|
Hello everyone!
We have recently (past 2 months) started a PFS group in Slovenia and we are pleased to say we have managed to amass a player base we can work with, and have started to get more people involved in roleplaying through Pathfinder Society. It has been an overall very positive experience. However, we have come upon a problem that has our entire group wondering about the reasons for it.
"You cannot receive more than 1 player Chronicle and 1
GM Chronicle for the same scenario, regardless of how
many times you GM or play the scenario. You are free to
replay a scenario in order to meet the minimum legal
table size (see Chapter 7), but once you have reached
that limit, you do not earn any additional rewards
beyond having a good time." -Guide to Pathfinder
Society Organized Play 4.2, page 21
Not being able to have more than 1 GM chronicle makes sense to us. After all GMing is not done for in-character rewards, and we could easily do without this bonus. What has struck us as strange is that one can only have one player chronicle per scenario. This means that once a certain scenario is played with one of one's characters, this person can never legally play the same scenario with another, which results in a few problems:
1) One is very limited in how many characters they can effectively play and level. For us as regular and experienced players one of the main appeals of the Society is that we can try out many different, interesting, wacky and quirky characters that represent something new, and a challenge. But as things are, if one wants to have more than one, two or three characters, they will quickly run out of scenarios for all those characters to play.
2) It gets very hard to compose groups when you have a base of semi-regular players. If some outlevel the others, and wish to play alongside them with a new lower level character, we can not give them credit for completing that scenario with another character.
3) Plenty of chronicle rewards are very class or otherwise specific. So if one plays a scenario with a fighter where one gains an item only usable by a wizard, they can never acquire that item with that wizard. Overall, upon completing a scenario once, one is effectively locked out of it forever.
There are other problems with this system, but these are some of the main ones. I discussed this with my group and we wondered why this is the case, and we came upon the idea that it might be because having already played the scenario a player might possess metagame knowledge about it that would give them an unfair advantage. But:
"In certain circumstances, a player may need to replay
a scenario he has already completed, or play a scenario
that he has already run as a GM." -Guide to Pathfinder
Society Organized Play 4.2, page 21
If we understand this right, the order in which one GMs and plays a scenario doesn't matter. So it would be perfectly legal to first GM a scenario and later play it. Therefore the argument that the metagame knowledge is why one can not replay a scenario with several characters does not hold, especially since surely after GMing a scenario one knows much more about it than after simply playing it with one character. Besides, it is clear that there is nothing stopping anyone from buying a scenario and reading it prior to playing if they really wanted to gain the unfair advantage of knowing everything about the scenario before playing it, although why anyone would wish to do that is a topic of another discussion.
Therefore, we are truly at a loss to understand why scenarios could not be replayed with several characters, and the idea seems extremely metagame and detrimental to the replayability and enjoyability of Pathfinder Society which is otherwise one of the best ideas in tabletop RPG history ever. We agree that there should be some kind of limitation set as to how many player chronicles one could have for one scenario, or how often they can acquire them. For example, it would work fine if one could play the same scenario with a different character every year/season (this ensures that the player would probably forget most details about the scenario in the meantime, as well). There could simply be a higher cap than one player chronicle per scenario, or more scenarios besides just the First Steps series could be added to the replayable scenario pool. There are probably more solutions to this problem than what we have managed to think of, but what we really look for is some kind of an answer as to why this rule exists because it obviously isn't due to metagame knowledge getting in the way of play. We need this so we can explain and justify this rule to our players most of whom were really looking forward to trying some scenarios with different characters before we informed them that they could not (at least legally) do that, and who have a whole bunch of characters planned and dreamt up only to be told that if they wish to have more than one or two, they will probably not be able to level any of them up more than a few levels.
Thanks in advance for insights, and happy adventuring!
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
There have been different replay rules over the course of PFS development. These were passionately debated here, at length...
While all your points have weight I am pretty sure that we will not be going down the route of allowing replay for credit. I appreciate all the problems you mention especially the problems of a limited player base of incompatible levels.
There are lots of scenarios/modules available and experienced players here have a number of lower level 'alts' to play with new players. Players with lower level characters can build up XP by GMing. There is replay allowed for lvl 1 modules.
The chronicle awards being class specific is not a problem we have run across in PFS. It was a problem in other OP campaigns, Livng Greyhawk being one I had personal experience of. I am not saying it can never happen just that it has not been raised in my locality!
I've found that as we managed to grow the player base the problems have eased though never 100% gone away.
Best of luck and thanks for spreading the PFS experience,
William
|
|
Welcome to PFS, and thank you for your efforts in Slovenia. Furthermore, thanks for expressing your thoughts in a constructive and well thought out post!
Trying to address some of your specific points above:
1. At the time of this writing there are 4 complete season and one half season out of PFS scenarios. It would take quite some time to play every single scenario. There is a thread somewhere else in the forums doing the calculations, but I believe there are enough scenarios now to easily get 3 characters to level 12, and that is without GMing once ever. Additionally, scenarios and modules that are denoted as Tier 1 (note, not subtier 1-2) can be replayed FOR credit, regardless how many times you play or GM the scenario. It should allow you to have tables for new players with a few older members to fill in the seats.
