|
My character #1 just finished his 36th adventure and hit 12th level. The adventure I ended up playing (one that I have been trying to make happen for nearly 7 months) ended up being less than a great experience and I'd like to just decline credit for playing and play something else as my 36th adventure.
For the adventure in question we played at maximum level band, got full experience, gold, and PA. I am even okay with not being able to play the game for credit again. I just don't want my character's retirement scenario to have been such a dud.
Is this an option?
|
My character #1 just finished his 36th adventure and hit 12th level. The adventure I ended up playing (one that I have been trying to make happen for nearly 7 months) ended up being less than a great experience and I'd like to just decline credit for playing and play something else as my 36th adventure.
For the adventure in question we played at maximum level band, got full experience, gold, and PA. I am even okay with not being able to play the game for credit again. I just don't want my character's retirement scenario to have been such a dud.
Is this an option?
I am sure the "Official" answer is no...
But really... Pretending the game never happened should be worked out between you and your Organizer/GM. Better to have gone to them first.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Your character's retirement scenario is the fourth installment of whichever 12th-level arc you choose to play (currently there's only one). So the adventure you just played isn't your PC's swan song.
Congratulations on reaching 12th level, by the way! Not many people have done so, and it's an accomplishment you should be proud of. I'm sorry you felt the adventure you just played wasn't a fun time, but choosing which Chronicles count toward your PC's advancement and which don't isn't really part of the Pathfinder Society experience.
A secondary question for you, but were you misquoting the number of scenarios you played? It only takes 33 scenarios for credit to reach 12th level and as soon as you hit 12th, you stop playing that character til you can play in the retirement arc or in the high-level sanctioned modules that are just now coming out.
|
|
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.
I'm not greedy. I would have settled for a single base.
In any case - lesson learned. In the future when playing under these circumstances I'll just bust out one of the pregens and not risk getting a chronicle for a poor experience.
A secondary question for you, but were you misquoting the number of scenarios you played? It only takes 33 scenarios for credit to reach 12th level and as soon as you hit 12th, you stop playing that character til you can play in the retirement arc or in the high-level sanctioned modules that are just now coming out.
Ah, math is hard. I meant 33rd.
|
|
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.
So we now have an exception to the 1 player credit 1 GM credit per player?
Playing a Pregen at high levels does not get you any credit, they should still be allowed to get that credit later on with a non pregen PC
I am not a fan not allowing a player to play it again with his own PC because it takes away from the players 1 player credit...
|
Playing a Pregen at high levels does not get you any credit, they should still be allowed to get that credit later on with a non pregen PC
This is my understanding of the 1:1 credit rule.
It's also why I'm campaigning for players of Pregens to be issued with a chronicle sheet that can be held aside, and then applied to any character when they achieve that level, like GMs can with their credits.
That way, they've received their credit, and don't feel compelled to play it again with an active character, which wouldn't be as satisfying as having played the first time, and possibly spoiling the experience for others at the table.
Cheers,
DarkWhite
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Well, here's the thing, my friends.
I want a chronicle sheet to mean something. And, excepting things like GMing, I want it to mean that the character has endured some peril.
If a fellow plays a scenario several times with pre-gens so that he knows what it's about, and only afterwards walks his PFS character through it, then I don't think he's taken much of a risk, and I'm less inclined to want him to have a chronicle.
If we follow Stephen's recommendation, then making it through an adventure with a pre-gen nets your real character loot and experience (although no faction prestige), without risk of losing the character or expending any consumables. I'm not a fan.
|
|
If a fellow plays a scenario several times with pre-gens so that he knows what it's about, and only afterwards walks his PFS character through it, then I don't think he's taken much of a risk, and I'm less inclined to want him to have a chronicle.
I like Stephen's Idea of holding a Chronicle sheet until you have a PC of level.
That said, with the current rules, If we allow GMs to play after reading the whole scenario and get credit, we should offer the same courtesy to players who have played it the first time with a PreGen. if we can trust a GM not to Spoil or skate through after reading and running a scenario, I see no reason not to trust the same of a player.
|
|
You will also get the player who will refuse to play the pregen if it means they won't get to receive a chronicle. This may even keep the rest of the table from playing the scenario if they were the one to make it a legal table. I know I would shy away from playing a pregen for a scenario I haven't played yet if I didn't get a chronicle or the ability to play later and get a chronicle.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
While it doesn't follow the official rule (now that Mark has made that ruling), I don't penalize a player for playing a pre-gen by "closing" that scenario to his PC; I simply do not report his number. Guess I'll have to change that now... though I have a feeling this will eliminate pre-gen play locally, even to help fill a table. THAT is pretty much the only way we see pre-gen play anyways.
|
Let's pause a moment before declaring what Mark said to be "new rule." He may have mis-spoke or meant something else. I do not believe that the intention is if you play a pregen, that you are then denied playing it again, "for real", with a registered character.
