|
I just have a quick question. What are the Replay rules now? From what I understand, you can replay a module and receive credit for it, if you A) are playing a new character and b) are playing a character of a different faction and C) most importantly don’t spoil the plot for the other players.
Is this correct? Have I missed anything? How many “credits” or experience points can I theoretically squeeze out of a scenario? Thanks.
|
You get one chronicle sheet for playing a scenario. You get one chronicle sheet for DMing a scenario. That's it. You never, ever get more than two of the same chronicle sheet to apply to two different characters you have at any point in the history of this Pathfinder Society.
If a table needs to be made legal due to lack of players, then you may replay, even if you have played and/or DMed it before. However, you may never, ever, in the history of the whole world, get another chronicle sheet after you have received one for playing and one for DMing.
You can therefore, theoretically squeeze two "credits" or experience points out of each individual scenario -- one for playing and one for DMing.
As to b) above, you only get credit once for playing, once in the history of the whole world, forever and ever. However, when you DM the same scenario the first time, you get to apply a chronicle sheet exactly once to any other one character you have.
Any other questions?
|
|
Michael thank you for taking the time to answer my question.
I suppose I have a misconception because, when I played at a PFS game couple of months ago they were only offering one scenario. I had played that scenario before, I think it was a year previously. They let me replay because I had a new character who was playing a different faction.
Michael thank you for taking the time to answer my question.
I suppose I have a misconception because, when I played at a PFS game couple of months ago they were only offering one scenario. I had played that scenario before, I think it was a year previously. They let me replay because I had a new character who was playing a different faction.
They've changed the rules recently (although I don't know if the PFS guide has been updated yet to reflect the change).
|
You can therefore, theoretically squeeze two "credits" or experience points out of each individual scenario -- one for playing and one for DMing.GMing gets you credit, cool! I haven't read the guide to organised play yet, but that makes me very happy.
Just looking at the guide now and it states "any Game Master who “eats” a scenario gets full credit for that scenario applied to his own character one time".
To me "eats" means running a scenario without having played it - is that right? If it is then if the GM has already played the scenario, he doesn't get credit for running it and vice versa.
To me "eats" means running a scenario without having played it - is that right? If it is then if the GM has already played the scenario, he doesn't get credit for running it and vice versa.
Again, I believe they've changed the rules but the document hasn't been updated yet.
|
|
They've changed the rules recently (although I don't know if the PFS guide has been updated yet to reflect the change).Michael thank you for taking the time to answer my question.
I suppose I have a misconception because, when I played at a PFS game couple of months ago they were only offering one scenario. I had played that scenario before, I think it was a year previously. They let me replay because I had a new character who was playing a different faction.
Hogarth, thank you. I hadn't realized that.
Michael Brok, at least the "new character New Faction" rule encouraged people to perhaps make a new character and try a new character concept. I think it would also have the side benefit of putting vetran players in with novices. It would also make it easier for someone who is coordinating or running a game to get a table together.
Michael to me it seems that the "one credit for a scenario and one credit for DMing" change would seriously hamstring those players who have a high level character. That is a change that might very well make it more difficult for players to find a PFS game they can play in. I think that if players repeadedly have to be turned away from games because they have already played a scenario, this could very likely drive players out of PFS; Particularly those who have put more time into the society. anyways those are some possible repercussions i can see possibly arising from that rule change.
Thank you again for taking the time to answer my question.
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Mediterranean
|
You can therefore, theoretically squeeze two "credits" or experience points out of each individual scenario -- one for playing and one for DMing.GMing gets you credit, cool! I haven't read the guide to organised play yet, but that makes me very happy.Just looking at the guide now and it states "any Game Master who “eats” a scenario gets full credit for that scenario applied to his own character one time".
To me "eats" means running a scenario without having played it - is that right? If it is then if the GM has already played the scenario, he doesn't get credit for running it and vice versa.
That was the case previously but the most recent change is that you can get GM credit once and Player credit once, but it doesn't matter what order you do that in. So you can play a scenario and get a chronicle for that character and you can then GM the same scenario and apply the GM credit to a different character.
|
|
Thanks for the explanations, I doubt I will be up to GMing PF RPG until the next version of the OP guidlines has been released so it shoudl all be clear then.
But it is a great idea, because one of my fears is that if I started GMing locally again, when I wanted to play I wouldn't be able to play with my mates who would have higher level characters. This way I can ensure having a decent level character if I only GM, and have two decent level characters if I both GM and play. A good idea!