3. Specific rewards - It is true. Once in a while you may have rewards that your character cannot use. It is the nature of the campaign. A lot of us are completionists, and honestly I had to learn to just let it go. However, rewards like this DO serve a purpose. It promotes players to GM scenarios in the future so that their other characters can earn the reward.
Sadly, the argument you have about metagaming is not true for everyone. Although there are plenty of us that are able to GM a scenario before playing it and still have an enjoyable experience afterwards, not everyone is the same way. I have been at tables where the player was CLEARLY metagaming outside knowledge from the scenario, and when he does it out loud it ruins the experience for everyone else. Yes, people who want to metagame will find a way to, but that doesn't mean we can't try to mitigate it.
So my suggestions are:
1. Play, play, play - I will be surprised if you run out of scenarios that quick.
2. Look into sanctioned modules as well. They are longer than scenarios and provide 3xp each.
3. If your group is honestly playing SO much that you are running out of scenarios, maybe it's time to look into Pathfinder Adventure Paths instead. Even better, Paizo recently sanctioned two of them (Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition and Shattered Star) to be used alongside PFS for credit. Adventure Paths are truly geared for regular groups and longer playtimes.
|
|
Thank you for responses so far!
Multi-parters, sactioned modules and adventure paths all have the same problem, which is bringing the same group together every session. When there is a group of semi-regular players visiting our sessions, this can sometimes be very hard to do. We will certainly consider this option sometime in the future when some of our players prove to be reliable enough.
While there are enough scenarios to theoretically level three characters to level 12, provided one gets every single one of the scenarios, the problem of not being able to replay a scenario with another character remains. This way, if anyone wishes to have more than three characters, they will be stuck at a certain level. If the number of characters one would wish to play is relatively high, as in our case - I for instance, would probably opt to play at least three or four new characters every year and so would most of my friends - this turns into a huge problem, as does combining players to tables as i said. One has to constantly think about how to "spend" their scenarios on their characters. There is so much metagame planning involved it hurts - for example, players will choose to play a certain scenario with a certain character just because of the rewards (it is already happening to us) instead of choosing a character that would work best with the rest of the party, fit the story, or in any way provide a better roleplaying experience. And while the system encourages people to GM, not everyone is able or suitable for the role and some people will again choose to GM just to get a reward - more bad motivation that usually results in bad play.
Maybe this is easier on some of the older or bigger groups, but we are definitely hitting a relatively big problem here. It may even result in us losing some of the already relatively small player base, especially if we can not justify this system to them, which at the moment we are completely unable to do. I got especially discouraged by a quote from one of our players when this situation was explained. He said.
"Oh. Well, Pathfinder Society just got about a hundred times less cool."
Got me thinking.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nekhet, I don't know if this is possible for your player base, but what we do at our store is to run several tables at varying tiers. We typically have four weekly tables, and one of them is usually a module. While not all players can commit to three weeks in a row, the players that can will take stress off of your other tables.
For the people that are finding they don't have a lot to play, that's the time to get them involved with occasional GMing. If you have a schedule, people will be able to look and see when there isn't something for them to play, and they'll be able to volunteer to GM instead.
|
|
Thank you for responses so far!
Multi-parters, sactioned modules and adventure paths all have the same problem, which is bringing the same group together every session. When there is a group of semi-regular players visiting our sessions, this can sometimes be very hard to do. We will certainly consider this option sometime in the future when some of our players prove to be reliable enough.
While there are enough scenarios to theoretically level three characters to level 12, provided one gets every single one of the scenarios, the problem of not being able to replay a scenario with another character remains. This way, if anyone wishes to have more than three characters, they will be stuck at a certain level. If the number of characters one would wish to play is relatively high, as in our case - I for instance, would probably opt to play at least three or four new characters every year and so would most of my friends - this turns into a huge problem, as does combining players to tables as i said. There is so much metagame planning involved it hurts - for example, players will choose to play a certain scenario with a certain character just because of the rewards (it is already happening to us) instead of choosing a character that would work best with the rest of the party, fit the story, or in any way provide a better roleplaying experience. And while the system encourages people to GM, not everyone is able or suitable for the role and some people will again choose to GM just to get a reward - more bad motivation that usually results in bad play.
Maybe this is easier on some of the older or bigger groups, but we are definitely hitting a relatively big problem here. It may even result in us losing some of the already relatively small player base, especially if we can not justify this system to them, which at the moment we are completely unable to do. I got especially discouraged by a quote from one of our players when this situation was explained. He said.
"Oh. Well, Pathfinder Society just got...
While the problems you list can happen, I think you are making it a lot bigger problem that it is. The St Louis, MO, USA group plays twice a week (4-6 tables) and has a monthly game day (15+ tables). On any given month a player can play 11 scenarios. We have been doing this for quite a while and I don't think anyone has hit the player replay wall. One of our players is close (That I know of). He has maybe 10 scenarios that he can still play. We just work around that and try to get a table together for him. Running out of scenarios, while a theoretical problem, is really rare.
