An Open Letter to the Collective

[Mark Moreland]

As the original founder of this Google group, I thought I'd step in to
the conversation here not as Paizo Developer, a member of campaign
leadership, or anything else except a member of this community.

Pathfinder Society Online Collective was never intended to be a
private group. I had done some private online games before making it,
which were me and some friends agreeing in a chat room to run some PFS
online. I created this group specifically so people who were
restricted from other public venues like conventions and local game
stores—whether for geographical, financial, or other logistical reasons
—had a public forum for hosting or playing in Pathfinder Society
games. Early in the group's life, we had to make membership in the
group restricted to approved members only as a means of fighting spam,
but the intention (at least at that time) was to approve everyone who
bothered to apply—to be as inclusive as possible to grow a community
in which everyone felt welcome to play Pathfinder Society games via
whatever platform worked for them.

While I understand how specific instances on the board have caused
quite a stir with folks feeling left out, that's all been handled
elsewhere, and I'm not posting now as anyone in a position to lay down
the law on what is and isn't a public game and when a GM can and can't
dictate what is allowed at her table. I am, however, saddened to see
discussion of making this group private, or letting this issue
dominate the group in the form of disclaimers and such. I relinquished
my admin position on this group a while ago when I got too busy (in
part when I got hired by Paizo) to do the job justice. Nevertheless, I
do feel some ownership of the group, and the idea that it's become
such a hotbed for elitism and exclusivity is disappointing, to say the
least.

It is entirely possible to use the forum as it currently exists,
maintaining the open and welcoming spirit in which it was created, and
still offer your own games without whatever specific character choice
you find offensive. If you want to run a game without summoners, or
without any female characters, or in which no one has a pet, or in
which no character has the TWF feat chain, great! You can do that.
Just state that you want to run a private game of [Scenario title] and
request folks email you off-list if they're interested. Then it's
between you and the others involved in that private conversation to
agree on what character choices you'll all adhere to. Since there are
literally thousands of character choices, there will always be orders
of magnitude more elements that aren't present at a given table than
there are that are present; if a table agrees that none of them will
play gnomes, even though they're legal, that's simply a character
choice everyone playing at that table chose not to make. But it
doesn't affect anyone who wants to play a gnome character, and those
who want to play gnomes don't even need to know that there's a group
of players who despise their preferred PC race to such an extent—
because the decision to "ban" gnomes was made in private.

I get that everyone has a line somewhere of what they absolutely won't
permit in their games, that single element that so offends their
sensibilities to make GMing or playing with a given character or
player not worth their time. That's fine. But don't sully the group
with such negativism. Deal with it when it comes up, but don't turn
this community into oen where someone who wants to play Pathfinder
Society and whose only option to do so is by playing online feel that
they need to tread so carefully around others' preferences as to not
bother to join the campaign. Think about what's best for Pathfinder
Society Organized Play and this vibrant community in the long run and
not what class-du-jour has caused such a stir. I relinquished my say
in this community long ago, but I simply ask that everyone really
think about what makes Pathfinder Society and the Pathfinder Society
Online Collective great before making a knee-jerk reaction to an
(admittedly high-profile) incident.

As always, I'm available to discuss the campaign via email on my
official email account, or to discuss specifics of this group as its
founder on this email. I hope the community can reach a consensus that
helps grow the group and the campaign, and increases the viability and
popularity of online gaming, and trust that everyone will make the
right choice.

Mark Moreland
Yoda8myhead
Founder, Pathfinder Society Online Collective

[Jim Groves]

I'm not going to add or expand upon what Mark said, other than to remark on the post I made to this community yesterday.

What I was trying to say yesterday is that this feels very much like a public group or community. That's why I sought it out in the first place. I was trying to illustrate the point that if *I* can read the posts, damn near anybody can. Nevertheless, I always get excited when I speak to fans and I won't lie- I do like people to like me. So my point might have been lost in my enthusiasm yesterday.

I'm not here to judge or condemn, or give anybody a hard time. But from a position of conscience, if and when I GM (and I am completely sincere in my intent to do so in the near future), I won't be excluding anybody who is friendly, respectful, and otherwise follows PFS guidelines. 

I can't take Paizo's money without honoring the spirit of the campaign. I should have stepped up and made that clear yesterday.

I look forward to being one more GM running games here in the near future.

Jim Groves



Sent from my iPad

[Demoyn]

Nobody would have ever had to worry about denying entire classes if
you Paizo people would have listened to us on YOUR boards when we told
you adding controversial character classes to PFS was a stupid idea.
Just sayin'.

[Paul Harries]

Hi

 

What he said

 

Paul H

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society online collective" group.
To post to this group, send email to pathfinder-society...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pathfinder-society-online-collective+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pathfinder-society-online-collective?hl=en.

[Paul Harries]

Hi

 

I agree with what Mark said entirely.

 

Paul H

From: Mark Moreland <yoda8...@gmail.com>
To: Pathfinder Society online collective <pathfinder-society...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 23 March 2012, 23:39
Subject: An Open Letter to the Collective

[Ithuriel]

The group is not going to veer from its mission of being a public openly accessible group.  Mark is exactly right that it was the entire point of the group and as an English speaker living overseas it was an invaluable resource when he started it back in Season 0.  I don't want to see that change for anyone.

I think it is easy to imagine that this is a bigger issue than it really is because people get heated want to make their position heard.  As far as I can tell there were 2 GMs running with restrictions and a handful of people angry about it.  That is out of 422 members.  Making sweeping changes based on something like that would be extremely shortsighted.  I'll be glad when this whole issue has vanished into the archives.  Encoding it into a public disclaimer or changing group settings is the last thing I would want.

[Lass]

Well thanks Paizo and the minority of busy bodies that get so so so
upset about how other people run their games that you just had to make
such a stink that you have no brought Mark Moreland to sweep in and
play the part of the Angry Dad and give us a stern talking to. How
embarrassing is this, a group of adults who are quarreling about how
some of us run games that we have to get a brow-beating from a
creative director. Its hard to separate the veiled threats of banning,
rude words, and general forced conformity that a handful of people
here have caused me and the other GM in question, from the vast
majority of people who are sweet and wonderful players and GMs. This
whole experience has left me with a terribly sour taste in my mouth
making it clear to me that I am forced to run games here according to
the vocal minority, with a clear implied "or else". Sadly, this also
makes it clear that PFS is not suited for me. It takes a minimum of
three hours for me to prepare a scenario, to my standards, for
maptools, plus the cost of the scenario yet I have no say in how to
assemble my table. It just does not seem to be worth it. This GM will
be retiring from these boards from this point on. I hope this makes
those select few busy bodies pleased, conformity is enforced and you
have won and incredibly miniscule victory.

[Cyd]

Well good job guy. With all the clamoring about on this, now we just lost one of the best and most fun GMs on these boards. And worse is that from the post she is done running PFS altogether. So good job, Good Job. 

[Ankur Gupta]

I support a GM's right to manage tables judiciously so they're fun for the GM.
If they're restricted in some fashion, so be it.

I also support the idea that PFS should be inclusive, and no player should feel
left out for any reason. That's part of its mission statement.

The resolution of those ideals is tricky, and this post is not about those
back-and-forth arguments.

But do I understand correctly that, as a community, we have resorted to
alienating members of our community (by making fun of them), because
their actions have led to a perceived alienation of GMs?

Pot, kettle, black?

Take a deep breath, everyone. Bigger problems exist, and the "ruling"
allows for both camps to exist. Let's let this lie.

Ankur

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

> "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pathfinder-society-online-collective/-/-NPQcUJNOFoJ.

