If you are going to allow full credit for replays, You should also be allowing full credit for GMing a game for the first time that you have not played.

5. *insert new rules here for GM replay since a replay rule would make this a necessity*

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

I can't see a replay system that didn't award full credit. In my mind, you either allow replay or you don't when it comes to getting rewards for the scenario--you can't half-measure it.

And why can't you do something like what I said just above this response?

I am not genuinely behind replays then. Whatever the decision is we all have choices. I expect Josh to make a decision on replays. My attitude is biased by my past experiences in Living Campaigns and a preference towards exclusivity and privilege. I got in on the ground floor, I put in a lot of hours and I want to stay ahead, it’s selfish but natural. I think that replays diminish that accomplishment. Please don’t try to tell me why my attitude is wrong, that’s really annoying. Anyway, Josh is going to make a decision. We have choices if we don’t like that decision. We can vote with our feet. That’s a tough choice but each to their own. Although I sympathize with those who have stated they would quit if replays are allowed (and I have alluded the same), am I really going to walk away? No. I think many feel this way, but their loyalty to Josh and to Paizo is too much for them to turn their backs on the campaign. We know that Josh works very hard for us and that we are impossible to please. 95% is the best you are going to get from me. Relatively speaking I have a lot invested in PFS and I'm not going to throw it away over something that isn't going to impact my local scene. Make the decision and I will support it. I am not going to punish Paizo for trying to grow the membership, even if it knocks over my sense of exclusivity. Sorry for the drama!

Besides, if...

It's only punishment to those people who only get enjoyment out of playing their PC that they wrote and that they get to level up and add wealth to. It's not a punishment to people who just want to have fun and don't care what PC they play or if it helps them get to a higher level. Someone who is nice is rewarded by being nice, not to mention being rewarded by getting to play a game with some friends or friendly strangers.

That said, I really like the idea of boons as a reward for replaying a scenario (with a pregen or an existing character) as opposed to xp or gold (restoring spent faction points would be one possible boon).

Since some people are restating their beliefs on replays, I'll update mine as well. It's changed a bit from when this thread first started.
.

I am in favor of replays IF the rules and reward system specifically limit replays in a way that:

• Promotes people filling tables.
• Rewards those who are using their time to fill said table.
• Does not allow character advancement with replays. (Discourages the DESIRE to replay if it's not NEEDED)
• Is simple and easy to communicate to players.

That said I'd like to develop the idea for PLAYER boons for replaying scenarios.

What about a universal coupon?

• That coupon could contain a half-dozen or so options per tier.
• Upon distribution it would require GM signatures (much like a chronicle sheet).
• The GM would identify which tier was played when the coupon was issued.
• The player could turn in ONE coupon per scenario.
• To turn in a coupon, the player must be playing a scenario for the first time, and the coupon tier must match the tier being played.

Replay Coupon Ideas:

• +X to attack rolls for the entire scenario (FTES).
• +X to AC (FTES).
• +X to one skill of players choice FTES.
• Restore X prestige points spent. (Thanks DPop!)
• +X to DCs of spells cast FTES.
• +X to one stat of players choice FTES.
• Gain the use of a wonderous item under X gp FTES.
• X rerolls during the scenario.
• +X to the duration of spells cast FTES.

X would be determined by tier and be similar to tier-appropriate magic items.

Dragnmoon wrote:

If you are going to allow full credit for replays, You should also be allowing full credit for GMing a game for the first time that you have not played.

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

5. *insert new rules here for GM replay since a replay rule would make this a necessity*

For all I know that could mean the new rules are there is no reward...

Besides, if enough people are disappointed with Josh’s decision the dissidents can band together to form a NEW organized play campaign called “Aspis Consortium” where they get to thwart the Pathfinder Society, swipe their McGuffins and have a meta-campaign that impacts Golarion. At GenCon they can try to steal PFS session tracking sheets and plant them on Dave Christ.

Now thinking about it. Creating an Aspis Consortium campaign could be fun to play. Though not as competition based on unpopular rulings. I'm thinking it similar to RPGA's Eberron campaigns called Mark of Heroes and Xen'drik Expeditions.

LOL, session sheets on David....too funny.

