Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
Okay using those as examples its planned to have +1 of each tier every 2 levels. So is it possible to have +1 equipment by level 2, +2 gear by level 4, and so on?
Oh wow no.
+1 weapon: 2.000 gp.+2 weapon: 8.000 gp.
Assuming you play everything in tier, with nicely rounded numbers:
Tier 1-2 gives you 500 gp per adventure. That's 3.000 gp. You could buy that magic weapon, but you'll barely have anything left for your other gear.
Tier 3 should give you about 1.300 per adventure, so another 3.900 gp.
Tier 4-5 is 1.800-ish. So yeah, after one adventure at level 4, you can buy a +2 weapon. And then you'll have 850 gold pieces left (including starting money). That leaves you completely naked and with one cool sword. Not even a mithral one, just a regular sword.
Hell, most of my characters get a +2 equivalent around level 7-8, because I have other stuff to keep up to date, such as the Cloak, armour, and a headband.
Pathfinder isn't about the best gear or how powerful you are. That's what people turn it into. If you want that, go play Skyrim, that's where you make, find, or buy your best build possible. Pathfinder fundamentally isn't that. It's basically a resource-management game with a narrative stapled to it. You don't buy what you want or need, you buy what you can get your hands on. Lots of adventure paths throw random items at the players purely so they can experiment with it. Want that Cloak +2? too bad, here's a Cloak of Fangs. Have fun.
Venture-Lieutenant, Online—PbP
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Chaosticket, you're not criticising specific flaws in the campaign. You are criticising the fundamental principles behind the campaign. What some people are trying to gently suggest is that if you can't accept the principles behind a campaign, that campaign may not be a good fit for you.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And people are still trying to engage, despite the use of ridiculous superlatives in other threads. It's not about majority rules, it's about what has broken other campaigns in the past, what breaks home games now, and how maybe several centuries of combined experience running this campaign might be of value in making decisions.
The things you want out of the game can be had in Pathfinder, but not in PFS. I know you stated in another thread that PFS is the only game in town, but I'd be willing to bet there are other options for you. Feel free to PM me and I'd be willing to try to help you find a group.
|
@Coraith
This is for you. In those situations you mentioned I see the excess usage of ideas to "break" games. Long before it reached the points mentioned things should have been done. If you have unlimited funds youve basically unlocked cheat code in a game for "unlimited money".
What do you think is fair, getting a 40% increase in rewards or 400% increase?
There is no gray area in the rules and people that suggest this heavy handed approach in this thread dont make one. Its basically just repetition of "any changes will break the campaign".
Its already broken if the majority dictate terms as it the decision was unanimous. I even see a recent post once again saying to quit the campaign since I criticize its flaws.
Honestly, I think a 10% to 20% decrease in rewards would be best for the campaign.
No, I don't see anyone saying that "any changes will break the campaign." What I see people saying is, that, "the changes you want don't work well for an organized cooperative game."
There are lots of changes I'd like to see this campaign make, most of which I think would be overall better than what we have now. Some of them would not be popular changes.
I think what you are missing is the parts where people try to explain to you what organized play is and how it works and what cooperative play means in relation to what you are suggesting. Because if you really absorbed what people are saying, you might revise your requests.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Full stop.
Those of us that are commenting have seen what wealth creation does to campaigns .
All posts that have been made by you have been overwhelmingly negative and charged with buzz-words and terms that run a finger down the spine of anyone that has seen what the end result of such efforts are.
The problem with 'gray area' in the rules is that the more 'gray area', the more potential for campaign disruption there is. If one supports the idea of a unified campaign, then one does not seek to expand said 'gray area'.
If one is unhappy with the direction and course of the campaign, one may always raise concerns, but to likewise point the stick at those who see these alleged 'weaknesses' as a *strength* of the campaign is not the way to do it.
Campaign Leadership has been *exceptionally* firm on 'wealth generation schemes' on many different occasions throughout the years. It serves no end, and if one honestly looks at what has been said on this thread, including the OP topic, it is *already in place*.
Want to put in minimal effort? Get minimal reward. Show up and play a scenario/module/AP to the fullest? Get the full reward.
What the original suggestion should have been was 'More Effort Equals EXTRA Reward', which is well and beyond the scope of the campaign and more suited to a different campaign.