There are times when player's only choice to play is to grab a pregen and play at a table they do not have a legal character for. I believe that
(1) they do not receive a chronicle for playing with the pregen, and
(2) they can play it again, for credit, with their own legal character
Technically, this is not replay as the player did not receive credit for the first occurrence. Of course this is not the preferred method of play and should probably be a rare occurrence.
Add me to the list who dislike the idea of a player "saving" a chronicle earned by a pregen to be applied later to a legal character. As Chris Mortika said, there is no risk in this case, so why should a player get rewarded?
While this option does exist for GM's, I do not agree it should be extended to players. The GM spends a lot of personal time preparing to run the game and often the expense of printing costs and buying accessories like terrain, mini's, etc. so the players can have a great experience. That type of commitment should be rewarded. The GM credit system is one way to do that.
|
|
I’m confused. I didn’t think you actually needed a warm body (other than the GM, but some folks might not consider GM’s warm) to play a pre-gen to make a legal table?
You don't, but it is easier to have a player do it then a GM run a PreGen as the 4th player.
Also it is conceivable to say have a table of 3 or less regular players and the rest be pregens.
|
At our FLGS, we play PFS. We play a lower scenario for the first game and a 7-11 for the second. We often have players who want to play the second but want to get credit and not be denied credit later if they play with their character. We just explain that we have pregens available and they won't get credit. There aren't enough low level/mid level scenarios for us to only play those.
We occasionally "cheat" and let someone who has played the scenario with a pregen before to play it with a character for credit later. The player makes sure to not be a decision maker in the party and to role-play as best they can. I've done this once before and have played my 7 INT barbarian so I don't hurt the party by not contributing intelligent party tactics.
I realize that the official Paizo people don't want to let a player play the same scenario twice - EVEN if they only get credit once, but real life doesn't work like that. We don't have a regular group - people show up whenever they can and with whatever characters we have.
|
|
At our FLGS, we play PFS. We play a lower scenario for the first game and a 7-11 for the second. We often have players who want to play the second but want to get credit and not be denied credit later if they play with their character. We just explain that we have pregens available and they won't get credit. There aren't enough low level/mid level scenarios for us to only play those.
We occasionally "cheat" and let someone who has played the scenario with a pregen before to play it with a character for credit later. The player makes sure to not be a decision maker in the party and to role-play as best they can. I've done this once before and have played my 7 INT barbarian so I don't hurt the party by not contributing intelligent party tactics.
I realize that the official Paizo people don't want to let a player play the same scenario twice - EVEN if they only get credit once, but real life doesn't work like that. We don't have a regular group - people show up whenever they can and with whatever characters we have.
Paizo has to 'tout' the rule. If they allow exceptions for this rule, people will start expecting exceptions for other rules.
If it isn't at a con, and is amongst your local group, I don't see this as a major issue with one caveat.
As long as the player only gets credit ONCE for playing a module.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
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.
|
|
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.
*wonders how he would write that in the guide..;)*
I am more worried about those that play PreGen that don't have a legal character at the tier, but want to play it again when they do so they can get their player credit.
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads
|
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.
Here we go with yet another CHANGE in credit rules that isn't sticky'ed and easy to find.
Mark / Hyrum this needs to be posted more public then buried in this thread.
|
|
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.Here we go with yet another CHANGE in credit rules that isn't sticky'ed and easy to find.
Mark / Hyrum this needs to be posted more public then buried in this thread.
I certainly don't see this is as a change. I don't see how you can interpret from the rules that this would be possible. So if it was never possible with the new rules as written, then how could what Mark wrote above be considered a change?
|
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads
|
I certainly don't see this is as a change. I don't see how you can interpret from the rules that this would be possible. So if it was never possible with the new rules as written, then how could what Mark wrote above be considered a change?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.Here we go with yet another CHANGE in credit rules that isn't sticky'ed and easy to find.
