consider my actions wrong if they don't feel wrong to me.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, for those I have read, I am not going to tell the GM I read through the Scenario.

Instead, I will be honest, and say "I have read the Chronicle Sheet, but nothing else. I won't take any action that requires metagame knowledge, but if you feel that you can't have me at your table, that is your prerogative."

Hopefully, I won't suddenly have a slew of rigid GMs, and be unable to ever play through said Scenarios.

Of course, now, I fear that saying this, will come with a number of scowls, sneers, huffing, and accusations of trying to cheat.

Seriously, the pure open disgust, torch and noose shaking, that has come from discussing this, has me genuinely worried.

This whole business has left a very bad taste in my mouth, and has given me my first real disappointment, with the PFS community.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Of course, now, I fear that saying this, will come with a number of scowls, sneers, huffing, and accusations of trying to cheat.

Seriously, the pure open disgust, torch and noose shaking, that has come from discussing this, has me genuinely worried.

This whole business has left a very bad taste in my mouth, and has given me my first real disappointment, with the PFS community.

Heh. This thread and the one on taking 10 had me pretty bent out of shape too. Some days it feels like the more I read what the Pathfinder community writes, the less I want to be part of that community. Best solution I've come up with for that is: step away, breathe, repeat the mantra, and go do something I enjoy. Happily, people are a lot more polite in person, generally.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryzoken wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
In fact, with the pure vitriol, spewed by some, I am now even fearful, of having a Boon/Item be too beneficial, lest I be considered some kind of "cheater", whether or not I even knew what Boons/Items were available on the Chronicle Sheet.

My best advice there is to stop caring what they think.

maybe not the best advice in a social game in fact I would suggest the opposite.

My personal opinion is that PFS is a game built on trust and reading chronicles is toeing the line with the basic levels of trust that a gm gives players. Also knowing the boons that are provided gives you an unfair advantage over those who do not read the scenario ahead of time (in both possible prestige and boons).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Well, for those I have read, I am not going to tell the GM I read through the Scenario.

Instead, I will be honest, and say "I have read the Chronicle Sheet, but nothing else. I won't take any action that requires metagame knowledge, but if you feel that you can't have me at your table, that is your prerogative."

Hopefully, I won't suddenly have a slew of rigid GMs, and be unable to ever play through said Scenarios.

Of course, now, I fear that saying this, will come with a number of scowls, sneers, huffing, and accusations of trying to cheat.

Seriously, the pure open disgust, torch and noose shaking, that has come from discussing this, has me genuinely worried.

This whole business has left a very bad taste in my mouth, and has given me my first real disappointment, with the PFS community.

Honestly, don't let it shake you. While the boards can be downright brutal at times, things are generally much better in person.

I remember posting an issue regarding Racial Heritage for a PC picking up Kitsune blood (kitsune was not available without boon at the time, but the player wanted a fox tail and if you had a clue what happens when you discuss reskinning on here...), using the term "I let my player...", and getting a MOUNTAIN of crap for it. I had GMs from across the nation yelling at me because I "can't just 'let' a player do something in PFS! It needs to be fully rules sanctioned!"
A little later on Mike Brock came on board ( I *may* have prompted him a bit) and said that what I did was completely within the rules as written at the time.
Ended up being a MASSIVE freak out over nothing.

That's just kinda how the boards work at times. Just step away from it all, wait for a Dev to make an official call, and call it a day.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Most of my experience with PFS has been quite good.

As I said, this would be my first, actual disappointment.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Northwest aka WalterGM

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:


Honestly, don't let it shake you. While the boards can be downright brutal at times, things are generally much better in person.

This.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

So are special chronicle rewards like unique items, special mounts/animal companions, tech, etc considered to be mainly there as GM boons? I go out of my way to GM certain scenarios, especially when I play one and think I'd really like that on a different character. I've even retrained a character to use an item from a GM credit. Or is that also considered bad form?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
gnoams wrote:
So are special chronicle rewards like unique items, special mounts/animal companions, tech, etc considered to be mainly there as GM boons? I go out of my way to GM certain scenarios, especially when I play one and think I'd really like that on a different character. I've even retrained a character to use an item from a GM credit. Or is that also considered bad form?

At this point, it seems benefiting at all from a Chronicle Sheet, borders on bad form for some.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

This thread is starting to confuse me.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

5 people marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
At this point, it seems benefiting at all from a Chronicle Sheet, borders on bad form for some.

That's rather pointless hyperbole.

To answer gnoams, GMing a scenario after playing it is highly encouraged, so there really isn't any problem with doing it for the boon. So long as the GM isn't treating the players badly with an attitude of 'I'm getting mine and don't care about you'.

151 to 200 of 286 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / "Chronicle fishing". What is it, and why it is a bad thing? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.