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Mediterranean
|
Thanks for the explanations, I doubt I will be up to GMing PF RPG until the next version of the OP guidlines has been released so it shoudl all be clear then.
But it is a great idea, because one of my fears is that if I started GMing locally again, when I wanted to play I wouldn't be able to play with my mates who would have higher level characters. This way I can ensure having a decent level character if I only GM, and have two decent level characters if I both GM and play. A good idea!
Yep, I like it ;)
|
|
Hogarth, thank you. I hadn't realized that.
Michael Brok, at least the "new character New Faction" rule encouraged people to perhaps make a new character and try a new character concept. I think it would also have the side benefit of putting vetran players in with novices. It would also make it easier for someone who is coordinating or running a game to get a table together.
Michael to me it seems that the "one credit for a scenario and one credit for DMing" change would seriously hamstring those players who have a high level character. That is a change that might very well make it more difficult for players to find a PFS game they can play in. I think that if players repeadedly have to be turned away from games because they have already played a scenario, this could very likely drive players out of PFS; Particularly those who have put more time into the society. anyways those are some possible repercussions i can see possibly arising from that rule change.
Thank you again for taking the time to answer my question.
Before this thread gets too long, I'd like to link the OP and any others to two existing threads that discuss the current ruling in GREAT detail. There are other, short threads on the subject as well, but these are the most comprehensive in my opinion. Your "hamstring" comment is not a new one and has been quite heavily debated in the other threads. Be forewarned: it's a very weighty and lengthy discussion.
Original thread with eventual Paizo ruling.
More recent thread with further discussion.
FYI: about half our valiant venture captains are at a NeonCon in Vegas this weekend, as well as numerous players, so I suspect the typical response to your questions has been delayed...
|
|
Ealario, thank you for directing my attention to the threads discussing the points I and I am sure many others have raised in regards to this new ruling. I am sure there are plenty of strong opinions going both ways.
This will give me plenty to chew on. Thank you.
I do think I have some extremely valid concerns.
I am now at a small convention in Vermont called Carnage on the Mountain. At the 8 am slot I was looking forward to playing in the Pathfinder organized play game. I was getting to play with two good friends I rarely get to see, let alone play with. The GM had his maps and everything out when I joined the table. The GM and coordinator was offering one game and there was enough players for one table. I found out that I had already played the scenario being run. I offered to make a new character for a new faction, but the coordinator, who was very nice and very apologetic, told me because of the new rule change that I could not replay the scenario. He felt terrible about turning me away. The previous Friday night I played in his game, and I had a great time. I think he enjoyed himself as well.
Needless to say this morning I was more then a little bit displeased and a bit irate, initially because I was missing the chance to play with two good friends. I certainly don’t blame the coordinator and GM for turning me away; he is responsible for seeing that the most current rules are in effect. But I cant help thinking, what a singularly bad idea it is to turn players away, weather novice players who are just trying the game out, or more “enthusiastic” players like myself. I suppose if this was a Pathfinder organized society game played in someone’s home, this wouldn’t be an issue, and even if it was at a game store, while it would be bothersome to have to turn around and drive home, getting turned away while at a convention is particularly irritating.
I did get to play two more sessions today, and I did have a good time. I did my best to turn some lemons into lemonade and I got to take a nice walk out side this morning. The countryside is beautiful up here.
Again Ealario, thank you for pointing my nose in the direction of the threads you have linked in your posts. I will take a look at them and read them when I get home Sunday afternoon.
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
As you will see digesting the other two threads, even game stores see the same problem you do concerning the potential of turning players away.
I run games at my FLGS twice a month; in this month we have seen a drop in our regular players, even though we are offering scenarios we have never played in the store. Why? Because most of those players are also playing home game PFS for the same reason you wanted to play that 8 a.m.slot. - there friends are there. While I like the balance point of the new rule (the old one HEAVILY favored players with multiple characters and hampered potential GMs), I have seen first hand how the new rule makes the veteran players hesitate signing up for a game, since they have already run through it and receive no true gain for their hours of play other than that good feeling that comes with the fun of playing.
I feel partly responsible for this change, since it was my thread that started the reassessment of how the GM Credit Chronicle was awarded and how Replay had the potential for abuse by players trying to "farm" scenarios.
Hopefully, a better balance point will be created for the next incarnation of the Player's Guide to PFS.
|
|
I offered to make a new character for a new faction, but the coordinator, who was very nice and very apologetic, told me because of the new rule change that I could not replay the scenario.
