Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads
|
So why did we do a reversal of the replay rule?
I have to stay it shocked me to see a major change like this is mid season but then again I think replay was allowed in mid season as well if I recall. I know the arguments for this has been beaten to death of the forums. Was the misuse of the replay used that much? I run PFS at a local game store like many in other GM’s here. I for the most part don’t know what players are showing up but we all have seen various types of players.
1. The dedicated player who just about never misses a session.
2. The part time player who shows up for about ½ of your games at random or player like a full time player for a month or two then stops for “X” amount of time to play other games.
3. New players to PFS
I run at least two tables every wed night and ½ the time its three tables. When I GM a game I have a tier 1-7 game and a 5-9 (or 7-11) ready to go at all times and play what is needed high level is preferred. My other table is always a low level game to account for newer players. If the third table happens it is likely a level 1 table.
I have an excel sheet of all my players and what modules have been done. I think it is at least 90% accurate due to some GM’s not filling data in when I am not there due to real life. Outside of brand new modules there is no such thing as a tier 1-7 or 1-5 modules that hasn’t been run. Most of my games are players are less than level 5 because it is hard to get in high tier games setup in hobby stores as some of that do GM’s are my high level players.
Replay for credit to me was a useful tool. As the coordinator I either allowed or not allowed the use of the replay rule trying to balance fun, rules, and the sprint of the game. I know that the weekly game is a pace that the output of modules cannot sustain but to play less cost players and running a good Adventure Path at the hobby store is way too hard on me due to work.
My more veteran players have played games with no credit in the past and at times replayed for credit. I don’t think I abused the system but games tend to run better with 4-5 players and not 6+ and I tried my hardest to keep tables to 4-5 players.
To expect players to play for no credit will cost players in the long run. If we are worried as that a replay player is going to spoil the module (which hasn’t happened yet in my 3 years of running) then replay should be banned all together credit or not.
So this point of this post is just to let the Paizo Team that the voice of one GM says please re-allow replay for credit.
|
If this is the thread to petition for bringing back the old PPP rules where players could play under a different faction and get credit, then I vote yes.
I think all we are doing is just punishing the players who are dedicated to the game. I have players who keep showing up, and to tell them that they can't get credit anymore but can still die is just ludicris. I, for one, would NOT play at a table where I don't get anything, but still use resources, and can still die. Call me selfish if you want, but I didn't play my primary character for over 25 adventures just to watch him die for no reason. Bring back the PPP rules. I don't want to have to start turning away my dedicated players because I can't run an adventure they haven't played yet.
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
+1 to all the above.
Replay was a rarity here as well, mostly used when new players needed a fourth player to make it legal. In my time running Pathfinder, since it began with Season 0, only one player has tried to abuse the replay rule... and he hasn't played at our FLGS in awhile. Most times the "re-player" is a veteran player who happened to be in the store at the time, or a GM who's table didn't happen due to a lack of players.
Yes, we post a schedule (both on-line and posted at our store) a month in advance, and have a sign-up sheet (this turned into a "ticket" system to prevent the inevitable "oh, I won't play if he's at the table" that happens with such a small venue). We go out of our way to offer something new every other week to bring in players both old and new. And we track the scenarios and who has been through them, "retiring" them when they seem "played out" locally. We have a small fee for play ($3), but this is waived if a player is not receiving a Chronicle credit or using a pre-gen. And still, PPP was what keep us afloat for so long.
This last month, PFS play has dropped off. We have had one good PFS night, a Season 2 scenario that was loaded down with out-of-towners when it was offered at one of our local conventions.
I understand the need for some form of limitation on Chronicle credit for PFS. The original Replay rules had that covered, I thought. I appreciate the change in credit for how it applies to GMs; I think it is much fairer than previous... especially considering the aforementioned Replay rules, and how they could be abused. But replay itself was rare, and the abuse even rarer. It seems almost like "throwing the baby out with the bath water" as my Grandpa would say.
I again propose the Rule of Two: A player can gain credit for any given scenario only twice, regardless of source (GM credit or Player credit), and regardless of order in which they were played. The previous rules (different character, different faction) would still stand.
|
I for one am a fan of the current (new) replay ruling. It allows me as the GM the opportunity to not simply "eat" mods for the enjoyment of others (note -- I had no problem eating mods); but I am now given the chance to sit down and play -- which opens up more opportunities for the long time GMs that have eaten pretty much everything Paizo has released due to low GM pools in their area.
My understanding of the reason the replay rule was changed is because there was documented abusement of the previous rule. People with 5 characters and 5 chronicles per module. They weren't simply replaying they were meta-gaming the system. So yes, the abuse of the replay rule was documented.
The majority of people I have seen speak up for changing it back or to something else have been mega-players and store owners. To the mega-players -- step up and GM for the love of Absalom; give the current GMs a break. To the store owners -- if you don't have time to organize effectively and efficiently then perhaps a PFS player can take over. There are tools available (and they have been mentioned numerous times in the various threads)to help with said organization; there are countless VC and other coordinators that have a wealth of knowledge on how to work with part-time players and full-time players and organize what is played accordingly.
