"Throwing" now in PFS?


Pathfinder Society Playtest

Scarab Sages 3/5 Venture-Agent aka ItsJustAce

I'm just being inquisitive,
I feel like people are just going to throw their characters into stupid or dangerous situations now. Some people have a feeling that their character isn't going to matter so who cares? In doing this, that player may put the rest of the party in danger by pissing off a lich or
jumping on a dragon. Are people hearing things like "my character just doesn't care anymore?" or "I'm just going to Leeroy Jenkins this."
I've been hearing stuff like this a lot lately, personally I'm not really against it. I understand of the feeling of kind of giving up. What kind of concerns me is if this happens, the player won't be punished. And, if they are it probably wont effect season 2. Also, new players that might want to come in to PFS may have this as one of their first experiences and it might leave a sour taste in their mouth. I just thought I'd bring it up.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The number 1st rule of PFS is don't be a jerk.
The number 2nd rule of PFS is don't be a jerk.
The number 3rd rule of PFS is don't be a jerk.

I hope people don't forget this.

Liberty's Edge 4/5

Just had a convention this week. Biggest concern I heard is the number of people who have stated they will give up GMing until PFS2.0 starts.

We did already have some incidents of people doing dumber things this weekend as player characters though due to it not mattering in the long run.

4/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't understand the mentality here. Seasons 0-10 will still be playable after 2nd edition releases. Most venues will likely continue to run them well after 2nd edition releases because of the content flow. Season 10 hasn't even started yet. It's not like these characters stop being playable.

Scarab Sages 3/5 Venture-Agent aka ItsJustAce

Don't be a jerk is a great rule, but when the rules aren't going to matter in 2 years time? I don't know I see both sides.

2/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Serisan wrote:
I don't understand the mentality here. Seasons 0-10 will still be playable after 2nd edition releases. Most venues will likely continue to run them well after 2nd edition releases because of the content flow. Season 10 hasn't even started yet. It's not like these characters stop being playable.

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse... in a dark corner all by myself where nobody even knows I exist.

That's because at certain venues, PFS2 will replace PFS1 and those people will have nowhere to play PFS1, so for them, it is dead. It makes perfect sense to not GM in that situation if you're not doing it for the love of your friends. It makes perfect sense to risk your characters (and your party) doing something crazy as if you succeed, you've got a cool story, and if you fail and cause a TPK, well, no big deal to you.

I don't condone that behavior, personally.

However, I easily see the source of that behavior.

Sovereign Court 3/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
ItsJustAce wrote:
Don't be a jerk is a great rule, but when the rules aren't going to matter in 2 years time? I don't know I see both sides.

Organized Play is continuing. We will have the same VOs herding the cats. If you break the rules and grief other players, I doubt you'll be welcome back for second edition.

2/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
"I'm just going to Leeroy Jenkins this."

Was that ever not the solution?

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Agent, Rhode Island—Lincoln aka Upaynao

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hear what you are saying Blake's Tiger, and I do understand it conceptually. But as an organizer, I find the idea of not offering one campaign because "you gotta go with the new stuff" silly, overly consumeristic and personally abhorrent. Sessions should be offered with an eye towards the demand. If there is still demand for PFS1, offer PFS1. Until my little spreadsheet where I track all my minio... I mean regular players' adventures is filled, I am going to have PFS1 on offer. I might even expand over two nights to accommodate PFS1 and 2. Or alternate. Haven't really thought that far, since we have another year and a half.

Insofar as People doing stupid s+@# because "it don't matter no more"; I can tell anyone who cares that you can absolutely do that, but if you wonder why I won't play at a table with you or why I won't GM for a table with you, I'll be pointing you at your nonsense from the end days of PFS1.

Online Play has just seen it's first ban for someone acting very selfishly. Acting in a rash,inconsiderate manner because "idgaf, PFS1 B ded lol" will entail me taking steps to see the same sort of punishment met out to those who spoil organized play for those who do care.

Liberty's Edge 4/5

Gregory Rebelo wrote:
I hear what you are saying Blake's Tiger, and I do understand it conceptually. But as an organizer, I find the idea of not offering one campaign because "you gotta go with the new stuff" silly, overly consumeristic and personally abhorrent. Sessions should be offered with an eye towards the demand.