>
> To post to this group, send email to
> pathfinder-society...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.

[Scott David Gray]

Maybe I am just thick-skinned. But, to this point, all of the conversation that I have seen has been respectful and honest.

A person has the right to posit the argument that if such-and-such holds, s/he will not feel comfortable running a table. I have certainly posited such arguments; and so have people from both sides of this discussion. If one person asks me to give a little more than I am willing to give (eg. run tables without exerting any control, other than selecting an adventure, over what sort of game you are offering), it seems unreasonable for me to keep silent about the fact that such a stand will make me stop giving.

I am deeply sorry to see Lass leave over the issue of control over her tables, and it makes me more likely to leave for the same cause. And meanwhile, I am sorry for anyone who is ready to leave because if s/he can't play a gunslinger/summoner/god-knows-what at any/every table her/his feelings are hurt, and don't see a reason for them to be silent over the fact that allowing GMs to control their tables is a game-breaker for them.

Not every issue has a reasonable middle ground -- if some people want to play a game of min-maxing against Paizo's rules, and others want to play a game of co-operative story-telling guided by a GM, those two desires will at some point be incompatible, and decisions have to be made. It's a mettar of play style, and not something to get personally upset about -- but it's a real difference of play style.

I guess that I go for the liberal answer, and say that we let every type of self-defining table exist -- some which are tables for maxing builds and where players can try show one another up by being immune to more things and doing maximum DPS, and other tables for players interested in relatively equal-powered characters facing challenging foes, and it is unreasonable for players at either table to poo-poo the existence of the other (in fact, the existence of both types means that more tables will have exactly the crowd interested in them, rather than having some spoil-sports along).

--
-- Scott David Gray
http://www.unseelie.org/

[Jason Schaaf]

Sad to see you go Lass esp as you were the one that convinced me to
run PFS games in the first place. I'm checking out of PFS now too.
Putting in all the work needed for an online game without any say so
in who I can play with and what kind of games I can run is too much
for me. Was fun while it lasted.

[Doombunny]

I had the pleasure of playing with Jason and Lass, and I feel we just
lost two really great GMs to something incredibly stupid.

[Sarevok]

I don't see why anyone should feel overly guilty that players checked
out over this.

It's their choice, as it was their choice to bar specific classes in
games, as it was our choice to play another character to take part in
said games.

If people want to get mad and quit over this, that's their choice.

I didn't get mad and quit when I couldn't take part in the hosted
games.

But hey, whatever.

[PaladinTodd]

On Friday, March 23, 2012 5:39:42 PM UTC-6, Mark Moreland wrote:

the intention (at least at that time) was to approve everyone who
bothered to apply—to be as inclusive as possible to grow a community
in which everyone felt welcome to play Pathfinder Society games via
whatever platform worked for them.

You keep saying that yet your position has achieved exactly the opposite. Far from being inclusive, you've clearly said that certain GMs are not welcome here - that they can only be in private groups.   

So as a GM in a public forum, I can't restrict classes to those I understand or that give me a game I enjoy. I can't place a restriction on Tier and must prepare every tier in the adventure I offer (something that is much more work in a VTT than on paper). 

Let's also not forget that this policy also excludes PLAYERS who might want to play with some restrictions. If I'm a player that wants to play with some restriction, I can no longer find a game that runs that way. 

Lastly, let's not over look the clear double-standard at work here. If I'm a player, I can choose whatever restrictions I want. I can sit out a game with summoners, I can choose what tier to play at, I can choose who I want to play with. Your policy means a GM cannot make any of those choices while a player can. 

You're the coordinator. You get to make the rules and I'll live with them one way or another, but stop calling this an "inclusive" policy. It's nothing of the sort. 

[Ken Burnside]

So, by hewing to the "We must ALL be INCLUSIVE!" mantra, we've driven
two good GMs away from PFS for a while, if not forever.

Lovely.

I've found that finding good GMs is harder than finding good players.
I've also played at two tier 1-2 tables where a synthesist summoner
pretty much solo'd the module while the rest of us sat there and got
bored.

I know some people cannot resist the lure of making Teh Mostest
Uberist DPS Machine out there...but really, this is a game balance
problem. Not a "Hold Hands And Stop Being A Jerk" problem, which is
how it's being portrayed. Unlike Paul, who finds gunslingers break
his feeling of medievaloid fantasy immersion, both Jason and Haddy
have seen games where a summoner or synthesist could solo entire
modules. So have I.

Mark, as the campaign coordinator, your customers are speaking. They
are telling you about a problem, and they're telling you about a
problem that's bad enought hat they'd rather drop out than RUN games.
Not play games - RUN THEM.

As someone who develops games, and publishes them, any kind of
feedback like you're getting from Jason and Haddy, is a signal flare.
It's a bright red flag.

Personally, I think you - Mark Moreland - should RUN a PFS game every
other week online (other convention appearances permitting) and set
them here - and set up about one out of three sessions as "OK, show me
the broken toys..." - just so it's not theorycrafting and message-
board whining, but so that you can see why, in a play environment
where even the leeway of saying "Sorry, I don't want to see class X at
my table" is now verboten, game balance needs to be fixed, and fixed
fast.

[Ernesto I. Ramirez Gomez]

Paladin Todd makes a good case as does Lass and Jason,

a GM puts work, effort and time into the preparation of a game so they should have a choice at what or who are they running such game. The basics are meet, everyone is here to play a fantasy adventure in Golarion with Pathfinder resources. Yes, some people have limits, some more logical than others... if a class feature makes it overpowered and it hasn't be checked out by the powers-that-be Paizo, then is the GM responsability to make it FUN for everyone in the table, including him/herself... if that means putting limits to such issues, well so be it.

If a player doesn't like that GM limitation, well there are other GM in the site... so why pester one because he/she won't take such limitation and has logical reasons for it?

Why such GM should be chastised, cajoled or talked off of this, why should they go out and organice games privately just because someone tries to force an option on them?

I mean they are not being paid for running the game, isn't it? They aren't under contract to accept anyone who comes to play at their table, no matter anything. So they have done an investment to accomplish something and so doing it they have to have a word on what they do.

If its such a choice that is unfair... well then people will just ignore their games and pass them over, that is the power of choice of the player if a GM is unfair. But since its a problem of very few players against GM that continually run games and buy adventures and expand the game around... I can only say Moreland than as ever instead of contributing to the growth of Pathfinder you are doing entirely the opposit.

For example I barely played a long while ago in PFS, stopped doing it because I wanted to run a character using a couple of things that were limited or that made into house rules... so I stopped playing at PFS because it was not fun for me to run a character who could not have 2 religious traits, that is MY choice.

The 2 GM above retiring from PFS altoguether... is not their choice it was your mystake.

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 11:14 AM, PaladinTodd <to...@paladinpgm.com> wrote:

You keep saying that yet your position has achieved exactly the opposite. Far from being inclusive, you've clearly said that certain GMs are not welcome here - that they can only be in private groups.   

So as a GM in a public forum, I can't restrict classes to those I understand or that give me a game I enjoy. I can't place a restriction on Tier and must prepare every tier in the adventure I offer (something that is much more work in a VTT than on paper). 

Let's also not forget that this policy also excludes PLAYERS who might want to play with some restrictions. If I'm a player that wants to play with some restriction, I can no longer find a game that runs that way. 

Lastly, let's not over look the clear double-standard at work here. If I'm a player, I can choose whatever restrictions I want. I can sit out a game with summoners, I can choose what tier to play at, I can choose who I want to play with. Your policy means a GM cannot make any of those choices while a player can. 

