|
My #1 PC was built as Qadarian in order to get the Trait "Desert Shadow". Several friends of mine also built PCs at that time, and as we were all new to PFS, and planning to play together we all picked Qadarian so that we could ensure to do our faction missions together (this was in Season 1 in the middle of the "Faction War"...).
Well, "Desert Shadow" was modified (resticted), and when I came onto the board to ask what to do...
I switched to a different trait and moved on...
Now, realize that I had selected an Archtype partly because of this trait. Three other people built PCs partly because of what my PC was, we all selected a Faction dependant (partly) on this trait...
So, are some peopls saying we all should have gotten to rebuilt PCs because a Trait was modified? Really?
|
|
I would like to jump in again since I was quoted. My quote came from the perspective of someone who has built characters to do very specific things (melee cleric, archer ranger with particular favored enemies) and do them respectably well. I feel that it is up to mature players to not overpower their character too much. That will be different for everyone.
I have been in situations where other PC's in my group either do what I do or something similar. And either due to dice or other issues, I get overshadowed. To whit: at a recent Con I played a game with my 6th level ranger. It was a special, and we had a 9th-level paladin at the table. We encountered a wraith. I have evil outsiders as a favored enemy and plenty of ghost salt blanched arrows in my bag. My chance to be the hero. NOPE! Pally wins init, does Spirited Charge with smite, confirms a crit, and one-shots the guy. I was pissed. Pally player was ECSTATIC. Grinning ear to ear, going around for high-fives - because he rolled some dice!
So I had to swallow my pride and try to feel happy for the guy. I don't care in the least whether he played that guy from level 1 up or just built him from scratch. That moment was so negative it will stick with me for a long time. I don't care that he played a paladin, or a summoner, or a monk, or whatever. That's why the rebuild thing doesn't bother me. Because really, as long as I'm playing with characters of a close enough level, I have always been able to contribute something to a game.
But really, if you want to play something different every 2-5 adventures, pick up a pregen. I have some ideas I want to break into a separate post.
|
|
Erick, your perspective is interesting, and I would like to share some opinions that run counter to yours.
1) PFS is "easy" - Yes, the rate of character death is relatively low. How high would make it "hard?" It's a game where you're the heroes. You're supposed to win. Also, you're rolling dice. That completely takes away the easy/hard discussion for me. Dying from a quarterstaff crit is not "hard" it's just bad luck - (as a GM I rolled consecutive 20's). Does increasing the threat range on that weapon make the game "harder"? Not in my opinion. It just makes the game different.
I would have no interest in building a consistent character in a game where the rate of death was high. In the high-death game I would like to play someone for 1-8 adventures, because that's all the longer they'd survive anyway.
2) PFS is episodic, not novelic - true, but not a problem IMO. It would require an INTENSE amount of work to get it to a fully novelic point. And it would un-democratize the game. That important NPC can only get married once, so if my PC weds him/her, now no one else can. Sorry, sucks to be you, losers! You got the Sword of Orc Slaying? And I got the Bow of Apple Piercing? Well, I must be a real git.
A completely novelic approach would, IMO, engender a win/lose attitude, which I think would be extremely deleterious to the campaign.
I applaud Paizo and Mike Brock for introducing metrics that will allow actions by players, on the campaign level taken as a whole, to influence the plot. But I like the episodic nature of things in PFS.
It's like TV series - many are very episodic, you can jump in at any time. Now, those characters are somewhat defined by their prior experiences, but you can learn about them quickly.
I personally like to build a character from level 1 and play them the whole way. It's how the game was deigned to be played.
It doesn't mean it HAS to be that way, and other games are different, but to expect PFS to allow free rebuilds would run counter to the game's very design, IMO.
As for partial rebuild due to errata, feel free to offer your feedback to Paizo. I'll be content to take what they give me for now.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If people really want to see a different rebuild ruleset for PFS, the best time to achieve this is the next time the Guide is reprinted. That is when big changes occur, and usually happens in the summer. A well-thought-out proposal that is complete and doesn't deal with just a specific situation could be looked at without the clock ticking, so to speak. But given that no one has jumped in and said, "you're right, we made a mistake that needs to be fixed right now!" I'm thinking this is a done deal for now. Lots of new things requiring attention of those 350 Venture-Officers and 2 staff and all the other creative folks out there.