In my area, it's about tables. Every table I give to Starfinder is one less table of PFS I can run. If I run a core table, it's at the cost of a regular PFS table. A split to 1.0 vs 2.0 isn't going to mean "just run both". It will be logistics decisions of what to schedule and what not to schedule.

We have a year and a half to plan, but handling this has absolutely been a topic of discussion among players already.

2/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

Hey, I'm not an organizer!

But... I have to say, it's not just demand, it's also supply (GM and player).

My venue runs 2 tables currently: one low tier and one high tier. It's because we only have enough players and GMs for 2 tables. That's probably a big reason why SFS is virtually non-existent. When PFS2 comes around, which tables are my venues supposed to run?

Anyhow, I'll just end by reiterating that I do not condone this behavior, and people doing this sort of thing would very quickly make it onto my "No Play" list.

Oh, look, my venue just responded and more succinctly.

The Exchange 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Lieutenant, North Carolina—Charlotte aka eddv

GM Thrawn wrote:
Gregory Rebelo wrote:
I hear what you are saying Blake's Tiger, and I do understand it conceptually. But as an organizer, I find the idea of not offering one campaign because "you gotta go with the new stuff" silly, overly consumeristic and personally abhorrent. Sessions should be offered with an eye towards the demand.

In my area, it's about tables. Every table I give to Starfinder is one less table of PFS I can run. If I run a core table, it's at the cost of a regular PFS table. A split to 1.0 vs 2.0 isn't going to mean "just run both". It will be logistics decisions of what to schedule and what not to schedule.

We have a year and a half to plan, but handling this has absolutely been a topic of discussion among players already.

Yeah this is a logistical nightmare that Starfinders (local) unpopularity is really complicating.

I am going to basically have to start feeling out what old content even makes sense to schedule alongside a very limited amount of new content when the time comes and that's going to be a tricky challenge I haven't had to face since becoming an organizer.

Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Agent, Texas—Austin aka Partizanski

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For our lodge, we organized Starfinder on a separate night so that it would not compete with our Pathfinder tables. The low flow of content also means we are only doing Starfinder every other week instead of every week like Pathfinder.

I am still working with my local VOs on how we will offer PF1 and PF2 together. That being said, if they keep the schedule of 2 scenarios a month, that means that all of our regulars will be on the forward edge of the content, so there will be gaps that old PF1 scenarios will fill.

That being said we are lucky to get 5 tables from our venue, so we can do a split relatively easily, and I know that is not the case every where.

5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

3 people marked this as a favorite.

We are very lucky here in Boston (and the rest of New England) that we have both the venues and demand to support ALL the campaigns, but I realize we're unusual in that regard. We will continue to run whatever players are looking for, for as long as they're looking (and we've made sure to let the local lodges know this), and so far I haven't heard of either a GM saying they won't run PF1 going forward, or any player hinting at "throwing" the game because they believe it won't matter in the long run.

I know this doesn't help those outside our corner of the country, but if anyone is visiting our area, and wants a game in any campaign, give any of us local VOs a heads up and I promise if at all possible we will make it happen for you.

5/5

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I'm not going to throw any games. But I have a bunch of old chronicles and AP credits lying around. I'm going to use them to make an Apocalypse Oracle that will be always ranting about the end of the world.

The Exchange 5/5

"Throwing"? hmmm.
actually came into this thread expecting to see some changes to Alchemical Weapons, and maybe rules on Slings, Staffslings and pitching rocks at things...but I guess not.

I do not find the "tactic" of to be anything new. It is a play style I have seen many times in many campaigns all the way back to old D&D days (when PCs were MUCH easier to create). Some people play that way. I try to avoid them. In my current area there are some players who are VERY well know for it... "Hay, did you see who signed up for the 6th seat at our slot two game? Yeah - I think I'll switch out to a different table. What, you've never played with them before? Well, last time I sat at a them with them, they got three of us killed..." Yeah. Been there, done that, got the emotional scars to show for it. Doesn't need the excuse of "We'll all dying anyway..." to appear. I guess it might cause some increase... but I hope not. and I'll advise anyone I play with that seems to be developing this as a play style to stop it. Pointing out that they will "get that reputation", you know, like the players that do that now. Like the ones I mentioned above that we tend to switch games to avoid. "Yeah, you don't want to turn into THEM..."