As far as getting everyone into a table they can play, it takes some strategy. Two strategies I have seen that work are:
1) Lots of planning. Know what lvl characters your group has and what scenarios those characters can play. This way you can find a scenario that works for everyone.
2) Lots of flexibility. Bring every scenario and be flexible about what you run. This requires less upfront work but the downside is that it requires very experienced GMs that can run scenarios with little prep.
|
I'm not sure how often you are playing over there, but another thing to remember is that they are still putting out 27-29 scenarios a year. By the time you have 3 characters at level 12, even playing once a week, they've released 48+ more scenarios. I would also contact Zrinka Znidarcic and Maja Skvorc as they are the Venture-officers for Croatia, Slovenia, & Bosnia.
As CRobledo says above... they shouldn't really be looking at the rewards sheets until after the scenario is over if at all possible. Would it be possible to get some of those that are metagaming for certain rewards to GM and use the GM chronicle on the other character? Thats what we usually recommend.
Also, one of the major complaints on the boards is that most of the time the PCs are already able to buy the rewards on the chronicles via fame. Just making sure you were using the spending limits on fame correctly, as most of the time this will only come up for a few custom items, partially charged wands, or special ammo/poison
|
Even only looking at the tier 1, 1-2, 1-5 or 1-7 scenarios and short free RPG day modules (ignoring the longer modules and APs) there are about 60 XPs worth of player credit available to low level (1-2) characters, and that ignores the fact that a few can be replayed for credit infinitely at 1st level.
My experience is as follows. I've co-ordinated PFS at a local weekly games club for about 15 months, where we have a total PFS player base of about 25 people, with approx. between 6 and 12 actively playing PFS in any given week, so 1-2 tables (other people playing other RPGs entirely). I use a Google Docs spreadsheet to keep track of who has played what; this sheet is shared with some of the other active GMs so they can help keep it up to date. I use that as a reference to decide what scenarios to plan in over the coming few weeks. In all that time I think we've had one instance where a player ended up being unable to play for credit; he played a pregen for no credit instead.
I'm surprised you're having issues after starting such a short time ago. How big is your group? How often do you meet? Do you attempt to keep track of who's played what?
|
|
If we understand this right, the order in which one GMs and plays a scenario doesn't matter. So it would be perfectly legal to first GM a scenario and later play it. Therefore the argument that the metagame knowledge is why one can not replay a scenario with several characters does not hold, especially since surely after GMing a scenario one knows much more about it than after simply playing it with one character.
The only reason it's legal to GM and then play is as a reward to proactive volunteer GMs, to stop them missing out on credit that others are getting. It's clearly explained in the Guide that they shouldn't be using metagame knowledge when playing. Even then, people who've GMed a scenario first can only get the same single player credit as anyone else.
Besides, it is clear that there is nothing stopping anyone from buying a scenario and reading it prior to playing if they really wanted to gain the unfair advantage of knowing everything about the scenario before playing it, although why anyone would wish to do that is a topic of another discussion.
This is cheating, pure and simple.
There is so much metagame planning involved it hurts - for example, players will choose to play a certain scenario with a certain character just because of the rewards
Players shouldn't be seeking out information about what's on chronicle sheets for scenarios they've not played yet; they usually contain spoilers on the scenario itself. Doing so could be considered borderline cheating.
|
|
All of your responses have been very helpful and we are going to work on implementing some of these possible solutions. However, our main question still remains unanswered. That is, why one player chronicle per scenario, as opposed to one character chronicle per scenario, since it's obviously not due to metagame knowledge (can GM the scenario first). This is the answer we are seeking to give our players.
|
As others have said, there are currently 100+ scenarios, plus another 20+ modules that take 2-3 session to play. And level 1 stuff can be replayed infinitely.
I've been playing PFS for over a year. For the first 9 or 10 months, I was part of a small, home group that met almost every week, sometimes for a module or 2-3 scenarios in the same week, and went to 4 or 5 conventions where we played 4-6 scenarios in a weekend. Since moving away from that area, I've found a new group where I play one scenario per week, plus occasional conventions. In all that time, with that heavy a playing schedule, and GMing 21 times so far myself, I have characters at levels 13, 8, 5, 4, 3, and half a dozen more at levels 1-2.
I was recently worried about maybe running out of the low level stuff for my newer characters to play, so I counted - there are still about 20 scenarios I could play with a level 2 PC. And that's not counting modules, or the XP I can get from GMing - I sometimes like to skip lower levels with certain characters by just putting lots of GM credit on them.
To make a long story short, someone would have to play two scenarios per week, refuse to ever GM, and never play any modules or specials besides the regular scenarios to even come close to running out of stuff to play after a year. If someone is playing that much, I think it's a safe bet they could be talked into playing some of the modules, which would add probably another half a year before they run out of playable material. And if they play that much, they really should be GMing sometimes. Plus, Paizo is adding new adventures all the time.
|
|
All of your responses have been very helpful and we are going to work on implementing some of these possible solutions. However, our main question still remains unanswered. That is, why one player chronicle per scenario, as opposed to one character chronicle per scenario, since it's obviously not due to metagame knowledge (can GM the scenario first). This is the answer we are seeking to give our players.