If your PC just can't exist under the changed rules, you have my sympathy. Mechanically, it still works almost the same way just less often/effectively - when you are missed due to the +4AC you can still say you deflected the blow. Perhaps something unknown has been slowing your reflexes, and your PC tries to find out what. Perhaps a new set of skills is preoccupying you (taking a new class or feat next level?) and you find your reflexes not quite up to the task now. Maybe you find a gnawing fear from a traumatic experience resurfaces, making you unable or unwilling to continue your previous tactic of deflecting a blow. If you can see this mechanical change as a cool story element of adversity, it may make it easier to enjoy.
|
I made the kesel run in 18 parsecs...
and secondly you can't tell the difference between a measurement of distance and a measurement of time.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
** spoiler omitted **I made the kesel run in 18 parsecs...
and secondly you can't tell the difference between a measurement of distance and a measurement of time.
Obi Wan: "If it's a fast ship."
Solo: "'A fast ship'?! This is the ship that made the Kessel Run in !"
That hurts my brain more than the use of the wrong term.
|
All I can say is: I am most definitely a shameless min-maxer. Most of my characters break the game to the point that I'm convinced they could kill major deities. That being said, even I can see the potential for a lot of abuse in allowing rebuilds too easily. One might make the argument that min-maxers are a minority and thus should not be taken into consideration, but uh... that's an awfully big "minority" at this point. PFS has a massive number of game obliteratingly overpowered characters just sort of marching around Golarion like bunch of army ants; everything in their path dies.
Allowing easy access to rebuilds (though I do agree with people being allowed to also retrain the crane wing requisite feats/feats they took due to their build centering around crane wing) would just be a revolving door for any semblance of a sense of exhilaration or accomplishment at having overcome a great challenge, what precious few instances thereof remain, to just get tossed right out the window on its ear. Even Season 4 and 5 scenarios can be easily dominated if a party has even a single particularly broken character in it. Why, then, would it be a good idea to give even more ammunition? Some people will willingly rein their characters in when not playing with other, like-minded individuals; most will not grant this kindness.
... And this has been a number cruncher's view on the subject. >_> Saw a lot of people mentioning the roleplay ramifications; I just wanted to touch on the subject from another camp's point of view.
|
|
That being said, even I can see the potential for a lot of abuse in allowing rebuilds too easily.Well how is this easily? You have to have a feat get nerfed, which doesn't happen all that often.
... That was more in response to the OP's feeling that rebuilds should be cheap and readily accessible at all times.
Can someone link me to the ruling on what was actually allowed as for as free retraining?
|
|
See, this is why I wouldn't get too huffy if rebuilds were handled more liberally. There's already so much min-maxing and OP stuff that I don't see it as getting worse.
But I can see it as potentially harmful to the campaign. You want people to buy in and play a while? Get them to build their own characters and experience a variety of game challenges over a period in which they are given access to new and more powerful special abilities.
I think the model works, and I for one would not "buy in" as much if I rebuilt my characters frequently (or even for an errata).
I.e. I play an archer ranger. Let's say that tomorrow Paizo makes the following feats illegal: Improved Precise Shot, Deadly Aim, and Rapid Shot.
That would have a tremendous in-game mechanical impact on my character. But I'd still feel connected to him and continue to play him even if no retraining were allowed at all.
Others would not feel the same way. I certainly don't have the answers, but I can definitely understand both sides of this argument.
|
Wait... How has powergaming caused character deaths? It generally accomplishes the opposite in PFS. I know this is a bit off topic but I can't not ask.
I imagine the "indirect deaths" are because players powergame their characters, say the games are too easy, and then scenarios become harder to compensate - causing deaths to characters who aren't heavily optimised.
|
|
Or people minmax a lot, so Paizo creates things like Bonekeep. People take the threat seriously and decide to play pregens at the table instead of their normal character, in case it dies.
This happened to two of my friends at Gencon last year with Bonekeep 2. The other 4 players, experienced players all, decided to use pregens just in case. One of my friends character got killed (along with a pregen or two).
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait... How has powergaming caused character deaths? It generally accomplishes the opposite in PFS. I know this is a bit off topic but I can't not ask.
I would hazard to guess that the difficulty of Year 4 adventures was a direct response to power gamers complaining that adventures were too easy. My personal experience is that Year 4 adventures have the highest death rate of any particular PFS Year.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Or people minmax a lot, so Paizo creates things like Bonekeep. People take the threat seriously and decide to play pregens at the table instead of their normal character, in case it dies.
This happened to two of my friends at Gencon last year with Bonekeep 2. The other 4 players, experienced players all, decided to use pregens just in case. One of my friends character got killed (along with a pregen or two).
