Why should I / shouldn't I allow you to re-play scenarios?


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 414 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

The subject says it all. I'm looking for a rational discussion with the Pathfinder Society community on this very topic. Are there specific reasons why you, the players and GMs of Pathfinder Society, would be opposed to allowing players to re-play Pathfinder Society scenarios? (And, to be clear, by re-play, I'm speaking of re-playing the scenario with another character, but if we want to discuss re-playing with the same character, by all means, let's do so.) On the flip side, are the specific reasons why you, the players and GMs of Pathfinder Society, would be in favor of allowing players to re-play Pathfinder Society scenarios?

I'd like to get a sense of the community. What say you? Should I or shouldn't I?

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thank you for asking.

I'd recommend "no."

As a player, I would hate being at a table with another player who'd already played through the storyline, told us what to expect, etc.

There are plenty of scenarios. And plenty of low-level ones for people to play when their first character dies or retires.

If you were to allow it, the most reasonable case would be to replay a scenario at a different tier.


I don't really feel strongly one way or another, but I'm loosely in favor of allowing a player to play the same module twice, as long as they don't ruin things for the other players (with spoilers or "lucky guesses").

Scarab Sages

Isn't one of the purposes of the Pathfinder Society is to see which faction comes ahead? This would make it totally counterproductive and completely skew the results.

I think PFS is getting very close to becoming just like LFR...and I don't mean that in a good way (no offense to anybody who finds this insulting). There is very little roleplaying to be had in the PFS events as of late (as it just seems to be as string of 3 or 4 combat encounters back to back as opposed to dealing with intriguing NPCs and overcoming moral challenges). The plots are juvenile at best..basically non world specific plots that can be put in any campaign besides Golarion. I would much rather focus on the depth and quality of the mods and bring it up to par with the quality of the Pathfinder adventure paths, for example, than the concept of re-play. The first year arc of the Living Arcanis campaign is a prime example of what can be achieved.

5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I did have a player repeat a scenario recently, to test out a new character and fill out the group. I think knowing that he wouldn't get credit really freed him to play with real joy, without any metagame suspicions about his character's choices.

As nice as it might be when gathering a new (or random) group together for a quick game, I wouldn't be comfortable having a player playing for credit in a scenario they'd played before.

I think perhaps allowing repeating without credit should be explicitly allowed, but not for credit.


Majuba wrote:
I think perhaps allowing repeating without credit should be explicitly allowed, but not for credit.

What difference does it make? I'm just curious.

At heart, I think the important rule is "don't be a dick", and that applies whether you're playing for the first time or the one hundredth time (or DMing, for that matter).

Dark Archive

Joe Cirillo wrote:

Isn't one of the purposes of the Pathfinder Society is to see which faction comes ahead? This would make it totally counterproductive and completely skew the results.

This. I was going to post in favor of allowing players to replay a PFS with a different PC (I see it all the time as a LFR DM) but Cirillo has a point. (I don't want Cheliax to lose its (obvious) long-term lead ^_^.)


Joe Cirillo wrote:
Isn't one of the purposes of the Pathfinder Society is to see which faction comes ahead? This would make it totally counterproductive and completely skew the results.

That hasn't been the case since very early in the playtest during Season 0.

Joe Cirillo wrote:
I think PFS is getting very close to becoming just like LFR...and I don't mean that in a good way (no offense to anybody who finds this insulting). There is very little roleplaying to be had in the PFS events as of late (as it just seems to be as string of 3 or 4 combat encounters back to back as opposed to dealing with intriguing NPCs and overcoming moral challenges). The plots are juvenile at best..basically non world specific plots that can be put in any campaign besides Golarion. I would much rather focus on the depth and quality of the mods and bring it up to par with the quality of the Pathfinder adventure paths, for example, than the concept of re-play. The first year arc of the Living Arcanis campaign is a prime example of what can be achieved.

To be clear, I'm not focused on making any rules changes right now. I asking for a gauge of the community on this issue so I know where some of my most active players and GMs stand on this issue. We're committed to improving the scenarios and have done so with each new release of scenarios since day 1. That's my focus.

Paizo Employee Director of Brand Strategy

Not everyone is capable of playing with character knowledge and not player knowledge. While I like to think I tend to play with people who can separate what their PC knows and what they know as players. In an OP campaign, one doesn't know who their fellow players will be, nor their capabilities at keeping OOC knowledge out of the game. In a campaign where death is a real threat, knowing something that can save your PC is a hard thing to resist. I would be disappointed, and frankly annoyed, if someone playing with me spoiled an adventure by blabbing on what was coming next, or obviously metagamed to have an unfair advantage. Sure, I could just go through with a different character and play the same scenario with the same advantage, but it wouldn't be any fun for me. At first, I was upset that I might miss scenarios or my PC wouldn't have received all the potential XP, but now that we are on the verge of retirement for lvl 12 PCs (next month?) and most players have second or third PCs for playing in different tiers, it's clear to me that no PC will ever have it all. And thus, my 8th level monk doesn't need to play through the same scenarios my 3rd level wizard did. They can play different ones and each get their own rewards, but I had fun playing both and as long as I can play the scenarios I'm happy with that. Furthermore, now that access to magic is determined by prestige and not chronicle sheets, what specifically you get from one scenario and not the next is no longer an issue.

