|
This is what I would do, force the players to use Warhorn, and make sure you use it to schedule the games.
If not enough players sign up cancel the games.
If a regular refuses to sign up tell them they can't play unless they do.
If you are forced to do any of the above they will get the hint.
It is the best for the gaming community to use the Warhorn so you don't have players that show that then have to go home because he did not know before hand no players were showing.
You have to force the issue on the pre game registrations.
Of course be lax on all that for new players.
|
Do we now tell the person who elected to play for no credit rather than GM that they should leave the table, since they're no longer required to make it legal?
Loophole?
Start a game with the person that wants to replay being the fourth making the table legal. Then after the game starts, let the others join in to increase the size to 6. To fix, you'd either need (to be obligated) to kick the fourth out after they started playing since he's not there to make it legal, or block the newcomers because you're on to them, trying to sneak their friend in to being able to play Pathfinder!
I think the restrictions should be removed. Unlimited replay of everything and having it all count for gold/PP/etc. What is the point of the restriction in the first place? After playing a scenario, sometimes I think I want to play it again with a new character and try going about it a different way. If everyone involved wants to play, what harm does it do to the society to have it count?
Moreover it disproportionately hurts the player base that plays frequently (more than twice a month) more than anyone else. Even if this player base also GMs frequently, playing once a week will run them out of scenarios very rapidly. This seems more like it hurts more than it helps, by punishing the real core.
You'll run out of open games long before you run out of scenarios. If you've completed half the scenarios, then half the games out there are ones you can't join. In a perfect world, you have only one GM and he has purchased the entire library of all PFS scenarios, and you only play with the exact same players each week. In an imperfect world, you play the odds and hope the GM isn't running one of the 50% of scenarios you've already played. Make a new friend and want to play PFS with his game group? If you've completed 50% of the scenarios, there's a 50% chance the one they're playing is one you can't.
The replaying rule seems to actually hurt the idea of PFS: taking your character to any table. Because playing more means taking your character to any table makes it less likely you'll even be able to play. The same is true for GMs. The rule means PFS paradoxically works best when you have the same GM and same group of people each week.
And worse, when you consider it on whole, it means the more people play PFS, the less legal matchups even exist.
|
|
An extremely common hypothetical (at least at my FLGS)
We have two people who have played a scenario, and three who have not. One decides to GM, and the other to play. A 6th person comes in and sits down at the table just as you're starting.
If there is only 6 of you why would you schedule a game that 2 have already played?
Not every player has to play every time there is a game. Playing only when there is a game you can play that is on the schedule is acceptable.
If the games are scheduled out players will know if they have a game that week they can play, if there isn't they just don't show up.
|
|
I can't GM PFS about 2-5 times a month and play at least once a week I currently get credit for about 60% of the games I play (70% confirmation), and its about the same for GMing.
I can't always GM and with there only being 10-15 (repidly decreasing) scenarios avalible for me to play for credit @ any time. Looks lik I'm going to be driving home early or just sitting around 4 or more hours quite often.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
you can always play for no credit... if the gm permits and it'd let you make a legal table..
And in all honesty I don't know why locally you'd care at all about any statement to not play for giggles for no credit just to let you stay there without watching paint dry.
because some of us enjoy playing?
|
|
Hmm.
It seems that this ruling will have the consequence of alienating veteran/high frequency PFS players from the normal player base unless they decide to GM all the time. That doesn't seem like a good thing to do to what are likely core members of the PFS community.
I haven't been to PFS in a while so it would be somewhat disingenuous of me to decry this ruling too aggressively, but I've personally played almost every scenario (I'm missing 2 if i remember correctly) in seasons 0-4 (very little in season 5 because I stopped being active). I don't like GMing too frequently, because I get a lot of enjoyment out of playing interesting characters. When I was active, I'd show up at the FLGS and if I felt like GMing, I'd do so, but if not I'd just play for no credit.
What this ruling would do for someone like me (but active) is prevent them from showing up to PFS game days unless they planned to GM or unless a new scenario was being run. So if neither of those conditions are true (which is very often the case), then they will not show up and consequently be less active in the community.