I believe the GM turned you away in error. Unless the table was full or you were insisting on getting a chronicle sheet.
You could have played it with your same character that you have. You just wouldn't of received a Chronicle sheet for it if I am understanding the new rules correctly.
You would of risked though death of the character with no rewards of finishing said scenario.
I am pretty sure that is what was said. There is no longer the making a table official. You can just play if there is room.
I think the prevalent opinion though is it wouldn't be any fun risking your character with death with no said rewards. Or just use a pre-gen which also seems to get a lit of "boos" on the forum boards.
Personally just playing seems like it would be fun granted with my character that I know and love. If he dies....I get to role up another character.....
Sean
|
|
Needless to say this morning I was more then a little bit displeased and a bit irate, initially because I was missing the chance to play with two good friends. I certainly don’t blame the coordinator and GM for turning me away; he is responsible for seeing that the most current rules are in effect. But I cant help thinking, what a singularly bad idea it is to turn players away, weather novice players who are just trying the game out, or more “enthusiastic” players like myself.
There are two things here I don't understand, perhaps you can clarify.
1) Why are you playing a slot that you didn't know what was on offer before hand? Was the slot just offered as 'we'll see who shows up and run accordingly?'
2) You could have replayed it for no credit, you should not have been turned away. By 'turned away' do you mean you chose not to play, or did the GM/Coordinator actually say 'you can't play at this table?' If so that is in error.
|
|
Arnmin Thayer, Thanks for taking the time to read my post and consider what I have been saying.
I would hazard a guess that many people, when they are new to an area, often go to the PFS organized play game, (which is often held in the local gaming store, a public place), to get their “feet wet” in the local gaming community. From there as they get to know people, they often will get an invite to a home game.
Over the past year, I have led a fairly gypsy like existence. The PFS organized play, has given me a wonderful way to continue playing Pathfinder, work on my own characters, and meet new people who like some of the same things that I like. While I prefer a home game with friends to a public game at a game store, I have been hesitant to join a home game, because I haven’t been able to make a several month commitment.
I have also just recovered from a particularly unpleasant lung ailment, which required me to drag around an oxygen tank. Thankfully I am now off of the Oxygen and my lungs are recovering. In regards to a home game, I also didn’t want to go to someone’s home with an oxygen tank and be a burden on my host. I didn’t want to put undue responsibility on my host nor have to ask someone not to smoke in their own home.
While I was recovering, I went to a wonderful game store in Raleigh called Game Theory. Because it was a public place, there wasn’t going to be a smoking issue, and it was around the corner from a medical center in case there was an emergency. The people at the store and the gaming community there were wonderful. Pathfinder Organized Play fit my needs at the time. I got to play Pathfinder, work on my own characters, meet new people and make new friends, and because of the episodic nature of PFS organized play, I didn’t have to worry about leaving any one in the lurch plot wise.
Now as you may guess I happen to have a different opinion about the new rules shift. I am not sure what to make of it yet, I have my misgivings which I voiced earlier, and I want to chew on the threads that were linked earlier so I can see both sides of the discussion.
The Northman
Thank you also for responding to my post.
I don’t know if the GM erred. It appears from the earlier responses on this thread that the GM did not err.
I think there were around seven players including my self. (I admit now I am not entirely sure about the number).
The GM was setting out his maps, setting up his GM screen and beginning to talk about the Scenario he was going to run. I simply checked in my notebook to check and see if the character I was planning to play had played the Scenario the Gm was offering that morning. My character had gone through it already. I found a previous chronicle sheet.
Considering how much preparation goes into running a game, I thought it would be impolite and inconsiderate of me to ask the GM to run something else simply because I had played the Scenario before. I thought the simple solution would be to roll out a character concept I was chewing on already, and make a new first level character of a different faction.
Now Northman, I’m afraid the thought of running my character through a scenario without the possibility of receiving a chronicle sheet never crossed my mind.
As you said, the prevalent opinion is that it wouldn’t be any fun to risk your characters life, limb, resources, and gold, without any possible remuneration in terms of experience points or gold pieces. I happen to share that opinion. While playing is fun, and spending time with friends, is the real reason I play, from what I understand, the risk and reward pattern is part of the very fabric of the game.