I've seen this too, Seth, but I don't really understand it. What's the point of a challenge if you're deliberately not playing your character and instead playing a throw-away pregen? It's like making multiple save files of an XCOM game. If you want a challenge, and want to get the most of the game, play your favorite PC and let the dice fall where they may.*
Heck, I finally got to play Bonekeep at RadCon a couple weeks ago and it turned out that nobody else there had a 3-7 character. So I played my level 7 PC and everyone else played a pregen. Regardless of the 'handicap,' we still managed to make it out with most of the loot and with no major losses.
Well, Seoni, Amiri, Sajan, and Kyra all died along the way. But Seelah and I finished strong!
|
|
Well, most those examples don't really appear to be powergaming causing deaths. Those deaths are the result of players believing everything they hear. Now, I WILL say that I do believe the one about some characters dying during Paizo's attempts at countering powergamers with more powerful opposition. Unfortunately, the powergamers were largely untouched by it; it's the casuals that paid.
I have sadly not gotten to play Bonekeep; will be waiting until a friend of mine is prepared to GM it for the group I usually play with. The things I've heard about it actually have me really wanting to play it.
|
|
I Don't think there should be any rebuilds outside when something changes but on the other hand if something changes, I do think the rebuilds should be liberal. I also believe that to be the OP's point.
I want to chime in and say that yes, this is indeed my point.
The discussion of liberal rebuilding in general was brought into the conversation accidentally. Someone responded to my original post, thinking I was suggesting constant liberal rebuilding, and their statements were directed at this. Now, because I do personally think that a pretty liberal policy of rebuilding is fine (because I think everything is fine except the game not functioning, because for f**k's sake it's a freaking game damn it, people, and let's get some perspective for the love of god), I answered his challenges, in the spirit of full disclosure.
The point I was trying to make is that rules are only important when something is on the line. And in the current format of PFS, absolutely nothing is on the line, really. When nothing is on the line, rules are, to those who recognize this fact, an indescribably frustrating and pointless bureaucratic hindrance. Doubly so when they are being applied to something that one is doing with one's leisure time.
But that really was a digression that, sadly, nearly hijacked the thread. As far as this thread goes, the only position I am really trying to advance is the one that is very well articulated in Bart's quote.
|
|
I've seen this too, Seth, but I don't really understand it. What's the point of a challenge if you're deliberately not playing your character and instead playing a throw-away pregen? It's like making multiple save files of an XCOM game. If you want a challenge, and want to get the most of the game, play your favorite PC and let the dice fall where they may...Or people minmax a lot, so Paizo creates things like Bonekeep. People take the threat seriously and decide to play pregens at the table instead of their normal character, in case it dies.
This happened to two of my friends at Gencon last year with Bonekeep 2. The other 4 players, experienced players all, decided to use pregens just in case. One of my friends character got killed (along with a pregen or two).
AMEN.
Guys. Everybody. Seriously. WHAT IS EVERYONE SO AFRAID OF? Man up, for God's sake! I just want to point out a couple of things.
1. You are playing a pretend person. If he/she dies, you are not actually going to die too.
2. If your character does die, you can just bring him back to life.
Is everyone aware that you get to just magically bring your dude back to life for a fairly low cost? You even have multiple options for doing this! You can do it with prestige OR gold. And on top of that, you get more gold playing PFS mods than the typical CWBL anyway! So just keep some of that gold aside for resurrecting, and think of it as the cost of doing business. You'll still have plenty of gold. More than in a typical game, and more than enough to make you badass enough to curbstomp the mods. So please, stop freaking out.
EDIT: Also, Bonekeep is not hard. There is one kind of stupidly hard encounter, and everything else is just a bit above average, really.
EDIT II: By the way, why would anyone want to play a game that you cannot lose? Is this just what's become of gamers in the age of Farmville?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
stuff
I agree with you on this measure as well.
But I believe people try to defend PFS descion makers, and know it is easier to defend the liberal rebuilds because less people would agree with that.
If they get you to debate a weaker point, and make you look wrong in areas. The fallacy of you are wrong therefore they must be right is applied. That is why I avoided that part of the debate.
|
|
stuffI agree with you on this measure as well.
But I believe people try to defend PFS descion makers, and know it is easier to defend the liberal rebuilds because less people would agree with that.
If they get you to debate a weaker point, and make you look wrong in areas. The fallacy of you are wrong therefore they must be right is applied. That is why I avoided that part of the debate.
Part I:
For what it's worth, I wasn't cherry picking the idea of unlimited rebuilds to try to win an argument. The reason I pressed the issue is because before you can figure out where the line should be, you need to determine whether there should be a line at all.When my fiancee and I moved in together, she didn't want a television. I did. The problem is there was really no way to compromise on the issue. I couldn't offer to get a smaller TV because that didn't matter. Any TV was too big.
