|
So what it sounds like just from this thread is there is little play happening at levels 7+. Interesting. Perhaps we need to reevaluate any plans we had for a new seeker arc and refocus those on tier 1-5. Thoughts?The campaign has kind of been all over the board with its direction over the years. I'd love to have a discussion on the value of expanding the PFS player base versus retaining existing PFS players, since they both require resources.
What brings in more revenue for Paizo (which is ultimately what we ALL should be concerned with)?
Are higher level scenarios the best means for player retention? Are low level scenarios that important to new player growth?
I think that veteran player retention (and conversion to GMs or at least people who spread word of PFS) are really the most important to new player growth. You don't need tons of new 1-5s to get new players because the new players haven't played the old ones yet. Granted, if the veteran players have lots of new characters, more 7-11s may not be necessary to have that retention.
|
Mike, what's the trend on "Eyes of the Ten"? Is interest dying off, suggesting that it's saturating the market of people ready to play it? Or is it still chugging along at the same rate?Chugging along at the same rate, getting a handful of play each year, with part 1 being reported played almost three times as much as parts 3 and 4.I wonder if that has more to do with character death/player disinterest or if its more along the lines of groups finding it harder to get together to finish.
For example, Kristen and I travelled 2.5ish hours to St Louis, MO to play it with a group up there, but the GM was Seth Brummond (VC of Kansas City, MO, WAY over on the other side of the wide state of Missouri). But we didnt do it all in one weekend. We made 3 separate trips to get this done, with the final one being during DieCon earlier this year. These three sessions took us about 3 months to get together for, I think.Also, since I didnt notice this til now and didnt see any congratulatory post...Congratulations on getting your fifth star, Drogon! :D
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
So what it sounds like just from this thread is there is little play happening at levels 7+ And we should focus on lower level play options because we need to allow enough options for veteran players to play with the new player that comes in off the street. Interesting. Perhaps we need to reevaluate any plans we had for a new seeker arc and refocus those on tier 1-5. Thoughts?
I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before. If not, I sure am getting deja vu...
Anyhoo, here are my thoughts, stream of consciousness style:
Kyle's math is pretty accurate. It is what I encourage with my player base, and what usually ends up happening.
You already know that 1-5 sees more play, by a long shot, than 7-11. Vic Wertz showed those numbers to pretty good effect in that thread.
If Kyle is right with his math then the reason Vic's numbers are the way they are is because we are only just now entering the point where the BobBob's of the world are consistently seeing high level play.
But, there aren't as many BobBobs today as there were 5 years ago. AT LEAST 50% of them no longer play, and I would venture to say that the number of people falling off the PFS wagon is even higher than that, actually.
Thing is, high level play is what keeps veterans entertained. It is the GOAL of playing this game, ultimately. If you don't have higher level play, even more people will fall off the wagon, as the Finlanderboys of the world get sick of repeating low level play over and over. Then you have even fewer veterans hanging around to show the newbies how to have fun, and PFS is constantly having to reintroduce itself to new waves of players.
In summation: keep putting out higher level play. There just needs to be MORE low level play (meaning 1-5) to keep your mix of players from stagnating into little factions and cliques.
Finally: a new seeker arc is only necessary because the old seeker arc is so dated, in terms of story, and clunky, in terms of being a four-parter. You need a 3 part seeker arc that isn't beholden to any season's story line, just like you needed an evergreen Tier 1 that wasn't going to become invalid by loss of factions or whatever. But is a seeker arc a priority? No. It should be an extra, when you have time. As Kyle illustrated, if you release that arc of three adventures over the course of 18 months, you're pacing BobBob's play rate.
I'm sure I'll think of more. But that's what I got for now.
Edit: For the love of all that is, please just up the number of scenarios. During Season 3 you released 31, if the Paizocon special counts. If you go to three a month that is only 5 more than that (banner) year.
A consistent three per month (and you can include the convention specials and Bone Keeps in that number) would solve so many things. And it's something that is so necessary, if only due to the number of players you now have playing PFS. Why is this idea not supported?
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
You don't need tons of new 1-5s to get new players because the new players haven't played the old ones yet.