If replays are intended to be run out of necessity, how will a GM know if someone (especially at a convention where they don't know their players) has or hasn't played a scenario before with a different PC. When I go to play, I take the folder of the PC I'm playing, but not the other two. So if PC 1 has played PFS#22 and PC 2 has not, I would simply show up to play PFS#22 with PC 2's chronicles and nothing from PC 1. That is, if I wanted to play at this table and pretend I'd never played it before. I assume that the reporting software would have no way to know if I had played it to fill a table or not, and would have to be changed to allow reporting of replayed scenarios. Not that there would be any recourse from the swindled GM when he found out I'd played it before.

It's these logistical concerns and others that still make me wary of abuse.

Doug Doug wrote:

Besides, if enough people are disappointed with Josh’s decision the dissidents can band together to form a NEW organized play campaign called “Aspis Consortium” where they get to thwart the Pathfinder Society, swipe their McGuffins and have a meta-campaign that impacts Golarion. At GenCon they can try to steal PFS session tracking sheets and plant them on Dave Christ.

Not sure if this was meant 100% as humor but I enjoyed it. Especially the part about David Christ. Laughed loud on that part.

Now thinking about it. Creating an Aspis Consortium campaign could be fun to play. Though not as competition based on unpopular rulings. I'm thinking it similar to RPGA's Eberron campaigns called Mark of Heroes and Xen'drik Expeditions.

LOL, session sheets on David....too funny.

I got in on the ground floor, I put in a lot of hours and I want to stay ahead, it’s selfish but natural.

Ever since the beginning of this discussion, the anti-replayers have made the argument that the pro-replayers are being selfish and that they should just play a pregen, sit down and enjoy it. But I've held the opinion that there is just as much selfishness, if not more, on the anti-replayer side of the discussion. My opinion.

I've got a small group where we barely make a table most games. I've kinda been the self-designated GM for PFS. While I accept my role with honor, it is also very frustrating. Of the first 30 scenarios, I will have GM'd 26 and only played 4. That leaves me with a couple of characters at about 3rd and 7th levels with half the gold and fewer PA than their counterparts. Gaming at home, this isn't as much of a problem. But when I go to a convention, I feel left behind and under qualified to play in my appropriate tier. Am I being selfish because I want a chance to play those scenarios with my characters? What about the gamers that refuse to GM? Are they not being selfish as well?

Selfishness aside, most gamers are there to have fun and play a game/hobby that they enjoy. Would I play a pregen? Yes, but if I was at a convention where I paid money to play, I would more likely find something else to play rather than play a pregen. (Most cons in my area offer other types of games at the same time. Munchkin, Warhammer, Hero Clix, etc...) But if I could play a new character in a replay, I would play every time.

Cheaters are going to cheat no matter what decision is made. If replays are allowed, then you will have the cheater who levels up characters. If they are not allowed, you will have pets and children signed up for PFS who GM so the actual player can get full credit. Either way it's going to happen.

I think the bigger question is... "What's best for Pathfinder and Paizo?" This is their game, their society, their product. If the decision made brings in more players, and more profits (yes, there is a business behind all this), wouldn't it be the better decision? If Pathfinder and Paizo are doing well and growing, then so is PFS and our player base. Also, if it improves Pathfinder and Paizo, then won't we also benefit?

For the record, if you couldn't tell, I am for replays with full credit.

If replays are intended to be run out of necessity, how will a GM know if someone (especially at a convention where they don't know their players) has or hasn't played a scenario before with a different PC. When I go to play, I take the folder of the PC I'm playing, but not the other two. So if PC 1 has played PFS#22 and PC 2 has not, I would simply show up to play PFS#22 with PC 2's chronicles and nothing from PC 1. That is, if I wanted to play at this table and pretend I'd never played it before. I assume that the reporting software would have no way to know if I had played it to fill a table or not, and would have to be changed to allow reporting of replayed scenarios. Not that there would be any recourse from the swindled GM when he found out I'd played it before.

It's these logistical concerns and others that still make me wary of abuse.

At the convention level, I'm not sure if the game is injured anymore than any other method a person takes to cheat the system. Overall, if they are being disruptive, I imagine the GM can take care of that, if they are not, everyone is likely still having just as much fun as they would if the extra person was not cheating. While cheating should be dealt with, I don't see replays presenting a new and fresh way to cheat.

After running LG and PFS the constant problem is finding enough players to fill in at tables of old scenarios. I am trying to entice new players into playing PFS and sometimes have problems filling the table because the veterans have all played the older games and only want to play their high level characters in the new games. Not sure what problems could be caused by such a change but it would have a benefit of having more players at games. Not sure if I'd want a whole table of replays though.