I think allowing players to play scenarios is a slippery slope and not one I'd trust my own balance check on. I like this aspect of PFS just the way it is. Some other things might need to be looked into, but not this one.

2/5 *

In an ideal world, players would be allowed to replay scenarios with different characters and get credit. However, this comes with the condition that this player not make or influence any group decisions during game play. IF we could guarantee that a player would stay quiet during a scenario and not spoil it for everyone, perhaps it would be possible. <<< This is very possible in home games which is why some people are probably asking for it, because they know and trust everyone.

If this isn't your home game, you have no way of knowing that player X has or has not played this scenario before. It's also not fair to the other players in the scenario if player X is always spoiling things for everyone. Since there is no way of knowing or recording if they've already played a scenario, this is strike 1 against replaying a scenario.

The second problem with replaying a scenario is that the replaying player (for credit) will know all or most of the faction missions which have a strong influence on characters. This isn't really fair. Strike 2.

I'm definitely against replaying the same scenario with the same character and gaining credit for it. Does it make sense, in game or out of game, that they should get credit for playing the same scenario over and over again? Strike 3.

It's also better for Paizo if people want to play new scenarios, to sell more scenario PDFs, instead of rehashing the same scenario again and again. Strike 4.

Having said all of that, I plan on allowing players to replay scenarios and I plan on replaying scenarios myself, BUT NOT FOR CREDIT. Why? Because we want to have fun with our friends and family playing some D&D, and of course we're on the honor system that we won't spoil the scenario for everyone.

So my answer is to allow scenarios to be replayed (unofficially) for no credit, and to disallow scenarios to be replayed for credit. If there could be a way for a player to declare (at the start of a game) that they're a replay and for it to be tracked in the system, I'd say replays would be possible, but it sounds like it could be complicated and we don't have the existing infrastructure at this moment.

Dark Archive 1/5

I'm going to make this my first post, as I my opinion is rather strong. (yay first post!! now that's out of the way).

A note on my background. I am new to the Pathfinder Society, having just started playing at the end of July. I played and judged Living Greyhawk at its height, and Living Forgotten Realms when it started (I quickly soured on LFR).

Playing a scenario a second time is certainly a major turn off to me, and most of my regular play group. Allowing multiple cracks at a scenario draws the campaign farther from what most campaigns (should) try to be: a continuing story. If I fail to stop the evil Cleric from raising all the corpses in the graveyard, I don't get another chance tomorrow, it's too late, it's done. If the results of scenario #15 are to have consequences in scenario #25, you have to let what happened, happen.

Sure, the logistics of a shared world type organized play campaign alter this a little. Living Greyhawk would "average" the results of all tables for the fist 3 to 6 months of a scenario, and the "average" would be What Really Happened; individual characters would have to adjust their "memories." But even with that, each player just has 1 chance to influence the story line. Giving players multiple chances to impact the story just feels like too much time travel.

Add in the faction prestige wrinkle of The Pathfinder Society and I think it gets worse. If someone fails to achieve the faction goal, it certainly would be easier to achieve the next time, and multiple bites at the apple should be discouraged.

The main argument I have seen in other organized play campaigns in favor of allowing play by the same player but different characters is equipment available to purchase in a scenario is better for a different character of the same player. Pathfinder largely avoids this due to the prestige award system. I didn't buy this argument for other systems, and I certainly don't for Pathfinder.

I hope this is useful to the discussion.

Chris

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Is there any way to base it off of tier?

For example: You can re-play a scenario if you did it the first time around with Tom the Barbarian as a Tier 1-2, but you now must do it in tier 4-5 if you want to play with Eddie the Wizard.

I'm not saying that would fix the problem, but it might help alleviate the absolute knowledge of what's coming as at least the combat encounters would be a little different.

I'm not 100% on board with this idea, but I'm just trying to think possibilities through.

1/5

Personally, I think the reality of the situation is that with the size of the PFS participants in my area, which does appear to be growing, it still may be problematic when we get to the point of "running out" of scenarios that fit all of the players, and it is also becoming a bit of an issue with people that had higher level characters that were in season 0 as opposed to the new people that jumped on board with the final rules release.

I would say that, to maintain the balance as its set up, if we do allow for a replay for credit situation, it might be wise to say that the new character not only has to be a different character, but a different faction, otherwise, the second "harder" faction goal is going to be a given for the new character.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

KnightErrantJR wrote:
Personally, I think the reality of the situation is that with the size of the PFS participants in my area, which does appear to be growing, it still may be problematic when we get to the point of "running out" of scenarios that fit all of the players, and it is also becoming a bit of an issue with people that had higher level characters that were in season 0 as opposed to the new people that jumped on board with the final rules release.