I don’t have anything against pre gens. I thing they serve a very important purpose. They give someone who wants to give the game a try, a chance to sit down and play, without going through the laborious and labyrinthine process of making a character. The Pregens also allows a GM to run a table with three players and a Pregen. The Pre gens also let someone play who has for whatever reason doesn’t have access to his own characters.
Northman thank you again for taking the time to answer my post.
I’m now going to chew over the threads I was directed to earlier. Again thank you all for your answers thoughts and ideas,
Elyas Ravenwood
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
Take your time with those afore-mentioned threads; while they have some deep and heartfelt responses, it will take weeding through some snarkier responses as well. Don't be discouraged though... a lot of PFS players feel similarly.
In general, I have faith in the crew at Paizo to find a solution to this that balances their desire to build a truly great Organized Play system that not only supports their RPG, but fulfills our needs as well, and their ability to produce the product needed.
I have been frustrated of late with PFS, not by Paizo, but with the attitudes amongst some GMs and players that seem rather "snooty". And "rules lawyers" are just one form of this. I started PFS locally to bring a game I was very enthusiastic about to others, stepping out of my "comfort zone" of home game with only people I knew to hosting a random and eclectic group of gamers I had never associated with at our local game store. PFS exorcised the "Gamer Elitist" from me; sadly, I'm beginning to feel in the minority. If you feel this has been aimed at you on these boards (not meaning you, Elyas), you might just be right.
Elyas,
By the replay rules in the Guide, if the table was already of legal size, as you said, you would not have been able to play at that table. But by the new rule posted here on the forums, the old replay rule no longer applies and so long as you would not have made the table have 8 players, you could have legally replayed with any character of the appropriate level or with a pregen. By the new rule, and the unchanged "play, play, play" rule, you should have been allowed to play either a character of yours of appropriate level or a pregen.
Just be prepared to have to play by the rules in the current Guide if you go to an event where the GM or Event Coordinator either does not read the forums here or does not consider anything official until it is in print in the Guide.
|
|
Spoiler's for third riddle included in this post Im sorry i don't know how to do a spoiler thing.
Mark Garringer, thank you as well for taking the time to read my post. I believe Chris Kenney has answered your first point
2) You could have replayed it for no credit, you should not have been turned away. By 'turned away' do you mean you chose not to play, or did the GM/Coordinator actually say 'you can't play at this table?' If so that is in error.
As for your second point, it has been a couple of days now. I honestly don’t remember weather the GM said “ I’m sorry but I cant give you a chronicle sheet if you have played it, nor can I give you a chronicle sheet for a brand new character who is part of a different faction.” Or if he said “ you cant play you have to leave”.
The difference is now moot. My irritation was never directed towards the GM, but to the change in the rules. After that Saturday morning, I got to play a few more scenarios, and I had a good time. I will run into this particular GM at Anonyconn, and I think he did an excellent job. I think I may try to wheedle my way onto some of his tables at Anonycon.
As for replaying the scenario for no credit, as I mentioned to The Northman earlier, such a possibility never even entered my mind. The risk reward system is a fundamental part of the game. Perhaps you could suggest to me a reason why I would want to play a scenario for no credit. I often miss things that are right under my nose.
Arim Thayer, I haven’t had time to go through the threads yet, but I would like to see both sides of this discussion. I am sure both sides have presented good arguments, and I am likely to pick up on things other people suggested that I didn’t think of.
As for Gamer Elitist, and “rules Lawyering” I’m afraid these things will always exist. There will always be different interpretations of the rules, and a differing sense of how closely the rules should be applied.
I will have my opinions, and hopefully I will arrive at them in a thoughtful manner, and be willing to examine things from a variety of perspectives. But after all I am only human.
For example, there will be those who believe that a Pathfinder Scenario must be run as written, without any “modifications” from the GM. I happen to believe otherwise.
For example, in the Scenario “the third riddle”
I think this would be an example of poor story structure. To me it would make much more sense to meet the raiders at the end of the module (and yes perhaps a little more Hackneyed.) instead of the beginning. I feel that as a GM, I can move that wagon/ Horse chase scene, until after the party explores the sphinx and exits it. I think that would make more sense in terms of a story line.
But there are plenty of those who would think any modification of a PFS module would be tantamount to blasphemy.
again Arim Thayer thanks for your thoughts
|
|
Elyas,
By the replay rules in the Guide, if the table was already of legal size, as you said, you would not have been able to play at that table. But by the new rule posted here on the forums, the old replay rule no longer applies and so long as you would not have made the table have 8 players, you could have legally replayed with any character of the appropriate level or with a pregen. By the new rule, and the unchanged "play, play, play" rule, you should have been allowed to play either a character of yours of appropriate level or a pregen.