I believe that someone said in another thread that it takes effort to keep a gaming community alive and (i'm adding) growing. Without a little effort on someone's part the community is gong to die which is sad and not what is desired at all. If people truly love playing the game they won't have a problem replaying for no credit to help out a newbie -- if they complain than I personally would wonder about their motives behind wanting the chronicle -- are they trying to boost up a low level? What items are on the chronicle? Are they going just for one item?
Despite all the hoopla over it I still think that once people calm down and give the ruling chance to permeate the community it will work out ok -- giving it a chance actually means telling the players that don't read the boards and then actually enforcing it.
Anyway.. that's my opinion I'm going to step off my soap box now and go back to my sammich
|
I for one am a fan of the current (new) replay ruling. It allows me as the GM the opportunity to not simply "eat" mods for the enjoyment of others (note -- I had no problem eating mods); but I am now given the chance to sit down and play -- which opens up more opportunities for the long time GMs that have eaten pretty much everything Paizo has released due to low GM pools in their area.
My understanding of the reason the replay rule was changed is because there was documented abusement of the previous rule. People with 5 characters and 5 chronicles per module. They weren't simply replaying they were meta-gaming the system. So yes, the abuse of the replay rule was documented.
The majority of people I have seen speak up for changing it back or to something else have been mega-players and store owners. To the mega-players -- step up and GM for the love of Absalom; give the current GMs a break. To the store owners -- if you don't have time to organize effectively and efficiently then perhaps a PFS player can take over. There are tools available (and they have been mentioned numerous times in the various threads)to help with said organization; there are countless VC and other coordinators that have a wealth of knowledge on how to work with part-time players and full-time players and organize what is played accordingly.
I believe that someone said in another thread that it takes effort to keep a gaming community alive and (i'm adding) growing. Without a little effort on someone's part the community is gong to die which is sad and not what is desired at all. If people truly love playing the game they won't have a problem replaying for no credit to help out a newbie -- if they complain than I personally would wonder about their motives behind wanting the chronicle -- are they trying to boost up a low level? What items are on the chronicle? Are they going just for one item?
Despite all the hoopla over it I still think that once people calm down and give the ruling chance to permeate the community it will...
I'm sorry but while what you say may apply where you are, it obviously does not apply everywhere.
The given solution that everyone in favor of "no replay" has boils down to two simple words.
Don't Play.
Having been in PFS since Season 0, and having sat out almost an entire year for lack of the ability to get 6 people around the table consistently, and lack of a gaming night slot at my FLGS, I'm currently playing PFS about 2 times per month.
And I'm bumping up against No Replay.
Mathematically, it is impossible to have more than 3 characters in PFS.
Mechanically, it is nearly impossible to have more than two.
There are simply not enough modules available in the 1-5 (or 1-7) range to level more than two characters through it. And won't be for the foreseeable future.
This means that once your two characters level out of the 1-5 range, you either must play your level 6 character at 1-2 tier (thereby severely screwing over anyone in the tier who wants any kind of a challenge) or you must play a pregen for no credit. Without XP, you cannot level a character.
No Replay currently means - you get to play two characters. Once you've leveled those, then you are done as a player.
Has there been abuse? I dunno. Haven't seen it.
Even if it was, the people who abused before will continue to abuse. (It's not hard to simply start a second PFS number under a different login name. It's cheating, but that's what cheaters do - they cheat. You could play that number at cons, or at another gamestore, or with your group of cheating friends. Will I do so? No way. Just like I don't pick up my dice to roll low numbers to their high number neighbors.)
The only people who are actually limited by the No Replay rule are those who weren't abusing the rule in the first place. These are the people that we would want introducing new players to PFS. "Hey, sit down. I'll help you fill out your chronicle. This is what you do."
I'll venture a prediction (well, it's more a mathematical certainty). If the No Replay rule isn't changed in some way, every location with a healthy active player base will hit a plateau within the next 12-18 months and then decline, as players run out of modules that can be played, and creation of a new character will not be possible (If you can't play a scenario for credit, then you can't level a character).
I'll venture a prediction (well, it's more a mathematical certainty). If the No Replay rule isn't changed in some way, every location with a healthy active player base will hit a plateau within the next 12-18 months and then decline, as players run out of modules that can be played, and creation of a new character will not be possible (If you can't play a scenario for credit, then you can't level a character).
There would only be a plateau if Paizo stopped releasing scenarios, but in your 12-18 months there would be another 28-42 scenarios released, and the low-level ones are being increased to one every month starting very soon if not already.
|
|
I'll venture a prediction (well, it's more a mathematical certainty). If the No Replay rule isn't changed in some way, every location with a healthy active player base will hit a plateau within the next 12-18 months and then decline, as players run out of modules that can be played, and creation of a new character will not be possible (If you can't play a scenario for credit, then you can't level a character).There would only be a plateau if Paizo stopped releasing scenarios, but in your 12-18 months there would be another 28-42 scenarios released, and the low-level ones are being increased to one every month starting very soon if not already.