It is for metagame reasons. Several years ago, you could play a scenario five times (once for each of the factions that existed then). however, it bred a very unsatisfactory playing environment due to the amount of metagaming that was possible. That led to the current replay rules being introduced.
The only reason GMs are allowed to replay as a player for credit is as a reward for being the one who steps up and GMs. Even then, they must inform the GM and be careful not to apply any metagame knowledge, or they can be asked to leave the table.
|
|
Pathfinder Society is not designed to be the sort of game where you look up loot lists and design your character advancement around them. It's supposed to be a game where you have a character who ventures into the unknown, and you, as a player, are not supposed to know what is going to happen. Meta-knowledge should be limited to reading the scenario descriptions on the web page (I prefer not to read even them, if I have the chance). The story aspect of the game is eliminated if you have played the scenario previously, and the game is reduced to mindless running from encounter to encounter. Also, many encounters are partially designed around the element of surprise.
Having a limited number of scenarios to play is an unfortunate side-effect of this design decision, but you can do some planning for your character by finding the tiers of scenarios without spoiling the plot for yourself.
While you can't outright stop players from using metagame information, you can discourage it. If I remember correctly, there have been discussions on the GM board as to what to do if players get caught using knowledge from reading the scenario. The usual suggestions ranged from clever GM tricks to counter their cheating (or turn it against them) to booting them from the table.
As for GMs being allowed to play a scenario after they run it, this is a pragmatic exception to the rule that exists so that GMs are not punished for running a scenario. GMs overall are hard to find, and GMs who are willing to read and run a scenario without the experience of playing it first are even harder to get. In those (in my experience, fairly uncommon) occasions where there is are players on the table who have previously run the scenario, they are supposed to show discretion and not use their knowledge to get unfair advantage.
|
|
All of your responses have been very helpful and we are going to work on implementing some of these possible solutions. However, our main question still remains unanswered. That is, why one player chronicle per scenario, as opposed to one character chronicle per scenario, since it's obviously not due to metagame knowledge (can GM the scenario first). This is the answer we are seeking to give our players.
William Boyle (post right after your OP) touched on this earlier. Simply put, other campaigns have had that system in the past and most people agree the system we have now is much better.
A system where each character can have a chronicle of the same scenario leaves itself too open to abuse. SOME people will run the exact same set of scenarios for every one of their characters, usually the ones that give the best gp rewards for the least amount of effort. They will find the scenarios with the super easy faction missions to ensure that they don't miss a single PP.
I can see the argument for what you are asking. Believe me, I have seen it brought up MANY times before on these boards, and I haven't even hit my 1 year anniversary playing PFS quite yet. The campaign leadership will probably rule on the side of the majority on something like this, and I am pretty confident the majority of us want the system to stay as it is. I'm sorry, but I do.
Also, think about it on Paizo's side. Having re-playable scenarios means the really heavy players will probably stop purchasing as many newer scenarios, since they can keep playing what they have now. Remember, Paizo is a business after all. And although I honestly do not think they are unreasonable at all with their pricing, Mike and Mark have already said PFS scenarios pretty much only break even at $3.99 each. If we allow replay, that price would probably either have to go up, or the amount of new scenarios we get goes down.
As someone said above, there are now enough scenarios out to last you 4 years, playing one scenario a week. If you are playing much more than that, APs should be more what you are looking for.
And finally, do remember that you ARE allowed to replay a scenario for no credit, if that is the only option to help make a table and get those new guys to higher levels.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I am no longer surprised that this subject just insists on coming up every six months. I am constantly surprised that it seems like no one ever looks around to see if this has been discussed before.
This thread and this thread have a lot to say on this subject, and we can now add this thread to the debate. All of them should be read, and all the arguments really should be read before anyone tries to rehash them, once again. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I sent you to my post in the second thread to save you time reading everything leading up to it - the LFR debate is still relevant, is essentially what you are referencing, almost always comes up in replay threads, and happened just prior to and after my post. Moreover, many of the arguments for replay are even worse, now that there are two more seasons worth of scenarios.
Now, to put some numbers into perspective:
Currently there are 116 scenarios that can be played, not counting specials that require a 4-star GM or multiple tables to sanction. On top of that, you can play 19 different modules, all of which require two or three sessions to complete and grant 3 XP. Three more modules offer another session and 1 XP each.
By my count, that is 157 sessions (assuming you complete the modules in two sessions), with 176 XP available. That's enough to play for 79 weeks, even if you are playing twice per week, and enough XP to get four characters to retirement (and one of those to near 20th level). After 79 weeks, another 8 modules will have been released, and another 30+ scenarios.
By another count that is 628 hours of playing, not counting the stuff that gets released before you're done. And I'm not counting the fact that Adventure Paths are now sanctioned (which is hundreds more hours and dozens of sessions).