I'll be honest here. We've had a situation already where we're talking about a group of three not four because several of us from season 0 had already played the module (and it was how we wanted to get the group going). The solution was to have one player who had already played but admitted being half alseep grab one of the generic iconics and play through without recording his session. We haven't done this yet, but frankly it may be how we get Pathfinder to kick off in our area.

We had the advantage though of knowing this player "wasn't going to be a dick".

Dark Archive

KnightErrantJR wrote:


I would say that, to maintain the balance as its set up, if we do allow for a replay for credit situation, it might be wise to say that the new character not only has to be a different character, but a different faction, otherwise, the second "harder" faction goal is going to be a given for the new character.

I was thinking of something similar. Focus returns to the players to have fun by using a different set of parameters. Yeah, the player may know the scenario, but reacting to it with a new PC is another matter. (Though, as a Chelish, I personally don't see the appeal of running such obviously lesser beings ^_^.)

Dark Archive

squirrelpres wrote:

I'm going to make this my first post, as I my opinion is rather strong. (yay first post!! now that's out of the way).

Welcome! *hands over a plate of freshly-baked, non-lactose, non-gluten chocolate cookies to squirrelpres. A Chelish succubus smirks in the background.*

3/5

yoda8myhead wrote:

Not everyone is capable of playing with character knowledge and not player knowledge. [snipped text]

I think allowing players to play scenarios is a slippery slope and not one I'd trust my own balance check on. I like this aspect of PFS just the way it is. Some other things might need to be looked into, but not this one.

I'm finding it difficult to distinguish the scenario of the individual who reads an easily-available module prior to play from the individual who replays a scenario he/she has played before. In both cases, you have the problem above.

Of course, this argument doesn't imply that one should make it necessarily "worse" by allowing replays of an adventure, but it does illustrate the point that OOC knowledge is not necessarily absent from Pathfinder Society.

It's not a bad idea to allow scenarios to be repeated for *no* credit (by different characters), if such an allowance would allow a table to run that might not otherwise have been able to. Perhaps along that line a limited amount of reward could be gained for replay of scenarios. For instance, 1/3 (or 1/4) of the gold/xp/etc.

Finally, here's one good reason to allow replays (though I'm not saying I'm unequivocally in favor of it). In LG, it was sometimes the issue that people learned "through the grapevine" that a certain mod provided certain <difficult to obtain> access. People spent a lot more time eavesdropping to learn about the scenario to make sure they didn't miss out on something. One model is to only allow access to items, but no prestige/xp/gold is granted.

Ankur

The Exchange 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Mediterranean

I think there's lots of reasons (given above) to not have characters repeat scenarios and generally not to have players repeat scenarios either. If there's a push for allowing players to repeat scenarios then I think it has to be with different characters and for limited or no gain (no prestige and half treasure?).

In addition, if there are going to be more scenarios that are linked or any sort of meta-plot then having characters repeat scenarios is just going to interfere with that. (And if there were any changes to be made to the PFS scenarios I think it should be in the development of more of a shared world feel and a meta-plot).

Scarab Sages

I'm in the "Replay with a New Character and Faction" department.

3/5

Jason S wrote:
In an ideal world, players would be allowed to replay scenarios with different characters and get credit. However, this comes with the condition that this player not make or influence any group decisions during game play. IF we could guarantee that a player would stay quiet during a scenario and not spoil it for everyone, perhaps it would be possible. <<< This is very possible in home games which is why some people are probably asking for it, because they know and trust everyone.

As an extreme case, what happens if all six people at a table are replaying the scenario? Who speaks up to make decisions?

Ankur

The Exchange

I think replay without credit should be the rule.

Allowing replay of a scenario FOR credit is illogical.

As stated already (by others more eloquent than I), asking for perfect compartmentalization of player knowledge vs. character knowledge is problematic and at times unrealistic.

Also, a player who sat on his hands the entire time, keeping his mouth shut, and not offering any meaningful roleplay? That's not worth credit, IMHO.

We want to expand the player base. Allowing replays diminishes the need to recruit another (hopefully new!) player.

However, given the current situation, where we're struggling to expand, I think replay without credit should be allowed in exceptional cases.

-Derek

5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Joshua J. Frost wrote:
Joe Cirillo wrote:
Isn't one of the purposes of the Pathfinder Society is to see which faction comes ahead? This would make it totally counterproductive and completely skew the results.
That hasn't been the case since very early in the playtest during Season 0.

That's a bit disappointing to hear.

The Exchange

Majuba wrote:
Joshua J. Frost wrote:
Joe Cirillo wrote:
Isn't one of the purposes of the Pathfinder Society is to see which faction comes ahead? This would make it totally counterproductive and completely skew the results.
That hasn't been the case since very early in the playtest during Season 0.
That's a bit disappointing to hear.

Seconded.

As far as replaying scenarios, whatever is deemed best for the PFSOP is fine with me, but this is a let down.

