Still trying to understand replay


Pathfinder Society

51 to 96 of 96 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 2/5

Matt Haddix wrote:
The wording seems fairly clear that you can play a mod after GMing it. However, the next section still claims that playing a mod after reading it is cheating. Which is it?

The intent of the wording there is to make sure players are clearly aware that they should not read a module before playing it. "But it doesn't say I can't sign up to play a mod on Friday and buy my own copy on Tuesday and read it before I show up to play."

If you are a part-to-full time GM you may find yourself in odd situations where you'll have to keep your mouth closed. Maybe you planned to run Mists of the Mwangi on Friday and show up only to find that they don't need a 2nd GM but actually need a 4th player for Mists of the Mwangi. Having now read it with the intent of running it, but ending up as a player you are going to have to behave as though you have already played it for most intents.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Matt Haddix wrote:
The wording seems fairly clear that you can play a mod after GMing it. However, the next section still claims that playing a mod after reading it is cheating. Which is it?

I don't think this is an either or situation.

They basically have said that if you do not have your play credit yet, that you aren't hosed if you GM it first.

That's legal, because they want to encourage people to GM, rather than discourage it.

But if you purposely read the module so you know how to "defeat" it, prior to playing, then you are cheating.

Its all about the intent of the reader.

3/5

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I also heard that Character Death is no longer an occurrence. Instead, the characters are sold into slavery and rescued by the society at the end of a module. Is this true?

Paizo Employee Director of Brand Strategy

Preston Poulter wrote:
I also heard that Character Death is no longer an occurrence. Instead, the characters are sold into slavery and rescued by the society at the end of a module. Is this true?

Depends on the scenario. There are some that have that as a possible outcome, but in general, if a PC dies, they're dead. Because modules and quests exist outside of the metaplot and flow of the campaign, character death in these are not permanent, though there are penalties for dying while playing them.

Grand Lodge 2/5

Preston Poulter wrote:
I also heard that Character Death is no longer an occurrence. Instead, the characters are sold into slavery and rescued by the society at the end of a module. Is this true?

Not true*.

*With the possibility of some exceptions :)


The main problem with the three bullet points is that you really only need the third one. Here is the original:

Quote:


Replaying Scenarios and Chronicles

You may replay a scenario as needed to fill tables, but
may only earn credit for a given scenario in the following
manner:

• 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.

Now condense, get rid of the bullets and modify to this:

Quote:


Scenarios, Chronicles and Replay

You may earn GM or player credit regardless of the order
you play or GM a scenario. You may earn a maximum of 1 player
credit and 1 GM credit regardless of how many times you GM or
play a scenario. Player credit earned from a scenario must be
applied to the character that played through that scenario. GM
credit earned may be applied to any eligible character belonging
to the GM. However, no character may receive more than 1 credit
from a scenario, whether earned as player or GM. You are free to
use Play, Play, Play to replay in order to meet the four player
minimum needed for a legal table, but if you have already earned
your player credit, you do not earn an additional one.

3/5

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Here's my re-write, which I posted on my blog.

Quote:


‘Players are discouraged from replaying a scenario for obvious reasons. Still, the occasion may arise in which another player is needed to replay a scenario in order to bring the headcount to the required minimum of four. In these instances, a player is allowed to play through the scenario, so long as he or she maintains vigilance in separating character knowledge from player knowledge. Failing to do so won’t only ruin everyone’s fun, but could result in the GM removing you from the game session.

A friendly warning regarding playing for credit:

A given scenario may only be played for credit (acquiring a PFS Chronicle sheet) one time, with that credit being earned by the character who was chosen to play it through. You are allowed to earn another credit as the GM using the same scenario. While not a necessity, would presumably follow your first having played it through with a character to prevent the same issues of character-versus-player knowledge.

Be advised – the maximum number of allowable credits issued for a given scenario is limited to two: one for playing it, one for GM-ing it. NO EXCEPTIONS. Furthermore, these credits must be awarded to different characters. Should you replay a scenario, know that you still run the risk of character death and will still lose all consumables used over the course of the adventure, despite the fact you receive no credit for playing it. For this reason you may want to instead play a one of the pre-generated characters instead. ‘

Liberty's Edge 1/5

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:


Scenarios, Chronicles and Replay

You may earn GM or player credit regardless of the order
you play or GM a scenario. You may earn a maximum of 1 player
credit and 1 GM credit regardless of how many times you GM or
play a scenario. Player credit earned from a scenario must be
applied to the character that played through that scenario. GM
credit earned may be applied to any eligible character belonging
to the GM. However, no character may receive more than 1 credit
from a scenario, whether earned as player or GM. You are free to
use Play, Play, Play to replay in order to meet the four player
minimum needed for a legal table, but if you have already earned
your player credit, you do not earn an additional one.