When I made my prediction, I assumed one new low level release per month. (Which is higher than the current release rate).
Assuming Paizo can hold to 1/month, and never retires another low level scenario, you still have a 1/month limitation on playing at low level, where the majority of all the games I ever see run at my FLGS occur, and where all growth in the system occurs.
I hope I'm wrong. I truly enjoy Pathfinder, and I truly enjoy playing in PFS.
I wish that I were wrong. But I fear that I am not.
Everyone keeps comparing PFS with LFR which has unrestricted replay. Those are NOT the only two choices.
Options:
1) One replay per faction. Given the amount of discussion about how most players consider the faction goal more important than the Society mission, this seems a logical place for each player to get the most possible play value out of PFS. Once they have played all 5 missions and have GM'd the module, they are done with it.
2) One replay per scenario. This moves low level gaming up to 2/month (on a continuing basis). This may be enough to keep a healthy player base going where experienced players and new players can both sit down at the table and play. Certainly better than the current system where any experienced player has to grab a Pregen or sit out.
3) Diminishing returns. Offer less than one XP for replay. If the argument is that we want to discourage grinding through the same scenario over and over, then offer less than full XP to players who have already been through the scenario. (1/2 gold for the scenario would probably be necessary to keep the XP/GP ratio intact). This gives the experienced player the incentive to keep playing and the ability to create new low level characters, while giving them the incentive to push their local organizer to offer the newest scenarios as they become available. Honestly, I'd rather replay for 1/4 XP and 1/4 GP with an existing character than play a pregen. Pregens are the red-shirts of the party.
Any of these options is better than the current No Replay rule, and is less than the Unlimited Replay that everyone points to LFR and hoots about.
|
|
Replay still exists just not replay for credit.
Also with Paizo only releasing 2 scenarios a month for Pathfinder Organized Play any plans to play more than 2 scenarios a month will inevitably exhaust the available games.
I stand firmly in the camp of "replay for credit is bad for PFS" for my reasoning check the thread where Josh Frost first broached the subject.
The new rules allow replay to "make games happen" and to "allow a lower level character to catch up with the other players in a small gaming group". It encourages players to judge and rewards judges.
I keep reading this justification. But something keeps not setting right with me.
Every game that I've ever seen die out, didn't die for lack of a GM. It died for lack of players.
Every growing game I've ever seen grew because it gained and kept players wanting to play.
All it takes is one enthusiast in the group to be the judge. I've never seen judges judge because they got a reward. The judges (at least the ones that were worth being in a game with) do so because they love the game and love to judge.
Discouraging players from playing (No Replay) in order to "encourage" (force) them into judging only makes for bad judges. There are a lot of people who I never want to see run a table, but will happily sit down at them when they are playing.
There are two competing problems here.
1) You, and others feel that replay is bad. (I'll concede that _unlimited_ replay isn't a good thing.)
2) There are not enough scenarios (and won't be in the foreseeable future) to support a group of gamers that play on a regular basis.
The question is, how to compromise between these two competing problems.
We can't make scenarios magically appear, so either one of two things happen.
A) We accept that the game cannot support a player base, and thus must stagnate for the next few years until enough scenarios exist to support a player base.
B) We accept that some replay is necessary to support a growing player base.
C) Some option I haven't thought of. I include this in case you think of something I haven't.
Of A and B, the only one which allows PFS to grow is B. Option A is the path to failure.
|
|
Discouraging players from playing (No Replay)
I find the asssumption that limited or no replay actively discourages people from playing this game to be utterly false.
That's like saying my bag of M&M's is discouraging me from eating them because there's only a limited number of delicious chocolate covered peanuts with a hard candy shell inside the bag. I eat the candy, and it's gone. If Mars Ltd. can't produce enough M&M's to eat, it doesn't discourage me from eating M&M's, it means I have to find a different candy once I've already finished by bag. Oh look, Mars Ltd. also makes Twix bars? I'm sold!
For those following along at home, Mars Ltd. is Paizo. M&M's are PFS scenarios, and Twix are Modules or Adventure Paths.
|
2) There are not enough scenarios (and won't be in the foreseeable future) to support a group of gamers that play on a regular basis.
This is flatly not true. The two groups I'm involved with play on a "regular basis" and has never had a single issue with the replay rule. This represents both primary types of players too since we have a regular home game and a local game with two tables and are expanding to a third.
The identifier you're looking for is groups who play weekly, since there is absolutely no way to maintain that burn rate with the release schedule of two modules a month. I wish those players would take a little responsibility for their actions too, as it's clearly obvious that you cannot support weekly play under the current release schedule.