2/5

Add me to the vehemently opposed list. For me, the game is about “character development”—exploring the world, interacting with it, and experiencing it all with a fresh sense of discovery (which is necessarily diluted with each replay, no matter how well I’m able to turn off the “player knowledge”). To me, the “character advancement” paradigm, which I think is represented by the replay option, cheapens that experience for everybody at the table. After playing a number of LFR mods with one or more replayers, I’ve come to the opinion that, if anybody at a table has played a scenario before, it reduces the level of complete-party interaction—with replayers trying not to influence first-timers’ decisions—that can be such a big part of the fun (of course, if everybody has played it before, it can devolve into a completely different type of fun, but that’s another topic).

While I agree that sometimes there is a need to “replay without credit” to allow others a chance to play, I think this is best left as an unspoken, unofficial last-resort option.

Jerry

Dataphiles 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

The subject says it all. I'm looking for a rational discussion with the Pathfinder Society community on this very topic. Are there specific reasons why you, the players and GMs of Pathfinder Society, would be opposed to allowing players to re-play Pathfinder Society scenarios? (And, to be clear, by re-play, I'm speaking of re-playing the scenario with another character, but if we want to discuss re-playing with the same character, by all means, let's do so.) On the flip side, are the specific reasons why you, the players and GMs of Pathfinder Society, would be in favor of allowing players to re-play Pathfinder Society scenarios?

I'd like to get a sense of the community. What say you? Should I or shouldn't I?

This is why I am for allowing players to replay a scenario but with restricted guidelines.

1. XP , No change
2. ½ GOLD award maximum. Day job not affected.
3. For adventures with 2 PA possible only 1 can be obtained for a replay PC.
4. New PC MUST be in differant faction

Background -
I have the PFS at the local game store. We have merge two groups together plus recruit some more new players.
Group 1 is 7-9 level, group 2 is 3-6 level and group 3 is my new guys who joined us because we were having fun and they were curious.

The “point” of PFS (From my point of view)
Pathfinder has been about from day one a group of people getting together and having some fun. I am sure Josh and others have stated they don’t want people being turned away. Get butts in chairs and roll that D20!

The HARDEST thing for me as a small time coordinator is getting older players to play with the new players. My new player table is ALWAYS the smallest. Why, because hardly anyone wants to play down at the new player level for no credit. Sure there are PLENTY of low level adventures but MOST of my players are not low level and have played almost all of the adventures. They want to play NEW stuff. They want to get to level 12. Replaying an adventure isn’t what they want to do. Sometimes it what HAS to be done just to get the new player game started.

I hate telling players they can't earn credit to play because the scenario tonight is one they played already. If you have one home game and few new players it is easy to manage but when you have 15-20 people total and 1/3 can't make it in an average session it can be nerve wracking try to fit to the crowd that shows up when replay isn’t allowed.

Shadow Lodge 1/5

I think that allowing the replay of mods for credit goes completely against the purpose of an organized play campaign and would be a serious detriment to the pathfinder society campaign. Certain issues seem to keep rising to the surface in this discussion.

1. Sometimes you just can't get a table together because of the array of mods people have played.
While this is certainly true, I don't see it as a reason to allow replaying. It has been said on other threads that the table size guidelines are a soft rule which can be bent to allow people to play. 4-6 players is ideal but 3 and 7 are better than turning people away.

So you have three people that haven't played a mod and one person that has? Play with a table of 4 and the person who has played it stays mostly quiet and helps everyone else through the combats. When the mod is registered, register that you had three players...no problem

2. A mod may provide access to a certain item that would be PERFECT for your other character.

With the prestige award dictating your access I really don't see this as becoming an issue. For the few unique items that are awarded the blurbs describing a mod are usually enough to tell you if you'll want to play your paladin or your wizard.

3. Story continuity is a big deal in OP campaigns.

To me, the continuity of the story is the whole point of an OP campaign. If the mods don't have a story connecting them, if the characters aren't making an impact on the world and if adventures can be replayed by the same player with a different character, how is this different from sitting down to a variety of one shot adventures set in Golarion and why must I do the paperwork to track my GP and levels.

Part of the fun of any campaign is interacting with the story as it unfolds around the characters and responds to the actions of the characters. Organized Play campaigns expand the scope out from a single band of adventurers shaping their world to whole organizations shaping their world and that is what makes them so compelling to me.

I would be very sad to see the pathfinder OP campaign allow replaying of mods as it would feel like taking a step away from the story that draws me into the world and taking a step closer to to a video game where the combat matters more than the characters choices

Dark Archive

I play quite a lot of LFR and haven't seen any serious problems with replaying.

Allowing replay encourages players to play low-level games, and this has proved to be a major benefit in organising a group of ten to fifteen playing LFR. Without it, we would have found it harder to introduce new players. And while that may be partly a function of the limited number of level 1 adventures in the early days of LFR, it'd be true no matter how many there are - after a period of time you will always reach the point where a significant number of players in the group have played all of the available low-level adventures, making it impossible to form a table for a newcomer.

The issue of missions and prestige awards does complicate this. I would not suggest permitting replay but banning the earning of prestige as this could leave characters which replay a lot quite a long way behind. Perhaps replaying characters could be limited to the 'easy' mission, giving them a maximum of 1 prestige point, which would put them on the same level as people who GM quite a lot and eat modules.