Personally, I don't WANT to run old designed-for-3.5 PFS games under the new Pathfinder rules.
So new players coming into the game would likely end up playing DIFFERENT low-level games than those who started playing earlier (existing players who want to start a 2ndary character would likewise probably want to play NEW PRPG games, not re-play old scenarios).

Of the re-play 'rewards' mentioned,
I think the "free re-roll" (already available thru T-shirt) and "re-charge spent Prestige" are good because they don't really increase the maximal power your character can muster (vs. characters not benefitting from Replay Rewards) but they are certainly still "benefits" players can point to when choosing whether or not to help newbies by replaying with them.

Personally, I think encouraging the mentality of "everything needs a reward or it's not worth doing" will send PFS down the wrong road, but that's just my opinion. I think it's also a mis-appraisal of the current set-up: the Wealth, XP, and Prestige of current PFS modules are hardly 'rewards': They're NECESSARY to keep PCs up-to-spec with expected wealth by level - without them, PCs would be under-geared for proper CR challenges they are expected to be able to meet. Rewards above that would tend to screw with balance, in a format where DMs are not as empowered to make judgement calls to maintain PC:Group:Game balance.

Bob Hopp wrote
So, let's look at events offered at conventions. I looked at other cons, but Gen Con Australia 2009 shows the individual event registration. Here's what I found:

So, some generous GM offered to run the well-reviewed "Crypt of the Everflame" adventure as a one-shot. There was a golden opportunity for enjoying the company of friends, roleplaying pregenerated characters, and having a frolicsome romp through a great module. No one even bothered to sign up.

On the other hand, 29 tables of PFS adventures were offered, and 151 of those 174 seats were filled via online registration. Many of those scenarios are not as good as (less well-reviewed than) "Crypt". The only extra thing these tables offered is the advancement of the personal character of the players.

It seems clear to me that, however trivial it might seem to some folks, the chance to advance one's personal character is a real benefit to many players. It puts players in the seats, which is the whole point of PFS. Suggesting that people just forgo that benefit is kind of like asking teachers to sub for free. It's for the greater good and can still be fun, but you've removed a tangible positive reinforcement for the desired behavior and the opportunity for continuity & growth over time.

The Crypt of the everflame event registration was entered after the event ran and it had 4 players. In fact it was GM'd by Jason Bulmahn and about 20 players wanted in but each rolled d20's for the 4 spots.

All the pathfinder society events ran and in fact 3 sessions were added during the con. These almost all ran to capacity and some went to 7 players. Fantastic turnout for Pathfinder society downunder and indicative of the tireless efforts of PFS organiser Stephen (Darkwhite) and his fellow dm's.

Like I said not sure how this info affects anyones thinking on this subject but either way it gives amore complete picture of this recent event.

I myself am currently attempting (and succeeding by the look of things) to set up up a PFS night at my local gaming club, and this very issue has been raised.

At present there are 42 scenarios available for purchase, with 2 scenarios released at the end of each month save for two notable exceptions where 4 are promised.

Obviously this won't impact the members of our club for easily over a year or so, but my thought is that the great majority of store organised play will be based weekly. Surely this means that at some point you're going to run into a brick wall with a lack of content? Especially if replays aren't allowed.

My fellow gamers garner a huge sense of accomplishment from character advancement, and I really don't see them smiling benignly and accepting the idea of playing through a previous scenario for no reward. (No matter how fun it may be)

Frankly, I could be taking them through one of the excellent Pathfinder Modules instead to fill in the gap, but I feel that this would also be missing the point of organised play.

I am in favour of replays, but I can't provide much input yet on the format this should take as I'm still getting this thing off the ground.

Common sense suggests that a limited reward should be offered for a replay, along with the prerequisite 1xp.

But I am also leaning towards the idea that this may only be accomplished with a character of a differing faction, but that throws into question whether limiting treasure and PA is fair or whether or not it'll 'stunt' that particular PCs progression.

Not to mention that you could also liken this to GM rewards, where if the players can replay for advancement, why couldn't a GM rerun a scenario to give the benefit to another of his characters?

A GM who does little more than run games, but periodically wants to play a meaningful game is not only going to find himself somewhat spent for choice, but also realise that his character wealth and PA spending cap/perks are well below the average of most of the other players around his table.

Just my thoughts, of course.