As an aside, so this thread doesn't become too one-sided, I am vehemently opposed to replay for all the reasons that have been posted elsewhere.
|
Elias, I have seen good GMs who gave up after running the same scenario repeatedly for no credit, while players going through the same scenario continued to amass credit for various characters.
Even the one replay/faction (the old rule) led to documented abuse of the system: bloating multiple characters and mining for specific items. As well, there was a systemic imbalance between those who primarily GMed and those who primarily played.
I'm not necessarily against replay for credit, I just feel that it needs to be more tightly controlled than it was. The other suggestions you made would be much more reasonable.
But I encourage everyone to take a deep breath and let Mark and Hyrum get their feet under them. Feedback is helpful, raging is not.
|
|
You also forget another option for you to get credit: start DMing.
There are enough modules and more are on the way. While Darius's argument is well built and reasonable, I don't think its as much of an issue.
Let me offer a suggestion: if, in 6-9 months there are major issues that could be fixed with replaying, lets revisit it. Lets not worry about what things will be in 12 months. Esp since the Zombie Apocalypse with happen and we won't have to worry about such things... :p
I have always disliked any replay, it lessens the experience of play. I have replayed scenarios before (to complete a table) and did not care for it (even though I love the people I replayed with).
JP
|
|
Discouraging players from playing (No Replay)I find the asssumption that limited or no replay actively discourages people from playing this game to be utterly false.
That's like saying my bag of M&M's is discouraging me from eating them because there's only a limited number of delicious chocolate covered peanuts with a hard candy shell inside the bag. I eat the candy, and it's gone. If Mars Ltd. can't produce enough M&M's to eat, it doesn't discourage me from eating M&M's, it means I have to find a different candy once I've already finished by bag. Oh look, Mars Ltd. also makes Twix bars? I'm sold!
For those following along at home, Mars Ltd. is Paizo. M&M's are PFS scenarios, and Twix are Modules or Adventure Paths.
Your analogy is deeply flawed. (The problem with arguing from analogy is that unless the analogy is congruent with reality, it fails at one or more levels.)
If you were only ever allowed to eat one package of M&M's, and then had to go and find a different candy and only ever eat one package of them. (Well, you could eat a second or third package if you really wanted, but those packages would be utterly without taste, and would come in generic wrappers as "candy-shaped food substitute"). And people who ever wanted to eat a second package of M&M's were labeled as abusive. Anyway. The analogy doesn't hold.
|
|
Replay still exists just not replay for credit.
Also with Paizo only releasing 2 scenarios a month for Pathfinder Organized Play any plans to play more than 2 scenarios a month will inevitably exhaust the available games.
I stand firmly in the camp of "replay for credit is bad for PFS" for my reasoning check the thread where Josh Frost first broached the subject.
The new rules allow replay to "make games happen" and to "allow a lower level character to catch up with the other players in a small gaming group". It encourages players to judge and rewards judges.
Quoted for truth.
I have seen the changes locally encourage more people to step up and offer to take a turn behind the screen and for that I am happy.
Players need to accept the rules of the system they are playing under and own up to the fact that playing more than 2/month is ultimately unsustainable. That is a plain and simple truth. As a local coordinator I'm doing what I can to plan and schedule modules according to the population and I give them all the 2/month speech. But at the end of the day if they want to play themselves into a corner I can't stop them. I announce my game schedule a month in advance. I make sure we are running mods that are appropriate to be played by the majority of players. After the new year I'm switching to a 2/month 1-5 offering and a 1/month 5+ offering. If you don't like what I'm offering to run you are always free to make other arrangements.
|
|
Elias, I have seen good GMs who gave up after running the same scenario repeatedly for no credit, while players going through the same scenario continued to amass credit for various characters.
Even the one replay/faction (the old rule) led to documented abuse of the system: bloating multiple characters and mining for specific items. As well, there was a systemic imbalance between those who primarily GMed and those who primarily played.
I'm not necessarily against replay for credit, I just feel that it needs to be more tightly controlled than it was. The other suggestions you made would be much more reasonable.
But I encourage everyone to take a deep breath and let Mark and Hyrum get their feet under them. Feedback is helpful, raging is not.
How exactly does one mine for a specific item in PFS? I've yet to see any scenario that offered any items that were in any way discounted, or that I could not purchase either at the time, or very shortly with the PA that my character had.
And how does one bloat a character? The Gold/XP ratio is fairly well fixed. Unless there is some way to acquire more gold per level than how is it at all possible to bloat a character?
Please provide specifics. I'm interested.
|
|
How exactly does one mine for a specific item in PFS? I've yet to see any scenario that offered any items that were in any way discounted, or that I could not purchase either at the time, or very shortly with the PA that my character had.
Please provide specifics. I'm interested.
(Avoiding Spoilers) Certain adventures provide characters with special tomes and items that give skill bonuses that could be "farmed". Not the Cloak of resistance +1-type item... but the unique or special items can really boost certain character builds.