Dataphiles 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads

Chris Mortika wrote:

Thank you for asking.

I'd recommend "no."

As a player, I would hate being at a table with another player who'd already played through the storyline, told us what to expect, etc.

As a DM I tell players if they have PLAYED this module before DO NOT give away the game. I have asked more than one player to leave a table before for such repeated acts (NON PFS)

Chris Mortika wrote:

There are plenty of scenarios. And plenty of low-level ones for people to play when their first character dies or retires.

Not everyone retires thier PC. People want to get to level 12 some day.

Chris Mortika wrote:


If you were to allow it, the most reasonable case would be to replay a scenario at a different tier.

If replay restictions are added the power level of replay PC's will be reduced some so it would dbe hard to metagame this. Also another big reason is to ALLOW older players and new players to sit at the same table more often.

1/5

Another thing I wanted to chime in with from my point of view. I have several players that are regulars that made it to Gen Con, and about half that didn't. Last year when I ran sessions for Winter War, our local game convention, not everyone could make every session.

So even with a group of people that usually do play together, we suddenly had some scenarios that we couldn't use because one or two of them made it to a convention that the others didn't.

Especially at this stage of the game, this makes scheduling scenarios problematic, and honestly, its not particularly easy to change scenarios "on the fly," since I would have to print out new faction goals, chronicles, and, you know, be familiar enough with the scenario we swapped out to run it without any major speed bumps.

I'm not saying that scheduling these things or juggling them is impossible at this point in time, only that it would make things potentially easier to coordinate.

2/5

I think it should definetly be allowed that player can replay sessions for no credit, if a party needs another player to make a table or 4.

I can see both sides of the argument for allowing/disallowing people credit for replaying a scenario. I have not played LG so I dont know how replaying scenarios worked in that system.

I agree that a player replaying a scenario with a new character does have a edge because of his knowledge but what is this knowledge really gaining him. If a player is replaying a scenario he should have to inform the DM. The DM could then tweak the encounter ie shift the trap 2 squares to the left or have the zombies arrive from stage left instead of stage right to keep the player on his toes.

If the replaying of scenarios does become legal I think it should be restricted at a minimum to a different character and possibly a different faction as well.

I feel that disallowing the replay of a scenario can sometimes limit the ability to put a full table together. In addition it tends to segregate the players who have played since Session 0 and have played through many of the mods from those players who are just starting out with PFS. It seems to limit play opportunites since the veteran players cant join the new players in the older low level mods.

In the PFS group I play in there are two sub groups, the players who are 6-8th level and those that are 1-3rd level. Because of this the players from the two groups cant join together in same game since the high level group has done most of the low level mods. Combine that with the fact the everyone has done slightly different mods it can sometimes be hard to find a minimum table for a particular mod. Because of this there will be game days that people cant play because there is a mod being run that they already played and there arent enough others to put together another table.

If allowing the replaying of scenarios with different characters creates more gaming opportunites and allows people to game with different people I think it could be beneficial to PFS as a whole.

Ultimately I think it comes down to whether people can have fun replaying a scenario and not ruin the plot for the other players with their prior knowledge. If someone is going to be a jerk to play with, they will be that way regardless of what prior knowledge they have. I imagine that most PFS game occur as home games where you usually know who you are gaming with. The mods at cons tend to be the newest mods that people probably havent played yet and therefore wont have an opportunity to replay.

I think replaying with a different character can be a fun challenge and will play differently than the first time. The desire should be for people to play mods they havent played before but I dont think that should limit their ability to play if the only game open is one they have already played.

kelly

Dataphiles 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads

Joe Cirillo wrote:

Isn't one of the purposes of the Pathfinder Society is to see which faction comes ahead? This would make it totally counterproductive and completely skew the results.

I think PFS is getting very close to becoming just like LFR...and I don't mean that in a good way (no offense to anybody who finds this insulting). There is very little roleplaying to be had in the PFS events as of late (as it just seems to be as string of 3 or 4 combat encounters back to back as opposed to dealing with intriguing NPCs and overcoming moral challenges). The plots are juvenile at best..basically non world specific plots that can be put in any campaign besides Golarion. I would much rather focus on the depth and quality of the mods and bring it up to par with the quality of the Pathfinder adventure paths, for example, than the concept of re-play. The first year arc of the Living Arcanis campaign is a prime example of what can be achieved.

Its hard to write "ROLEPLAYING" into a 4 hour event. Roleplaying is something that individual players and DM's work it to the session. Granted I do think the adventures could use a tad less hack and slash and a little bit more roleplaying but I am a firm beleiver that its the people at the table who have the best control of that and not the writters.

I am not up to speed on the Living Arcanis campaign. What was acheived?

1/5 **

Reasons to Allow Replay
-----------------------
* Replay greatly increases the amount of player participation possible, especially for the most active players
* Replay would allow for more more "alts." Now, one must weigh "wasting" a scenario on an alt because the total # of available scenarios is quite limited.
* Replay could help make regular releases of new scenarios a bit less necessary for the continued health of the society, easing pressure on authors, Paizo editing resources, etc., and driving down the cost of running the society. Of course, this assumes PFS scenarios don't at least break even.