With the addition of a clause to deal with the exceptional 1st level mods that can be played multiple times, this looks like a clear and concise piece of prose to me.

Grand Lodge 3/5

In my opinion, Preston:
The first paragraph is fairly well written.
The warning line is unnecessary.
The paragraph that starts "A given scenario" has some awkward wording in the first couple of sentences ("the character who was chosen to play it through") and the last sentence makes a preference on order which is contrary to the original language.
The last paragraph contains some unnecessary language ("Be advised", "No Exceptions") and redundance (instead play a pre-gen instead).

3/5

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yea, my wife added that warning. It wasn't in the original. I added the last sentence after she proof read it. Goes to show how poor I am in my word choice. I'm not sure what you mean but the preference being contrary to the original language.

Grand Lodge 3/5

Just that the original says it doesn't matter which order you receive your credits, while your version talks about presuming a GM would play first.

Still a good effort, and you have definitely shown where things can be improved.

I'm interested what you think of Enevhar and Thea's versions.

3/5

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I have to disagree, the original does express a preference, but it's an implied one. I hate implied things in rulebooks. Everything should be explicitly stated.

The rules under no cheating specifically state that you should not read the adventure ahead of time. The rules under the replay section say that you should take special care to separate player knowledge from character knowledge. Clearly, if given the choice, there's a strong preference that one play the scenario before GMing it because you avoid these issues.

What I did was simply take the implied preference (which is common sense anyway) and state it on the record. It doesn't really need to be stated, but then again, do we really think that a section telling people not to cheat is going to stop people from cheating?

The other version seem fine. All versions are rather clear. My version contains more information.

Grand Lodge 3/5

My problem with your wording is that it could be inferred that the GM is doing something wrong by GMing first. And the truth is that many GMs do not have opportunities to play before GMing. This is why the "play first" requirement was lifted, to avoid penalizing those who regularly GM.

3/5

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

That statement merely reads, "While not a necessity, it would presumably follow your first having played it through with a character to prevent the same issues of character-versus-player knowledge."

This is simply stating a preference.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Preston Poulter wrote:

That statement merely reads, "While not a necessity, it would presumably follow your first having played it through with a character to prevent the same issues of character-versus-player knowledge."

This is simply stating a preference.

To be honest Preston, I hated your version. I thought it was wordy. It had poorly chosen sentence structure in a couple places. It was redundant.

You know what it felt like to me while reading it? In the old days, before we matured as people and gamers, when I'd give a player a wish, and they would go on to write a dissertation of caveats on how the want such-n-such and all the ways they couldn't be screwed over by getting such-n-such.

The way you wrote your piece made me want to stop reading after the 1st sentence. Sometimes too much information is, well, too much.

It needs to be way more concise.

Personally, I felt the original written by Moreland was just fine, and I felt your misunderstanding of it (or anyone's misunderstanding of it) was a case of splitting hairs and trying to find a loophole, rather than just following the letter of what it said in context within the whole of itself and the whole of the rest of the rules.

Grand Lodge 2/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
Personally, I felt the original written by Moreland was just fine, and I felt your misunderstanding of it (or anyone's misunderstanding of it) was a case of splitting hairs and trying to find a loophole, rather than just following the letter of what it said in context within the whole of itself and the whole of the rest of the rules.

This is a difficult aspect of documentation. Obviously I also feel like the original version is 'just fine,' but Preston has raised a valid point. It is not as clear as it could be and it does something I was overlooking (and really hate), which is mixed usage of terms. Using credit instead of Chronicle is probably the biggest mistake and rewording it using that will likely resolve potential confusion. Mark Moreland has already taken it to heart for review so mission accomplished. Everything else is dead horse material. =)

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

From an informational perspective, I don't have an issue with any of the versions. Preston's seems to be just as clear/unclear as the others, but, IMHO, it "feels" too negative. I did not get an inviting feel reading it. It has a more "don't do this" and "warning" and "you'll be in trouble" kinda feel.