You're the coordinator. You get to make the rules and I'll live with them one way or another, but stop calling this an "inclusive" policy. It's nothing of the sort. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pathfinder-society-online-collective/-/jiZH7lhvaGYJ.

To post to this group, send email to pathfinder-society...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pathfinder-society-online-collective?hl=en.

--
Montalve
- - - - - - - - - -
http://www.geocities.com/aernestus/Montalve_as_Amon.htm
"If you wish to be a writer, write."
Epictetus

"The free-lance writer is a man who is paid per piece or per word or perhaps."
-Robert Benchley

"When your hobbies get in the way of your work - that's OK; but when your hobbies get in the way of themselves... well."
-Steve Martin

"When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained"
-Mark Twain

"Logic is like the sword - those who appeal to it, shall perish by it."
-Samuel Butler

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -Arthur C. Clark

[PaladinTodd]

And, if I may, let me comment on what I see as your perception of this issue. 

letting this issue dominate the group in the form of disclaimers and such.

 It's been a couple days. It's been only a couple GMs that have even hinted at this. Hardly dominating. 

such a hotbed for elitism and exclusivity is disappointing,

Again, 1 GM that has actually attempted to do it. Some that have hinted. 

And what makes it elitist? Nobody claimed that summoners are worst than everything else or that their way of playing is better. Some people simply said that they prefer to play without them. Some people have said they don't want to deal with all of the extra rules. It's not elitism or exclusivity or picking on people. 

 

whatever specific character choice you find offensive.

Nobody takes offense. We just prefer a different game. 

 

and those who want to play gnomes don't even need to know that there's a group 

And those who would love that game never get to know that a group like that exists. 

 

of players who despise

Despise? Again, that's of your own invention. We just want to play a different game. Heaven forbid anyone ever hears an unkind word on the internet. 

 

that single element that so offends their sensibilities

So anyone who prefers to play without summoners is a victorian dandy now? Again, summoners don't offend me. I just prefer to play without them. You like summoners? More power to you. 

 

But don't sully the group

Go it. The way I prefer to play is somehow "dirty" now. 

 

feel that they need to tread so carefully around others' preferences as to not
bother to join the campaign.

Ah, my way of playing is unduly cruel to innocent passer-bys. 

 

I simply ask that everyone really think about what makes Pathfinder Society and the Pathfinder Society 

Online Collective great

Ah, I'm a uncaring cur for wanting to play how I want. 

 

before making a knee-jerk reaction to an

And my position isn't reasonable or thought out.  

 

trust that everyone will make the right choice. 

Anyone that disagrees with your position must be wrong.  

Perhaps I just missed it, but I didn't see a lot of flames around this. For the internet, I saw some pretty good discussion.  

Perhaps I'm reading too much between the lines, but your choice of words here, your rush to lock threads on Paizo, and your position that somehow PFS can dictate how a message board is used to find players -- is overreaching. 

Todd

[PaladinTodd]

Making sweeping changes based on something like that would be extremely shortsighted. 

Agreed and yet we have made sweeping changes. We've told some GMs that they are no longer welcome and need to move to a private group.  

[PaladinTodd]

This policy probably means I'm done as well (once I've finished running Feast on Thursday).  I've given the APG classes a try, but I just don't like guns, ninjas, and samurai in my fantasy and don't need the extra rule complexity. 

[Paul Harries]

Hi

 

All this because I politely asked a GM not to be exclusive. all I got was a personal attack, so I privately emailed him to settle things down, All that resulted in was bringing other GM's into this, and Lies being told about me (I have the private email still).

 

I was alway polite, but others decided to make an issue out of the right to discriminate. What next - women, races? Even if not against players, then what about characters? Some (foolishly) believe in male supremecy, so now we can ban female characters?

 

I tried to make it informal - they just were incapable or unwilling to listen. I offered compromise. They shouted louder for discrimination.

 

I'm sad to see anyone leave. I offered the hand of friendship (literally) to Jason. It was refused, so I had to get a formal answer. They didn't accept that, so they shouted more.

I'd be happy to see them both back here, shake their hands and move on. I've even offered alternative solutions, which now seem 'official'.

 

Personally I'm against Discrimination. I've fought against it locally having served my community for about 39 years (six in armed forces). I'm even born on the anniversary of Magna Carta.

 

Now can we please move on to something else?

Paul H

[Ithuriel]

Damn guys. Stop piling on Mark. You have to look at this from their
perspective. Due to their positions any pronouncement Mike or Mark
make is going to parsed for every possible reading to every possible
effect and it will ripple through the community building nerd rage as
it goes. You cannot seriously expect that they could openly endorse
GMs at events banning whatever they didn't like. That would be the
end result.

A very simple easy fix has been proposed. If you want to run a
private game all you need to do is post a recruitment that you are
"looking for people interested in joining a private game on x date and
time. Post interest here and I will contact you via email." It is
the equivalent of the note on the gaming store bulletin board with an
email address looking for new members. There is no expectation that
every person who emails that address will be invited to join the home
game. It is annoying that it has come to this, but it is hardly the
end of the world.

[Paul Harries]

Hi

 

Actually - Summoners WERE decried in the threads by the GM who absoulutey hates them and called them  Broketastic (spelling)? and worse. I was shouted at for wanting to play the latest broken flavour of the month too.

 

Thanks

PaulH

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.

[PaladinTodd]

Wow. Don't injure yourself patting yourself on the back too much. 

Now can we please move on to something else?

Apparently you can tell us how we have to GM, but you don't get to tell us whether we can discuss or not. Don't like it? Don't participate in the discussion. Oh wait, you not participating is what started this isn't it?

Todd

[Six String Samurai]

When Mark posted on this forum I believe he did it out of complete and utter respect and caring for everyone here.  I would hope everyone here is posting on what they think is the best way to spread PFS, and not how to ruin it.  Sadly...folks are beginning to assume the opinions of others are meant to HARM this genre rather then help it.  Remember, please, we are all trying to do what we think is best...disagreements will happen.

He had been reading along with everything, I'm quite certain, and going "Man...it's tough to work for a company and watch something I help build become exclusive over this issue."  

The fact that any of you are considering this a post WORTHY OF QUITTING OVER, when all he has said is the exact same words that others have said, is only a sign that you listened to all other arguements with a closed mind.

The moment Mark posted HIS OPINION, and how he feels about making communities inclusive and not exclusive, and he shared his concern by stating in great length that it was not an official opinion or ruling about this...the two paragraphs he spent saying that...you all picked up your ball and went home?

If you assume that one concerned individual and his opinion are such a threat to your fun that you refuse to have it, good riddance.  We'll move on, rebuild, and welcome you back when you understand that your response to such a minor issue was a harsh over reaction.

Oh...and Demoyn, show a little more respect please.  These folks get paid peanuts to make a game they hope you will enjoy and have fun playing.  Don't insult their choices on how to build it because you "knew better".  Obviously, you didn't.

Am I "defending" Mark?  Not at all, the guy's a pimp and was hired into paizo from where we are sitting right now.  He doesn't need me to hold up his martini for him.

The level of disrespect shown to this member of our community, and he is a member of OUR community, is staggeringly rude.  Rather then discuss an opinion some here have taken it as an untouchable word of law and quit over it.  We will be better off without such individuals, as any group has proven in the history of organized ANYTHING.