This is likely not the intention, but I think this will be the consequence, especially for communities that play aggressively. My FLGS meets twice a week, for instance, so there are lots of people like me (except they're actually active). Playing for no credit is a common practice at my FLGS, and the people who do it have love for the campaign. I think this is one of those situations where the campaign should have a little bit of leeway to keep loyal players loyal.
Personally, I don't understand what the big deal is with replaying for no credit. There is literally nothing to gain aside from spending time with the PFS community; playing for no credit consumes time, player resources, and there is a risk of death or destruction of gear. If someone is willing to put their character at risk for what is basically no gain, I see no problem in allowing them to do it. Of course, this should only be allowed if the player agrees to not metagame the scenario. I guess maybe it effects the difficulty of the scenario, but at a certain level is it a problem if the PCs are succeeding as long as everybody has a good time in a way that is healthy for the community?
Honestly, I kind of stopped playing mostly because I kept having to play for no credit (at the fault of no one, and entirely self inflicted, let's be clear) and it became hard to justify spending 10 hours a week doing that. I'm highly confident this will alienate veteran/core players in communities where they play heavily.
Anyway, that's just my two cents. I hope you guys will at least consider my point.
|
|
I would like to know what qualifies as a "sanctioned event". It seems clear that a public convention or gameday that has boon and prize support from Paizo would qualify. I'm guessing that a home game, even if played for PFS credit, would not.
Unless sanctioned means any game that is played for credit.
I have replayed for no credit four times, I think. Twice was to be the fourth person at a table.
The other two cases occurred with a PBP group. It was a group that I recruited publicly on the boards, but that has effectively remained a private, closed group since then. We all live in different parts of the world, and have differing opportunities for local play. So some of us have played certain scenarios before.
Anyway, I've replayed with them twice to keep the same group together and having fun together (we take turns GMing). But this ruling makes that a little less clear to me. Any reason why zero-credit replays would be limited in PFS "home" games?
|
This is what I would do, force the players to use Warhorn, and make sure you use it to schedule the games.
If not enough players sign up cancel the games.
If a regular refuses to sign up tell them they can't play unless they do.
If you are forced to do any of the above they will get the hint.
It is the best for the gaming community to use the Warhorn so you don't have players that show that then have to go home because he did not know before hand no players were showing.
You have to force the issue on the pre game registrations.
Of course be lax on all that for new players.
And you have a community where you are not relying on mainly college students, walk-ins, and have more than, say, 8 people around?
We had 8 people at our game today. The two GMs, the young kid and his older brother, one of the college students, one of the regular local PFS players, and a commuter, who spends an hour driving to get to the game.
The two GMs, and two of the players had signed up.
So, Steve, what would you do?
Or, in short, we don't have enough of a community involved at our day and site, at this time, to do anything punative, like your post recommends. If we had kicked someone out, who hadn't signed up, we would have had to have one of the GMs replaying, or one of the signed up players replaying.
Yes, at least one of the players at the other table, who had signed up on Warhorn, had played the game I was running. And, indeed, I had already played the scenario the other GM was running a few months back.
Pardon me if I sound frustrated, but I have been GMing PFS since 2010, and this is the second or third time that I have been involved in starting a regular session in this town. Gets tiring when you restart again. And again.
Also, note, this site used to require us to use their calendar for signups. After a few upgrades to their site, I am not even sure how to configure an entry in their calendar to allow signups. And I am not the person who started organizing this specific game day at the FLGS, that person is seldom able to get there now, due to job changes.
Heck, each GM at the event is pretty much supplying their own event code for their table...
Right now, we don't have anyone actually doing much behind the scenes organization, past my having been the one entering stuff in the Warhorn, but the other GMs should now be authorized to do so on their own, and trying to send a games announcement email to the email list we have been trying to build for this event...
|
|
Warhorn is also not a foolproof method. Sometimes people who signed up wind up not being able to make it. Sometimes, not enough people sign up for a given event and people who did sign up for it have to do something else. Stuff happens.
For that latter crowd, there's now a risk of being unable to play if they've happened to play the other scenarios available that game day. At least before the clarification they could have the option to play for no credit.
|
|
Aren't there certain scenarios or modules that can be replayed multiple times and still receive credit? I believe I heard this mentioned somewhere...