Mark / Hyrum this needs to be posted more public then buried in this thread.
Because if you have to bump someone from a low level table due to too many players or someone played the module I could have moved to him to somewhere else with a PreGen. If he had a high level PC at home and didn't bring it he can't pregen the table unless he never wants to get credit for it.
Now it just another step close to sending more players home. I run in a game store and the use of pregens happens a lot. Now I have to track who played what with what pregen. This is just adding more to track and becomes more cumbersome.
Maybe I am doing it wrong. If someone used a pregen they didn't get a chronicle and I didn't track their PFS #.
|
|
I certainly don't see this is as a change. I don't see how you can interpret from the rules that this would be possible. So if it was never possible with the new rules as written, then how could what Mark wrote above be considered a change?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.Here we go with yet another CHANGE in credit rules that isn't sticky'ed and easy to find.
Mark / Hyrum this needs to be posted more public then buried in this thread.
Because if you have to bump someone from a low level table due to too many players or someone played the module I could have moved to him to somewhere else with a PreGen. If he had a high level PC at home and didn't bring it he can't pregen the table unless he never wants to get credit for it.
Now it just another step close to sending more players home. I run in a game store and the use of pregens happens a lot. Now I have to track who played what with what pregen. This is just adding more to track and becomes more cumbersome.
Maybe I am doing it wrong. If someone used a pregen they didn't get a chronicle and I didn't track their PFS #.
Ok, so you have noticed a situation in which this could suck for the person playing the pregen. Still not a change in the rules though.
But if it is a small group, and everyone is ok with it, and you don't log the person's PFS# for that scenario, then letting them play it again with their character wouldn't officially track as cheating.
But I do question why you wouldn't bring all your character's to an event when you aren't sure what type of table you'd be placed at.
|
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads
|
I certainly don't see this is as a change. I don't see how you can interpret from the rules that this would be possible. So if it was never possible with the new rules as written, then how could what Mark wrote above be considered a change?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.Here we go with yet another CHANGE in credit rules that isn't sticky'ed and easy to find.
Mark / Hyrum this needs to be posted more public then buried in this thread.
Because if you have to bump someone from a low level table due to too many players or someone played the module I could have moved to him to somewhere else with a PreGen. If he had a high level PC at home and didn't bring it he can't pregen the table unless he never wants to get credit for it.
Now it just another step close to sending more players home. I run in a game store and the use of pregens happens a lot. Now I have to track who played what with what pregen. This is just adding more to track and becomes more cumbersome.
Maybe I am doing it wrong. If someone used a pregen they didn't get a chronicle and I didn't track their PFS #.
Ok, so you have noticed a situation in which this could suck for the person playing the pregen. Still not a change in the rules though.
But if it is a small group, and everyone is ok with it, and you don't log the person's PFS# for that scenario, then letting them play it again with their character wouldn't officially...
It beets me too as I bring all of mine every time but I am also the coordinator and been playing sense season zero. There are reasons why a PC gets left home but that isn't what it important.
What is important that this is a change or clarification or what ever you want to call it and it adds more confusion and makes the PDF rules once again another step obsolete and yet another forum change that we as GM/VC's/Coordinators have to handle.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Every time someone asks for clarification on any issue, should we be updating all the campaign documentation? I'm really curious about how to balance between answering people's questions and providing clarifications and being constantly criticized for changing the rules somewhere that people can't find them. In this instance, would Hyrum and I, as campaign coordinator and line developer, be better off not answering lest someone miss our clarification on the forums? How can we improve this process?
|
|
Every time someone asks for clarification on any issue, should we be updating all the campaign documentation? I'm really curious about how to balance between answering people's questions and providing clarifications and being constantly criticized for changing the rules somewhere that people can't find them. In this instance, would Hyrum and I, as campaign coordinator and line developer, be better off not answering lest someone miss our clarification on the forums? How can we improve this process?
I think once you get your FAQ up things will be better, that can be use as a clarification of rules.
Though distinguishing changing of a rule and clarification of a rule still will be an issue, A change needs to go in the Guide, a clarification only needs to go into the FAQ.
I am on the fence on this particular case.