Personally, I think the credit topic should be clearly separated from the replay topic. Perhaps in two different paragraphs. First you describe the 'normal' or expected credit process. Then follow up with the replay exception. I could try my hand at writing a version, but I'm not a technical writer and my grammar skills are not the strongest.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

My attempt:

Replay/Credit Text:
Playing for Chronicle Sheets (a.k.a. Credit):
Each module may be played once for credit. The chronicle sheet will be awarded to the character that participated in the module. Additionally, you may GM the module for credit and apply this credit as appropriate (reference appropriate section for how to do this and what is appropriate) to a character that has not already received play credit. The order in which you play or GM is not important, however any prior knowledge of the module should not be revealed during play. Any GM has the right to ask anyone to leave the table if prior knowledge has become a problem.

Replaying a module:
Modules may be replayed to help create a legal table. No credit will be awarded for replays, but all the risk of playing through a module (i.e. death, use of consumables, et. al.) remains.

Applying GM Credit:
Insert appropriate text here

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

This thread is essentially repeating in the compilation guide thread. No need to duplicate.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Mark Garringer wrote:


And be careful...

Nit-picker :-)


Preston,

The problem with trying to match your wording to the way the other sections seem to read is that those other sections are still around from the previous version of replay. In the previous version, a player could get credit from a scenario once for each Faction, while once a GM ran the scenario for credit, he could not get credit for playing it at all. This was because a GM would have needed to read the entire scenario to prep it, while a player would not have seen all the faction missions and maybe even not all of the encounters on just one play through. But now that a GM can also get a player credit, whether running or playing first, those other sections need a rewrite as well. So basing your update on areas that will be different when the new 4.0 version of the Guide comes out in July has thrown you off.

The Exchange 4/5

A lot of my confusion over the wording stemmed from:

Player vs. Character

As a Player, I have 4 different characters I use in PFS play. So the way the rule read to me at first was that each of my characters could get 1 player and 1 GM credit for each character.

It wasn't until I spoke with others including several respected GM's and our Venture Captain as well through the pathfindersocietysocal@yahoogroups.com group that I learned it was different.

I had recently played a scenario to make a table legal for the other players and the GM. I informed the GM at the beginning that I had previously played the scenario on a different character. It wasn't until the end when I expected to get a chronicle sheet that I was told I wouldn't because I had already played the scenario. This was disconcerting as I had driven a little more than 30 miles in early morning Los Angeles traffic to make a table legal for a game I had already played. I was happy to help out, but if I had known I wouldn't get credit/chronicle sheet, it might have changed my decision to make that kind of a drive.

Enevhar's is a clearer representation of the rule and an easier read.

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:


Scenarios, Chronicles and Replay

You may earn GM or player credit regardless of the order
you play or GM a scenario. You may earn a maximum of 1 player
credit and 1 GM credit regardless of how many times you GM or
play a scenario. Player credit earned from a scenario must be
applied to the character that played through that scenario. GM
credit earned may be applied to any eligible character belonging
to the GM. However, no character may receive more than 1 credit
from a scenario, whether earned as player or GM. You are free to
use Play, Play, Play to replay in order to meet the four player
minimum needed for a legal table, but if you have already earned
your player credit, you do not earn an additional one.

Liberty's Edge 4/5

That section has several problems in clarity, part of them relating to a rule that has undergone major revision, Play, Play, Play!:

Play, Play, Play! wrote:
Our number one rule in Pathfinder Society Organized Play is to get as many people playing as often as possible. Try not to ever turn away players! If you feel the rules are forcing you to turn someone away, consult your local Pathfinder Society coordinator, ask on the Pathfinder Society messageboards, or email pathfindersociety@paizo.com for guidance on how to handle your specific situation. Turning away players only serves to build walls between the Society and new players—avoid doing so whenever possible!

This rule has changed quite a bit from earlier versions, and appears to allow replay as long as the number of players doesn't violate the "hard cap" of 7. We won't go into the whole "hard cap" area here, since that is another set of hot buttons.

For the section under discussion, Replaying Scenarios and Chronicles, following is my version of the text:

Replaying Scenarios and Chronicles wrote:

Earning credit is sometimes used as a synonym for getting a Chronicle Sheet for a scenario. To be more specific, gaining a Chronicle Sheet that shows XP, PA and GP earned for playing or GMing a scenario for the first time.

You can earn credit for any one scenario twice: Once for GMing the scenario, and once for playing the scenario.