Reasons Not to Allow Replay
-----------------------------
* Replayers can take advantage of player knowledge. Good players will minimize the impact, but we should be worried about those that won't.
* Even those mature enough to not take advantage of player knowledge are forced into a somewhat more limited role.

Replaying in LFR, for example, just strains my suspension of disbelief. My preference is "no replay," but if it is necessary to keep PFS play healthy, then so be it.

Dataphiles 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads

yoda8myhead wrote:
Not everyone is capable of playing with character knowledge and not player knowledge. While I like to think I tend to play with people who can separate what their PC knows and what they know as players.

So true...

yoda8myhead wrote:

At first, I was upset that I might miss scenarios or my PC wouldn't have received all the potential XP, but now that we are on the verge of retirement for lvl 12 PCs (next month?) and most players have second or third PCs for playing in different tiers, it's clear to me that no PC will ever have it all.

True its almost impossible for one PC to hit all the modules just right to have it all. But what do you do when the DM tell you the module of the day in the one that your 8th level monk played back when he was level 4 and all the players present are low mid level? Right now the only way to play in that game is PRE-GEN or just simply not play and I dis-like the not play answer.

Home games and local gaming store games can be very differant. My home game was much easier to plan. Local gaming store / local cons not so much.

yoda8myhead wrote:


Furthermore, now that access to magic is determined by prestige and not chronicle sheets, what specifically you get from one scenario and not the next is no longer an issue.

I think allowing players to play scenarios is a slippery slope and not one I'd trust my own balance check on. I like this aspect of PFS just the way it is. Some other things might need to be looked into, but not this one.

I think this slope is slippary but can be managed were it wont be a problem. My #1 concern here is keep new players in the game and finding more new players. Hardest part is adventure management for DM's in running things that the masses haven't played yet. All the adventures have been played up too #31 (just havent gotten to 32 yet).

No one has ran them ALL but the modules have been played at one point or the other.

Dataphiles 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads

Jason S wrote:


If this isn't your home game, you have no way of knowing that player X has or has not played this scenario before. It's also not fair to the other players in the scenario if player X is always spoiling things for everyone. Since there is no way of knowing or recording if they've already played a scenario, this is strike 1 against replaying a scenario.

Any DM can look at his players Chonicle sheets. Players should bring the sheets with them.

Jason S wrote:


The second problem with replaying a scenario is that the replaying player (for credit) will know all or most of the faction missions which have a strong influence on characters. This isn't really fair. Strike 2.

Good Point [edits prior post]

New replay PC's shoudl be in differant factions then.

Jason S wrote:


I'm definitely against replaying the same scenario with the same character and gaining credit for it. Does it make sense, in game or out of game, that they should get credit for playing the same scenario over and over again? Strike 3.

100% agreed. Replay SHOULD be used by players with differant PC's to help intergrated more players. Remeber that not all people start playing at the same time. New players are the HARDEST people to intergrated in mid / high level play.

Jason S wrote:


It's also better for Paizo if people want to play new scenarios, to sell more scenario PDFs, instead of rehashing the same scenario again and again. Strike 4.

I wish they would bump the count to 3 new ones a month but only the Paizo team knows what they can do and I assume that number is 2.

Dataphiles 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads

marvin_bishop wrote:

I think that allowing the replay of mods for credit goes completely against the purpose of an organized play campaign and would be a serious detriment to the pathfinder society campaign. Certain issues seem to keep rising to the surface in this discussion.

1. Sometimes you just can't get a table together because of the array of mods people have played.
While this is certainly true, I don't see it as a reason to allow replaying. It has been said on other threads that the table size guidelines are a soft rule which can be bent to allow people to play. 4-6 players is ideal but 3 and 7 are better than turning people away.

I deal with 2-3 tables at a time now and would you consider it fun to be a new players level 1 with a group that is level 8? Even if you didn't die what fun would that be?

marvin_bishop wrote:


3. Story continuity is a big deal in OP campaigns.

To me, the continuity of the story is the whole point of an OP campaign. If the mods don't have a story connecting them, if the characters aren't making an impact on the world and if adventures can be replayed by the same player with a different character, how is this different from sitting down to a variety of one shot adventures set in Golarion and why must I do the paperwork to track my GP and levels.

Part of the fun of any campaign is interacting with the story as it unfolds around the characters and responds to the actions of the characters. Organized Play campaigns expand the scope out from a single band of adventurers shaping their world to whole organizations shaping their world and that is what makes...

They way we are running modules the continutity of overall story line isn't there and for the most part it is a group of adventures linked up. Granted I would love to see a more solid overall story line but most DM's in non home games dont really run the modules in numerical order.

Dataphiles 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads

pedr wrote:

I play quite a lot of LFR and haven't seen any serious problems with replaying.

Allowing replay encourages players to play low-level games, and this has proved to be a major benefit in organising a group of ten to fifteen playing LFR. Without it, we would have found it harder to introduce new players. And while that may be partly a function of the limited number of level 1 adventures in the early days of LFR, it'd be true no matter how many there are - after a period of time you will always reach the point where a significant number of players in the group have played all of the available low-level adventures, making it impossible to form a table for a newcomer.