JP
|
|
Here is one example that could have been exploited massivly - it's retired now and I guess this was one of the reasons
Hands of the muted God
In the final act you could take a partial charged item and get it fully recharged. My Wizard had a wand of finding secret openings from a different scenario (5 charges - 1 used since then) and got it fully charged.
If you know about this, you could buy as many wands as possible - make a list of each scenario offering partly charged wands - buy wands and use them up to a single charge and play this scenario.
Thod
|
|
A more subtle one
I did start with a Wizards strengths 7 - with Dodge and Mobility as feats. It is crucial for this build to stay on low encumbrance.
I roleplayed it by running around with a sack - asking a strong fighter at the start of each scenario to carry my stuff - until a lot later I actually was able to purchase a Handy Haversack.
The alternative would have been to 'time it' and replay a scenario as my fourth game that offers a Handy Haversack. 4 games should give me just enough money without playing up.
Off course - replaying makes it easier - so I could as well play up and do the same in my second game.
Thod
|
|
I've yet to see any scenario that offered any items that were in any way discounted, or that I could not purchase either at the time, or very shortly with the PA that my character had.Red Dragonhide Full plate
With sufficient PA, you can purchase that. (Haven't seen it on my chronicle sheets, but I'll take your word for it.)
So this is bloat? Really?
|
|
A more subtle one
I did start with a Wizards strengths 7 - with Dodge and Mobility as feats. It is crucial for this build to stay on low encumbrance.
I roleplayed it by running around with a sack - asking a strong fighter at the start of each scenario to carry my stuff - until a lot later I actually was able to purchase a Handy Haversack.
The alternative would have been to 'time it' and replay a scenario as my fourth game that offers a Handy Haversack. 4 games should give me just enough money without playing up.
Off course - replaying makes it easier - so I could as well play up and do the same in my second game.
Thod
Yeah, I'm guessing that I have entirely different definitions of "bloat" than people on this board.
A haversack? As you said, just ask a fighter to carry your bag of crap that couldn't be left at the Lodge. Or take a mule. Or a riding dog. Much cheaper ways to deal with encumbrance than a Handy Haversack. Especially at low level.
Maybe I'm thinking "Bloat" in terms of LFR Bloat, where you get free higher level items, and people _do_ mine those for choice items. I've yet to see a "Free" item in PFS, let alone a "Free" "Choice" item.
|
|
Replay still exists just not replay for credit.
Also with Paizo only releasing 2 scenarios a month for Pathfinder Organized Play any plans to play more than 2 scenarios a month will inevitably exhaust the available games.
I stand firmly in the camp of "replay for credit is bad for PFS" for my reasoning check the thread where Josh Frost first broached the subject.
The new rules allow replay to "make games happen" and to "allow a lower level character to catch up with the other players in a small gaming group". It encourages players to judge and rewards judges.
Quoted for truth.
I have seen the changes locally encourage more people to step up and offer to take a turn behind the screen and for that I am happy.
Players need to accept the rules of the system they are playing under and own up to the fact that playing more than 2/month is ultimately unsustainable. That is a plain and simple truth. As a local coordinator I'm doing what I can to plan and schedule modules according to the population and I give them all the 2/month speech. But at the end of the day if they want to play themselves into a corner I can't stop them. I announce my game schedule a month in advance. I make sure we are running mods that are appropriate to be played by the majority of players. After the new year I'm switching to a 2/month 1-5 offering and a 1/month 5+ offering. If you don't like what I'm offering to run you are always free to make other arrangements.
This whole concept of it being irresponsible or unsustainable to want to play a game more than 2/month is very intriguing.
If I only want to play 2/month, I'm being responsible, but if I want to play more, then I need to "own up to the fact" that it's unsustainable. Can you expand on this?
At what point does enjoying playing a game, and buying books to play the game, and buying Chronicles and Companions to play the game become a bad thing? We have a twice a month Sunday PFS game that I regularly play in, and we just had a Thursday night slot that opened up and converted from Legacy of Fire to PFS that I rotate through GMing in. I had no idea that I was being irresponsible for wanting to play in both. I foolishly thought that I was supporting my local game store and Paizo by buying books, supplements, soft drinks and snacks.
Can you point me to any reference threads that might outline exactly how much PFS gaming is "responsible" and how much is "irresponsible", because I've seen multiple posters now make the comment that imply that the amount of PFS gaming I do is somehow a bad thing.
Should this be detailed in the Organized Play Guide, maybe under a heading "Don't Enjoy PFS Too Much?" or "Be Responsible - don't Play"
I play.
I GM. Even if I wanted to GM more than I do, with the number of players and GM's in our group, I could only ever GM about once every two months. Given this constraint, exactly how much should I be allowed to play before I'm an irresponsible gamer?
Given that the number one rule of PFS is:
"to get as many people playing as often as possible."
one would think that the play rules would reflect that philosophy.
|
|
Brother Elias
In this case have a look at the Hands of the Muted God Spoiler. I put a spoiler around it to give people choice to read it or not - but it is retired now.