Replaying scenarios is allowable to make tables and to prevent sending someone away under the PPP rules, but the player will not earn credit for this replay. The player may still be given a Chronicle Sheet, with 0 XP, PA and GP earned, so that they can track expenses and/or character death in the replay.

Note that you can replay a scenario with your own character, tracking consumables used and potential death, or use one of the campaign supplied pregens, which are 1st, 4th and 7th level characters.

3/5

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

People can take issue with the tone of what I wrote, and that's fiine. Honestly, it wasn't my tone. I was trying to convey the message of the rules which do specifically warn against revealing info and spoiling fun. The rules furthermore have an entire don't cheat section. Also not my choice. Just conveying what's already there.

I do take issue with people saying mine was not more clear than the original, Because that's just plain wrong. No one could read what I wrote and be confused regarding whether or not they were going to get credit for replaying a scenario.

All of the various rewrites seem fine. Happy to be part of the process.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Preston Poulter wrote:


I do take issue with people saying mine was not more clear than the original, Because that's just plain wrong.

Careful, that's very close to telling someone their opinion is wrong.

Obviously, not everyone has the same level of technical reading skill. Readers can interpret what someone writes in very different terms. Personally, I did not find your text any more (or less) clear than many of the other versions. I don't see how that makes me "wrong."

5/5

Robert (Bob) Jonquet wrote:
Mark Garringer wrote:


And be careful...
Nit-picker :-)

Ewwww...

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Preston Poulter wrote:

People can take issue with the tone of what I wrote, and that's fiine. Honestly, it wasn't my tone. I was trying to convey the message of the rules which do specifically warn against revealing info and spoiling fun. The rules furthermore have an entire don't cheat section. Also not my choice. Just conveying what's already there.

I do take issue with people saying mine was not more clear than the original, Because that's just plain wrong. No one could read what I wrote and be confused regarding whether or not they were going to get credit for replaying a scenario.

All of the various rewrites seem fine. Happy to be part of the process.

It wasn't that your version wasn't clear.

It's that when you are writing for a group of people who tend to be a bit ADHD when it comes to reading an entire paragraph, you can't write a document like it reads as a legal contract. Most people will lose interest in reading and assume they know what is what by reading the first sentence. Doesn't make it right, but is often-times more the truth than not.

As such, you gotta be concise and write in sentences that aren't clunky.

So as clear as your message may have been, the clearness got lost in overwriting it.

3/5

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Robert (Bob) Jonquet wrote:
Preston Poulter wrote:


I do take issue with people saying mine was not more clear than the original, Because that's just plain wrong.

Careful, that's very close to telling someone their opinion is wrong.

Obviously, not everyone has the same level of technical reading skill. Readers can interpret what someone writes in very different terms. Personally, I did not find your text any more (or less) clear than many of the other versions. I don't see how that makes me "wrong."

Because we're not talking about art. The wrting isn't supposed to move you. It's supposed to convey information. If it has the possibility of conveying the wrong information than you need to say "That second sentence can be misinterpretted to mean this."

Absent a critical analysis and I feel like we're judging clarity the same way people judge art. "It doesn't move me." Which is highly subjective and not really capable of being wrong. Clarity in writing in more objective, and opinions can be wrong.

I already went on quite a tear showing specifically how the original can be misinterpretted. None of the others can be so misinterpretted by your average reader. So they are more clear. Opinion is less of a factor.

Grand Lodge 2/5

Preston Poulter wrote:
Clarity in writing in more objective, and opinions can be wrong.

Clarity in writing is subjective to the reader. What is clear to me may be less clear to you, as evidenced by my opinion that the original text was 'clear enough' and your opinion that it was not. Neither of us can be right on which is more clear for the other.

Your interpretation of the writing can be right or wrong assuming there is something to judge it against. Your opinion of the writing, however, is your opinion.

3/5

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I could. My wife and I, probably not. If my wife, myself, and my friend all read the same thing and can't understand the message it's clearly got issues. Objective ones.

If another piece can not be similarly misinterpreted, it has better clarity.

Personally, having to explain the nature of clarity in writing and how it really is objective is kind of wearing on me. The internet seems full of people who want to cling to their subjective realities without having to defend them when presented with evidence to the contrary. I never meet a friend or had a relationship that was worth a damn where people expected unconditional acceptance for their opinion regardless of whether it made any sense. Maybe that's because I'm from Texas, but this whole attitude just bugs me.