The rule as written it is very reasonable to assume if you have played a scenario and did not get credit for it you can still play it again to get credit since you did not get your one player credit yet. To me this almost feels like a change not a clarification, and does belong in the next guide.
|
|
Every time someone asks for clarification on any issue, should we be updating all the campaign documentation? I'm really curious about how to balance between answering people's questions and providing clarifications and being constantly criticized for changing the rules somewhere that people can't find them. In this instance, would Hyrum and I, as campaign coordinator and line developer, be better off not answering lest someone miss our clarification on the forums? How can we improve this process?
Mark .. I don't think there is a conclusion that is going to make everyone happy unfortunately. No offense to any of the posters, but, there are always going to be those that are unhappy that there are clarifications posted in threads... even if it's directly answering the original question in the thread.
Although a suggestion; keep clarifying as you are, I personally take the clarifications as just that clarifications when there is confusion; not a changing of the rules.
|
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads
|
Every time someone asks for clarification on any issue, should we be updating all the campaign documentation? I'm really curious about how to balance between answering people's questions and providing clarifications and being constantly criticized for changing the rules somewhere that people can't find them. In this instance, would Hyrum and I, as campaign coordinator and line developer, be better off not answering lest someone miss our clarification on the forums? How can we improve this process?
Mark,
Let me first apologize for sounding like a butt head. At times I won't lie to you and wish that you guys would post new rules / clarifications only on the PDF to avoid the old "knee jerk" reactions.
I also understand that you post on here and we all look at it and analyze what you guys post and scream "WTF" ;-)
I think in the future that most answers to questions that involve clarifications and rules changes should be answered by saying "We shall look into it and add it to the next rules up date." I know it is kind of generic but you get the drift.
I would also add up coming changes to a running sticky thread that only you and Hyrum can post too to keep an up-to-date forum rule change that needs to be made prior to a PDF release.
|
|
Every time someone asks for clarification on any issue, should we be updating all the campaign documentation? I'm really curious about how to balance between answering people's questions and providing clarifications and being constantly criticized for changing the rules somewhere that people can't find them. In this instance, would Hyrum and I, as campaign coordinator and line developer, be better off not answering lest someone miss our clarification on the forums? How can we improve this process?Mark,
Let me first apologize for sounding like a butt head. At times I won't lie to you and wish that you guys would post new rules / clarifications only on the PDF to avoid the old "knee jerk" reactions.
I also understand that you post on here and we all look at it and analyze what you guys post and scream "WTF" ;-)
I think in the future that most answers to questions that involve clarifications and rules changes should be answered by saying "We shall look into it and add it to the next rules up date." I know it is kind of generic but you get the drift.
I would also add up coming changes to a running sticky thread that only you and Hyrum can post too to keep an up-to-date forum rule change that needs to be made prior to a PDF release.
This seems fairly reasonable except for one thing.
If the clarification is to help people actually stop doing something that the powers that be don't want being done and they feel it is an egregious break of rules if they don't.
|
I prefer the chunky slime from the 80's.
Gee, Kyle, you should have used the following video, at 3:00, where we could have seen Alanis Morrisette getting slimed:
Angus
|
|
How can we improve this process?
You can improve the process by trying to maintain players instead of run them off with overzealous and anal rulings. We really appreciate that Paizo members connect with their playerbase over the forums, but honestly every time I see you make a post in answer to someone seeking clarification I cringe.
Instead you should probably not make a ruling until you've asked either yourself or us how your ruling is going to affect the game from multiple points of view. In this particular case you're so upset about one person gaming the system that you're not seeing the bigger picture.
First, there's been a steady stream of people begging for either slower leveling or higher level play simply because they want to play their characters more. Every time someone were to play a pregen character for credit on their main character that would be one less module that they'd be able to actually sit down and play their character that a vast majority of us already feel we don't get enough time doing. Even if there are people exploiting the system in this way it's going to be extremely rare. So extremely rare, in fact, that it's not worth making a rule to prevent.
Secondly, the other side of this story is much more prevalent, yet suffers much more often. I have been to many conventions where players are shunned because they don't have characters of an appropriate level for mods that are open and didn't sign up early enough to make any tables that they did qualify for (some even while signing up months in advance). These players either have to sit out of a convention slot entirely or play a pregen for no credit. Until yesterday they were at least able to replay the mod for credit once they had an appropriate-level PC, but not anymore.