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

It's been frustrating to me. We haven't had suicidal or "Who cares?" during our missions, but there is a healthy amount of people in my PFS group who are utterly convinced that after August 2019 that there will be no more PF1 games.

I almost wish that they had kept PF2 under wraps, because then I wouldn't feel like my new Skinwalker wasn't a useless reward for me GMing. I kept trying to reiterate the point that we should still be playing PF1, but because it wasn't going to be "supported" anymore there wasn't any point.

I figure it will be like our Starfinder experience: you'll only get one shot because there aren't enough scenarios to do a second character when you have the same group of people playing it.

I'm not against PF2, but I really wish I could feel like I could enjoy PF1 while it is still supported. As it is, it does feel like a bit of "We'll never run a PF1 game ever" from my PFS group.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Valamuur wrote:

It's been frustrating to me. We haven't had suicidal or "Who cares?" during our missions, but there is a healthy amount of people in my PFS group who are utterly convinced that after August 2019 that there will be no more PF1 games.

(...)

I'm not against PF2, but I really wish I could feel like I could enjoy PF1 while it is still supported. As it is, it does feel like a bit of "We'll never run a PF1 game ever" from my PFS group.

I don't understand this feeling. Anyone can run PFS 1 or 2 scenarios. If people want to play PFS1, why wouldn't they run them?

Where I'm from the VOs and players are not a completely separate group with the VOs making all the decisions and the players passively letting it happen, and never coming up with ideas and initiatives of their own.

We're all one group of friends and if someone wants to play a particular scenario he says so and someone else usually offers to run it. Everyone likes running stuff that's been specifically requested, because you get extra-enthusiastic players.

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

I haven't heard anyone treating their characters this way, before or after the announcement. And I have been very vocal around here about intending to continue running 1E games as long as I have players.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just want to say I fully plan on continuing my completely reckless, suicidal-seeming behavior. With table consent. That they for some reason continually give me. Even the ones who get carted back to the lodge in small boxes, when plan “G” blows up in our faces, after plans A-F failed in a less spectacular manner.

1/5

Well also remember how little content there can be in some areas that play a lot. Right after gencon at release how many 2.0 scenarios will there be?

Well there is a god that is a legal patron for that chalidra.

Dark Archive

With everything changing, I'm looking forward to seeing if for PFS 2.0 everyone that is a current vc or go have to reapply.

If stars and the such don't hold over than anyone currently in a position, should have to reapply as a fresh start, where others who want, can also apply for those positions....

Grand Lodge 4/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

Nothing is stopping others who want to join the Venture-Corps from doing so. Of course, there has to be a need in the area and you may start as something other than VC, but generally speaking, anyone/everyone is encouraged to submit their interest to the VL/VC/RVC for their area. And no, I/we do not expect all the VOs to have to reapply for their position. Stars≠VO positions.

Silver Crusade 5/5

Sin of Asmodeus wrote:

With everything changing, I'm looking forward to seeing if for PFS 2.0 everyone that is a current vc or go have to reapply.

If stars and the such don't hold over than anyone currently in a position, should have to reapply as a fresh start, where others who want, can also apply for those positions....

That would just be a silly waste of time. For very, very good reason anybody currently serving would automatically be chosen (they're a proven quantity)

Grand Lodge 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sin of Asmodeus wrote:

With everything changing, I'm looking forward to seeing if for PFS 2.0 everyone that is a current vc or go have to reapply.

If stars and the such don't hold over than anyone currently in a position, should have to reapply as a fresh start, where others who want, can also apply for those positions....

Given that VOs are also in charge of organizing Starfinder and Adventure Card Guild, which aren't going anywhere, I fail to see your logic.

Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society Playtest / "Throwing" now in PFS? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society Playtest