As for "the broken factor".  In the game industry they literally demand you play games other then the one you build.  So you can learn good ideas from others, see both sides of the coin, and decide on how to make your game better.  Mark sees, hears, reads, and TESTS crazy builds that people come up with...but he can't do that all the time, and at some point he puts faith in the players to not exploit a system at the expense of having fun.  Ask yourself...is it even viable to fix everything that is "broken" when building a character?  When would you stop fixing "broken" things?  Who deems it is "broken"?  It's a never ending circle.

The TLDR version of what I just wrote.

Show more respect, stop assuming "the man" is holding you down, and for goodness sake get over your self righteous ideas and play a game for what it's meant to be used for...having fun.  If you can't do that because some numbers on a piece of paper say so...well...don't let the door hit ya.

-Big Kyle

Venture-Lieutenant, Seattle

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pathfinder-society-online-collective/-/qAod8F8chL0J.

To post to this group, send email to pathfinder-society...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pathfinder-society-online-collective?hl=en.

--
The turnings of the tides of battle always begins with one soldiers decision to head back into the frey.

[PaladinTodd]

Yeah, my post may have been more (ahem) direct (ahem) than needed. Apologies. 

[Doombunny]

I don't feel that Mark has anything but the best in mind for this 400+
group of PFS players. And Ithuriel is right, there was never going to
be an official ruling in favor of exclusion, no matter the
justification. I just don't think it should have been dumped in Mark's
backyard in the first place. Ah well.

Underground GMs ...you have my Skype and gmail info.

> > Now can we *please* move on to something else?

>
> > Apparently you can tell us how we have to GM, but you don't get to tell us
> > whether we can discuss or not. Don't like it? Don't participate in
> > the discussion. Oh wait, you not participating is what started this isn't
> > it?
>
> > Todd
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit

> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pathfinder-society-online-collective/...
> > .

>
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > pathfinder-society...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at

> >http://groups.google.com/group/pathfinder-society-online-collective?h....

[Ken]

RE:  An Open Letter to the Collective

Paul Harries <paulhar...@yahoo.co.uk> Mar 24 06:43PM  

Hi
 
All this because I politely asked a GM not to be exclusive. all I got was a personal attack, so I privately emailed him to settle things down, All that resulted in was bringing other GM's into this, and Lies being told about me (I have the private email still).
 
I was alway polite, but others decided to make an issue out of the right to discriminate. What next - women, races?

Nope, just me.  I hereby exclude myself from this group and any other crying.

BuhBye!


PS -- Hey Paul, nice "it's not my fault".

[Ken Burnside]

Here's my take.

GMs can exclude any player from their table for any reason, ranging
from hygiene bad enough to be noticeable through the Internet, not
liking their play style, finding their build looks like a weasel
carved out of limburgher, or the phase of the moon, or "I'm sorry, I
find your character concept based off of Voltron/Captain America/Luke
Skywalker..." disruptive to the atmosphere I want to play."

I do not consider playing online to be the same as playing at a
convention game or at a game store.

1) At a convention, someone paid money for the privilege to play.
2) At a game store, you are acting as a gateway to a larger group of
casual players, including first time players of Pathfinder.
Inclusiveness - and a willingness to hand someone a pre-gen - is
crucial there for the most important mission of PFS, which is building
the player base.

There are no "walk-by" newbie players in an online game. Nor does
anyone pay to play online. EVERY PFS Online Game is a "house game."

And this is where I disagree with Mark. One should not have to
advertise one's "No summoners game" on the down-low, nor, for that
matter, should anyone else get their undies in a knot if a GM says
"Sorry, I don't want to see that at my table, thanks." Forcing
someone to say "I'll run a PFS module, email me for details and
restrictions" is making the GM who has preferences for how they want
to run their table a second-class member of the community.

[PaladinTodd]

Underground GMs ...you have my Skype and gmail info.

Underground GM, hehe good one. I just stole that as the name of my private PFS group. 

Todd

[Jim Groves]

Ken,

Respectfully, the only reason I'm on this list is because I was a "walk-by" newbie who lives in some remote rural area with no game store. I moved here for my wife's career, and I love her dearly still. But good god, I drive down the equivalent of 'Main street' and there are teenagers in cowboy hats literally practicing lassoing wooden sawhorses... with rope! For fun and 4-H, whatever that is.

Aint no PFS action happening here face to face.

The only reason I haven't been involved is that when I finally figured out how to work Maptools I started running APs for my friends back home.

But now I want to run PFS with y'all.
(shudders at y'all)

Sent from my iPad

[Ken Burnside]

On Mar 24, 2:47 pm, Jim Groves <cainesinmyh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ken,
>
> Respectfully, the only reason I'm on this list is because I was a "walk-by" newbie who lives in some remote rural area with no game store. I moved here for my wife's career, and I love her dearly still. But good god, I drive down the equivalent  of 'Main street' and there are teenagers in cowboy hats literally practicing lassoing wooden sawhorses... with rope! For fun and 4-H, whatever that is.
>

Jim: You learned how to play Pathfinder by running APs online? :)

And 4-H is a lot of fun. Also good exercise.

[Ernesto I. Ramirez Gomez]

where is the +1 or like! button here?

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Demoyn <demo...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 24, 1:56 pm, Six String Samurai <6ssamu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Oh...and Demoyn, show a little more respect please.  These folks get paid
> peanuts to make a game they hope you will enjoy and have fun playing.
>  Don't insult their choices on how to build it because you "knew better".
>  Obviously, you didn't.

I absolutely will NOT show Mark any more respect.  He hasn't earned
it.  EVERY.  SINGLE.  STATEMENT. he's made since joining PFS as a
Paizo employee has lowered the standards of PFS.

Josh was a great PFS coordinator.  He got fired.  Hyrum was an
EXCELLENT PFS coordinator.  He was let go.  Mark was the absolute
worst, most oblivious person to ever be in charge of a living campaign
and he's still there making decisions for some reason.

Just for the record, I DO know better.  If you don't believe me you
can search my posts on the Paizo forums where I predicted this exact
environment during the gunslinger beta.  Everyone with a clue saw this
coming from day one.  Mark, however (the one with the decision-making
ability) did not.  I think history speaks for itself.

If Mark wants to make PFS a better game or earn our respect he'll
tender his resignation to Paizo (or at least get moved off of PFS).
Until then he'll be shown the respect he's earned.  Zero.

[Jim Groves]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to joke about 4-H. I knew what it was. I was suburban kid growing up.

I actually skipped the entire 3.5 movement, and got back into D&D in mid 2007, with Rise of the Runelords.

I ran RotRL face to face, and I was running it for a second group, and got through Chapter Two when we moved to Eastern Oregon (from Louisville KY).

I missed my friends and GM, so I made myself learn how to use MapTools. I finished that 2nd iteration of Runelords with MapTools.. and then I got to Chapter 3 of Serpent's Skull (and I got slammed to a halt by the complete lack of maps). Recently I ran Chapter One of Carrion Crown, but I plan to return to Serpent's Skull soon..

So I learned Pathfinder face to face, but I got really good at doing it online.

Except, I get stage fright like everybody else. I grapple with the fear that people I don't know will think I suck as a GM. There are some common rules I have to look up sometimes. Not unlike everybody else.

In fact, back in 2007 I wrote Todd about the GM's familiar because I wanted to use it in face to face games, but at that time the only laptop we had was an ancient beast with an old operating system.

Sent from my iPad

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.

> To post to this group, send email to pathfinder-society...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pathfinder-society-online-collective?hl=en.
>

[Elorebaen]

Well said Kyle.

It seems to me that a determination has been made in the only way it could given the circumstances, and a fairly straight forward solutions have been made available. That's that. As to discussions about what should or should not be in the PFS ruleset, well, there is a forum for those discussions. Simple.