I agree with this, but on the other hand, it seems that whenever we need to put together a new low-level table at my local game day, it's always one from just a handful of favorites (Frostfur Captives, Quest for Perfection, any Blakros museum, Before the Dawn, or the current new release). Perhaps if the old Season 0 adventures were converted/updated, it could increase the effective pool of low-level scenarios that people want to run, with much less investment of development resources than brand new scenarios.
|
Finally: a new seeker arc is only necessary because the old seeker arc is so dated, in terms of story, and clunky, in terms of being a four-parter. You need a 3 part seeker arc that isn't beholden to any season's story line, just like you needed an evergreen Tier 1 that wasn't going to become invalid by loss of factions or whatever. But is a seeker arc a priority? No. It should be an extra, when you have time. As Kyle illustrated, if you release that arc of three adventures over the course of 18 months, you're pacing BobBob's play rate.
On this specifically: I have to vehemently agree.
I just prepped part 1 of EOTT since I will be running it in November. Holy mackrel, those statblocks have ERRORS! Like... lots!
I do think we need some kind of revamp to Seeker arc. Either a refresh of EOTT (maybe condensed into 3 parts? HMMMMM? The story is still great!) or a new one like you proposed Mike.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
At the FLGS where I play most often, over 50% of the player base have been playing PFS less than a year.
We now schedule four tables a week (and it probably won't be long before we need a fifth table). Of those, we always offer a tier 1-5 scenario (so we can seat walk-ins), and usually end up with that being played at two tables, of which at least one is at the low sub-tier.
If we offer a tier 5-9 (or 3-7) scenario we generally get enough sign-ups for two full tables. With a 7-11, though, that isn't always the case; we can end up with a single table, and/or a poor party make up (such as four 10th & 11th level characters, and one 7th-level, with at least one important role un-filled).
On a personal note: I haven't yet played "Eyes of the Ten" (although I've got a character about to hit 10th level, so maybe I'll soon be able to remedy that). I've heard several glowing reports of it, though; I hope it will still be around when I've got a level-appropriate character.
|
|
So what it sounds like just from this thread is there is little play happening at levels 7+ And we should focus on lower level play options because we need to allow enough options for veteran players to play with the new player that comes in off the street. Interesting. Perhaps we need to reevaluate any plans we had for a new seeker arc and refocus those on tier 1-5. Thoughts?
Off the top of my head while on break...
Mid-level play (for this post, that's levels 7-12ish) and then high-level play (here, 14+) together do at least two very important things for the campaign:
-It gives returning players, which is basically the GM pool, something to do and look forward to.
-It gives new players something to aspire to.
Without the promise of mid-level play, low-level play becomes less attractive, as mid-level play (and high-level play after that) is something to look forward to, a reason to both stay in the campaign and a reason to even become seduced in the first place. This progression includes a Tier 12+ "capstone" to build up to. Without a climax to look forward to, the beginning of the journey is less alluring.
Now, the way PFS is currently set up, getting to the climax requires at least ten sessions of Tier 10-11 play, barring modules, because once a PC hits 10th, the only scenarios he can play are the 7-11s. With the campaign's current direction (btw, Kyle is right; the campaign has changed direction a lot), and the movement towards season-long plots, this means that for one season's worth of storyline to encompass a PC's career, at least six scenarios of that storyline need to be Tier 7-11.
If there are too few, because, say, there were only two 7-11s released in a year, the PC would have to break his focus on a given storyline and play multiple scenarios from other story arcs. The final buildup to the Tier 12+ climax becomes unfocused, less immersive, and less attractive. The endgame risks becoming a letdown.
In other words, if you want to have Tier 7-11 at all, two per season/story-arc is too few.
What PFS really needs to do is make a decision. It needs to either do mid-level right, with full support for a character's whole career, including solid 12+ arcs, or don't do it at all. Right now, it's waffling between the two.
Either do what needs to be done to fully support 7-11, making the climax of a character's career attractive, or drop 7-11 completely and reset the retirement level to 10, thus making Tier 5-9 the endgame to aspire to. If you guys want to boost 1-5 support, either make the leap to three scenarios a month or drop all 7-11s. Don't go halfway on this like is being discussed now, because going halfway will strip the allure from the Tier 7-11 and 12+ climax.
-Matt
|
|
You don't need tons of new 1-5s to get new players because the new players haven't played the old ones yet.I agree with this, but on the other hand, it seems that whenever we need to put together a new low-level table at my local game day, it's always one from just a handful of favorites (Frostfur Captives, Quest for Perfection, any Blakros museum, Before the Dawn, or the current new release). Perhaps if the old Season 0 adventures were converted/updated, it could increase the effective pool of low-level scenarios that people want to run, with much less investment of development resources than brand new scenarios.