Do we really need replay with all that available? Do you really need replay to stop all your players from "mining" for loot?
Resoundingly, and repeatedly said before: No.
|
|
The only concern that I see is the poor player. That is, the guy that's new, or maybe not very tactically minded who keeps getting his or her sheets shredded during the course of a scenario. They're losing scenarios they can play through, but not 'getting' the xp because their characters die every once in a while, and there's not much you can do about it because the sap is failing to get high enough to afford resses.
Any thoughts on that?
|
|
The only concern that I see is the poor player. That is, the guy that's new, or maybe not very tactically minded who keeps getting his or her sheets shredded during the course of a scenario. They're losing scenarios they can play through, but not 'getting' the xp because their characters die every once in a while, and there's not much you can do about it because the sap is failing to get high enough to afford resses.
Any thoughts on that?
Although there are a few infamous counter-examples, lower-level scenarios aren't that deadly, even for characters of inexperienced players. If a player manages to get his character killed during 'Silent Tide', for example, then something's gone horribly wrong.
|
|
Certainly, but you don't need to die in every scenario to encounter this. You can go through five fine, and #6 catches you in the face. You could have a GM that loves to 'play tactically', noted tactics of the scenario be damned.
Either way, you're winnowing through your list of available scenarios, but getting nothing out of it, and not all those many scenarios can be run by a fresh character, or even a mildly(lvl 1-3) fresh one.
|
|
I have actually read the threads that you link to (to Drogon) when i was searching for answers and this was exactly what led me to posting this thread in the first place, because i did not find the answers there to be satisfactory.
Paz brings up a good point confirming that the new rules are basically metagame. I agree that metagaming is a big problem, especially for beginners, and there are probably a lot of people that would abuse their knowledge. But as has already been discussed in the GM boards, there are ways to limit that.
Then Jussi brought up another that is even more applicable, and it is exactly what my argument is - one is not supposed to look up loot lists and choose scenarios based on that. But the current system will lead players to do that, and there isn't really anything we can do to prevent them from doing it. If they knew they could safely replay it, they would not care about the loot or boons, and would focus on the roleplaying experience. It's true there is a downside to knowing where you are going, but honestly - how much do you remember about a scenario after a year, especially if you play tabletop RPGs relatively often? I would simply enjoy it much more if i could just choose to play a scenario with any character i think would be fun to play in it, instead of having to do all of this metagame planning.
I also agree with CRobledo in part. Some people will abuse the system no matter what you make it - they abused it before, and they will do it now. But roleplaying games are not about winning or getting ahead, and that is why i think rules should focus on maximizing the enjoyability of the game for the good players, not to try and eliminate every option of abuse, because that can just not be done. But probably the most relevant reason would be in the end, selling more scenarios, as CRobledo states. Paizo is generally very fair to their customers, so we can certainly not blame them for trying to survive. But what we wonder is if this should be done at the expense of player experience.
I can not say that the current system does not have its advantages, but i would argue it has even more flaws. So perhaps the best solution is somewhere in between the two. This is the reason i started this thread in the first place - i think it's important to discuss problems that come up and to bring up the concerns of our players, because this is the only way we can keep making this game better. I and my group of GMs are huge fans of Pathfinder (we privately play something like 5 campaigns, pre-written and homebrew) and we care deeply about the game, so we wish to provide meaningful feedback. It is definitely not our intention to bring up debates that have been exhausted, or to needlessly question or criticize the rules - only to contribute to the game's continuous evolution in any way we can.
|
|
Certainly, but you don't need to die in every scenario to encounter this. You can go through five fine, and #6 catches you in the face. You could have a GM that loves to 'play tactically', noted tactics of the scenario be damned.
Either way, you're winnowing through your list of available scenarios, but getting nothing out of it, and not all those many scenarios can be run by a fresh character, or even a mildly(lvl 1-3) fresh one.
Looking back at my sessions played and GMed, I've been part of ~60-70 sessions, the vast majority of which have been low level (1-5). In all that time I've seen two PC deaths. One was a 4th-level PC playing up to 6-7; the other was a particularly unlucky 2nd-level inquisitor squaring off against a yeti.
Maybe my comrades and I have been particularly skilful or lucky, but even so I'd be very surprised if a player was encountering so many deaths that they ran out of scenarios to get past 2nd level, particularly with infinite replay available on some.
|
|
Either way, you're winnowing through your list of available scenarios, but getting nothing out of it, and not all those many scenarios can be run by a fresh character, or even a mildly(lvl 1-3) fresh one.
You are still getting something out of it... At least I'd hope so, or why are you playing then! All the scenarios you didn't die in (heck, even the one you did die in) should have hopefully been a fun and rewarding experience. Otherwise, I think you may be playing this game for the wrong reasons, and I may want to direct your attention to these other awesome games (for different reasons) called MMORPGs.
Chronicle sheet =/= winning
|
|
Although there are a few infamous counter-examples, lower-level scenarios aren't that deadly, even for characters of inexperienced players. If a player manages to get his character killed during 'Silent Tide', for example, then something's gone horribly wrong.