To post to this group, send email to pathfinder-society-online-​colle...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pathfinder-society-online-​collective+unsubscribe@​googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/​group/pathfinder-society-​online-collective?hl=en.

[Sarien]

Thanks Mark for great comments that I really hope people will take to
heart. You're a busy guy I'm sure, so again, thanks for trying to
help the group.
Dave A.

On Mar 23, 7:39 pm, Mark Moreland <yoda8myh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As the original founder of this Google group, I thought I'd step in to
> the conversation here not as Paizo Developer, a member of campaign
> leadership, or anything else except a member of this community.
>
> Pathfinder Society Online Collective was never intended to be a
> private group. I had done some private online games before making it,
> which were me and some friends agreeing in a chat room to run some PFS
> online. I created this group specifically so people who were
> restricted from other public venues like conventions and local game
> stores—whether for geographical, financial, or other logistical reasons
> —had a public forum for hosting or playing in Pathfinder Society
> games. Early in the group's life, we had to make membership in the
> group restricted to approved members only as a means of fighting spam,
> but the intention (at least at that time) was to approve everyone who

> bothered to apply—to be as inclusive as possible to grow a community
> in which everyone felt welcome to play Pathfinder Society games via
> whatever platform worked for them.
>

> While I understand how specific instances on the board have caused
> quite a stir with folks feeling left out, that's all been handled
> elsewhere, and I'm not posting now as anyone in a position to lay down
> the law on what is and isn't a public game and when a GM can and can't
> dictate what is allowed at her table. I am, however, saddened to see
> discussion of making this group private, or letting this issue
> dominate the group in the form of disclaimers and such. I relinquished
> my admin position on this group a while ago when I got too busy (in
> part when I got hired by Paizo) to do the job justice. Nevertheless, I
> do feel some ownership of the group, and the idea that it's become
> such a hotbed for elitism and exclusivity is disappointing, to say the
> least.
>
> It is entirely possible to use the forum as it currently exists,
> maintaining the open and welcoming spirit in which it was created, and
> still offer your own games without whatever specific character choice
> you find offensive. If you want to run a game without summoners, or
> without any female characters, or in which no one has a pet, or in
> which no character has the TWF feat chain, great! You can do that.
> Just state that you want to run a private game of [Scenario title] and
> request folks email you off-list if they're interested. Then it's
> between you and the others involved in that private conversation to
> agree on what character choices you'll all adhere to. Since there are
> literally thousands of character choices, there will always be orders
> of magnitude more elements that aren't present at a given table than
> there are that are present; if a table agrees that none of them will
> play gnomes, even though they're legal, that's simply a character
> choice everyone playing at that table chose not to make. But it
> doesn't affect anyone who wants to play a gnome character, and those

> who want to play gnomes don't even need to know that there's a group

> of players who despise their preferred PC race to such an extent—
> because the decision to "ban" gnomes was made in private.
>
> I get that everyone has a line somewhere of what they absolutely won't
> permit in their games, that single element that so offends their
> sensibilities to make GMing or playing with a given character or
> player not worth their time. That's fine. But don't sully the group
> with such negativism. Deal with it when it comes up, but don't turn
> this community into oen where someone who wants to play Pathfinder
> Society and whose only option to do so is by playing online feel that

> they need to tread so carefully around others' preferences as to not

> bother to join the campaign. Think about what's best for Pathfinder
> Society Organized Play and this vibrant community in the long run and
> not what class-du-jour has caused such a stir. I relinquished my say
> in this community long ago, but I simply ask that everyone really

> think about what makes Pathfinder Society and the Pathfinder Society

> Online Collective great before making a knee-jerk reaction to an
> (admittedly high-profile) incident.
>
> As always, I'm available to discuss the campaign via email on my
> official email account, or to discuss specifics of this group as its
> founder on this email. I hope the community can reach a consensus that
> helps grow the group and the campaign, and increases the viability and
> popularity of online gaming, and trust that everyone will make the
> right choice.
>
> Mark Moreland
> Yoda8myhead
> Founder, Pathfinder Society Online Collective

[Painlord]

Demoyn--

Your comments are venomous, completely unnecessary, AND personal attacks have no place in this discussion.

I want to support your write to speak your mind, but, even moreso,  I want to support your right to think about whether your comments are necessary or helpful to the discussion at hand.

If you are calling for a person's job over this, I suggest you step back and take a look at the big picture.

As a Community, we should be encouraging polite discussion of ideas and problems so that we can look for common solutions.

Mark (or anyone else in our Community) shouldn't be the subject of this kind of post. 

-Pain

On Saturday, March 24, 2012 12:58:34 PM UTC-7, Demoyn wrote:

I absolutely will NOT show Mark any more respect.  He hasn't earned
it.  EVERY.  SINGLE.  STATEMENT. he's made since joining PFS as a
Paizo employee has lowered the standards of PFS.

<<snipped bile>>

[Ithuriel]

I have removed the message in question as it was incredibly
inappropriate.

[Michael Gear]

[Demoyn]

I disagree that my comments were unnecessary, but it doesn't mean
enough to me to argue about it. The fact is that this was a
completely avoidable situation, but Mark chose not to listen when this
was mentioned back when it could have been avoided. Now we're losing
good players and even better GMs over it.

[Six String Samurai]

Demoyn, im sorry to see you withdraw your character from my table on monday.

I was looking forward to seeing you at a table with me for the first time.  I was hoping to actually game with someone of a differing opinion without bringing any personnal drama to a table and conducting ourselves in the name of fun as two capable, intelligent, mature adults.

If you change your mind, i'll keep a slot open for ya.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.

[Demoyn]

I appreciate that, Six. I'll sleep on it.

On Mar 24, 10:17 pm, Six String Samurai <6ssamu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Demoyn, im sorry to see you withdraw your character from my table on monday.
>
> I was looking forward to seeing you at a table with me for the first time.
> I was hoping to actually game with someone of a differing opinion without
> bringing any personnal drama to a table and conducting ourselves in the
> name of fun as two capable, intelligent, mature adults.
>
> If you change your mind, i'll keep a slot open for ya.

> >http://groups.google.com/group/pathfinder-society-online-collective?h....

[RPG TheocratIssak]

Hi all -

I just removed my other account the other day from the group to change to this email account. It had nothing to do with the discussion. I just don't want someone to assume that because I've only been a member of the group for about 2 days that it's accutally the case. 

As the founding Las Vegas Lodge Venture-Captain, I've had a few encounters in real life with a few people. When I was the VC of the area, I was asked to talk to a member of this list. One of the reasons for that was because I think Mark wasn't or had just been hired with Paizo and only Robyn and I were the VC's associated with the group. One of the members at the time was and is still very vocal and is knowledgeable about the rules of the game. Rules of the game are not always the same as the rules of gaming. Knowing the grappling rules is one thing and knowing that playing characters that are optimized to maximum benefit in the grappling arena because most people find them still somewhat confusing (even with a couple grappling FAQ's) is another. I know. I played a Tetori in a home game. When a PFS character had the ability to do one thing extremely well - tripping - to such effect that the game wasn't fun for me as the GM (nor for the rest of the table) it caused a problem. I even discussed it on the Paizo PFS boards. 