Just be prepared to have to play by the rules in the current Guide if you go to an event where the GM or Event Coordinator either does not read the forums here or does not consider anything official until it is in print in the Guide.
Enevhar Aldarion, thank you for the clarification.
|
|
As for replaying the scenario for no credit, as I mentioned to The Northman earlier, such a possibility never even entered my mind. The risk reward system is a fundamental part of the game. Perhaps you could suggest to me a reason why I would want to play a scenario for no credit. I often miss things that are right under my nose.
There are several reasons why someone might want to be able to replay, but when it comes down to it the 'no credit' can be a deal breaker for many people. The particular situation you described sounds like a bad situation where the slot was created adhoc and thus you didn't know what was on offer before hand. This is not likely to yield great results for many potential players and is exactly the kind of situation that should be avoided by everyone whenever possible.
However, if you were the 4th player to make the table legal you should give serious though into replay for 'no credit' because you are going to trade 'your reward' for the reward of 3 other people. 3:1 payback on 'your credit' seems like a pretty awesome gesture in my book. Beyond this situation though, I'm not personally included to replay (credit or no). I'm not a big re-watcher or re-reader either. These are one time pads to me. But different things motivate different people and the option is always there.
|
|
As for replaying the scenario for no credit, as I mentioned to The Northman earlier, such a possibility never even entered my mind. The risk reward system is a fundamental part of the game. Perhaps you could suggest to me a reason why I would want to play a scenario for no credit. I often miss things that are right under my nose.There are several reasons why someone might want to be able to replay, but when it comes down to it the 'no credit' can be a deal breaker for many people. The particular situation you described sounds like a bad situation where the slot was created adhoc and thus you didn't know what was on offer before hand. This is not likely to yield great results for many potential players and is exactly the kind of situation that should be avoided by everyone whenever possible.
However, if you were the 4th player to make the table legal you should give serious though into replay for 'no credit' because you are going to trade 'your reward' for the reward of 3 other people. 3:1 payback on 'your credit' seems like a pretty awesome gesture in my book. Beyond this situation though, I'm not personally included to replay (credit or no). I'm not a big re-watcher or re-reader either. These are one time pads to me. But different things motivate different people and the option is always there.
Unfortunately I think (and keep in my this is my first OP style game) that there are always going to be that conginent of people that want the credit for everything they do and just simply are not going to be happy with anything less. They love the game and want to play but yet they want the credit for it. Which on one hand is perfectly fine. Then there is the other contingent of players (where I feel I fall) who play for the love and fun of playing. If by my playing means that some first timers get their credit and they have fun and I have fun playing (for no credit) then all is well and, in my opinion, the game has been played to it's potential.
We can debate endlessly on the boards about who is right or who is wrong. But in the end it's all about each person'a perception of what their fun in the game is and what they are willing, or not willing to do to have their version of fun.
Personally, I GM because it's fun, I play because it's fun. I like to have fun and I spend 4/5 hours at a table laughing and joking and killing monsters then I consider that my credit even if I don't get a chronicle sheet. The chronicle sheet is kind of icing on the cake for me.
*steps off soapbox*
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
As a GM, I absolutely love the GM credit rule as it stands.
I am not a fan of multiple GM credits for the same scenario; this does nothing to encourage a new GM. If anything, it would lead to "GM specialists" (i.e. GMs that only run specific modules multiple times). The previous system of GM Credit (i.e. the "eating a scenario" system) lead to a few cases of this locally.
The "Replay" system lead to some players "farming" the system for multiple characters; also not a good solution. We saw a few players locally that would sign up for a re-offered scenario with a new character and three new players (i.e. to make it legal) because the reward for that Chronicle was an obvious enticement. The new system (i.e. one player credit, one GM credit) fixes that problem.
All that having been said, I feel a balance between the two, that would allow limited re-play for credit for multiple characters (say limit two, from different factions), regardless of whether it was GM credit or player credit, and regardless of order of play, would balance this out for both players and GMs, and would not break the system. A GM would have to note "GM Credit" on his Chronicle to be legal, and then the reporting system could lock out Chronicle credit for a scenario for additional times other than the second. And for the GM Star Rewards system, nothing would have to change.
Just my two cents.