The issue of missions and prestige awards does complicate this. I would not suggest permitting replay but banning the earning of prestige as this could leave characters which replay a lot quite a long way behind. Perhaps replaying characters could be limited to the 'easy' mission, giving them a maximum of 1 prestige point, which would put them on the same level as people who GM quite a lot and eat modules.

my thoughts exactly.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Just a couple of comments I thought worth mentioning:

The corner case I'd like to make sure we don't allow: the same group of players repeatedly playing the same adventure, gaining experience and (perhaps reduced) gold.

Does anyone else think it's odd that we're discussing allowing players to repeat a module, when the DMs repeating a module get no benefit?

Darius Silverbolt wrote:


I deal with 2-3 tables at a time now and would you consider it fun to be a new players level 1 with a group that is level 8? Even if you didn't die what fun would that be?

I can see this as a serious problem, but I don't understand how offering people the option of replaying a scenario would help. This looks like the time and place to offer the low-tier player an opportunity to play a higher-tier pre-generated iconic.

(Edit -- unless all the people ready to play at level 8 would be willing to start new characters, and they've already played through all the available low-tier modules. But (1) I imagine that the problems with replays are *most acute* when you've got three replayers at a table with only one new player who's ignorant of the scenario, and (2) there are better solutions.)


I think you should be able to replay as an NPC to fill a table (it happened a bit before the new rules came out, that doesn't appear to be a problem now). I'm even fine with the NPC earning xp, just not prestige points.

Usually there isn't much of the plot to accidentally give away, but the faction missions tend to make me play a certain way. Once the faction mission is taken away you can just support the other players, and if new players are there they learn to be cautious when they see the experienced player's character die.

I just hope there will be NPCs above 1st level in the future.

Though when Season 5 starts I won't remember any Season 0 scenarios unless I go through my notes. Some kind of time limit should be fine for both xp and prestige points, but certainly not in the same season.

5/5

For several very good reasons all pointed out here already, I am absolutely opposed to anyone playing a PFS scenario more than once.

If you need a table filled, I would be in favor of using a Paizo supplied NPC for the GM to run.

*

Please do not allow replays. Replays are fine for board games (like LFR is rapidly becoming; what little roleplaying 4E allows seems excised from LFR adventures), but not roleplaying games. Additionally, not everyone can separate player and character knowledge.

2/5

For several of the reasons listed above, no replays, please.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 *** Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau

Fray wrote:
I'm in the "Replay with a New Character and Faction" department.

I'm with Fray on this one. Completing a Scenario for a different faction can change the way a player approaches a mission.

On another note..

I run a lot of Scenarios for my FLGS; as such, I "eat" a lot of them too. This means that my character(s) will ALWAYS be behind everyone else. While I get partial credit, I never seem to get full credit, putting me at a disadvantage with the other players (GP, Prestige points, etc.). And I can't gain full credit for any Scenario I have run (which is most of them), since I usually have the option to run them first... and the other GMs would like to get full credit, in essence making this a Slot 0 event for them. If there was a way to allow GMs to replay, that would be great!

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Arnim, I'm in the same boat.

But, when a disaster happens, and the party stumbles out of a scenario having failed to accomplish their objectives, scrambling to scrape together enough gold to pay for three raise dead spells, we'll still blithely collect our half-max gold and faction prestige.

Put another way: they're putting something at risk, so they deserve more rewards.

1/5

I don't know. I can understand that in a perfect world we don't want people to replay adventures, and I really do understand the concerns and wanting to set a certain tone by keeping the surprise level high and the like.

I just would like people to think about what happens when more and more people are interested in PFS, but the season 0 crowd starts to drop out because they can't participate.

I'm not sure it will happen, but something like a replay does act as a failsafe for something like this.

I'm not saying I'd even be for this if there were, perhaps, another year's worth of scenarios ready to go, but at this point in time, there is only so much you can run, and once you have people that have played at different venues, this cuts down on what is available to schedule.


I think re-plays should be dis-allowed WITH ACTUAL CHARACTERS.
In a setting where a player's character CAN die and they are forced to start from scratch (not a big deal at 1st level - signifigantly a big deal at higher levels), expecting that players will 100% separate player/character knowledge just isn't reasonable.

The case was brought up of games where not enough new players are available, and allowing re-plays could in these cases facilitate game-play. While the issue of player/character knowledge still would exist, there seems to be a perfectly good option here: using Pre-Gen characters.

Since they are 'throw away' characters, the temptation to use player knowledge of the module would seem to be somewhat diminished, and the player of course doesn't "take away" anything of value (to their character's status/power, of course, hopefully they take away the enjoyment of a good game). People are discussing "replay without GP/Prestige" and the like, but IMHO, that option seems most elegantly offered by using Pre-Gens.