One thing I like about the new 1-5s coming out is that I'm building up a repertoire of genres that I can use to target specific new players. Does someone like spy movies? Use the Disappeared. Political intrigue? The Stolen Heir. This is less useful for large venues where you don't really know who to expect in terms of new players, but it can help a GM in the know recruit friends.
|
|
Either do what needs to be done to fully support 7-11, making the climax of a character's career attractive, or drop 7-11 completely and reset the retirement level to 10, thus making Tier 5-9 the endgame to aspire to. If you guys want to boost 1-5 support, either make the leap to three scenarios a month or drop all 7-11s. Don't go halfway on this like is being discussed now.
Either way, I will always treasure our time together at the Seeker table, brief as it was. :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Either way, I will always treasure our time together at the Seeker table, brief as it was. :)
Excellent. It was a pleasure to bring Gerard out after years of being stuffed away.
Though honestly, Eyes of the Ten over the rest of the weekend, playing Lady Gabrielle, was head-and-shoulders above every other PFS experience I've had. Requiem of the Red Raven is the best thing PFS has ever produced; the campaign needs more scenarios like that, and it needs to ensure that the campaign is set up so that a larger percentage of players will get to experience the climactic stuff. Even if that means making Seeker play occur at 10th.
-Matt
|
|
Either way, I will always treasure our time together at the Seeker table, brief as it was. :)Excellent. It was a pleasure to bring Gerard out after years of being stuffed away.
Though honestly, Eyes of the Ten over the rest of the weekend, playing Lady Gabrielle, was head-and-shoulders above every other PFS experience I've had. Requiem of the Red Raven is the best thing PFS has ever produced.
-Matt
Eyes of the Ten part 1 is amazing. (It does have numerous tactics block errors, but they don't really get in the way.)
Although The Disappeared has unseated it for #1 scenario in my book, although just barely.
|
|
When you schedule a tier 1-5 game and a tier 3-7 game, and you have to split up a family because two of them are level 3 and one is only level 2, that is why a level 2 should be able to play in the Subtier 3-4.
All of them can play together in the 1-5. I don't see the problem. Also, I'm sure the family is aware that by having different level characters, there will be scenarios they can not play together at a given time.
What if the family had two of them at level 3 and one a level 1? There will always be cases like this, no matter what.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
little play happening at levels 7+ And we should focus on lower level play options
reevaluate any plans we had for a new seeker arc and refocus those on tier 1-5. Thoughts?
I play a lot! But I still have plenty of higher level options and very few lower level options.
Count Tier
3 1
1 1-4
9 1-5
5 3-7
11 5-9
15 7-11
2 1-11
2 12
Notice: I match the two db info. I've played the first two of the 12th arc and not the last two.
I think the options of Modules at 12th and above fix a lot of the "nothing to do at 12th level" problem. So a new 12th level ARC isn't something I think we should spend time to do. I know the people who have played all the Tier 12 scenarios are probably opposed to the idea of no more Tier 12. But I think it isn't worth the time.
I'm fine on the higher levels, I just have trouble finding others to play higher level modules as there are not as many "dedicated" players as me.
So I think more options (especially in Tier 3-7 and 1-5) are best.
I wonder if that has more to do with character death/player disinterest or if its more along the lines of groups finding it harder to get together to finish.
For me it is "can't find a table to play it"
For a Seeker Arc, I'd much rather see a 13th or 14th level module
That way it can sell as a generic module and still be used as a Seeker Arc.
+1
|
|
As an aside, please don't start this rumour. It may happen - it may even be likely - but if rumours like this start and then it doesn't, there will end up being a disproportionate number of nerdrage threads next August about how people were cheated out of their reply credits.
Man, I'm not starting a damn thing. The policy was expansive, and was trimmed down to the trial period just before the book when live, then it was even announced by someone else who missed the trimming meeting as being the more expanded version. Said person later pulled back with "Oh .. uh .. we'll look at it next year."
The rumor is already out there.
And nerdrage is delicious.
So what it sounds like just from this thread is there is little play happening at levels 7+ And we should focus on lower level play options because we need to allow enough options for veteran players to play with the new player that comes in off the street. Interesting. Perhaps we need to reevaluate any plans we had for a new seeker arc and refocus those on tier 1-5. Thoughts?
If I had to choose one or the other, I'd take new 1-5s over a new Seeker arc. Buuuut ...