If the GM is the one that is typically spending more money on the game than a player (no reason for every player to buy all those flip mats and map packs), and they are frustrated to the point of desiring to quit running its a problem. In the local area - this can often be addressed. Sometimes addressing the problem helps. Sometimes it doesn't and is felt like an attack on the person that finds the game enjoyable when they are able to utilize character concepts, feats, abilities and rules to maximize they're enjoyment. But the same issue is in reverse. My character, Gen. Goldfrapp (as if you haven't heard of him), is so sub-par he's 9th level (or 10th) but is closer to a 6th level character. With about 6 classes under his 'Trebuchet' (read: belt) he can be a hindrance to a party that is ideal. In which case with a sub-par and an optimized character at the table, things might even out. However, with my experiences at GameX, NeonCon and GenCon I found the sub-par character vs the optimized character concept to be about 1-100. I'm sure any convention go-er has had the same experiences. 

There is no solid answer. In a home game we all know the answer - make pancakes. In a PFS game according to the rules of the society - there isn't a whole lot that can be  done. But the reason for that is because often the society rules are designed for convention play, which is quite different from a store game day, a home game PFS, and an online game. At a convention the GM is assigned a module and people they may know are at the table. Often at bigger con's only a few people will know of the others at the table and that's because they've either designed it to play as a group or have had a session or two together. At a Game Day session - it is often many of the area gamer's, whom most know each other and know each others game styles. A few new people show up and hopefully the session is good and they return. A character concept - such as the trip attack character - can take over most of the meaningful combat. Most PFS modules have people fighting humans and other two legged creatures and a few monsters here and there. An urban based module would be ideal for a tripper, leaving anybody that does something that opens up an AoO can level the opposition, literally. The GM cannot change the humans to dwarves or give them a third leg to prevent such a character. While this character would be fun for the player, a character like that could reduce the enjoyment of other and especially new players. When the game's CRB revolves around 95% of combat aspects, reducing other characters to minor roles is an issue. Here the GM likely might suggest to a player that is part of the normal group to not play such a character for the sake of the other players and particully new ones. The player could protest and according to society rules, should be permitted to play. When I was the VC, I often stated the number one rule of PFS should be "Don't Be a Dick to Other Players" followed by rule number one-alpha "Do What is Best for the Society (Paizo based, not Absalom)." Often Paizo doesn't follow either rule. Hypcrocy aside, the rule is in the spirit of the game and gaming in general. 

The online collective is closer to a home game PFS game. While a local game day can have people that are unfamiliar with PFS play, the online collective is closer to 100% of people familiar with PFS play. In a home PFS game, just not inviting the player is within the rights of all involved. While sending out an invite to members of the collective here, it's harder to single out one particular player - Hey Theocrat Issak we know you play sub-par characters and don't want that at the table because it can be seen as an attack. Thus when a GM says I am going to be running X module and I'd like to know who is interested, singling out someone is rude and is borderline on rule one. Thus, by suggesting that they don't want to GM for characters of X type they are in fact doing everybody a service. They are saying that they want to have fun, they want to do what is best for the society as a whole by providing the best possible experience that they can. If you play a tripper in an urban environment module, while your experience might be fun, it will detract from my personal experience and thus be an overall negative. I will not do my best. 

As a former VC, I would recommend that Mark not get involved. We as a group can read the emails and know who among us makes us unhappy. I know I do. I know my sub-par, naked or murdering in the name of power, glory and the Absalom based Society characters are not welcome at all tables. As such, I recommend that a GM that doesn't want to play with a player or a player's character submit an email to them off group. Saying that while they are free to request to play at a table that is run, they're particular style of play (because it has been observed first hand) is not something that they find enjoyable. As such you would like for them not to request to join. This way you do not need to suddenly call off the game officially on the collective's email, even if the game does indeed continue on. Requesting off list is fair, it informs the person - if done politely - and also does not single them out. This in no way is an attack on the player or the character. The person is free to respond. Most people that play PFRPG are familiar enough with the rules to realize that if they don't like Wizards in a group they know what their missing. Suggesting otherwise is suggesting that the GM of the game doesn't know the rules. That is more of an attack than is the idea that the GM would just rather not have wizards at his table. 

If the GM of a table as requested that said player not play a particular character type, but is still free to play another - then that is up to the i ndividual  player to make the decision. Do they go ahead and play a character they'd rather not, play one that has already played the module or end up having to skip that module. Those are not on the GM, but the player. The player will need to make the determination on how they wish to proceed. 

In any of these potential exchanges, words and language will likely be reviewed in the a tone that was not intended. When that is the case, the GM or Player needs to determine how much time has been invested in the particular discussion and determine if it's valuable enough on either part to continue. Either can then contact VC's that are part of the collective, VC's that are in their particular region, VC's in the region of the other individual, or even other members of the list. If there are enough members of the collective here that find my sub-par characters offensive, and I'm informed I'll get the hint. Not informing me is a disservice to all of us. 

Remembering the rules "Don't Be a Dick" and "Do What's Best for the Paizo Society" will usually prevail. If not, use force. It's what the Absalom Society would do. Then write a story about it. 

I love Rand (PainLord). Tone and Intent go a long way. September and October of last year, he and I talked about many of the issues raised in this thread. I would send him my raw thoughts and he'd read them and tell me not to say that. If you have an email to send to someone and you want to make sure your intent and tone are carried in a way that might be accepted - send it his way. He'll make sure you tell me that Gen. Goldfrapp is not a General just because he gave himself a promotion in such a way I thought you paid me a compliment. 

Theocrat Issak

--

Theocrat Issak

Bishop of the Gaming Table and See of the Holy d20

Divine Shield of Role Playing Games

Star and Crescent Moon of the Heavens of Campaign Worlds

Golden Key Personal and Character Prosperity

Silver Key of Personal and Character Happiness

Bearer of the Tassel of Binding and Everlasting Friendship

[Aris Psaltis]

Allthough it s sad to see legit classes being cut off, and allthough I ve been to some of GM in question games and I don t like how he is running them here is my two cents in this subject.

a)Some archtypes,class features,feats and other rules published from 3rd parties mostly are absolutely insane and spoil the game.period. Allthough if I was gm I would ban 3rd party rules and not legit classes.

b)PFS wasn t made originally for online gaming but for tabletop. I can t imagine someone going to a tabletop his gm says he doesn t tolerate his class, and he goes "this is PfS you have to accept me". A GM should be able to ban or modify rules in his game. PFS needs to change that, and from GMs part he has to publicly state at paizo.com what changes or bans he made during his game.

c)Since the GM banned a certain CLASS and not a certain PERSON with any class, I don t see what s the big issue...roll another class and join the game...

d)Most of PFS games I played tend to go towards a hack and slash without any planning and everyone doing whatever he likes...I don t like this type of games, but for that i blame the gamemasters and players of PFS and not PFS rules. I ve read most of PFS rules and they leave space both for roleplaying and for battle planning, there is nothing in the rules that prevents it...

[Ankur Gupta]

You cannot use 3rd party rules in PFS games anyway. This is not an issue.

As a PFS GM, I have often felt that modules generally allow you to choose two
of the following:

1) Have "interesting" combats, where that could be hard, fun, or different.
2) Have good roleplay with meaningful NPC encounters.
3) Give proper treatment to faction missions.

In my opinion, this is a problem.

Ankur

P.S. Oh, and by the way, just as a side note, access on chronicle sheets has
virtually no meaning. Please change this too. :)

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> pathfinder-society...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at

> http://groups.google.com/group/pathfinder-society-online-collective?hl=en.

[Aris Psaltis]

Well some paizo non CRB are equally disturbing...

[Ankur Gupta]

Yes, but even you said that you wouldn't ban "legit classes". . . .

This then implies that your balance issues remain PFS legal.

What will you do about it? This is where the banning discussion came from.