Yesterday a man said he felt Karl Marx was brilliant, and that the rest of economics was bunk. He described Economic problems in terms of class, and that Socialism was clearly better than the free market, yet he fought to death with me for calling him a Marxist.

Today I'm expected to treat clarity in writing as a matter of subjective opinion. I bother to show how piece A is being misinterpreted. No one bothers to point out how my piece can be (which would be a service to me as a writer) oh no. We can't be bothered. Instead I'm just supposed to take your subjective opinon for it. Which can never be wrong... cause it's your opinion.

This has reminded me that I'm doing little but wasting my time here.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Preston Poulter wrote:

I could. My wife and I, probably not. If my wife, myself, and my friend all read the same thing and can't understand the message it's clearly got issues. Objective ones.

If another piece can not be similarly misinterpreted, it has better clarity.

Personally, having to explain the nature of clarity in writing and how it really is objective is kind of wearing on me. The internet seems full of people who want to cling to their subjective realities without having to defend them when presented with evidence to the contrary. I never meet a friend or had a relationship that was worth a damn where people expected unconditional acceptance for their opinion regardless of whether it made any sense. Maybe that's because I'm from Texas, but this whole attitude just bugs me.

Yesterday a man said he felt Karl Marx was brilliant, and that the rest of economics was bunk. He described Economic problems in terms of class, and that Socialism was clearly better than the free market, yet he fought to death with me for calling him a Marxist.

Today I'm expected to treat clarity in writing as a matter of subjective opinion. I bother to show how piece A is being misinterpreted. No one bothers to point out how my piece can be (which would be a service to me as a writer) oh no. We can't be bothered. Instead I'm just supposed to take your subjective opinon for it. Which can never be wrong... cause it's your opinion.

This has reminded me that I'm doing little but wasting my time here.

I've tried to explain why I didn't like what you wrote. Perhaps not in the most polite way, but constructive criticism isn't always polite.

However, your attitude makes me think that you think you are better suited to write this document than the rest of us. So you did rewrite that passage.

And in my opinion, your passage was far inferior to the original. Not for lack of including everything for an attempt at clarity. But because in your attempt to be more clear, you became less clear because of a preponderance of superfluous words.

Paizo Employee Director of Brand Strategy

Hey guys. Let's not turn this into a contest of who's a better writer and whose opinions are wrong. I acknowledge that the original could be clearer and we'll be revising it to expand its clarity going forward. But chances are we won't be using any of the specific text suggested here, so it's not really worth arguing about.

5/5

Mr. Mooreland I salute you and the fine folks at paizo, as well as all the humble venture captains and their input as well as most of the forum members. OP had a good question. But really.. .. ..

Replay question threads need to die.. .. ..

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Chris Mortika wrote:

Let's say Doug's highest-level character, Dango, is 6th Level, and the game store is hosting a high level (7th - 11th Level) scenario. Dango isn't eligible to play, so Doug takes a 7th-level Kyra pre-gen and plays through the scenario.

Doug earns no credit, no loot, and no faction prestige (since Kyra isn't a member of a faction.)

Two weeks later, Dango rises to 7th level. Can Doug now replay the scenario in question with Dango and receive credit?

My understanding is: no. He'd be allowed to re-play the scenario, for no credit, to make a legal table, but he's already played the module, with the 7th-level pre-gen, and isn't eligible for credit.

Dragnmoon wrote:

Different GMs have different answers for that. But I personally feel that since the first time you played it you did not get your 1 allowed player credit, you can still get that 1 player credit when you play it with a PC again of legal Level.

The GM still has the authority to kick you out or lecture you if you spoil it.

We have an answer, in another thread.

Mark Moreland wrote:
Or just accept that not every game session is going to be a grand slam. If you want to play a pregen, however, there's nothing in the rules stopping you, but you can't then play that adventure again for credit with a different set of circumstances that might be more fun.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 **

I was thinking about this thread when I read that.

So it seems that playing a pregen is essentially 'burning' a mod. Good to know. Organizers and coordinators should pass this on.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Chris Mortika wrote:


We have an answer, in another thread.

Mark Moreland wrote:
Or just accept that not every game session is going to be a grand slam. If you want to play a pregen, however, there's nothing in the rules stopping you, but you can't then play that adventure again for credit with a different set of circumstances that might be more fun.