It does not seem as if one is happy with this campaign, so some of us have attempted to help with discussion about the ways EXTRA effort can be used to increase one's rewards, but that has not been 'good enough' for one's rarefied tastes.
If one could come up with a proactive and reasonable way to address the significant majority's (and Campaign Leadership's) concerns about wealth generation, it would be much more positively received than a continual picking at the foundations with one's fingers.
Build, rather than destroy.
|
|
Chaosticket, you're not criticising specific flaws in the campaign. You are criticising the fundamental principles behind the campaign. What some people are trying to gently suggest is that if you can't accept the principles behind a campaign, that campaign may not be a good fit for you.
It isn't just the fundamental principles behind the campaign.
He's criticizing the fundamental principles of table-top RPG play.
Ha no ive already compared how the organized campaign is less like like a tabletop and more like a videogame, and not an open world/sandbox.
I would like democratic options, a free market economy, and few to no banned options. Those would dictated by mutual benefit and/or ethics. Democracy I want but people infer that its anarchy.
I opened another thread about finding a DEMOCRATIC organized campaign as an alternative. Apparently there isnt one?
Que that false analogy guy or something. I like the avatar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like democratic options, a free market economy, and few to no banned options.
What is stopping you from starting your own campaign?
Not being a Paizo employee and lack of resources to start.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
He doesn't want to compete in the free market?
*slow clap*
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ha no ive already compared how the organized campaign is less like like a tabletop and more like a videogame, and not an open world/sandbox.
I would like democratic options, a free market economy, and few to no banned options. Those would dictated by mutual benefit and/or ethics. Democracy I want but people infer that its anarchy.
I opened another thread about finding a DEMOCRATIC organized campaign as an alternative. Apparently there isnt one?
Que that false analogy guy or something. I like the avatar.
Your comparison of organized play to a video game is incorrect.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not being a Paizo employee and lack of resources to start.
Do you believe that everyone involved with PFS is a Paizo employee? That you have to be a Paizo employee to have a Pathfinder game?
What do you mean "lack of resources"? You have the rules, I presume? What else is needed?
Organized Play Lead Developer
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like democratic options, a free market economy, and few to no banned options.What is stopping you from starting your own campaign?
Not being a Paizo employee and lack of resources to start.
Paizo employees make up a tiny fraction of the people who run Pathfinder and Starfinder games, and one of the benefits of tabletop RPGs is the accessibility with which one can design her own adventures or repurpose existing materials in whatever way she likes.
Also, if resources are a concern, keep in mind that many hardcover books are available for your perusal and use on the Pathfinder Reference Document.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not being a Paizo employee and lack of resources to start.
Most folks commenting in this thread are not Paizo employees.
As mentioned else-thread, the only resources one needs to start are blood, sweat, and tears.
Having a vision for a campaign helps.
Having others who adopt one's vision helps as well.
It is unlikely that many will be found here, but it doesn't hurt considering the option, at least.
No, I'm not volunteering to help with an independent start-up. I've been involved in *far too many* of those in the past.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you may be sadly disappointed if:
We made organized play a democratic institution where the player base gets to decide all the rules for the campaign, and your ideas lose, democratically. I'm pretty close to 100% certain that would be the case.
Do you know what you mean when you say Democratic? Because it doesn't mean, "I get my way." Necessarily.
I'm not even sure what you mean by a "free market economy." I mean, how does that even apply to a roleplaying game environment?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, look at the facts:
- According to you: Pathfinder Society is the only campaign you can play.
- According to you: Almost nothing about Pathfinder Society fits your style of play.
- According to you: You want the entire functionality of Pathfinder Society to change to fit your style of play.
- According to you: Everyone is just being negative when they try to explain this to you.
|
Investing yourself in the society yields its own reward. All you have to do is immerse yourself in the campaign and roleplay characters that are fun for everyone at the table.
Yeah, it doesn't seem like he wants that. Not from any of the threads he's opened.
Beyond being a Paizo employee, make your own system. Create your own RPG from scratch. Or heavily revise the Pathfinder system with the Open Game License. One that allows this "Democratic" free market system that you're wanting so badly. Then make it Organized Play. LPJ was able to do it with their variation to Pathfinder. PFS isn't going to change to the degree you want it. It'll never happen. Especially not after nine years of existence.
Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like democratic options, a free market economy, and few to no banned options. Those would dictated by mutual benefit and/or ethics. Democracy I want but people infer that its anarchy.
The overall pace of an organized play style is far too slow to make a Democracy work. There are THOUSANDS of people who play PFS across the world. Only a small percentage are active on these forums. Getting a majority of players involved in any kind of vote would be impossible.
So what would happen is a small band of players would take control of the voting process and drive the campaign in the direction they wish it go. And thus the coup is complete, democracy ends, and anarchy begins. Much better to have a dedicated team that watches over the campaign as a whole and provides a fun and balance play for most of us. There will always be players who want more. They don't stay very long.
A smaller group could make a Democracy work, but even then it would spin out of control after a short while.
I like PFS/SFS. I like the sandbox that has been created for me to play in. I like the fact that if I play in different areas, I know the other characters I find will have similar and familiar abilities and equipment.
Chaos, whatever it is your seeking you will not find it in PFS. You will not be successful in making any change to the campaign.
In order to enjoy PFS/SFS, you MUST accept the sandbox Paizo and Organized Play team provides.
Remember I asked for this to be closed when it was clear Pathfinder society uses a communist economy and wasnt going to change. Its an interesting conversation about conformity and Democracy(or the lack), but this started about the lack of haggling.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember I asked for this to be closed when it was clear Pathfinder society uses a communist economy and wasnt going to change. Its an interesting conversation about conformity and Democracy(or the lack), but this started about the lack of haggling.
the way you close a thread is to go and click the little circle thing with a slash that says "hide this thread" and then the thread is closed. You don't respond and then the thread dies
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember I asked for this to be closed when it was clear Pathfinder society uses a communist economy and wasnt going to change. Its an interesting conversation about conformity and Democracy(or the lack), but this started about the lack of haggling.
How is it a communist economy? I like how you consistently throw out buzz-words, of which I don't think you really know what they mean.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is it a communist economy? I like how you consistently throw out buzz-words, of which I don't think you really know what they mean.Remember I asked for this to be closed when it was clear Pathfinder society uses a communist economy and wasnt going to change. Its an interesting conversation about conformity and Democracy(or the lack), but this started about the lack of haggling.
Well, this thread has served a positive function for me. It's reminded me of this Order of the Stick strip about the consequences of letting the free market determine game prices.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the fundamental problem is that CT still thinks of this in videogame terms where the entire system is designed to serve the one player. Roleplaying games are group activities and the fundamental rule zero of roleplaying games is 'have fun and help others to have fun'. Perhaps if CT GMed a game or two it might bring perspective.
I'd agree, except that he is saying that PFS is too much like a video game.
I don't think we can really argue with someone about something, when the lack of fundamental understanding of what is in existence is so prevalent.
|
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
ChaosTicket, to be perfectly honest, your commentary sounds a lot like trolling. After roughly two dozen sessions of PFS most of which is within the past year and being located where you are with local access to community leadership, you should have known by now that what you are asking for is neither permitted in, nor particularly wanted in PFS organized play. Further, continuing to besmirch the campaign does not help you position. I would hope that if you dislike the campaign guidelines to such a degree that you would choose to play something else. Life is too short to be unhappy. OP models are not for everyone. That is not to say we don't want you to participate, but if it is not enjoyable, then why do it? And if you don't do it, arguing with those who do is fairly useless. And continuing to "bad-mouth" a campaign that lots of people love and enjoy is very disrespectful.
?Now, given the area where you appear to live, I can almost guarantee there are swathes of people who would participate in a home-style campaign where the topics you discuss could be explored to the fullest. It might be the way to go. I could probably put you in touch with a number of people who know your area quite intimately and could guide you to find some players with similar styles and interests. Feel free to PM me if you are interested.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just added some emphasis... is there a mark-up tag that makes text flash and play horn sounds?
Seriously though: This, this, this above all else. Don't keep ordering nachos if you hate cheese.
Ok let's see if my theory is right.
I am not going to find 100percent of what I am looking for in the Pathfinder Society Campaign. At the same time its my only option for Pathfinder which is a game I am passionate about.
|
|
Ok let's see if my theory is right.
I am not going to find 100percent of what I am looking for in the Pathfinder Society Campaign. At the same time its my only option for Pathfinder which is a game I am passionate about.