Ankur

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Aris Psaltis <arisp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well some paizo non CRB are equally disturbing...
>
>

[Aris Psaltis]

In my homebrew I banned all archtypes right from word go and problem was instantly solved

[Ankur Gupta]

This question is about organized play, where you cannot necessarily do that.

Sigh.

Ankur

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Aris Psaltis <arisp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In my homebrew I banned all archtypes right from word go and problem was
> instantly solved
>
>

[Aris Psaltis]

You can if paizo take that descission...

they did worse they banned all item creation feats...
If those feats are banned how on Absalom they r producing magical items???

[Joe Jungers]

The NPCs aren't restricted to using the Item Creation feats.
Just the PCs.
All in an effort to maintain the Wealth by Level paradigm.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.
To post to this group, send email to pathfinder-society...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pathfinder-society-online-collective?hl=en.

--
Cats - Can't live with us.
Can't rule the world without us.

[Demoyn]

On Mar 26, 8:45 am, Aris Psaltis <arispsal...@gmail.com> wrote:
Allthough
> if I was gm I would ban 3rd party rules and not legit classes.

Nobody ever suggested that we ban LEGIT classes. The only classes
mentioned for banning were gunslingers and summoners.

[Six String Samurai]

Oh good lord...

Dead horses can't be killed again.

Let's all bootstrap this barney and bang a bargain out down at the ball n' pins?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.
To post to this group, send email to pathfinder-society...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pathfinder-society-online-collective?hl=en.

[Jim G.]

I'll buy the first pitcher!

[Demoyn]

No publicity is bad publicity. Maybe if we beat this dead horse
enough we can get Paizo to think about fixing it. At least that's my
hope.

On Mar 26, 11:38 am, Six String Samurai <6ssamu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh good lord...
>
> Dead horses can't be killed again.
>
> Let's all bootstrap this barney and bang a bargain out down at the ball n'
> pins?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Demoyn <demoy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 26, 8:45 am, Aris Psaltis <arispsal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Allthough
> > > if I was gm I would ban 3rd party rules and not legit classes.
>
> > Nobody ever suggested that we ban LEGIT classes.  The only classes
> > mentioned for banning were gunslingers and summoners.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > pathfinder-society...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at

> >http://groups.google.com/group/pathfinder-society-online-collective?h....

[Todd Landrum]

And there was no talk of "banning" anything. It was a few GMs that preferred to play without a class or two. There were plenty of GMs still available to run with those classes.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.
To post to this group, send email to pathfinder-society...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pathfinder-society-online-collective?hl=en.

[Aris Psaltis]

Those Gms that don t support banning synthesists, I wonder how they d feel if 6 synthesists apply to a game of theirs...

Since this is organized play rules should stick to CRB and nothing else, because you can t have organized play without pretty well balanced rules.

Also NPCs having feats that PCs can t is not seen in any game I ve seen...There is nothing wrong with people creating their own things.
They should do that and maybe even make a database of some sort of auction house where ppl would buy things other PCs have created...

[Six String Samurai]

Aris

Please read the pathfinder society organized play guide.

It details in there that item creation feats, the feats required to make magic items in Pathfinder Role-Playing Game, are not available to Pathfinder Society approved play PC's.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.
To post to this group, send email to pathfinder-society...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pathfinder-society-online-collective?hl=en.

[Six String Samurai]

Here is a link to where you can download it for free.

http://paizo.com/products/btpy84k4?Guide-to-Pathfinder-Society-Organized-Play 

[Marty Weil]

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Aris Psaltis <arisp...@gmail.com> wrote:

Those Gms that don t support banning synthesists, I wonder how they d feel if 6 synthesists apply to a game of theirs...

Me? I would roll with it, just like I am rolling with the 11th level Lore Warden Sunder specialist playing in the PFS game of  The Ruby Phoenix Tournament I am running. Somewhat irritating, but not game breaking.
 

Since this is organized play rules should stick to CRB and nothing else, because you can t have organized play without pretty well balanced rules.

 

Organized Play uses the CRB, it also uses the books & options, all from Paizo publications, listed on the Additional Resources page.
 

Also NPCs having feats that PCs can t is not seen in any game I ve seen...There is nothing wrong with people creating their own things.
They should do that and maybe even make a database of some sort of auction house where ppl would buy things other PCs have created...

You must not have seen many games. I have frequently seen NPCs having feats and items that PCs don't and/or cannot. Indeed, for an NPC, item creation feats are yet more wasted slots, for the most part. Sure don't have any benefit during the encounter, that's for sure.

And "people creating their own things" is fine, in a home game, where you have a single GM, or small group of GMs working on the same table, keeping the power balance of the campaign in check. For an Organized Play environment, item creation goes into all sorts of bad places.

Living Greyhawk allowed item creation. Of course, it had so many restrictions, extra rules, and extra paperwork that it made a PC who, in PFSOP would fit into a 1" binder easily, require a 3" binder, maybe something thicker. Heck, my LG fighter, despite not having any item creation feats, and being only 9th level, at highest, had a lot more paper than my 12th level fighter in PFSOP does.

A PFSOP audit is a much easier thing than an LG audit was, and it still takes a lot of time to perform. An LG audit? Yeesh. PC sheets, ARs, Magic Item Creation sheets (lots of them), Magic Item ownership & use records, and more. Yeek. Been there, don't wanna do that.

Not to mention that item creation feats, in general, seriously break the Wealth by Level calculations. And make a set of classes that are more powerful, base, at higher levels, even more powerful at those same higher levels. An 11th level PC has an estimated WbL of 82k GP. For the average Fighter, that is the same value in gold or items. For a Wizard with some of the item creation feats, you can very easily see that that 82K GP is actually somewhere between 123K-164K GP worth of items. That, to be honest, is not good for the game. Makes the worst Synth Summoner build look good, to be honest.

[Aris Psaltis]

I ve read all the rules...now where is it I have to sign that I agree with them all???

And Mark don t neglect that
a)I didn t say I agree to THIS item creation rules...
b)The synthesist CAN have item creation if allowed so he will be double the overpowered...your example said nothing...

[Six String Samurai]

..........what?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.
To post to this group, send email to pathfinder-society...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pathfinder-society-online-collective?hl=en.

[Aris Psaltis]

for instance one can apply an arcane spell failure rule in item creation rules

[Aris Psaltis]

Marty*

[Ithuriel]

Aris-
You are missing something here. Pathfinder Society organized play is a
shared world- one large campaign with thousands of players and gms.
Because the goal is that you can take a character played with one GM
and play that same character exactly where you left off at another gms
table we all agree to a social contract to follow the campaign rules
of organized play. Generally it follows the core rules of pathfinder
and other approved material in books they have published, but there
are changes here and there. Item creation feats being banned are one
of those changes. If you play PFS that is the rule and there are no
exceptions. Likewise for other campaign wide house rules found in the
guide to organized play.

[Jordan Nihart]

Your current proficiencies in grammar, diction, and spelling are making you hard to understand, Aris.  Your disagreement with item creation feats not being allowed in PFS was misunderstood as this thought: 'There are no rules against item creation feats.'

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Aris Psaltis <arisp...@gmail.com> wrote:

for instance one can apply an arcane spell failure rule in item creation rules

[Aris Psaltis]

 

Since this is organized play rules should stick to CRB and nothing else, because you can t have organized play without pretty well balanced rules.

 

Organized Play uses the CRB, it also uses the books & options, all from Paizo publications, listed on the Additional Resources page.

Yes and i don t support the "it also blablabla" am I allowed?

the rest i won t even bother to comment

[Aris Psaltis]

2012/3/26 Ithuriel <devina...@yahoo.com>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.
To post to this group, send email to pathfinder-society...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pathfinder-society-online-collective?hl=en.