Canceling a one-off project isn't going to help resolve the overall and ongoing shortage of 1-5s. You might use that time to produce four--or even eight--new 1-5s, but we're not talking about a short-term lack, we're talking about the overall ratio needing to change. So why not replace every other 7-11 on the schedule with a 1-5?
|
We're just gearing up for a local run if EotT. I've never played it or run it, so I can't speak to the quality of the scenarios or anything like that, but I can say that the anticipation of them lead to us scheduling at least a half dozen scenarios outside of our regular game days to get everyone to 12. I'd hate to see the Seeker arc disappear entirely.
Similarly, Waking Rune was the most anticipated and praised scenario of season 4 for our group (as it should be), and many of the participants are already clambering to use one of their GM replays on it.
7-11 level scenarios definitely have a place in PFS. Like several people, I'd love to see more scenarios in general. I'd happily lose one or two 7-11s to get an extra 1-5 or two each season. Losing 7-11s completely would be very bad.
|
So what it sounds like just from this thread is there is little play happening at levels 7+ And we should focus on lower level play options because we need to allow enough options for veteran players to play with the new player that comes in off the street. Interesting. Perhaps we need to reevaluate any plans we had for a new seeker arc and refocus those on tier 1-5. Thoughts?
We are seeing quite a bit of level 7+ play in our area. And with 3 characters at Kevel 12+ and one about to be 10, one at 8, and one soon to be 8, I would really hate to see no seeker arc happen.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
The first run of EotT happened in Denver in December of 2011. Of interest, most of that table's makeup were players who played in Session #1 of the first ever PFS event that was run in Denver during the fall of 2009.
It took until November 2012 for the second run of EotT to happen. Most of THAT table were the regulars who "stuck" from the "second wave" of players to enter the game. Six months later "wave three" started up and EotT has now been run in the Colorado area several times over the last six months, with more on the schedule.
If you keep a seeker arc, you will see the numbers go up over time.
Of (perhaps) more importance: none of the subsequent runs would have been able to happen if the veterans from the first run hadn't been around to help fill tables to get the second and third waves through the lower levels and into the upper tiers.
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
For what it's worth, my online group (which started Nov. 2012) is currently hovering around level 10, and we hope to complete Eyes of the Ten before the year is up. I don't think that the elimination of a new seeker arc is really the long-term fix we're looking for. The problem is more one of ratio, as said earlier. To give an example, there are currently 26/56 scenarios at 1-5 or 1-7 that I haven't done anything with. Conversely, there are 28/33 7-11 scenarios that I haven't done anything with. I'm not going to decrease those two numbers at the same rate.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth, my online group (which started Nov. 2012) is currently hovering around level 10, and we hope to complete Eyes of the Ten before the year is up. I don't think that the elimination of a new seeker arc is really the long-term fix we're looking for. The problem is more one of ratio, as said earlier. To give an example, there are currently 26/56 scenarios at 1-5 or 1-7 that I haven't done anything with. Conversely, there are 28/33 7-11 scenarios that I haven't done anything with. I'm not going to decrease those two numbers at the same rate.
Just so you know (be it Mike or anyone else looking at these numbers) the "availability" of scenarios grows as groups get smaller. For instance, I am currently in a home-based PFS group (using PFS rules and strictures, running PFS scenarios, but with a static group of 8 players as a pool). There are two of us that have a "problem" getting to sit down to play, as we don't share available 1-5 scenarios between us. So, we end up being the GMs. But, even going that route, it takes some maneuvering to find things for us to play with the rest of the group. If you remove the two of us, they have TONS of options, and this conversation is moot.
But I'd be pretty sad to be told that I wasn't allowed to play with my friends merely because no one wants to publish 1-5 scenarios.
Essentially, it is us veterans who are the problem, when it comes to 1-5 players. You need to publish more 1-5 scenarios to keep us in the game. You can't NOT publish 7-11 scenarios, though, because that's WHY we're playing the game.
I hope that makes a little sense...
|
|
I see the new module that is due in December(?), Wardens of the Reborn Forge, is for 12-15. Could that be used as the new Seeker arc?
Then we could focus on 1-5 instead of the Seeker arc.
Not that I don't love Seekers, I have three and want them to be able to do something. I just think their play style works better for home groups and not game days or conventions.
|
|
So what it sounds like just from this thread is there is little play happening at levels 7+ And we should focus on lower level play options because we need to allow enough options for veteran players to play with the new player that comes in off the street. Interesting. Perhaps we need to reevaluate any plans we had for a new seeker arc and refocus those on tier 1-5. Thoughts?