I don't really see a theory there.
What do you mean its you only option? PFS players often also participate in non-PFS games. If you can find PFS events, you can probably find the same players interested in a non-PFS event. You keep saying PFS is your only option for Pathfinder, but not explaining why that is the case.
|
|
Ok let's see if my theory is right.
I am not going to find 100percent of what I am looking for in the Pathfinder Society Campaign. At the same time its my only option for Pathfinder which is a game I am passionate about.
I don't really see a theory there.
What do you mean its you only option? PFS players often also participate in non-PFS games. If you can find PFS events, you can probably find the same players interested in a non-PFS event. You keep saying PFS is your only option for Pathfinder, but not explaining why that is the case.
In other threads he discussed his very tight work schedule, and the scheduled PFS games was about all he had time for.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its almost like there's no connection between the words being used and the ideas being expressed behind them, behind the pure rhetorical value of words themselves.
Democracy is good. So i want good thing. (even though its largely a democratic decision as to what kind of game we want to have)
Communism is bad, so what you're doing is bad.
Hard work should get more reward, but whats being described isn't remotely hard work. It's not even being remotely clever.
Video gamey is bad, therefore what you're doing is videogamey, even though the process does a pretty good job of mirroring real world economies (being "better" with money or asking for a raise gets you a small bonus at best), and whats being asked for is what's being modeled in video games.
Ok let's see if my theory is right.
I am not going to find 100percent of what I am looking for in the Pathfinder Society Campaign.
Correct!
At the same time its my only option for Pathfinder which is a game I am passionate about.
Possibly correct.
Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Pullman
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In those situations you mentioned I see the excess usage of ideas to "break" games. Long before it reached the points mentioned things should have been done. If you have unlimited funds you've basically unlocked cheat code in a game for "unlimited money".
...we run into a large amount of table variation. Lenient GMs will allow for more generous payments and stricter GMs for less pay.
This is what PFS tries to limit by placing certain restrictions on player character creation options and taking certain decision making power out of GMs hands. PFS needs less variability in scenario outcome and rewards to ensure that scenarios can be written with a an assumption of players having access to X abilities, Y spells, Z consumables. The more power we put into the hands of GMs to change those variables the harder it becomes to write scenarios for players.
What do you think is fair, getting a 40% increase in rewards or 400% increase?
I don't believe we need any additional rewards for our characters. We have access to 'free' 3rd level potions or 1st level wands for 2PP; as well as a slew of boons that have several ways to increase our overall wealth.
Aside from that:
I don't know how interested you'd be but you should look into Shadowrun 5E. Negotiation is one of the core mechanics of their organized play system and the game. Of course please continue to play PFS if that is what appeals to you, but I encourage you to branch out into other systems. I find playing other systems helps me appreciate things I was unaware I enjoyed in PFS.
Ok let's see if my theory is right.
I am not going to find 100percent of what I am looking for in the Pathfinder Society Campaign. At the same time its my only option for Pathfinder which is a game I am passionate about.
Then I suggest you compromise on what you're looking for and passionately enjoy the parts of Pathfinder you do find in PFS. If you can't do that, find a non-PFS game to play in some way - whether it's a face to fact tabletop game with like-minded people or an online game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In other threads he discussed his very tight work schedule, and the scheduled PFS games was about all he had time for.
Gotcha. Well, that is unfortunate, but in some cases, PFS or even any RPG gaming is not possible if the schedule is that restricted. I’m only saying that if someone has time to go play PFS, they could use that same time to play a non-OP RPG where their style of play can be supported. But, the bottom line is this, what he wants is not what PFS is. It is a fundamental aspect of OP to restrict some of the standard game options like crafting and WBL. If that is something you just cannot accept, then PFS is not the game for you. That’s just a fact of life and certainly not specific to our genre or campaign
|
|
In other threads he discussed his very tight work schedule, and the scheduled PFS games was about all he had time for.Gotcha. Well, that is unfortunate, but in some cases, PFS or even any RPG gaming is not possible if the schedule is that restricted. I’m only saying that if someone has time to go play PFS, they could use that same time to play a non-OP RPG where their style of play can be supported. But, the bottom line is this, what he wants is not what PFS is. It is a fundamental aspect of OP to restrict some of the standard game options like crafting and WBL. If that is something you just cannot accept, then PFS is not the game for you. That’s just a fact of life and certainly not specific to our genre or campaign
He's tried. John Compton and others even got involved in looking for him as well. He's mainly looking for online groups that plays when he's available. I think it was 10 pm to 3 am his time. Likely someone in Britain or the Pacific Coast would have to be available.