Yeah I just replied to that... To say the least I am not a fan of this rule, basically makes the player lose their 1 player credit, which makes no sense to me.

3/5

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Dragnmoon wrote:
Chris Mortika wrote:


We have an answer, in another thread.

Mark Moreland wrote:
Or just accept that not every game session is going to be a grand slam. If you want to play a pregen, however, there's nothing in the rules stopping you, but you can't then play that adventure again for credit with a different set of circumstances that might be more fun.
Yeah I just replied to that... To say the least I am not a fan of this rule, basically makes the player lose their 1 player credit, which makes no sense to me.

People criticized my rewrite of the rules for being too heavy handed, but all I was doing was trying to convert the implied message of the PFS rules into an explicit message.

The rules are clearly written from the point of view that they expect people to try to game the system. So they could first play it for no credit with a pregen, see the problems the module has in store, and then play it with their "real" characters to get full credit, prestige and so on.

In that regard, I am certain that some people would. I'm not sure that we needed to tailor the rules to deal with these players, but that's the decision that was made and that's the implied message of the rules.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 **

I saw the dark side of the old replay rules this weekend - people that had multiple levels of replay credit on individual characters. That's right. Multiple levels worth of replay credit.

The new harsher rules are both a blessing and a curse and a welcome one at that.

3/5

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Honestly, if someone wanted to just play one scenario over and over again to advance his character, the only person he is really cheating is himself. There is no "winning" an RPG. It's just an activity you do to pass the time and make friends. The more varied your experiences role playing, the better a time you have. So why just play the same scenario ad nasuem?

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

But we are not talking about replay here.. We are talking about someone playing a Pregen and not getting their 1 player credit. Playing a Pregen gets you nothing at higher level, you basically lose out forever of getting credit for that scenario..

I like Stephen Idea above, or mine which I was using allowing those that did not get credit for a scenario to play it again so they could get thier one Player credit for it.

It is silly to treat player untrustworthy and gaming the system to learn the scenario when we don't do the same for the GMs who are allowed to get player credit after reading and running it and knowing everything about it.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

It seems we have parallel threads. See HERE. Perhaps one of these threads should die?

2/5 *

Gallard Stormeye wrote:
I saw the dark side of the old replay rules this weekend - people that had multiple levels of replay credit on individual characters. That's right. Multiple levels worth of replay credit.

How could you tell it's replay? From what I understand, (in the past) you got a chronicle sheet and there's nothing to distinguish it from replay or non-replay.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Jason S wrote:
Gallard Stormeye wrote:
I saw the dark side of the old replay rules this weekend - people that had multiple levels of replay credit on individual characters. That's right. Multiple levels worth of replay credit.

How could you tell it's replay? From what I understand, (in the past) you got a chronicle sheet and there's nothing to distinguish it from replay or non-replay.

Multiple chronicles of the same scenario in thier characters would show that.

Some Gms look through all of them. I have only to track what players have played in my group when I need to.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Dragnmoon wrote:


Multiple chronicles of the same scenario in thier characters would show that.

I don't think the issue is multiple chronicles for one character. It is the same chronicle (different sessions) being used across multiple characters. Granted you may audit a character, but you'll never know if the player already played the same scenario with a different character.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Bob Jonquet wrote:
I don't think the issue is multiple chronicles for one character. It is the same chronicle (different sessions) being used across multiple characters. Granted you may audit a character, but you'll never know if the player already played the same scenario with a different character.

That is what I said... That is why I said..Characters..Instead of Character.

I was talking about auditing all their characters, I have done this on occasion in my home game to track what people have played, in a Con setting I doubt I will ever do it unless a player gave me a reason to do so.

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

Bob Jonquet wrote:
The organizer should always make an attempt to seat you. If you had already played all the low-tier options and would have been playing for no credit anyway, why not grab a pregen and sit at the high tier table?

Because if he has a high level PC that would have been legal to play but didn't bring with him you can't get credit.

As Mark posted earlier on another thread.

Mark Moreland wrote:
If you have a legal PC who can play a scenario and you instead choose to have that PC sit out in favor of a pregen, you forfeit your credit for that scenario. If you want credit for a scenario and have a legal PC in the scenario's tier, play that PC. I don't have much sympathy for someone complaining they didn't get their player credit for a scenario when they specifically chose to play a PC they knew wouldn't get them credit for playing while they had an alternative that would.

51 to 96 of 96 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Still trying to understand replay All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society