If it were my job, I would listen to the guys who are growing Pathfinder (Drogon, White, Baird). Unless your VCs/VLs disagree.
In my business (which is software) we also have to accommodate both new sales and support existing customers (sometimes existing customers can lead to more sales however). We are a top 200 tech company in Canada and have won numerous awards. Our efforts are probably 75% focused on gaining new customers (or more $$ from existing customers) and 25% of our efforts is to support existing customers (it becomes more 50/50 when we can accommodate both). Retaining existing customers is important but without new sales (and new customers!) you are dead. Because there is always attrition no matter how good your product is.
It seems like your existing customers aren’t saturating the tier 7-11 scenarios (or retirement scenarios), so why would you put equal effort into tier 7-11 compared to 1-5? Why would you support 1% of your player base at the expense of the 99% (and risk of not gaining new customers)?!?
If you publish 3 scenarios per month you make everyone happy and it's probably the best solution. But if you can't do that, I think you should revise the schedule to something like Baird suggested (12/6/3/3): 12 tier 1-5, 6 tier 3-7, 3 tier 5-9, 3 tier 7-11.
|
Don't Cancel the Seeker arc or even delay it. I have 4 characters that are ready for or soon will be ready for the seeker arc. I rally have no desire to play level 1 to 5 scenarios except to advance a new character.
I am already GM'ing 2 to 3 weeks a month at my FLGS store as we are short of GM's because two moved out of the area due to work. IF PFS is supposed to be a marketing tool for Pathfinder all parts of the fan base must be seen too. Right now higher level 11+ is being ignored by PFS.
I fully realize that 11+ scenarios take more than 4 hours to run just make them 2 slot games or if at a FLGS location played over 2 weeks.
IF getting writers for higher level scenarios is a problem, hold a contest for 4 and 5 star GM's to write a scenario.
I don't want to complain in advance but Season 5 is supposed to fighting in the world wound yet in the first 3 scenarios that I have run or played in only a small part of one took place in the world wound that is because
they were below 7th level and 6th level and below cannot fight most demons and survive. So I do not see how we can have a great deal of 1-5 scenarios on Season 5 and keep true to the goals of Season 5.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
The problem isn't a lack of GMs, writers or interest, Lou, it's a simple problem of there not being players with a sufficient level of XP. It takes a serious investment of time and a certain amount of success at PFS to qualify for a 7-11. As a result, many game days will have insufficient numbers of experienced players who can play those games and are not already obligated to run the lower-tiered games.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
How many of you would pay $8.00 a scenario in order to get three released a month instead of two?
That's pretty rough, Doug. I would, but that's because I can justify it with the number of people who will come through my doors during that month (140 seats, counting GMs, so probably 75 "uniques"). But would I buy those for the 8 player home group I have going? Not likely.
$5 or $6? Yes.
I have a suggestion to cut costs on these products, too: stop doing art for them. I'm not entirely sure why that's being done in the first place. I get that Paizo likes to be professional and has a standard they like to live up to, and that cool art forwards those positions, but art doesn't matter to organized play. Content does. And maps, of course. Don't lump maps into my "no art" comment.
If Paizo wants art, turn the project of coming up with art for each scenario over to the community and let them do "fan art" that can be posted in a central spot under the community use licence. Then you can even pull particularly good pieces for use yourself, or even hire the guy who gets the best reviews.
|
|
I disagree again. More new players DOES NOT mean you need more low level scenarios. Because for new players the seasons 0,1,2,3,4,&5 are ALL new.
If someone has never player before any adventure is new to them. SO cramming more low leveled adventures does not give them that many more options.
Making more levels I think would infact deter more DMS. If there were less low levels they would DM the low level adventures for credit for their next characters for the NEW higher level adventures.
|
|
If it were my job, I would listen to the guys who are growing Pathfinder (Drogon, White, Baird). Unless your VCs/VLs disagree.
Word.
How many of you would pay $8.00 a scenario in order to get three released a month instead of two?
Double the price--for a total of three times as much spent per month--for half again the output? No.