On a different note:
I kind of replayed just 2 weeks ago - Skeleton Moon. We did play on the last day the scenario was allowed to be played. We did assume to have enough players to play two tables - aka 2 GMs. As it turned out - some players bailed last minute. I did a text at 3:42 am from a player whom I was to pick up at 7 am that he wouldn't come.
So I 'replayed' as GM without even running it.
There was one situation where I knew if we would go ahead, then it would be likely a TPK. No matter what - you can't take away meta-gaming in a situation like that.
I left it to the group to decide what to do - but would have gone first to sacrifice my character to maybe turn a TPK into a partly PK. I was willing to do that because it was a character on 80% GM credits.
In the end the group decided on a different way out and all ended well. But I ask you - how many players will replay and not spoil a plot in even if it means death of your character (and maybe the group).
I like replay in special cricumstances. Also a year later you might have forgotten most of the plot, etc. My wife can't remeber two weeks later where we left off in the normal campaign. But there are players who remember each detail. In this case it is very difficult to not spoil anythink and I rather like this situation to be discouraged as far as possible.
I'm not saying ever - there always are difficult situations - but replay up to 5 times as there are 5 factions as mentioned ... I can't see that adding anything to the Society.
Thod
|
|
Brother Elias
This starts to get heated now. But I try to answer where this is coming from.
The 2/month is simple math.
Current Paizo Schedule:
28 Scenarios / year
28 / 12 month = 2/month rounded
There is nothing wrong with playing a lot more - especially if you started late. But it is unlikely that Paizo will increase the number of scenarios produced dramatically.
So if you play a lot more as 2/month, then you will have to plan what to do once you have played every single scenario as Paizo won't produce them fast enough.
Thod
|
|
This whole concept of it being irresponsible or unsustainable to want to play a game more than 2/month is very intriguing.If I only want to play 2/month, I'm being responsible, but if I want to play more, then I need to "own up to the fact" that it's unsustainable. Can you expand on this?
I believe the math behind the production rate and the consumption rate is pretty obvious. If you consume at a rate greater than production you are going to run out of material to consume. As a player that to fully your choice.
I am not a fan of replay for credit, and thus I have no sympathy for a player who has gotten themselves into this state. Since I have no sympathy for these cases, I cannot support changes which open up rules abuses for credit when I feel this is a self-inflicted problem.
So you've played yourself out of material and we are going to reward you by giving you more credit? Meh, no thanks.
So you've played yourself out of maternal and we are going to reward you with an opportunity to help grow the community by getting an additional credit for running that mod for others? Outstanding.
|
|
This whole concept of it being irresponsible or unsustainable to want to play a game more than 2/month is very intriguing.
If I only want to play 2/month, I'm being responsible, but if I want to play more, then I need to "own up to the fact" that it's unsustainable. Can you expand on this?
I think his point was, that Paizo for most months only releases 2 scenarios, so playing more than twice a month consistently is out pacing the output of scenarios, and that players who do so need to realize they are deciding to outpace the release of scenarios so running out of scenarios is do that fact, and is putting themselves into the position of needed to replay an scenario to be able to play at that pace. They made that conscience choice, and even the old replay rules as they where was not meant to fix that situation if used in the correct way. Replay was never meant to help players that play faster then scenarios where released, but only to help fill short tables and help new players catch up to old players.
|
|
I've yet to see any scenario that offered any items that were in any way discounted, or that I could not purchase either at the time, or very shortly with the PA that my character had.Red Dragonhide Full plateWith sufficient PA, you can purchase that. (Haven't seen it on my chronicle sheets, but I'll take your word for it.)
So this is bloat? Really?
I was thinking of the partially charged wands, but there are other items that you can quickly buy which are unavailable early on for PA, especially if you are playing Season 0, and especially if you PPP an new character into a group playing the higher tier.
And PA is the other thing that I have seen gained much more quickly. By the 3rd-5th time someone is playing an adventure, they have a pretty good idea what all the faction goals are, and can usually be built to gain the "hard" PA pretty easily.
|
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads
|
And that's a senario that needs to be fixed really.Here is one example that could have been exploited massivly - it's retired now and I guess this was one of the reasons
Hands of the muted God
** spoiler omitted **
Thod
Hands of the Muted god is gone but to off slightly off topic here I never was able to get any party to take advantage of that last room. It was always ruined well before hand.
I want to get to the point where we can release more than 2 scenarios a month, but honestly, that isn't going to happen for the foreseeable future. We just don't have the staff to do it right now. :(
And that why we're looking at alternative ways to get more content out there, like modules and maybe AP's.
Hyrum.
|
|
This whole concept of it being irresponsible or unsustainable to want to play a game more than 2/month is very intriguing.
If I only want to play 2/month, I'm being responsible, but if I want to play more, then I need to "own up to the fact" that it's unsustainable. Can you expand on this?