No pal you r missing that the rulebooks are not the bible. period

[Six String Samurai]

"Yes and i don t support the "it also blablabla" am I allowed?"  -Aris

Correct.  If you do not wish to follow these guidelines for PFS play, then we are unable to accept any PC's that do not abide by the PFS rules at a PFS scenario run table for PFS credit.  Thank you for your time and input on this.  If you wish to see that change, please go to www.paizo.com and engage others in a civil discussion on the message boards.

-Kyle Elliott

Venture-Lieutenant, Seattle

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.
To post to this group, send email to pathfinder-society...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pathfinder-society-online-collective?hl=en.

[Ithuriel]

Aris- in organized play the mechanics of the game ARE the bible. You
absolutely do not have the option to ignore them. As annoying as it
can be at times RAW is the law of the land.

In a game run by an individual GM we would all agree that changes will
be made to fit the play style and preferences of the group. That is
not the case here. At this point I can't tell if you are confusing
the the game Pathfinder with the campaign Pathfinder Society. They are
not the same thing.


On Mar 26, 11:59 pm, Aris Psaltis <arispsal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/3/26 Ithuriel <devinatch...@yahoo.com>

> >http://groups.google.com/group/pathfinder-society-online-collective?h....

[Aris Psaltis]

2012/3/27 Ithuriel <devina...@yahoo.com>

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pathfinder-society-online-collective?hl=en.

[Aris Psaltis]

"Yes and i don t support the "it also blablabla" am I allowed?"  -Aris

Correct.  If you do not wish to follow these guidelines for PFS play, then we are unable to accept any PC's that do not abide by the PFS rules at a PFS scenario run table for PFS credit.  Thank you for your time and input on this.  If you wish to see that change, please go to www.paizo.com and engage others in a civil discussion on the message boards.

-Kyle Elliott

Venture-Lieutenant, Seattle
I am following the guidelines ...where it says I must also like them??? can you direct me to that page mister Venture Lieutenant?

 

[Aris Psaltis]

2012/3/27 Ithuriel <devina...@yahoo.com>

Aris- in organized play the mechanics of the game ARE the bible. You
absolutely do not have the option to ignore them. As annoying as it
can be at times RAW is the law of the land.

In a game run by an individual GM we would all agree that changes will
be made to fit the play style and preferences of the group. That is
not the case here.  At this point I can't tell if you are confusing
the the game Pathfinder with the campaign Pathfinder Society. They are
not the same thing.

Correct more or less allthough my chaotic nature refuses to accept bibles

I would strongly disagree thought on "to fit the play style blablabla..."
but instead
to cover up the awkward mistakes made by paizo publishers...

[Six String Samurai]

Aris...

I can't tell if you are being serious or just trolling at this point.

I wish you the best of luck in figuring out the answers to your questions, it is apparent that I am unable to help you do so.

Best of luck!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.
To post to this group, send email to pathfinder-society...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pathfinder-society-online-collective?hl=en.

[Ithuriel]

Μιλάτε Ελληνικά; Γιατί τώρα δεν κατάλαβα τίποτα. Μήπως είναι πιο
εύκολα στην Ελληνικά.

[Aris Psaltis]

Ναι το παιζο εχει πολλα λαθη και ανισορροπους κανονες οι οποιοι δε μ αρεσουν και τους ακολουθω απο αναγκη...αυτο δε σημαινει οτι συμφωνω με αυτους τους κανονες. Παρολα τα λαθη οι κανονες ειναι αρκετα καλυτεροι απο οτιδηποτε αλλο υπαρχει αυτη τη στιγμη... Τα CRB ειναι φανερα πιο προσεγμενα

Funny I know I m intimidating but I never scared a venture lieutenant before :D

[Aris Psaltis]

Στις 27 Μαρτίου 2012 12:54 π.μ., ο χρήστης Aris Psaltis <arisp...@gmail.com> έγραψε:

Ναι το παιζο εχει πολλα λαθη και ανισορροπους κανονες οι οποιοι δε μ αρεσουν και τους ακολουθω απο αναγκη...αυτο δε σημαινει οτι συμφωνω με αυτους τους κανονες. Παρολα τα λαθη οι κανονες ειναι αρκετα καλυτεροι απο οτιδηποτε αλλο υπαρχει αυτη τη στιγμη... Τα CRB ειναι φανερα πιο προσεγμενα

Funny I know I m intimidating but I never scared a venture lieutenant before :D

English translation would be:
Yes I can speak greek. paizo has many mistakes and imbalancing rules which i don t like but I have to follow out of nececity...that doesn t mean I have to like the rules. Even with the rules i consider blatant failures, pathfinder is the best ruleset there is imo up until now. CRB are obviously better writen and balanced

[Aris Psaltis]

2012/3/26 Demoyn <demo...@gmail.com>

On Mar 26, 8:45 am, Aris Psaltis <arispsal...@gmail.com> wrote:
Allthough
> if I was gm I would ban 3rd party rules and not legit classes.

Nobody ever suggested that we ban LEGIT classes.  The only classes
mentioned for banning were gunslingers and summoners.

Gunslingers and Summoners ARE LEGIT CLASSES since they are published on Advanced combat and Advanced Magic and these are considered legit... And then they say i m the one with the bad english...

they r not CORE classes

[Demoyn]

Something being published doesn't make it legit. It just makes it
legal.


On Mar 26, 5:35 pm, Aris Psaltis <arispsal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/3/26 Demoyn <demoy...@gmail.com>

[Aris Psaltis]

Something that is said doesn t make it being said it just makes it spoken...

[Paul Harries]

Hi

 

That's right. All started because I asked someone not to publicly ban a legal class, but just email the players and discuss any problems. Player might even change their choice if necessary. (I prob would if the GM wasn't up to date on a class I was running).

 

Thanks

Paul H

From: Ankur Gupta <agup...@gmail.com>
To: pathfinder-society...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, 26 March 2012, 15:16
Subject: Re: An Open Letter to the Collective

Yes, but even you said that you wouldn't ban "legit classes". . . .

This then implies that your balance issues remain PFS legal.

What will you do about it? This is where the banning discussion came from.

Ankur

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Aris Psaltis <arisp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well some paizo non CRB are equally disturbing...

>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> pathfinder-society...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> pathfinder-society-online-collective+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/pathfinder-society-online-collective?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.
To post to this group, send email to pathfinder-society...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pathfinder-society-online-collective+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Dragonlady]

All of you:

Please stop this. It is going nowhere!

And it IS annoying.

Rulings have been made.

Public discourse has occured.

Nothing will change at this point, other than to annoy more people.

We have a workable solution for those who do not wish to GM certain
classes. It makes the games they GM appropriately private.

The purpose of this board is to recruit GMs and players to play
Pathfinder Society Games.

Let us all get back to it please!!

Robyn Nixon
LA Venture Captain (Yeah, I know this means little to nothing to
some, but it should show the level of commitment to Pathfinder play
and the encouragement of all GMs and Players to join in a very fun
activity)

Time to end the feuding and get back to playing!!

[Dragonlady]

BTW,
Mark thank you for posting a very personal reply and appeal on this
heated issue.

Robyn

[kitgun]

so it's not what they were doing, but that they were doing it
publicly, so having people sign up for a game then being emailed
saying no summoners is fine, but stating from the get go no summoners
is bad?

[Ithuriel]

Paizo's position is clear.
How to handle it within this group is clear.
Everyone has had a chance to vent.
We cannot start this argument over again. All you are succeeding at
now is driving people away from the group.

Let it go.