I remember specifically at the last convention I attended that my wife and I were stuck at level 9 for six months because we needed (wanted) to play in The Heresy of Man III before playing our high level characters again since they would hit level 10 and no longer be able to finish the series. At the convention we ended up being locked out of all of the scheduled slots. Our friend, who was new to the Society and only had a second level character, decided that he would play a level 7 pregen in order for our table to make so that we could begin playing our high level characters for the rest of the convention.
At the end of the mod he was informed that he couldn't get a chronicle because he played a pregen. This particular friend hasn't played PFS since. Why should he (and many like him I'm sure) be penalized his credit just to prevent a handful of people from screwing themselves over by not playing their characters for their maximum alloted time?
No offense or anything, but nearly every "clarification" (RULES CHANGE) I've seen you make since you took over has seemed very petty, punitive, and trite. These rules are honestly driving players away from the campaign. This could easily be resolved by allowing us to have a say in the rules before you put your foot down. Pathfinder Society has recently become very reminiscent of taxation without representation.
Every time someone asks for clarification on any issue, should we be updating all the campaign documentation? I'm really curious about how to balance between answering people's questions and providing clarifications and being constantly criticized for changing the rules somewhere that people can't find them. In this instance, would Hyrum and I, as campaign coordinator and line developer, be better off not answering lest someone miss our clarification on the forums? How can we improve this process?I think once you get your FAQ up things will be better, that can be use as a clarification of rules.
Though distinguishing changing of a rule and clarification of a rule still will be an issue, A change needs to go in the Guide, a clarification only needs to go into the FAQ.
I am on the fence on this particular case.
The rule as written it is very reasonable to assume if you have played a scenario and did not get credit for it you can still play it again to get credit since you did not get your one player credit yet. To me this almost feels like a change not a clarification, and does belong in the next guide.
As with a lot of other things, I agree with you on this one, Dragnmoon, but I can also see what Mark is saying about people with qualifying characters not using them and playing a pregen instead. It makes sense in a way that should not have to be spelled out in the rules. But with the rules lawyers we all probably know, there is no such thing as common sense when there is gaming the system to be done. The big problem from a bookkeeping standpoint is the extra tracking of who has a valid character for each scenario and who doesn't. And since, according to past posts, the chronicles on hand trump the online list of those reported, unless you personally know the player, you will never know if he is telling the truth when he says he does not have a valid character and plays a pregen instead.
|
|
I had two series to play-test prior to Conquest 2011 Melbourne next weekend. Players called in another player last-minute to form a table (one of the players wasn't available because he was standing in for me GMing my weekly gamestore session to free me up to slot-zero these scenarios prior to Conquest) not realising his characters were out-of-tier. He played Part 2 of a series with a pre-gen.
He was doing us a favour by playing. I told him, due to the 1:1 credit rule, when his character did advance (could be months or a year from now) he could play all three parts for credit, because playing a pre-gen receives no credit.
These situations crop up from time-to-time. I agree with Mark's assertion that you can't play a pre-gen if you have a tier-legal character. This wasn't the case.
My personal opinion: I think GMs should be empowered to use their own judgement in cases like these. Be on the lookout for any attempt to game the system, but otherwise give credit where credit is due.
Cheers,
DarkWhite
|
|
I had two series to play-test prior to Conquest 2011 Melbourne next weekend. Players called in another player last-minute to form a table (one of the players wasn't available because he was standing in for me GMing my weekly gamestore session to free me up to slot-zero these scenarios prior to Conquest) not realising his characters were out-of-tier. He played Part 2 of a series with a pre-gen.
He was doing us a favour by playing. I told him, due to the 1:1 credit rule, when his character did advance (could be months or a year from now) he could play all three parts for credit, because playing a pre-gen receives no credit.
These situations crop up from time-to-time. I agree with Mark's assertion that you can't play a pre-gen if you have a tier-legal character. This wasn't the case.
My personal opinion: I think GMs should be empowered to use their own judgement in cases like these. Be on the lookout for any attempt to game the system, but otherwise give credit where credit is due.
Cheers,
DarkWhite
I agree with this.
But don't be surprised if Paizo (Mark & Hyrum) as a whole, tout the rule. As coordinators, they can't allow exceptions no matter how much they make sense.
But as Venture Captains, GM's, Event Coordinators, et. al. I personally think that if you make a call like this, and everything appears and is on the up and up... that it doesn't hurt anything.