All Tier 1 scenarios and Tier 1-2 sanctioned modules can be replayed by 1st level characters for credit. There's also something called evergreen scenarios, though I'm not sure what these are, but they are apparently allow unlimited replay.
|
|
Aren't there certain scenarios or modules that can be replayed multiple times and still receive credit? I believe I heard this mentioned somewhere...All Tier 1 scenarios and Tier 1-2 sanctioned modules can be replayed by 1st level characters for credit. There's also something called evergreen scenarios, though I'm not sure what these are, but they are apparently allow unlimited replay.
Evergreen is referring to some of those scenarios ands modules, as they are not tied to any specific set of factions, or season X events.
The COnfirmation, for example, is one of the evergreens. As long as a couple of NPCs in there do not get killed or removed from their positions in another scenario....
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but even with the evergreens and replayable ones, you're basically stuck in the 1-3 tier (iirc). But that's kind of aside the point from the replay for no credit issue.
I still think that PFS should not punish players who like to play a lot by telling them to go away. The frequent players are likely the players who buy Paizo products. I don't see how playing for no credit is so detrimental that we have to tell people to go home if there's nothing they can play.
|
|
Having to judge all but twice a month, or until a con, is kind of boring for many people, even those who judge heavily. It's nice to play at least once in a while. Also, judging is not for everybody, and just because somebody doesn't judge doesn't mean they're not a valuable member of the community.
Sorry, but forcing someone to Judge because they have 0 scenarios to play even though they'd like to play for no credit is not a positive response. It's still too close to saying "you played too much, go home."
EDITS: Adding stuff, sorry.
Asking them to GM often is certainly reasonable, and is really the logical thing to do if they are interested in progressing characters, but pretty much every time is kind of unreasonable. It's much more work to GM for no credit than it is to play.
I wonder if people are not realizing that some people use PFS as a good way to make new friends and hang out. If someone, well, needs to use PFS as a social outlet, and they attend aggressively, why make it harder for them to do so?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another "play play play!" scenario is when you expect 10 people, but only end up with seven (it happens) and each GM played the other scenario.
Why can't GM #2 be 'the 6th man'? I mean we're 'punishing' him for other people cancelling.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Consider:
1. GMing for no credit is a lot more effort than playing for no credit.
2. If someone is willing to sit around for 5+ hours and not get any reward out of it other than bonding with the community or getting to just play a character, this person is showing fondness for the campaign and is probably valuable to the community (unless of course they're ruining the scenario for others, in which case they should be expelled).
3. Matthew Morris's example happens frequently, even if you have warhorns established. Some people are flakly. People can't see the future. Things happen, and now people can get kicked out because of it.
4. Telling someone to go home because there's nothing for them to play after they took the effort to show up to a game day is being a jerk. It's exclusionary, and it sucks.
5. Believe it or not, there are sometimes going to be too many judges around. Do we tell someone who is willing to volunteer, who is unable to play anything, but is unneeded that day as a GM to go home?
6. The fact that you have to send someone home instead of ask them to play for no credit (in the case that you have enough GMs) is going to increase the scheduling difficulty. Now there's more pressure to find scenarios that everyone can play so nobody is excluded from the game day. Warhorns help with this, but they're not perfect. Before when you'd run into a sticky situation where there's nothing that everyone can play for credit, you'd just ask the player if they'd be willing to play for no credit and hang out. Now you kick them out?
7. There are exactly 0 businesses that have a business plan that is designed to make things more difficult for frequent customers :)
My entire problem with this is that it's highly damaging to communities that meet frequently. It alienates players who want to play but don't feel comfortable GMing. It prevents high frequency players who also GM from enjoying a casual game at their leisure. It pushes the same high frequency players into a funnel where they GM for no credit, or have to compete with other GMs to be present at game day (because there are fewer GM slots than player slots, of course).
And the crappiest part is that the people who get hurt by it the most are the people who spend the most time in the community.
And we're supposed to tell these people to go home? =\
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I be in the minority here, but I'm not sure this rule is meant to be obeyed in the absolute strictest sense.
In the case where there's a GM who would have nothing to do for 4-5 hours (6 if it's a double slot gameday with a break) and he/she carpooled out with someone else, I'd kind of expect the coordinator to bend this rule and let them play for no credit, even if they were the 5th or 6th person seated (probably not the 7th though) - especially if it's season 4 or 5.