If they were $6 each, though, we could talk. That's 50% more per item for 50% more output--and the total potential revenue ($18) for Paizo is still 2.25 times the current $8.
|
|
I have a suggestion to cut costs on these products, too: stop doing art for them. I'm not entirely sure why that's being done in the first place. I get that Paizo likes to be professional and has a standard they like to live up to, and that cool art forwards those positions, but art doesn't matter to organized play. Content does. And maps, of course. Don't lump maps into my "no art" comment.
If Paizo wants art, turn the project of coming up with art for each scenario over to the community and let them do "fan art" that can be posted in a central spot under the community use licence. Then you can even pull particularly good pieces for use yourself, or even hire the guy who gets the best reviews.
Double word. Jeez, Drogon, one might think you were a successful business owner or something.
|
|
For what it's worth, my online group (which started Nov. 2012) is currently hovering around level 10, and we hope to complete Eyes of the Ten before the year is up. I don't think that the elimination of a new seeker arc is really the long-term fix we're looking for. The problem is more one of ratio, as said earlier. To give an example, there are currently 26/56 scenarios at 1-5 or 1-7 that I haven't done anything with. Conversely, there are 28/33 7-11 scenarios that I haven't done anything with. I'm not going to decrease those two numbers at the same rate.Just so you know (be it Mike or anyone else looking at these numbers) the "availability" of scenarios grows as groups get smaller. For instance, I am currently in a home-based PFS group (using PFS rules and strictures, running PFS scenarios, but with a static group of 8 players as a pool). There are two of us that have a "problem" getting to sit down to play, as we don't share available 1-5 scenarios between us. So, we end up being the GMs. But, even going that route, it takes some maneuvering to find things for us to play with the rest of the group. If you remove the two of us, they have TONS of options, and this conversation is moot.
But I'd be pretty sad to be told that I wasn't allowed to play with my friends merely because no one wants to publish 1-5 scenarios.
Essentially, it is us veterans who are the problem, when it comes to 1-5 players. You need to publish more 1-5 scenarios to keep us in the game. You can't NOT publish 7-11 scenarios, though, because that's WHY we're playing the game.
I hope that makes a little sense...
I agree that the main actual demand for more 1-5s is not new players, it's vets. Personally, I think I'm completely out of 1-5s and 1-7s to play not counting Stolen Heir which just came out. I've even already GMed all but one or two. But due to extreme restraint in using replayable GM credit at 1st level, I still have plenty of characters, so I just don't play 1-5s until they release a new one.
|
|
How many of you would pay $8.00 a scenario in order to get three released a month instead of two?
This is part of (but really, as I understand Paizo's structure, only part of) the issue. You're looking at an increase in cost for the proposed accelerated structure. At least a 75% increase to $6.99, and maybe as high as Doug suggests to $7.99 per. More product means more work, which means more labor.
And that's assuming Paizo could accommodate that — many of the posters on this thread are aware with how busy everyone who works there is already — or would be willing to consider adding the necessary manpower to do so.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I disagree again. More new players DOES NOT mean you need more low level scenarios. Because for new players the seasons 0,1,2,3,4,&5 are ALL new.
If someone has never player before any adventure is new to them. SO cramming more low leveled adventures does not give them that many more options.
Making more levels I think would infact deter more DMS. If there were less low levels they would DM the low level adventures for credit for their next characters for the NEW higher level adventures.
C'mon, Finlanderboy, work with me here as I wander through Made Up Numberland: your group of 8 guys has played through all 20 available 1-x adventures. Sure, each guy has missed out on 1 or 2 of them here and there due to life getting in the way. Once again due to life getting in the way, 3 of those guys move on and no longer play with you. 2 new guys come onto the scene and want to play. More importantly they want to play with YOU because they've heard so many good things about you.
Well, they're brand new, so schedule whatever 1-x you want to schedule, right? Not so fast, though. Turns out that every single one of those 20 options will get either none of the "original five" players or only one guy who hasn't yet played it. Now there is no way to get the 2 new guys playing regularly unless you go get 2 MORE new guys. Which creates a little "clique" of 4 newbies that runs its own games while the 5 old guys continue on playing upper level stuff in their own little "clique."
Growth? Yes. Fun? Limited to its own clique. Community oriented? Not in the least.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I know its hard to make happen, but vet players need to step up and replay for no credit to get new guys up to their level.
It used to be "vet players need to GM to make sure other guys get to play."