But yeah, I agree that PFS just doesn't fit his niche. He might like Pathfinder, but besides a home game that's been adapted to his needs, another system might be the way to go. As Steven Huffstutler mentioned, Shadowrun 5e has at least part of what he's into. And if the Organized Play version really does have it too, then all the better. Even I have to admit that PFS doesn't fit my playing style, which is why I only GM it, but that could just be the GMs I've had being the absolute harshest of rules lawyers to the point that most of our players practically all left. But none of us wanted what he's asking for.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He's tried. John Compton and others even got involved in looking for him as well. He's mainly looking for online groups that plays when he's available. I think it was 10 pm to 3 am his time.In other threads he discussed his very tight work schedule, and the scheduled PFS games was about all he had time for.Gotcha. Well, that is unfortunate, but in some cases, PFS or even any RPG gaming is not possible if the schedule is that restricted. I’m only saying that if someone has time to go play PFS, they could use that same time to play a non-OP RPG where their style of play can be supported.
CT: You know that 4-5 hours per session that you currently spend playing PFS? And how (according to you) that's the only time and opportunity you have to play at all? Then you've solved your own problem.
You have 4-5 hours at a time which you can use to design your own campaign. And when you've designed your own campaign, then you have 4-5 hours per session to recruit other players and/or GMs to play the campaign you've designed. And once you've recruited those players and/or GMs, you have 4-5 hours per session to play the campaign that you've designed, exactly the way you want it to be. At least until those other players/GMs decide they don't want what you want and outvote you, democratically. When they do, you'll have that 4-5 hours per session to recruit new players/GMs.
It'll be a lot of work, but since you'll be breaking it down into 4-5 hour work sessions, it shouldn't be too onerous. In fact, if I were in your place, I would be excited by the new opportunities stretching out before me! Designing something new is an amazing experience. I envy you, a little.
Or, maybe you don't want to do all that work. Maybe you don't feel up to it. That's understandable. With PFS, almost all of the work is done for you, already. But all this time that you're spending on these forums, making demands that we've been patiently explaining are as undesirable as they are impossible- well, that's time you could have been using to design your own campaign. Because I'm sorry, but the changes that you want PFS to make aren't going to happen. Not during the current campaign, and probably not ever.
Frankly, the developers have years more collective game experience than you do, and they have more experience with organized play specifically. (Even just a few of the developers have upwards of 50 years development experience between them, and your posting habits and syntax suggest that you're relatively young- nothing personal, just an observation.) They know what works for a large campaign like PFS better than you do, and their wisdom will carry the day.
So, to be blunt, you have some combination of three choices:
1. Continue to play PFS, accepting the fact that you will not like all aspects of it.
2. Quit PFS and use the time to design your own campaign or find a non-PFS group.
3. Continue to make demanding forum posts until everyone simply mutes your threads and ignores you.
Personally, I hope you choose either #1 or #2- either way you'll be happier.
Whether you are trolling or giving well thought out arguments its almost always off topic as it still doesnt address the facts of the following points way back in the opening post.
#1 There is no positive influence on currency. So you cannot negotiate for more money from scenarios or keep anything you steal for example.
#2 there is no positive variation on non-currency rewards. You cannot keep anything without the Pathfinder Society deducting it from your pay.
Pathfinder has greater options. Pathfinder Society Campaign has fewer as its rewards are fixed.
I asked if there were any solutions to the these problems. I was not amused by the answer being that I quit Pathfinder.
-----------------------------
So the same theory again. This time I will give an explanation. Will people respond to get the last word in a conversation even when it should end?
Hopefully The End
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Online—PbP
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
ChaosTicket, the changes that you are demanding are not just to Organized Play, but also to Pathfinder itself. Look again at Wealth by Level in the Core Rulebook. If you get extra money by negotiating or anything like that, the GM is supposed to reduce the money you get from a later combat or other situation so that by the time you get to the next level, the extra money didn't matter.