My caster druid fell unconscious in Silent Tide. He was level 2 playing in the 4-5 subtier, though. ;) (I also had a few beers and it was midnight, so I was tired and didn't quite know what was going on). Was one of the most fun games I've ever played, though. The GM can make a huge difference on both difficulty and fun, as well as the other players, too.
|
|
one is not supposed to look up loot lists and choose scenarios based on that. But the current system will lead players to do that, and there isn't really anything we can do to prevent them from doing it.
This sounds like a problem with the players rather than the system.
As far as I know, I don't have any issues like this in my area.
|
|
A fine sentiment, unless you're lousy enough, or your GM is mean enough(I'm not a mean GM is not ward against mean GMs existing), to keep you down while others slip ahead.
Eventually the table may be playing above your tier, and that's it, you've 'lost' the game, regardless of your definition of winning, but that may be ok, they may be talked into making new characters for you. It's all for fun. We shouldn't focus on winning.
* For reference, I have not died yet. I was actually the sole survivor of one scenario. Felt pretty good, and awful, at the same time.
|
|
A fine sentiment, unless you're lousy enough, or your GM is mean enough(I'm not a mean GM is not ward against mean GMs existing), to keep you down while others slip ahead.
Just so you know, I do know GMs like this. Some are just mean, or like to kill players.
Good thing I have the option to not play in their games.
|
|
Walter Sheppard - You could not be more right, and we have been trying and will keep trying to "bring up" our players with this attitude. But getting beginners to understand these things can take a while.
Still, that does nothing to change the way these rules will influence and to an extent limit the game, and encourage metagame scenario choice.
|
|
William Boyle (post right after your OP) touched on this earlier. Simply put, other campaigns have had that system in the past and most people agree the system we have now is much better.
A system where each character can have a chronicle of the same scenario leaves itself too open to abuse. SOME people will run the exact same set of scenarios for every one of their characters, usually the ones that give the best gp rewards for the least amount of effort. They will find the scenarios with the super easy faction missions to ensure that they don't miss a single PP.
And some other things, but I don't want to make a huge block of quote . . .
It is interesting to see this debate come up in PFS having watched the opposite questions show up in another living campaign (you know, it takes place in some realms, I've forgotten which ones :-) )
The other campaign allows players to replay a scenario with different characters, but gives no GM credit. They don't charge for their mods, but they put out significantly fewer, per year, than Pathfinder. And people are always asking "Why can't I get credit for running? Nobody wants to GM any more!" and "Why aren't there more new mods?"
No system is perfect, and people are always looking over the proverbial fence to see if the grass is greener on the other side. It is the nature of living campaign that you have to have some rules to give it consistency across the country and around the world. Find a game that you enjoy playing, a campaign that has good points you like and bad points you can tolerate. You can't make all the people happy all of the time.
I happen to enjoy playing PFS, and I'm willing to tolerate its quirks because it has many more features that I like. Everyone else has to make that decision for themselves because they're probably not going to change the fundamental rules of how the campaign works at this point.
|
|
A fine sentiment, unless you're lousy enough, or your GM is mean enough(I'm not a mean GM is not ward against mean GMs existing), to keep you down while others slip ahead.Just so you know, I do know GMs like this. Some are just mean, or like to kill players.
But enough about Kyle.
Good thing I have the option to not play in their games.
This. If the GM is that mean, people will start avoiding him. He'll either have to realize his mistake or stop GMing, except with the munchkin players with the most powerful PCs and best tactics that can survive his style. But many normal players will just refuse to play with him any more.
|
|
I shall put forward my idea rather than dancing around the theoretical.
I think you should be limited to two sheets, as it is right now, GM credit, player credit, Buuutttt, the sheet should only count if it's actually applied to a valid character. A character that is dead dead dead should release his sheets off into the void and allow you to re-earn them.
Just a thought.
|
|
A fine sentiment, unless you're lousy enough, or your GM is mean enough(I'm not a mean GM is not ward against mean GMs existing), to keep you down while others slip ahead.Just so you know, I do know GMs like this. Some are just mean, or like to kill players.But enough about Kyle.
Good thing I have the option to not play in their games.This. If the GM is that mean, people will start avoiding him. He'll either have to realize his mistake or stop GMing, except with the munchkin players with the most powerful PCs and best tactics that can survive his style. But many normal players will just refuse to play with him any more.
With that said, I've played/ran significantly less than you and seen quite a few deaths, including a tpk in the fourth mod I ever played. I didn't enjoy that experience at all.
Running I think I've killed 1-2 characters in 27 scenarios. If I wasn't a fairly nice DM, I think I would kill at least 1 pc every second or third scenario. For example, I had 0 deaths in 5 scenarios I ran this weekend, but I think 4 out of 5 tables, all with pretty to very optimized PCs, were justifiably scared of a tpk at least once during the slot.
If I didn't strongly prefer to leave everyone on the edge of their seats, I could see people into replay issues. But I also don't think people would enjoy playing with me a whole lot. I know I wouldn't enjoy it as a player.