All that having been said, I feel a balance between the two, that would allow limited re-play for credit for multiple characters (say limit two, from different factions), regardless of whether it was GM credit or player credit, and regardless of order of play, would balance this out for both players and GMs, and would not break the system.
I am with you on this one and have posted this idea a couple of times in the other threads dealing with the new rule and replay, but it was basically shot down by either Mark or Hyrum, I do not remember which, and I do not have the time before leaving for work to hunt for the post.
|
|
Well I have been reading one of the threads Arnim started concerning GM rewards and chronicle sheets.
From what I understand at first there was no replaying allowed, and GMs just GMed for the love of it.
Then GMs got one credit (not retroactive) for a scenario they GMed, that they could apply to a character of theirs.
Replaying was allowed as long as it was a different character of a different character. The further caviat was that this was to be used as a last resort to fill a table.
I am guessing the rules at this point theoretically could allow someone to “replay” a scenario as much as 5 times with a different character and different faction. Once he GMed he couldn’t then play a scenario and receive a chronicle sheet for his character.
This then led to a discussion of an imbalance.
Which led into a discussion the possible abuses of play play play, and limits needing to be placed on replay.
I see that replay was intended as a last result.
In a couple of posts Mark Moreland expressed concerns people were using the play play play rule to replay scenarios and “game “ the system
I also seem to remember reading somewhere someone expressing concern about payers “farming” specific scenarios to get a reward. I am guessing this refers to something I have seen Wow players sometimes do, they run through an instance until the magic item they wants randomly appears for them.
After some confusion and nashing of teeth, Which lead us to this ruling.
Official PFS Ruling wrote:
If you play you earn 1 credit that is applied to the character that played through the scenario.
If you GM a scenario, you earn 1 credit that can be applied to any character that hasn't played through the scenario.
You receive GM or player credit regardless of the order you play/GM the scenario. You may not earn more than 1 player credit and 1 GM credit regardless of how many times you GM or play the scenario. You are free to use PPP to seat legal tables, but if you already have earned your credits you do not earn any additional ones.
I know I am over simplifying the discussion but it is a challenge to wade through a vast number of posts and keep things strait. I have probably missed some salient points as well. There were also plenty of people who liked the Play Play Play rules the way they were.
Now the thread I started involved my asking for a clarification of the replay rule, because I had run afoul of the new ruling, and then I voiced some misgivings over this new ruling.
While this ruling is a clarification, and I am sure many people wanted clarification.
I also think this ruling was made to help curb people from abusing the play play play rule, to “game” the system.
Now I may have missed some things. Im going to continue down this thread to see how people react to the rule change.
Going just by the rules in the current version of the Guide to PFS Play, the Replay rule and the "Play, play, play" rules are two different rules, even though Replay is one method that can be used to satisfy PPP. You can use PPP without using Replay but you cannot use Replay without using PPP. Replay can only be used to make a legal table. There is no other situation where Replay is legal. PPP allows you to bend some of the rules to get more people playing and the Guide lists a couple of specific situations that are not allowed even with PPP, such as normal table max is 6 players, with PPP you can have 7, but even with PPP 7 cannot be exceeded. The issue where people were believed to be "gaming" the system was in allowing replay when a table was already of legal size because some people believe that PPP allows them to break all the rules for PFS play.
As for your looking for a clarification of the Replay rule, others of us have been looking for that too and, apparently, debating it a lot. Basically, unless I missed it, neither Hyrum nor Mark have posted that with the new rule on credit, the replay rule no longer applies and will not be in the next version of the Guide. Nor have they said that the replay rule stays as written and you can still only replay to make a legal table.
|
|
Hrym Savage wrote:
We'll be clarifying and updating PPP soon as well but yes, if you play a character in a scenario there is always the threat of death (plus the use of consumables), regardless of whether or not you get credit for it.
Replay still exists, but not for credit. The replay rule has one reference to receiving a chronicle, and only then by saying a GM doesn't need to give you one if you spoil the plot. I don't see the need to further clarify it, though it will be reworded in the next version of the Guide to be less wordy and more concise.
Hyrum.
The faction restriction no longer applies because a player can only get credit for playing with one character. If I GM #43, I apply the credit to my favorite character, who is a member of the Osirion faction. I later play it and since I lurve Osirion and refuse to play any of those other dumb factions, I play the scenario with my other Osirion faction PC. Or vice versa. Since I can't ever get credit with my third character, who may be another faction or may not, it doesn't matter. Some people really like one faction, and the current rule allows them to get both GM and player credit for that faction."