Perhaps a simple asterisk that says something about in an extenuating circumstance, the game day coordinator can make a judgement call to allow a GM who is not needed for a slot to have something to do besides read a novel for a few hours. :)
I see a "GM fallback replay" or "GM's ride replay" as a different issue than a player who keeps replaying scenarios for no credit over and over again, potentially pushing a table to 7 players in early seasons. By having this rule, it empowers the coordinator to hopefully make a good decision.
|
|
where I game now, if this were to happen (and something like it happens alot), we'd pull out lists of scenarios played, find one everyone can play with one of the judges and run/play that one.
When this does happen it takes a lot of time. And then there are times when the scenario tetris gods are not on your side and there's no arrangement where everyone gets credit (as in two people have played a given scenario but only one can GM it). It's easier to just say someone plays for no credit if they would like.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, this is pretty similar to the model we were using, except we got to a point where there were too many people with this problem to reliably find things that everyone could play. The VOs of my region have something like 2-3 scenarios each that they can actually play for credit. And up until season 5 started I had about 4. There are about 4 other people in our group that have the same problem.
The method you describe does address the problem by not scheduling things in advance. However, as the population increases and as the number of playable scenarios become fewer, the time it takes to find working tables for everyone increases. Our group got to the point where it would take like half an hour to figure out tables, so it became unmanageable.
If someone made a tool that could calculate scenarios that a given group of players could play, this would solve that time problem and this entire issue would mostly go away (with the exception of some unfortunate extreme cases).
Does anybody software savvy know if Paizo has an API that enables programmatic access to PFS play history? If we could get this data out of the event report on paizo.com, then someone could make a web app that could crap out a list playable scenarios for a set of PFS numbers (and character numbers).
This could also be achieved if that data was recorded by the player in a machine readable format.
EDIT:
It is worth mentioning that this model will likely be problematic for groups who expect to prepare scenarios in advance. If I recall, this is kind of a pain point that comes up at conventions where people will refuse to run scenarios cold.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Consider:
1. GMing for no credit is a lot more effort than playing for no credit.
I actually disagree with this. If I am GMing for no credit, that means I've already run the scenario. I find that the more often I run a scenario, the easier it is to run, and the more fun it is.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually disagree with this. If I am GMing for no credit, that means I've already run the scenario. I find that the more often I run a scenario, the easier it is to run, and the more fun it is.Consider:
1. GMing for no credit is a lot more effort than playing for no credit.
I have to agree with that, even though I haven't re-ran very much. Lesser... Gods Msrket Gamble I have ran 3X, the last was a nosig sort of situation... Almost the only thing we had in tier that none of the players had played. Got better each time... Still gonna be one of my gotos.
I personally have issues playing after GMing, ''cause it is hard for me to forget stuff, so to speak. In a PbP of The Confirmation right now, and I am walking a tight line, but trying to not use player knowledge. Amazing how hard that can be,
|
|
Another "play play play!" scenario is when you expect 10 people, but only end up with seven (it happens) and each GM played the other scenario.
Why can't GM #2 be 'the 6th man'? I mean we're 'punishing' him for other people cancelling.
(What I am saying will not work for many groups, but it does for our location in StLouis)...
where I game now, if this were to happen (and something like it happens alot), we'd pull out lists of scenarios played, find one everyone can play with one of the judges and run/play that one. It doesn't happen often though, we normally have more than 10 players show, so we should be able to put together two (or more) tables...
And that relies on GMs who are either prep-happy, and have mostr scenarios read/preped, or GMs who are ready, willing, and able to run a good game cold.
Now, I am one of the more active local GMs in PFS, and I am so far form being able to run a scenario cold in a good fashion that it isn't even funny. Heck, a while back, I wound up running a scenario I had previously prepared, but after a hiatus between teh prep and the run, in order to get a game day table to go off. And, IMO, I did not do a very good job on the scenario.
And, in our local group, especially when I get added in as a potential player instead of GM, the list drops in size significantly.
While I have a bunch of higher tier scenarios available, I don't have much in the way of lower tier stuff that I can play for credit. And, due to local dynamics, we are mainly running the replayables and/or 1-5s/1-7s.