Frankly yes, playing once a week on a system that cannot sustain that level of activity is irresponsible. The system cannot support play more than 2x/month - that is a given fact due to the current release schedule, there is nothing you can do about this fact and it is indisputable. On the other hand, if every player who wanted to play twice a month also took GM duties 2x/month, then no problems would be had and more seats would be available for new players and growth. That would be the responsible option. Taking a week off can also be responsible, if the system can't support your level of play. Maybe it's not fun, but often being responsible isn't fun. What I'm getting at is that maybe you personally are a good PFS member and do both, but there are a lot of people who just try to game the system.
At what point does enjoying playing a game, and buying books to play the game, and buying Chronicles and Companions to play the game become a bad thing? We have a twice a month Sunday PFS game that I regularly play in, and we just had a Thursday night slot that opened up and converted from Legacy of Fire to PFS that I rotate through GMing in. I had no idea that I was being irresponsible for wanting to play in both. I foolishly thought that I was supporting my local game store and Paizo by buying books, supplements, soft drinks and snacks.
Can you point me to any reference threads that might outline exactly how much PFS gaming is "responsible" and how much is "irresponsible", because I've seen multiple posters now make the comment that imply that the amount of PFS gaming I do is somehow a bad thing.
Should this be detailed in the Organized Play Guide, maybe under a heading "Don't Enjoy PFS Too Much?" or "Be Responsible - don't Play"
You're missing the point of the purpose of society play. I don't care what the guide says is the purpose of play, PFS is designed to pull players into the game; it is not meant to act as an alternative or replacement for the everyday gaming group or running a broader game at the game store. While players may buy the occasional Chronicle and Companion for an interesting feat or trait, both JJ and Vic have posted on more than one occasion that the bread and butter product from Paizo that feeds the company is the Adventure Path. The real purpose of PFS is to get people interested in that level of commitment to Paizo. More players means more sales of those kinds of products, which in turn means better products. Frankly, I would be surprised if PFS in general isn't one of Paizo's loss centers. In essence, playing PFS 4x/month is actually more harmful to Paizo's bottom line than playing PFS 2x/month, since the other time could be spend playing the other products.
I GM. Even if I wanted to GM more than I do, with the number of players and GM's in our group, I could only ever GM about once every two months. Given this constraint, exactly how much should I be allowed to play before I'm an irresponsible gamer?
Given that the number one rule of PFS is:
"to get as many people playing as often as possible."
one would think that the play rules would reflect that philosophy.
PFS is a low-cost system designed to pull people into the world of Pathfinder and make them want to buy those products, not just meant to feed the same players over and over and in many cases ruin the fun for the new players who are just getting into the game. I've heard first-hand stories from players who have had their experiences ruined by players in LFR and PFS who have played the module before. If the rule makes the game more fun for new players, than yes, frankly I'm inclined to rule that players who play all the time are going to have to take a back seat to that population.
|
|
So if you play a lot more as 2/month, then you will have to plan what to do once you have played every single scenario as Paizo won't produce them fast enough.If you play 1 unique scenario/week, you'll play out the current catalog in just over a year.
-Skeld
If you start January 1st 2011 and play 1 unique scenario/week, you will run out of scenarios to play in January of 20113 (assuming Paizo continues to release 28 scenarios/year and there are no more retirements).
If you increase that to 2 unique scenarios/week, you'll run out of scenarios around GenCon in August (of 2011).
-Skeld
|
|
Hands of the Muted god is gone but to off slightly off topic here I never was able to get any party to take advantage of that last room. It was always ruined well before hand.And that's a senario that needs to be fixed really.Here is one example that could have been exploited massivly - it's retired now and I guess this was one of the reasons
Hands of the muted God
** spoiler omitted **
Thod
All it needs is a silence spell. As we played it first time and figured out to be quiet and were lucky to have that spell, I didn't feel bad to take advantage. But yes - it was the equivalent of an extra 690gp for my character. I even had another wand that wasn't fully charged. I didn't try it in case something bad would happen if I would be greedy.
But if you know ahead of time, then situations like these just won't work.
Thod
At what point does enjoying playing a game, and buying books to play the game, and buying Chronicles and Companions to play the game become a bad thing? We have a twice a month Sunday PFS game that I regularly play in, and we just had a Thursday night slot that opened up and converted from Legacy of Fire to PFS that I rotate through GMing in. I had no idea that I was being irresponsible for wanting to play in both. I foolishly thought that I was supporting my local game store and Paizo by buying books, supplements, soft drinks and snacks.
If people are able to regularly meet to play, why not play through an AP?
Perhaps I view PFS differently than everyone else, but if I can get a regular night to play I would prefer to play an AP than fill each week with PFS games.
For me PFS games are great for that extra night I can play and just drop into a PFS game or for when I go to a Con. It makes a great setup for these filler nights. But if I have a regular group of people meeting then I am going to be inclined to play an AP or some other Pathfinder campaign than PFS games which aren't necessarily suited to a regular weekly game.
|
|
If people are able to regularly meet to play, why not play through an AP?