I found some more interesting clarifications from reading further down the thread. I even found one of my own rants.
I will have to chew on this some more.
|
|
Perosnally and this is only how I see it, that the PPP rule is pretty much null and void now.
You can join a table if you want to now with no interference. As long as you realize that you only get one chronicle for playing no matter how many times played and one chronicle for GMing no matter how many times GMed.
Of course ruining the plot for others can still get you in trouble and reported I would assume.
We'll see how Mark and Hyrum update the Society guide. I suspect though that the PPP rule well be gone especially if they are thinning the rules down. It seems like it is no longer needed. Except statements about ruining the plot as mentioned.
Once again just my opinion.
Sean
|
|
I apologize for not getting back to this thread earlier.
Official PFS Ruling wrote:

If you play you earn 1 credit that is applied to the character that played through the scenario.
If you GM a scenario, you earn 1 credit that can be applied to any character that hasn't played through the scenario. 
You receive GM or player credit regardless of the order you play/GM the scenario. You may not earn more than 1 player credit and 1 GM credit regardless of how many times you GM or play the scenario. You are free to use PPP to seat legal tables, but if you already have earned your credits you do not earn any additional ones.
Hrym Savage wrote: 
We'll be clarifying and updating PPP soon as well but yes, if you play a character in a scenario there is always the threat of death (plus the use of consumables), regardless of whether or not you get credit for it. 
Replay still exists, but not for credit. The replay rule has one reference to receiving a chronicle, and only then by saying a GM doesn't need to give you one if you spoil the plot. I don't see the need to further clarify it, though it will be reworded in the next version of the Guide to be less wordy and more concise. 

Hyrum. 
The faction restriction no longer applies because a player can only get credit for playing with one character. If I GM #43, I apply the credit to my favorite character, who is a member of the Osirion faction. I later play it and since I lurve Osirion and refuse to play any of those other dumb factions, I play the scenario with my other Osirion faction PC. Or vice versa. Since I can't ever get credit with my third character, who may be another faction or may not, it doesn't matter. Some people really like one faction, and the current rule allows them to get both GM and player credit for that faction."
Well I have had a little time to chew over the new ruling concerning replay. I think the new rule provides a neat and concise answer. For each scenario you can only get a player credit and a GM credit. It doesn’t matter if you GM first, and it doesn’t matter what faction your character is.
On the whole I think that this is a fair and unambiguous ruling. It neatly takes care of any concerns about people “gaming the system” or “farming” scenarios for magic items.
Replay is now unrestricted. However one never gets any credit for replaying. IF one plays in a scenario one risks a characters life, limb, expendables, and gold. Regardless of weather a character receives credit (a chronicle sheet) or not.
This neatly takes care of any replaying as well. From my perspective I will not ever risk one of my characters without a commensurate reward. Period. I may play a pregen, if this will make a legal table, and all of the other players are new to the game or if some friends are stuck needing someone to round out a table but that’s about it.
On the whole I think it is a good ruling for the society. Having said that, I do see some pitfalls. I think this will effectively hamstring people who have higher-level characters and players who have multiple characters.
There may simply not be enough Player or GM credit to go around. Lets see I believe Scenario 02-09 Heracy of man is the 65 scenario produced. There is also the Master of the Fallen Fortress module and the Pathfinder Special: Year of the Shadow Dragon for a total of 67 scenarios. If I subtract the 9 retired modules, that gives us 58. Now if I multiply that by two, I get a total of 116 credits. If a character can have 33 credits over his 11 level carrier, which means, that there is enough credits to support 3 eleventh level characters, and there are 17 credits left over for a fifth level character and two more credits. With two scenarios being published a month, this should help.
But I assume for most people this wont be a problem.
I do think there might be a fall off amongst the more veteran players they may stop coming to PFS games, as it becomes harder and harder for them to find a table to play at. I also think this might effectively cuts off veteran players from playing with newer players. There are still the pregens I suppose.
Well enough of my ramblings. On the whole I think the rules changes is good for the society. I do think it puts people with higher-level characters, and multiple characters at a bit of a disadvantage however.
Elyas,
You also need to subtract from that 58 the number of scenarios released for 12th level characters, as you cannot play up to those and earn XP/PA for an 11th level character.