With that said, I generally find that people in my area(s) at least don't use the infinite replay of the low level scenarios much. For example, I've only played 1 out of the 9 replayable scenarios.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Walter Sheppard - You could not be more right, and we have been trying and will keep trying to "bring up" our players with this attitude. But getting beginners to understand these things can take a while.
Still, that does nothing to change the way these rules will influence and to an extent limit the game, and encourage metagame scenario choice.
I understand the sentiment. Back in May of 2011 was the first time I heard of PFS. My core group of friends and gamers were looking for something to kill the time between our homebrews and these short, 4-5 hour adventures seemed like the a good thing to try out. One game a week became two, became three, became a couple of games a night a couple times a week. It got out of hand real quick...
Flash forward almost two years. Our player base has grown from 4 people to 50+, some of which drive from as far as 45 minutes away to play with us. We've hosted large, multitable events, and brought in enough business that our FLGS was able to support moving to a larger space across the street.
We didn't start like this, though. We were all beginners, and a lot of us still are. As long as you have people that are playing for the sake of playing, anything is possible. I never imagined we'd get this big. I'm going to a convention in Canada at the end of this week, and I literally expended no effort to get the volunteer GMs that are going with me. They just wanted to go.
The replay rules, as well as any rules that restrict play options (race, feat, class, alignment, etc restrictions), will invariably make PFS less attractive to some. But to others, it doesn't matter. Because they're playing for the sake of the game, for the experience and the people. Credit is something that matters when you don't draw a deeper meaning out of your games.
So to for those people that need credit, refuse to play a game that gives low gold, has too many bad guys, or is going to be too hard, I say this -- grow up. You need to evolve your level of play to something beyond numbers, or your only experiencing a fraction of what tabletop RPGs like Pathfinder have to offer.
|
|
I also agree that a replay rules change is not required. Yes there will be people who start to run out of easy things to play; however, the alternative in my opinion is a much worse one.
|
|
This will be a bit offtopic, but it's a response to Black Powder Chocobo:
We are a group of about five people that have played roleplaying games together with nearly embarassing intensity (yeah, we all acknowledge we have a problem ;) ) for about six years. Last year we decided that we would sacrifice some of our time, effort and also funds to spread the joy of roleplaying among the people in our area - which is by the way probably one of the worst places one could pick to try and get people to play roleplaying games. But we were not about to give up, and were going to try anyway.
As a part of our geekery, we are regular visitors and participants at nearly every convention in Croatia where unlike in Slovenia there is actually a geek community. That is where we met Zrinka and Maja a few years ago. When Society started, we were quick to jump on the train. That is why Pathfinder Society was our first thought when we were considering how to introduce our completely non-roleplaying nation to the sort of fun we have been having.
We have founded an official roleplaying club that is run and funded solely by our own efforts, and this is where our scenario (and other materials) funding comes from.
As for gameshops here, there is only one shop in the capital city of the country which is very small, not really a game shop as much as a gothic metal accessory and children's toy shop, and the prices and delivery times mostly leave us purchasing things from other countries over the internet. We are very glad there is at least one thing resembling a game shop in the whole country, but there is certainly no way they can help us.
|
|
I shall put forward my idea rather than dancing around the theoretical.
I think you should be limited to two sheets, as it is right now, GM credit, player credit, Buuutttt, the sheet should only count if it's actually applied to a valid character. A character that is dead dead dead should release his sheets off into the void and allow you to re-earn them.
Just a thought.
This sort of screams of a need for the online tools to support this, and begs the question, is a retired character "dead"
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
This sort of screams of a need for the online tools to support this, and begs the question, is a retired character "dead"I shall put forward my idea rather than dancing around the theoretical.
I think you should be limited to two sheets, as it is right now, GM credit, player credit, Buuutttt, the sheet should only count if it's actually applied to a valid character. A character that is dead dead dead should release his sheets off into the void and allow you to re-earn them.
Just a thought.
Well with the retirement arc not being the end of the road for those Pathfinders that become Seekers, probably not. However, what about those players that voluntarily retire characters? Do they get their sheets opened again? Or would they have to do one last game with their character and in the first combat commit suicide in order to replay those games?
I'll play along with the brainstorming here, but it raises a myriad of issues.
|
|
Double post for the win: I would add a button to strike a character from your roster. It would not be undoable after you confirm you know what you're doing. Retired, died, plane jaunting out of the campaign, whatever, you're done with the character forever and ever. At that point, sheets would be freed up to be re earned. The basic thrust is, only two sheets from one campaign in your roster.(Player, GM)
|
|
I think it would open up to abuse. A player could play several scenarios with a 'test character', who is either killed off or retired, and then play through with his 'good character', for whom he/she has planned an entire career of perfection with full knowledge of the scenarios. Don't like how it's going? Have you failed one too many faction missions? Kill the sucker off and start over with the same scenarios that you've memorized!