We are just starting discussions to see if we can support both a 1-5 and a 3-7 table. To be honest, most of my higher tier play is online, via the PFSOC.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My wife also plays PFS but rarely GM's so as long as people are allowed to play for no credit I am fine with the rules. Sometimes there are no scenarios available for her but, imagine this, we drive together to the game or convention. I would enjoy gaming with my wife, even if she does not get a chronicle.
|
|
My wife also plays PFS but rarely GM's so as long as people are allowed to play for no credit I am fine with the rules. Sometimes there are no scenarios available for her but, imagine this, we drive together to the game or convention. I would enjoy gaming with my wife, even if she does not get a chronicle.
Mark, per the clarification recently posted by Mike, she can only replay to make a legal table, so only in that 3rd or 4th seat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Consider: [...]
7. There are exactly 0 businesses that have a business plan that is designed to make things more difficult for frequent customers :)
Well, now that data point is incorrect. Paizo is bucking the trend.
I drive an hour to an hour and a half to get to my FLGS and play some Pathfinder. Not everyone in the area is 100% reliable and sometimes folks don't show up. I've only been at this for a year but my options have already been to play for no credit or go home several times now.
I guess with Mike's ruling my options are to just go home.
|
Venture-Agent, Florida–Altamonte Springs
|
This replay rule is not new.
I've checked all the way back to v1.1 of the guide (yes I saved them)
In 1.1 the rule was "You may not replay, ever"
In 2.1 they ... well here is the quote
Scenarios May Only Be Played Once
You may only play a Pathfinder Society Organized Play adventure scenario once. This means that once you have played a scenario, you may never play that scenario again with any future characters. The only exception to this rule is using a pregenerated character to replay a scenario in order to make a legal table.
It just gets more refined over the years.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is not accurate (unless kinevon can provide a link to a clear quote). That line "only exception..." is no longer there Tamec. The new "rule" is imbedded in the language describing that you may replay for essentially whatever reason you want, as long as you get the GM's acceptance, and do not spoil the scenario for the other players.
determine when replaying Pathfinder Society Scenarios
is legal, and what benefits you may gain from replay.
...
• If you have already played a scenario and wish to replay
it for any reason, you must inform the GM that you
have already played the scenario. Some GMs may not
be comfortable running an adventure for players who
have foreknowledge of what is to come. If your GM is
not comfortable with you replaying a scenario, you
must find another GM who is. GMs have the right to
deny players the opportunity to replay a scenario for
any reason, but all GMs are encouraged to be as flexible
as possible when replay is the only option that allows
them to seat the minimum legal number of players at
a game table.
• If you spoil the plot for the table, the GM has the right
to ask you to leave the table and is under no obligation
to award you a Chronicle sheet. Be very careful about
character knowledge versus player knowledge. If you’re
concerned about possibly spoiling something during
the course of play, take the GM aside and ask how she
would like it handled. Remember: the goal of replay is
to make sure fun gaming happens, not to remove the
fun from gaming.
|
|
This is not accurate (unless kinevon can provide a link to a clear quote). That line "only exception..." is no longer there Tamec. The new "rule" is imbedded in the language describing that you may replay for essentially whatever reason you want, as long as you get the GM's acceptance, and do not spoil the scenario for the other players.
** spoiler omitted **
Actually, Mike clarified earlier in this thread that the intention is that you are only supposed to be replaying for no credit to make a legal table, and that's it =/.
You can also replay using GM stars for credit. In either case, you need the GM's approval and can't spoil the scenario.
|
Venture-Agent, Florida–Altamonte Springs
|
This is not accurate (unless kinevon can provide a link to a clear quote). That line "only exception..." is no longer there Tamec. The new "rule" is imbedded in the language describing that you may replay for essentially whatever reason you want, as long as you get the GM's acceptance, and do not spoil the scenario for the other players.
** spoiler omitted **
Actually, Mike clarified earlier in this thread that the intention is that you are only supposed to be replaying for no credit to make a legal table, and that's it =/.
You can also replay using GM stars for credit. In either case, you need the GM's approval and can't spoil the scenario.