Even under the current rules, since ANYBODY can show up and play with a Pre-Gen (i.e. whether or not they've played the module before), there doesn't really seem to be anything (besides players' honesty re: the rule against re-plays) actually impeding this from happening. The worst 'abuse' I could imagine from this is people helping their friends' characters with the knowledge from previous games. But dishonest players can already do that by sharing such knowledge out-of-game.

KnightErrantJR wrote:
I just would like people to think about what happens when more and more people are interested in PFS, but the season 0 crowd starts to drop out because they can't participate.

I think the best solution to this problem is a consistent stream of new modules. If Paizo has a problem achieving that, I think PFS will have larger problems than the one you're imagining.

Paizo Employee Director of Brand Strategy

bugleyman wrote:


* Replay would allow for more more "alts." Now, one must weigh "wasting" a scenario on an alt because the total # of available scenarios is quite limited.

I don't buy the "alt" argument. At some point, everyone's primary PC will reach 12th level. Now their previous "alt" is their new primary. If people are ok with playing multiple PCs of different levels as the need arises, then you can always have a PC to fill any tier. And still only play everything once. As I mentioned before, I have played all but 2 scenarios up to #32. But my highest level PC is only 8th level. Many of the people I play with are 10th level, maybe even 11th by this point. But when they are building new PCs in a month or two when they have to retire, I get to use the one I made months ago who is now level 3. Or the other one that's level 1. If someone plays regularly, they get to experience every scenario and what ever PC they play it with gets credit. I don't see anything as an alt. They'll all get to 12 eventually.

Paizo Employee Director of Brand Strategy

Darius Silverbolt wrote:
yoda8myhead wrote:

At first, I was upset that I might miss scenarios or my PC wouldn't have received all the potential XP, but now that we are on the verge of retirement for lvl 12 PCs (next month?) and most players have second or third PCs for playing in different tiers, it's clear to me that no PC will ever have it all.

True its almost impossible for one PC to hit all the modules just right to have it all. But what do you do when the DM tell you the module of the day in the one that your 8th level monk played back when he was level 4 and all the players present are low mid level? Right now the only way to play in that game is PRE-GEN or just simply not play and I dis-like the not play answer.

Home games and local gaming store games can be very differant. My home game was much easier to plan. Local gaming store / local cons not so much.

Maybe I'm in a different situation than most, but the group I play with runs three tables a week, generally two tables (often at different tiers) of a new scenario and one of a "makeup" scenario for whomever may have missed it the first time or joined after it was previously run. Doing so has allowed people to play adventures at any tier and most players are able to participate every week. And we continue to bring new people into the group and those people always have low level tables at which to play. And no one replays anything. But if there's a week when the only scenarios being offered are for things I've played, or their being offered at a tier that I simply can't do with any of my PCs, then I do something else on my Thursday night and I play again next week. I know they'll be offering it again for newbs or people like me who just couldn't do it again in a few months.

"Darius Silverbolt wrote:

My #1 concern here is keep new players in the game and finding more new players. Hardest part is adventure management for DM's in running things that the masses haven't played yet. All the adventures have been played up too #31 (just havent gotten to 32 yet). No one has ran them ALL but the modules have been played at one point or the other.

You are providing an argument for getting new players, not for allowing replays. If everyone has played up through 31, then you need some fresh blood who can play stuff the others already have. Run some stuff that's been run before. Maybe those that have played it can run through #31 while you run #13 for a new crowd. Worst case is that no new people show up. But simply running people through a scenario they already played isn't a substitution for playing something fresh and new. Maybe Paizo just needs to put out more scenarios.

2/5 *

Rubia wrote:
As an extreme case, what happens if all six people at a table are replaying the scenario? Who speaks up to make decisions?

That would be a long game, lol. "so what do you do? I dunno. yawn"

But seriously, the situation that a lot of people are seeing now is that we have tables that are incomplete without an extra 1-2 players who might have already played a given scenario. These players would play a different character and probably in a different tier also.

This is why it makes a lot of sense to allow replays in a home game; you can use common sense and not have 6 guys who have all played the scenario play it again.

Maybe part of the solution, if replays are allowed, is to allow a limited amount of replays per scenario.

Another part of the solution is to wait for more season 1 scenarios to come out. With more season 1 scenarios, replays would be nice to have, but not a problem like it is now.

Paizo Employee Director of Brand Strategy

People are allowed to replay, for no credit, with an approved pregen, though. It's in the rules! So if the problem is that you have people who want to replay a scenario so that new players can play an otherwise incomplete table, what's stopping you?

2/5 *

Darius Silverbolt wrote:


This is why I am for allowing players to replay a scenario but with restricted guidelines.
1. XP , No change
2. ½ GOLD award maximum. Day job not affected.
3. For adventures with 2 PA possible only 1 can be obtained for a replay PC.
4. New PC MUST be in differant faction

I can see Darius' and pedr's points and I'm experiencing the same thing with 10 people (home game, convention, and other friends). The above solution might be the best. Full XP, 1/2 gold, 1 PA max. Reducing the gold and PA hurts enough that people will only do this if they have to.

1 to 50 of 414 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Why should I / shouldn't I allow you to re-play scenarios? All Messageboards