I can't get behind this. I've seen what allowing replay does to the player base. I don't want to see it happen in PFS. Not in the slightest. There is no more toxic pill you could introduce to the player base at large than to encourage replay as a "fix" to this kind of problem. It is pure, undiluted poison. And, yeah, I know I'm being melodramatic; that's how strongly I feel about what it has done to various OrgPlay groups I ran in my store.
Don't do it.
|
|
I know its hard to make happen, but vet players need to step up and replay for no credit to get new guys up to their level.It used to be "vet players need to GM to make sure other guys get to play."
It's the same thing, really. Vets have to step up if they want a community. If they don't, they can just stay in their little clique.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's the same thing, really.I know its hard to make happen, but vet players need to step up and replay for no credit to get new guys up to their level.It used to be "vet players need to GM to make sure other guys get to play."
No, it's not. The vets are GMing. And, yet, we're still having this conversation. Obviously, that "solution" didn't fix things either.
Edit: A reply to your edit: Coordinators want a community. Paizo wants a community. Many GMs want a community. Veterans just want to play. The existence of a community will make things more fun for them, sure, but I'd be willing to bet that the lion's share of players have no idea how the nuances of "community" make their lives better. And seeing as they have no idea, they don't care.
Now, take that "don't care" mentality and put it into a situation where replay is allowed and watch as the community crumbles.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's the same thing, really. Vets have to step up if they want a community. If they don't, they can just stay in their little clique.I know its hard to make happen, but vet players need to step up and replay for no credit to get new guys up to their level.It used to be "vet players need to GM to make sure other guys get to play."
Asking them to not only have their own subpar experience by replaying but giving the new players a subpar experience by adding replayers to their table is not the solution.
|
|
I respect your opinion, but I disagree.
I am the guy running out of 1-5s. So I DM a lot more. I am sick of playing low level characters. I do not mind DMing fun players so they can level up and play with me.
Plus since the level mesh much more in the mid range 3-7 & 5-9 you can mix these guys up a lot.
It seems like to me your ideas cater to people that just start and quit vs people that are in it for the long haul.
Where do your profits come from? The players that taste the game and leave, or the players that you have to kick out of your shop?
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I respect your opinion, but I disagree.
I am the guy running out of 1-5s. So I DM a lot more. I am sick of playing low level characters. I do not mind DMing fun players so they can level up and play with me.
Plus since the level mesh much more in the mid range 3-7 & 5-9 you can mix these guys up a lot.
It seems like to me your ideas cater to people that just start and quit vs people that are in it for the long haul.
Where do your profits come from? The players that taste the game and leave, or the players that you have to kick out of your shop?
I wish I could get you in my store and as part of my community so that I can show you what I mean. Here, you would have the best of everything we are both talking about. You'd get to play high level when you want, and I'd get you sitting at low level tables every now and then because you were a part of this COMMUNITY.
True growth and expansion will result in you having more options.
Edit: By the way, what I am talking about hinges on not REMOVING high level content. It hinges on ADDING low level content. I hope that clears up some of the debate between us.
Another edit: My profits come from both. The "tasters" make purchases, too. They just sample multiple things before settling on what they want. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that I have a few "tasters" who are worth more than my very best PFS mainstays.
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads
|
It used to be "vet players need to GM to make sure other guys get to play."I can't get behind this. I've seen what allowing replay does to the player base. I don't want to see it happen in PFS. Not in the slightest. There is no more toxic pill you could introduce to the player base at large than to encourage replay as a "fix" to this kind of problem. It is pure, undiluted poison. And, yeah, I know I'm being melodramatic; that's how strongly I feel about what it has done to various OrgPlay groups I ran in my store.
Don't do it.
Vets who can GM should GM. Not all players are cut out for the role. I have always thought the level 1-X scenario's were to few in number. They are just too popular for all the above reasons in this thread.
-> Mike B / John C.
How realistic is it to get to 3 Scenario's a month in the next 12-18 months?
I would expect a price jump of a scenarios because of the additional workload.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Now, take that "don't care" mentality and put it into a situation where replay is allowed and watch as the community crumbles.Replay for no credit is already allowed.
And look how often it results in a bad experience for all involved. What makes you an outlier, my friend, is the fact that you have a good group with which you can make that experience actually become fun.
I'll reiterate what I said further up: for all intents and purposes replay for no credit is NOT allowed in my store. I work very hard to be sure it doesn't have to happen, and I work extra hard to keep it from being ever even a option I have to go to. Why? Because of what I saw it do to other OrgPlay games I promoted. It really is that bad.