Erick (and I don't mean to put words in his mouth, so I hope he will correct me if I misstate his position) doesn't think there's any reason to restrict rebuilds at all. So arguing about what is or isn't too restrictive is pointless if his position is binary. There was the same argument on the other side when limited rebuilds were introduced. Some people argued passionately to avoid letting any kind of rebuilding into the campaign. For those people, it didn't matter if it was 1st level-only or had a cost--any was too much.
That means in order for us to reach any kind of understanding, either he needs to understand why I think character continuity matters, or I need to understand why he doesn't. Otherwise I'm trying to negotiate with currency that he finds utterly valueless.
|
|
stuff
No reason to apologize. I understand I am very vocal and it was a fair use of me to make a point.
=D
I do not find the rules to follow. The character I developed is now different and what I planned for iniatially. Either way the character changes enough to me being stuck with something different.
I disagree with usign the logic "it has been that way in the past" argument. Just because the rule of rebuilding is the tradition does nto make it moral/correct/whatever.
I am sorry if you think I picked you out redward. I respect your arguments a great deal and make sure to read your points as they increase my understanding. Maybe I am bitter and reading too much into things as well.
|
|
Part II:
So here's a bunch of speculation that may prove to be worthless.
What I keep gleaning from Erick's posts is the constant message that PFS is too easy.
There's no risk of death. There's no risk of failure. There are no stakes.
And if there are no stakes, then why can't everyone just play what they want and have fun? That's a fair point.
Someone once posted here (and I wish I could remember who it was) that if you really want to challenge yourself in Pathfinder, you should build a sub-optimal character. There were even tiers for how to challenge yourself. If I recall correctly, playing a Dex-based Rogue with a dumped Con ranked somewhere near the top.
For some PFS can be very easy. For some, it can be hard. This would be an easier problem to solve if everyone were playing the same game. But we're not.
For some people, winning Pathfinder means destroying a combat encounter before the bad guys even get to act..
For some, winning means telling a rich story full of interesting, memorable characters.
For others, it means making the other players uncomfortable. I try to avoid playing with these people.
For others, a victory is if everyone laughs and leaves the table smiling.
Are any of these people wrong? Yes, the third group. But as long as your form of winning doesn't step on someone else's fun, it's all Pathfinder and it's all good.*
*Note that while they're not inherently wrong, that first group might still run into some issues with other players. Not everyone who enjoys combat enjoys a rout. These players all need to find some way to compromise.
My point? If you find there are no stakes in the game, you need to create them. Find a new way to challenge yourself. Find a hook that makes you invested in not just what you're playing, but who you're playing, and who you're playing with.
|
|
Caderyn, I can't get anything out of your statement that thats how the rules work because thats how the rules work. Its kind of a meaningless statement.
In summary, yes strictness is important because without it we would not be playing PFS, we would be playing semi interconnected homegames
Unless of course... pfs allowed rebuilds when something got nerfed, in which case we would still be playing pfs....
|
|
Erick (and I don't mean to put words in his mouth, so I hope he will correct me if I misstate his position) doesn't think there's any reason to restrict rebuilds at all. So arguing about what is or isn't too restrictive is pointless if his position is binary. There was the same argument on the other side when limited rebuilds were introduced. Some people argued passionately to avoid letting any kind of rebuilding into the campaign. For those people, it didn't matter if it was 1st level-only or had a cost--any was too much.
That means in order for us to reach any kind of understanding, either he needs to understand why I think character continuity matters, or I need to understand why he doesn't. Otherwise I'm trying to negotiate with currency that he finds utterly valueless.
So, you are kind of sort of putting words in my mouth. My position on this is tough to articulate well, but it is definitely more nuanced than simply being binary.
I DO see some problems (especially after people here have raised some I hadn't thought of) with allowing unlimited rebuilding all the time (or something similar). That said...
1. I do not see any particular problem with allowing extremely liberal rebuilding in response to errata that has affected your character. Someone mentioned that this allows min-maxers to "sail too close to danger" without concern for repercussions. That is pretty much the only theoretically valid opposition to this practice that I have heard. But, here's why I don't buy it: Wizards exist. If people want nothing more than to be completely min-maxed and completely free of the fear of errata, all they have to do is play a Wizard (or other tier 1 spellcasting class), since Paizo has proven a determined reluctance to gimp any of the casting classes' stuff. If the player in question is not doing that, I say give them the benefit of the doubt.