Good question.
The game night in question is PFS now but one month ago I was running Legacy of Fire.
There were 9-10 players, but almost none could meet regularly enough (once every other week) to keep an AP going with any kind of continuity. The advantage of PFS is that players can cycle in and out and the rest of the table doesn't suffer from their absence.
There are a lot of reasons people choose PFS over APs.
1) Ability to rotate GM's (very tough to impossible with an AP)
2) Ability to play or not play as real life allows (AP's depend on almost all players showing up session after session)
3) Portability (ability to take character to a CON or to a games tore across the country)
4) Ability to start new characters as the whim suits. You can't do this in an AP and retain good continuity. Just ask anyone trying to keep a Moldspeaker alive in Legacy of Fire. (Great idea, but, to quote Dolf Lundgren if "he dies, he dies.")
|
|
No APs would not work for large groups. But for those players who still want to play more games then are being released modules may, and soon some will count as credit, though even those would most likely take more then one session or more then 4 hrs.
Also looks like they will be releasing a small amount of 1st level only quests that can be replayed in some way, though they are working on the details on that.
The replay rules as they where, was not working well, it seems people where not using it for the reason it was made or using it incorrectly. I am not against a replay rule really, I just think there are things that can be done in to help against having with worrying less about replays especially now they got rid of replay for credit.
The size of the game is to large for AP play at a hobby store. I just cannot manage a real story that keep 15 random players going in a long story arc over a period of 6-12 months.
Yeah, if the players are random on a frequent basis then I can see the problems with a longer campaign arc. It was just sounding like there were some pretty serious regulars attending these PFS games which is what was leading towards the large need to have more replay options.
here were 9-10 players, but almost none could meet regularly enough (once every other week) to keep an AP going with any kind of continuity. The advantage of PFS is that players can cycle in and out and the rest of the table doesn't suffer from their absence.There are a lot of reasons people choose PFS over APs.
1) Ability to rotate GM's (very tough to impossible with an AP)
2) Ability to play or not play as real life allows (AP's depend on almost all players showing up session after session)
3) Portability (ability to take character to a CON or to a games tore across the country)
4) Ability to start new characters as the whim suits. You can't do this in an AP and retain good continuity. Just ask anyone trying to keep a Moldspeaker alive in Legacy of Fire. (Great idea, but, to quote Dolf Lundgren if "he dies, he dies.")
I definitely agree the advantage of PFS is that you can play when you are able to and not hurt a game by not showing up. It is the biggest reason I play. I can pickup a game here or there or have the option of playing at a convention. In my case I happen to have one regular enough night of play that I GM a longer running campaign and use PFS as filler for those times I happen to have an extra evening or day to play.
Your list of points are all good points and actually echo the reasons I use PFS games as filler. I have put focus on finding a stable group of people to play with for my primary source of gaming. I certainly understand everyone wants different things from their game though, so I see where you both are coming from.
Thanks to both of you for taking the time to answer that lurking question I have had.
It's a false assuption that players of PFS are players that want to play adventure paths.
I wasn't really trying to assume. That's why I asked.
It the reason that I started with PFS in the first place. No one I was playing with wanted to play anything that long. The loved small adventures that only took 4-5 hours. The loved that the book keeping was made simpler so they didn't feel that they had to loot everything down to the doors of the dungeon. They loved the fact that it was focused. The goal(s) was know from the begining of the adventure.
With busy schedules I can see how some people are hesitant to commit to a full AP. That does make the bite sized chunks of PFS scenarios attractive.
I don't really find book keeping any easier in PFS in fact I would think the opposite. I feel much more need to strict adherence to the PFS guidelines and making sure I get the right chronicles signed reflecting the correct purchases and conditions and such. I certainly understand why due to organized play, but I don't consider it less book keeping. This is subjective though, so if some think it is then I am good with that! ;)
The economy of fun is more or less maximised in a PFS scenario. I love the adventure paths, but they just really don't hold a candle to the amount of fun in PFS.
I think this is subjective as well. I find a longer campaign allows one to delve more into their character than my PFS characters allow. Everyone has their favorite form of play though so I can certainly understand that while I prefer the longer campaign format of an AP that not everyone wants that and will prefer the bite-sized PFS scenarios.
Everything I hear is that were trying to pigion hole players into one specific style of play that not everyone wants. This doesn't bode well.
I hope I didn't come across as trying to pigeon hole anyone. I know for certain that people's gaming tastes vary greatly which will make pure PFS play more attractive for some and AP play or homebrew campaigns more attractive for others. Even with my own group I have some that are content to show up and kill critters and others that aren't happy unless there is some intricate, political plot with love interests and all.
I just asked why some people that were able to meet regularly and seemed to have a craving for playing as much as they could didn't play APs. I figured if they weren't then there must be a reason they did not but was not sure what those reasons were.