But don't expect Paizo to say its ok. Just do it, and don't publicize that you are doing it.
|
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads
|
I agree with this.But don't be surprised if Paizo (Mark & Hyrum) as a whole, tout the rule. As coordinators, they can't allow exceptions no matter how much they make sense.
But as Venture Captains, GM's, Event Coordinators, et. al. I personally think that if you make a call like this, and everything appears and is on the up and up... that it doesn't hurt anything.
But don't expect Paizo to say its ok. Just do it, and don't publicize that you are doing it.
One could read that as "Ignore Paizo rules posts and do what is right. Ignore the law and serve Justice.
Are you Chaotic Good? ;-P
Secondly, the other side of this story is much more prevalent, yet suffers much more often. I have been to many conventions where players are shunned because they don't have characters of an appropriate level for mods that are open and didn't sign up early enough to make any tables that they did qualify for (some even while signing up months in advance). These players either have to sit out of a convention slot entirely or play a pregen for no credit. Until yesterday they were at least able to replay the mod for credit once they had an appropriate-level PC, but not anymore.
You must have posted before getting to Mark's further clarification where if a player does not have a level-appropriate character and uses a pregen, that he is still able to later play that scenario for credit.
I remember specifically at the last convention I attended that my wife and I were stuck at level 9 for six months because we needed (wanted) to play in The Heresy of Man III before playing our high level characters again since they would hit level 10 and no longer be able to finish the series. At the convention we ended up being locked out of all of the scheduled slots. Our friend, who was new to the Society and only had a second level character, decided that he would play a level 7 pregen in order for our table to make so that we could begin playing our high level characters for the rest of the convention.
At the end of the mod he was informed that he couldn't get a chronicle because he played a pregen. This particular friend hasn't played PFS since. Why should he (and many like him I'm sure) be penalized his credit just to prevent a handful of people from screwing themselves over by not playing their characters for their maximum alloted time?
As for this, it has been the rule ever since PFS started in Season Zero that the ONLY way to get a chronicle sheet when playing a pregen is to play a 1st level pregen and then make that character into a regular character of your own. There has never been a way to play a higher level pregen in a scenario and get to keep a chronicle sheet, so that is not a rules change, or even a clarification, by Mark, rather it is a reminder of the standard rule.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
No offense or anything, but nearly every "clarification" (RULES CHANGE) I've seen you make since you took over has seemed very petty, punitive, and trite. These rules are honestly driving players away from the campaign. This could easily be resolved by allowing us to have a say in the rules before you put your foot down. Pathfinder Society has recently become very reminiscent of taxation without representation.
No offense taken. I respect your opinion and that of every other Pathfinder Society player, which is why I asked how we could improve the question/answer process. Your feedback in this very thread will be taken into consideration along with that of other PFS members, venture-captains, and Paizo employees. That's not representation, that's your direct input into the process.
|
|
No offense or anything, but nearly every "clarification" (RULES CHANGE) I've seen you make since you took over has seemed very petty, punitive, and trite. These rules are honestly driving players away from the campaign. This could easily be resolved by allowing us to have a say in the rules before you put your foot down. Pathfinder Society has recently become very reminiscent of taxation without representation.No offense taken. I respect your opinion and that of every other Pathfinder Society player, which is why I asked how we could improve the question/answer process. Your feedback in this very thread will be taken into consideration along with that of other PFS members, venture-captains, and Paizo employees. That's not representation, that's your direct input into the process.
Mark,
While there may be things that could be done better (always are no matter who is running things), I wouldn't be overly worried by the vocal minority. There are always going to be over-dramatic, sky-is-falling folk. And yet, for every rule that is "driving players away" you get new folk for every person you lose.
My experience from running Living Dragonstar showed me two things:
1) your calm demeanor when handling situations like this is much better than the way I handled them.
2) someone has to make the ultimate decision. No matter what decision is made after any amount of public input, someone isn't going to like it and claim that you "don't listen to the players" simply because the decision didn't jive with what they wanted or felt was fair.
Overall though, I've really enjoyed watching the direction you seem to be taking PFS.
|
|
Mark,While there may be things that could be done better (always are no matter who is running things), I wouldn't be overly worried by the vocal minority. There are always going to be over-dramatic, sky-is-falling folk. And yet, for every rule that is "driving players away" you get new folk for every person you lose.
Trivializing valid concerns by labeling them a vocal minority does not help PFS in any way. Assuming that any rule made will lead to an even trade-off of players is even worse.