And something Arnim Thayer and I have posted more than once that would help some in the limiting of credits, at least for those mainly play and rarely GM or mainly GM and rarely play. We both think you should be able to earn credit for two different characters per scenario no matter how you earn it. In other words, you could play twice for the two credits, run it twice for the two credits or do it the way the rule is now, one credit from running and one credit from playing.
One of the big arguments about not getting credit twice for playing is that you would know the plot and such the second time through, but that is meaningless now that you can run a scenario first and then play it.
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads
|
I have a lot of issues here with this recent changes of the rules. Granted I do dislike the lack of replay but for the most part this isn't the bulk of my complaint.
1. I didn't know about the replay change ruling for a ten days roughly because I didn't see it in thread. I am not saying it wasn't there but if a MAJOR change like this is going to happen it need to be POSTED in a separate thread and sticky and have a big sign on it so we all can see it. I am not a huge poster on here but I read 2-3 times a week to try to keep up to date. This announcement was a major change with nothing pointing to it.
2. Changes like this needs to be stuck in a guide to PFS play fast. I have 30-40 players in my PFS game. I am guessing maybe 2-3 read the boards. My players trust me but they need a reference other than obscure posts buried in a forum. I don't expect to see a new guide until after the new year as the holiday season is here and that tends to slow things down for any business.
3. If I understand the changes coming a player who replaying a module with his PC can still die but not gain anything. So how does the player track this? If no chronicle sheet is giving to mark the conditioned gain "DEAD". How does he track the progress of getting that fixed?
4. At this point I am irritated how this is going. I don't like playing on a unlevel playing field. My players use the guide to PFS play for PC generation and how to play PFS. I don't see how it is fair to them that I need to reference forum's for rules changes so for now I see the only answer to run a good game is to stick to the current guide until the changes are finally posted for all to see.
EDIT 1
5. Hyrum or Mark, Would it be possible for the sake of clarity post all changes to the current guide in a new sticky thread? This would make it so much easier on all of us.
|
|
Enevhar Aldarion,
Thank you fro reminding me of the 12 level scenarios. My math as always is suspect. My math skills are feeble at best. I guess that means subtracting 6 credits from the 58 to 52. That is if someone has hypothetically played every scenario and DMed them as well. This would mean there are enough credits to support three 12 level characters (at 33 a piece) and a 2nd level character. Well the majority of people should be fine. If you burn through two scenarios a week as I was in Raleigh Dming and playing, (it was fun let me tell you), you are going to eat through the scenarios soon. For the majority of players, they will probably be ok.
Enevhar ALdaron, the idea of giving people two credits per scenario regardless if they have GMed or played, is an excellent one. I would add a small caveat. If you are replaying a scenario for your second credit, the credit has to go to another character.
I of course am a greedy little goblin at heart, and liked the idea of getting a credit every time you GMed, and taking a big red sharpie and writing on your chronicle sheet “GM CREDIT”. And if you have Gmed Shipyard rat’s lots of times, you can in this specific circumstance apply the chronicle sheet more then once to a single character. However you need to write “GM CREDIT” on it with a big red sharpie. I know having the same chronicle sheet in a character’s history stretches credulity, but my credulity is also stretched when my character runs across another pathfinder character he hasn’t met, and they both have done “the Beagger’s pearl” but we were not in the same dungeon at the same time. The idea of one credit every time you GM rose like a “lead “ balloon, and nobody liked it, which is fine. I’m sure that idea may cause more problems then it solves. But it does allow a coordinator to say… don’t worry you get credit if you GM. It might entice more people to GM if they have a carrot. But this idea is a dead horse and I will desist from kicking it.
. I like your two-credit solution.
Darius Silverbolt,
I’m with you there. I would much prefer for the changes to come in the form of the PFS guide which you can download, rather then being blindsided by a rules change like I was.
As to your third point, I have no idea how a possible death would be recorded without a chronicle sheet. Maybe they will give you a chronicle sheet with allot of zeros on it ( like 0 exp, and 0 gp and 0 prestiege) , and they will write with a big red sharpie that you died. The risk reward system is part of the fabric of the game, so I don’t think I will be risking my characters which I have worked hard on, without them getting gold and experience.
As to your fourth point, I also would prefer rules changes to come only from a revision of the Pathfinder PDF which needs to get broadly announced and not on the boards.
With a rules revision that is only announced on the boards, it opens the door for someone to say, well I read it on the boards this is how it is done.
In spite of all my griping would you guess that I actually like PFS?
Again thank you both for posting.