Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
An aside on the "quality vs quantity" comments...
I am probably going to get a bit of flack for this, but while I am all for great quality, it has been my experience over more than a dozen living campaigns of varying size and lifespan that players need very little excuse to sit and play.
You don't need virtuoso level works to get butts into seats. You just need a halfway decent plot and people will eat the adventures up. Some at a frightening rate.
Additionally, many of the aforementioned living campaigns ran on a fraction of PFS's budget, while maintaining a steady volume of releases. They were able to do this by a large factor because they spread out the work. The writing and editing was farmed out to a wide field of talented volunteers. It is true that this setup produced some awful stinkers of adventures, but by far and large most were of decent quality and got played heavily.
Quality is important, but that doesn't mean Quantity is NOT important.
People just wanna play.
-j
The "quality" problem I would be concerned with has nothing to do with story. I recall a LG Interactive that was cobbled together at the last minute for a Con and was not given a proper playtest or review. The nature of some of the challenges was not significantly altered due to character level, only some of the DCs. As a result, the high levels had easy solutions to many obstacles while low levels did not. The high levels thought the Interactive was great and had a 100% success rate with no deaths. The low level tables had a 75% failure rate and a 30% death rate, many of which were permanent because their bodies were not recoverable.
That particular "quality" problem caused a lot of venom. Many people refused to ever return to that Con.
|
|
In keeping with the Con direction this is going I'd like to put a twist on it and revisit the replay idea.
The problem is that as you get farther along in PFS you have fewer and fewer options available. I've only been active in PFS for about a year. At first I played everything I could get my hands on, I signed up for everything. Now I have to be a lot more selective. I have to pick and choose now. I'm signed up for a Con next month and after burning my one replay cred on the Special there are only about 3 items on the schedule outside that that I haven't done outside of the Special.
-I understand that allowing unlimited replays would lead to people abusing the system.
-I understand that the limited plays encourages people to get into GMing games like I have. At some point you have to give back and pass on what was given to you.
-I understand that there must be a rotation of content in and out of the system.
In keeping with this I suggest lifting some of the restrictions for replays during game days, specials, and Conventions. A simple requirement for this would be that they operate at the level where they get official sanctioned support from the Paizo campaign staff. Or on a more limited bases allow certain scenarios to be replayed on a limited basis.
Allowing GM's replays based on stars is a good starting place. This can also use some expansion as well (may number of stars per season resetting at GenCon or PaizoCon)which would encourage more people to sit behind the screen.
|
Soluzar, +1 to everything you just posted. I was thinking almost exactly what you wrote but could not put it into words half as well as you did. I've heard the limited replay comment from many GM's over the course of the one year I have been playing PFS as well. I think it is a valid concern for many that has a straightforward and rather simple solution (and does not appear to "punish" anyone).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like replay. It can and does punish the other people playing at the table. The person replaying already knows the scenario, so either metagames the heck out of it (for which the GM is perfectly OK in kicking them from the table) or is so conscious of possibly metagaming that they can't really contribute to discussion of what to do at the table. For mostly combat scenarios that's not terrible but those types of scenarios are becoming rarer... for scenarios that are largely roleplaying its incredibly difficult to keep prior knowledge out of your roleplay. Either way if can affect the experience of the people at the table with no prior knowledge, and often in a negative way.
|
The problem is that as you get farther along in PFS you have fewer and fewer options available. I've only been active in PFS for about a year. At first I played everything I could get my hands on, I signed up for everything. Now I have to be a lot more selective. I have to pick and choose now.
If you're running out of things to play (even with two new scenarios being released per month) then you're in a small minority of PFS players.
I think the only answers are to be more selective what you play outside of cons (e.g. put more time towards APs that don't fit the con mould as well) or GM more. Fewer restrictions on replay is a situation that is very unpalatable to many PFS players.
|
|
I don't like replay. It can and does punish the other people playing at the table. The person replaying already knows the scenario, so either metagames the heck out of it (for which the GM is perfectly OK in kicking them from the table) or is so conscious of possibly metagaming that they can't really contribute to discussion of what to do at the table. For mostly combat scenarios that's not terrible but those types of scenarios are becoming rarer... for scenarios that are largely roleplaying its incredibly difficult to keep prior knowledge out of your roleplay. Either way if can affect the experience of the people at the table with no prior knowledge, and often in a negative way.
I hear you but there are problems:
-My main point of looking at a Con schedule and having to weave my way through all the stuff I've already done.
-How many times have you done a scenario when the GM was sleepwalking through it or missed something major?
-Have a favorite scenario? There should be more options for experiencing it again.
I think my idea is the best compromise between both extremes. Otherwise you may find many veterans and the most dedicated people to the game dropping out.
|
I don't like replay. It can and does punish the other people playing at the table. The person replaying already knows the scenario, so either metagames the heck out of it (for which the GM is perfectly OK in kicking them from the table) or is so conscious of possibly metagaming that they can't really contribute to discussion of what to do at the table. For mostly combat scenarios that's not terrible but those types of scenarios are becoming rarer... for scenarios that are largely roleplaying its incredibly difficult to keep prior knowledge out of your roleplay. Either way if can affect the experience of the people at the table with no prior knowledge, and often in a negative way.
I will say it has some uses and I do agree that the very limited replays allowed do not create a problem (1 per star per lifetime). I think a very modest increase (1 per star per year but no more) wouldn't be bad.
I have only vague memories of some of the things I've played 2-3 years ago and do not remember the details.
Some I remember because they were GMed badly and would like to play with a good GM.
It gives me an opportunity to play when I travel and meet people when I otherwise would not, like I do often for work.
Helps with the limited number of low level scenarios that are now avalible for players who play a lot.
As for the problems you cite, I think players can do that the same way they do when they eat a scenario by GMing before you play. I.E. you play dumb to the best of your ability.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But how often do you see half a table that is replaying through GM stars? Not very often at all, because replay is still rare. I've no problem making it one replay per star per year either, but when you start allowing players (not GM's) replay, it will become more common, and the problems will crop up more. Especially since some people will try to game the system to get the "best" chronicles on their characters. Sucks to be the one or two people at the table that haven't played a scenario when 4 others are replaying just to get the "goodie" on the chronicle sheet.
If you're having trouble navigating the schedule at a convention because you've played most of the games there, then maybe its time to volunteer your services as a GM instead. That's what I did when I started "running out" of games to play (I wasn't really running out of games, its just that people tend to focus on the newest season the most, so many of the games on offer I had already played).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But how often do you see half a table that is replaying through GM stars? Not very often at all, because replay is still rare. I've no problem making it one replay per star per year either, but when you start allowing players (not GM's) replay, it will become more common, and the problems will crop up more. Especially since some people will try to game the system to get the "best" chronicles on their characters. Sucks to be the one or two people at the table that haven't played a scenario when 4 others are replaying just to get the "goodie" on the chronicle sheet.
If you're having trouble navigating the schedule at a convention because you've played most of the games there, then maybe its time to volunteer your services as a GM instead. That's what I did when I started "running out" of games to play (I wasn't really running out of games, its just that people tend to focus on the newest season the most, so many of the games on offer I had already played).
Sounds like we are actually on the same page. Keep replay rare and as a reward for putting your butt out there and GMing.
Well, let's be clear. You can ALREADY replay events as much as you want, even after you've run the event or played it before. Just as long as the GM and other players are aware and are okay with it, and you don't metagame. You just can't earn another play chronicle.
So arguments abut the quality of experience on replays are moot, because it's already allowed.
So the question is, really, "should a player be able to get additional play chronicles?"
-j