The point I was trying to make was that as per the above link where Mike clarified the rule, the phrase "in order to make the table legal" has been there from the beginning of being allowed to replay scenarios.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
The point I was trying to make was that as per the above link where Mike clarified the rule, the phrase "in order to make the table legal" has been there from the beginning of being allowed to replay scenarios.This is not accurate (unless kinevon can provide a link to a clear quote). That line "only exception..." is no longer there Tamec. The new "rule" is imbedded in the language describing that you may replay for essentially whatever reason you want, as long as you get the GM's acceptance, and do not spoil the scenario for the other players.
** spoiler omitted **
Actually, Mike clarified earlier in this thread that the intention is that you are only supposed to be replaying for no credit to make a legal table, and that's it =/.
You can also replay using GM stars for credit. In either case, you need the GM's approval and can't spoil the scenario.
Given the sheer amount of people that misread the intention of the rule (myself included) I think it's safe to say the previous wording was ambiguous.
There are lots of folks that operated under the mis-reading until this clarification. We are aware there has been a clarification now. Little is gained in conversation by reminding us that "this rule is not new." It doesn't really add any momentum to your talking points when the rule was so widely misunderstood.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
7. There are exactly 0 businesses that have a business plan that is designed to make things more difficult for frequent customers :)
My entire problem with this is that it's highly damaging to communities that meet frequently. It alienates players who want to play but don't feel comfortable GMing. It prevents high frequency players who also GM from enjoying a casual game at their leisure. It pushes the same high frequency players into a funnel where they GM for no credit, or have to compete with other GMs to be present at game day (because there are fewer GM slots than player slots, of course).
And the crappiest part is that the people who get hurt by it the most are the people who spend the most time in the community.
And we're supposed to tell these people to go home? =\
I completely agree with Acedio. We had someone sit in a game (used pre-gen) with four players two weeks ago because she had played all three of the scenarios being offered. I guess from now on we tell folks forget it, sorry you drove 40 min to get here. Go home or twiddle your thumbs and watch everyone else have fun. What is the purpose? Why does Paizo care if someone plays for no credit? It adds an unnecessary rule that will discourage your most frequent players from showing up to regular events. Senseless and not good for the gaming community we are trying to build. Please change the ruling.
|
|
I guess I'm spoiled in that I started PFS on the day the Season 5 guide came out. I'd never even considered that there might be such a clause.
Edit to add: Are we permitted to replay as the 4th player for a table or is that also not OK, as it was technically legal to play with 3 and a pregen?
With the clarification, you can replay a scenario for no credit with a legal character as long as you are needed to make the table legal size.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edit to add: Are we permitted to replay as the 4th player for a table or is that also not OK, as it was technically legal to play with 3 and a pregen?This:
if there are already 4 or more players at the table, you can not join in to be the 5th, 6th, or 7th player.
implies that you are allowed to do that.
Personally I think having players replaying for no credit should be treated like 7-player tables:
- Technically legal but undesirable
- Only used to assist in making sure people have a game to play
- Subject to GM veto
- Investigated if it is symptomatic of a particular venue or area.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I think having players replaying for no credit should be treated like 7-player tables:
- Technically legal but undesirable
- Only used to assist in making sure people have a game to play
- Subject to GM veto
- Investigated if it is symptomatic of a particular venue or area.
Wow, now that smacks of letting the GMs and VCs use their common sense...we can't have any of that, can we?
|
|
Thank you to Sniggevert for the link, not sure how I missed that in the discussion. However...
The point I was trying to make was that as per the above link where Mike clarified the rule, the phrase "in order to make the table legal" has been there from the beginning of being allowed to replay scenarios.This is not accurate (unless kinevon can provide a link to a clear quote). That line "only exception..." is no longer there Tamec. The new "rule" is imbedded in the language describing that you may replay for essentially whatever reason you want, as long as you get the GM's acceptance, and do not spoil the scenario for the other players.Actually, Mike clarified earlier in this thread that the intention is that you are only supposed to be replaying for no credit to make a legal table, and that's it =/.
You can also replay using GM stars for credit. In either case, you need the GM's approval and can't spoil the scenario.
My point in reply was that that phrase is no where to be found in the current and previous (4.3) versions of the rules. It appeared to be a deliberate removal - maybe Mike forgot about it when he posted? This is a pretty rare sort of circumstance, and what he posted most certainly was the rule previously.