I implore you to name even a single person that has begun playing PFS simply due to any of the recent rules clarifications (animal companions, replay, gunslingers, denial of credit, etc.). I can name over a dozen that have quit because of them, and I think my wife is about to add another to the list.
Nobody to my knowledge has said anything about the sky falling or have been overly dramatic about this particular issue. With that said, why would you even want to make this an issue? The biggest problem with allowing a future credit in this instance was because of risk vs. reward. It's quite ironic that you'd then turn around and throw risk vs. reward out of the window when discussing the risk of having players leave vs. the reward of keeping a single gamer from abusing the system.
|
|
Mark,While there may be things that could be done better (always are no matter who is running things), I wouldn't be overly worried by the vocal minority. There are always going to be over-dramatic, sky-is-falling folk. And yet, for every rule that is "driving players away" you get new folk for every person you lose.
Trivializing valid concerns by labeling them a vocal minority does not help PFS in any way. Assuming that any rule made will lead to an even trade-off of players is even worse.
I implore you to name even a single person that has begun playing PFS simply due to any of the recent rules clarifications (animal companions, replay, gunslingers, denial of credit, etc.). I can name over a dozen that have quit because of them, and I think my wife is about to add another to the list.
Nobody to my knowledge has said anything about the sky falling or have been overly dramatic about this particular issue. With that said, why would you even want to make this an issue? The biggest problem with allowing a future credit in this instance was because of risk vs. reward. It's quite ironic that you'd then turn around and throw risk vs. reward out of the window when discussing the risk of having players leave vs. the reward of keeping a single gamer from abusing the system.
Obviously this whole situation has sparked a nerve for you.
But yes, colored through the lenses I wore when I ran a living campaign, I feel you are being overly dramatic and a bit of a chicken little. PFS isn't going to dramatically decrease its membership because of these rule clarifications (they aren't new rules, because the rules always were there, just interpreted incorrectly).
If its constantly growing despite losing all these people you are talking about... I just get the feeling that your "worry for the game" is a bit disingenuous.
And you know I wasn't saying that someone would join the campaign because some obscure rule was newly clarified.
Just in general, more people join than quit on average. And that includes these "droves" you are so "worried" about.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
With respect to all involved:
I think that the distinction that Mark is attempting to make here is a bad idea. It promotes wrong behavior, it penalizes people trying to do what's right, it's extremely capricious, and it's almost impossible to enforce.
Hypothetically, let's say I play in "Where Dark Things Sleep", a Tier 5-9 scenario, and I use a Level 7 Pre-gen Valeros to do so. Can I later play through the scenario with my own PC and get a chronicle sheet? It seems that Mark's ruling is "Sometimes yes, but sometimes no. It depends on whether or not I had a valid Level 5 - 9 PC available at the time I played Valeros. If I could have used my PC, then no."
This sounds fair on the surface, but: let's say that the PCs at the table are all arcane casters, and my one PC that's valid at the time is a 6th-Level Sorcerer. Rather than run with an unbalanced party, I could play Valeros and provide some armored muscle. Mark's ruling would sharply penalize me for doing so.
Let's say that I've grown unhappy with "Trixie", one of my PCs. She's 8th-level, and eligible for "Where Dark Things Sleep", but she's died a couple of times and she's way behind on equipment for her level, and she has some negative "boons" and I messed up the last time I levelled her, and role-playing Trixie's persona hasn't been much fun, and I really just want to retire her, at least for a while. But if I choose to play a pre-gen instead, Mark's ruling penalizes me.
Let's say I have a 4th-level Gunslinger, and some GM-credit that I haven't applied to any of my PCs yet. I could apply it to my Gunslinger an be eligible to play. If I don't choose to do so, I'll lose out on a chronicle.
Getting to play the scenario again for credit comes down to whether the GM thinks I'm sincere when I tell her that I don't have a valid PC. (I suppose I could have one, if I hurry up and calculate all the stats and decisions for a character who's just risen in level. But I'd rather think those decisions through more carefully.) Two players in identical situations, playing at the same table next to one another, could be allowed or denied the opportunity to play the scenario, based on the GM believing one player ("I didn't bring my fighter.") but not the other.
Please, Mark: either allow everybody to replay a scenario for a chronicle if he first plays through with a pre-gen, or else allow nobody.