Note: This is hyperbolic, of course. However, I am certain we would see an attitude of "I don't like how this turned out. I'm killing off this character and playing this scenario again next week."
|
|
This will be a bit offtopic, but it's a response to Black Powder Chocobo:
We are a group of about five people that have played roleplaying games together with nearly embarassing intensity (yeah, we all acknowledge we have a problem ;) ) for about six years. Last year we decided that we would sacrifice some of our time, effort and also funds to spread the joy of roleplaying among the people in our area - which is by the way probably one of the worst places one could pick to try and get people to play roleplaying games. But we were not about to give up, and were going to try anyway.
As a part of our geekery, we are regular visitors and participants at nearly every convention in Croatia where unlike in Slovenia there is actually a geek community. That is where we met Zrinka and Maja a few years ago. When Society started, we were quick to jump on the train. That is why Pathfinder Society was our first thought when we were considering how to introduce our completely non-roleplaying nation to the sort of fun we have been having.
We have founded an official roleplaying club that is run and funded solely by our own efforts, and this is where our scenario (and other materials) funding comes from.
As for gameshops here, there is only one shop in the capital city of the country which is very small, not really a game shop as much as a gothic metal accessory and children's toy shop, and the prices and delivery times mostly leave us purchasing things from other countries over the internet. We are very glad there is at least one thing resembling a game shop in the whole country, but there is certainly no way they can help us.
In this case, you should try to run some of the Campaigns that have PFS certs.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Another thought: This proposed system would also place more burdens on the GM, as it would require them to audit characters more often.
"Wait, you played this last week?"
"Yeah, but I killed that bro off."
"Ugh... let me see the sheets...."
It would also require GMs and players to check things online more frequently, something a lot of players and GMs currently don't do. (GMs don't need to be the ones that report games, and a lot of players take a very long time to register their character).
While it 'makes sense' in a way, it also doesn't, for the reasons listed in the threads that Drogon linked up above. Replaying for credit isn't sustainable. Producing more games than you can play each quarter is.
Also, if you are worried about doing a game for credit but then realizing that credit would have better been applied later -- GM games first. You don't have to get GM credit the first time, you can just GM it for fun, then GM it again with the character you want the sheet to go to. Just a thought.
|
|
Yes people can read the scenario beforehand, but that still doesn't allow for do-overs after playing.
How would you respond to a player who wanted to retire his level three character, and then came to play with a character that is perfectly suited for the scenario that you are running? What if we got players who wanted to play the same scenario over and over until they got it 'perfect'?
No to replaying. People can already replay scenarios without credit. If it's the credit you're worried about, GM it or just play a different scenario.
|
|
It would also require GMs and players to check things online more frequently, something a lot of players and GMs currently don't do. (GMs don't need to be the ones that report games, and a lot of players take a very long time to register their character).
They don't? I was not aware of this. How does this work?
|
|
Although there are a few infamous counter-examples, lower-level scenarios aren't that deadly, even for characters of inexperienced players. If a player manages to get his character killed during 'Silent Tide', for example, then something's gone horribly wrong.** Silent Tide Derail spoiler omitted **
In my area, I have seen several PC deaths, including several for my PCs. Most of them have been at higher levels, and I have seen several PCs, including one of mine, who have had several deaths.
For low-level deaths, they are rare, and, in my experience, usually statistical blips. Things like a player bringing his Con 8 Witch into melee range of an enemy who then crits on them, confirms because their AC is so low, and does enough damage from the crit to kill them outright.
But that didn't take much with an 8 Con and a d6 class, since that gave them, at best, 9 hit points, using Toughness and their FCB, so only 17 hp damage would be dead. Heck, on a good damage roll, Ledford could do it without a crit. Did I mention that I tried to convince the player to not use Con for a dump stat? Personally, I tend to seldom go below a 12 for Con on my PCs.
That kind of death makes me feel sad. Fortunately, on that one, I was able to keep my first-time PFS player happy, and allow them to participate for the rest of the scenario, since their PC had died in the first encounter.
For others, death and near-death experiences can be enjoyable. The rogue getting trampled by the elephant chatrging, leaving her at 0 hit points. Same rogue doing something stupid but epic against a Summoner and her Eidolon, getting killed in a bar fight.
The dwarf, the only PC with a way to see in Darkness, but being a staff Magus, giving away their ability to see while doing nothing very effective. Could have been a TPK, but the rest of the party ran away, taking the dead dwarf with them. Learnign experience: Always have some way to deal with Darkness and Deeper Darkness, otherwise dealing with a flying creature in an area of darkness just sucks.
Heck, this past Saturday, I did something foolish, and, if not for the Cleric with Breath of Life, I would have had to come up with some way to get a Raise. To be honest, that encounter was one of the toughest in the whole scenario, although a couple of the Wizard's spells made a big difference for some of the other encounters. Air Walk doesn't work very well for a Large creature stuck at the bottom of a 10' x 10' Acid Pit.
On a different note, and I need to update my PCs stats here on Paizo.com, I have 14 active PCs, ranging from 12th level down to a 1st level with 2 XP. 12, 9, 6, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1. I think I have a few more than 10 scenarios left available to play at the low tier, but I also, as the two stars next to my name shows, GM as well.