2. Even if there weren't Wizards, and even if the affected player is a min-maxer, I would still support allowing rebuilds in response to errata. To do otherwise feels needlessly punitive. You have already essentially punished the min-maxer by pulling the head off his doll. That is ok, because you did not mean to punish him; it's just that the doll was dangerous. The head was flammable, or whatever. But to then insist he keep playing with the now headless doll is just...weird. Especially considering you gave him the flammable-headed doll in the first place. It really is your responsibility to get him a new one, not to stand over him while he cries about his broken toy and go "See, Timmy? This is what happens when you play with the dangerous things that I give you. Why would you play with something so dangerous? Do you think I gave that to you so that you could use it? Obviously, I gave that to you as a test of your morals and responsibility, so you could avoid it. You're a bad boy..."
3. An errata means there was a screw up. Paizo cannot keep blaming its customers for using options that Paizo created for them. It's like making a puzzle and then getting angry at anyone who solves it. They really seem to have the perspective of "those jackass power-gamers got what they deserved" when something like this happens and someone's character suffers for it. Such a perspective is hypocritical, condescending and irresponsible. Paizo must stop passing the buck onto the players for problems that their system causes. And again, I OPPOSE OVERZEALOUS MIN-MAXING. But I also support logic, and the logic of the situation is, unfortunately, on the min-maxers' side in these kinds of situations. Also, there is no guarantee that a character negatively impacted by the errata was even min-maxed in the first place. I'm willing to bet there are sub-par characters out there who were being kept alive strictly by Crane Wing, who will drown now that you have let them get well away from shore before deflating their life-vest.
Now, that's where I stand regarding rebuilding specifically in response to errata and similar issues. The fact that an errata was made trumps any of the other considerations that have been brought up here, whether in terms of balance or in terms of aesthetics/background/continuity etc.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That means in order for us to reach any kind of understanding, either he needs to understand why I think character continuity matters, or I need to understand why he doesn't. Otherwise I'm trying to negotiate with currency that he finds utterly valueless.
As for rebuilding as a general concept, you are correct that "either he needs to understand why I think character continuity matters, or I need to understand why he doesn't. Otherwise I'm trying to negotiate with currency that he finds utterly valueless." This, too, is a complicated discussion. First, it's not really accurate to say that I think continuity doesn't matter. I would suggest that you are actually the one creating the binary here. In your mind, continuity matters or it does not. My opinion is that continuity can, but does not necessarily matter. Also, we have to deal with the issue of whether continuity for my character necessarily impacts the continuity of your character. I say it does not. Finally, you may mean continuity of story/personality or you may mean continuity of system, and we need to distinguish between those as well.
Rebuilding could mean a lot of things. Among them...
1. I change relatively minor details about my character. Like, he's a Barbarian who fought with a greatsword last game, but this game he's fighting with two axes.
2. I make major system changes but no changes to the aesthetic/skin/fluff/story. Like, my character was a Paladin but I decided it was too powerful and Inquisitor was more interesting anyway, so I switched all his class levels and altered all his ability scores to fit the new build. The new character serves the same god, uses the same weapon, has roughly similar powers (he now banes rather than smiting, for instance), and has the same personality and code of conduct. No "in game" explanation for the switch is given, or necessary, since from the PCs' perspective nothing has changed.
3. I make major changes to the build accompanied by aesthetic changes that I explain/justify in-game. Like, my character is a monk that serves a dragon cult. Several levels into the build, I find out about the Dragon Disciple class and decide it's what I've been trying to do the whole time, but my build doesn't support it. I rebuild as a Sorcerer/Monk/DD, and explain in-game that between the last mission and this one, my character went to the mountains of Tian Xia, ate the marrow of a ki-rin, and trained with a shapechanging river dragon monk who taught him to breach the Gateless Barrier, thereby learning that form and formlessness are one, the discovery of which allowed him to (yada yada etc, you get the idea).
4. I make major system and aesthetic changes, and the explanation is that this is simply an entirely new character. Like, it's just a different person altogether. New character introduced in this episode.
5. I make major system changes that fundamentally alter the way the character operates such that some aesthetic/storyline justification is required, but I give none. Like, I'm a power gamer and it was advantageous to be a Barbarian for levels 1-4, but now that I'm level 5 I switch to Wizard.
Here's how I see it. Anyone who is going to do option 5 is just a problem player anyway for anyone who wants to focus on story, character or aesthetics. Continuity for such a player's character is irrelevant, because there really is no character there in the first place. The player is probably either contributing nothing to RP situations, or actively saying things that destroy the illusion of the game for others. How we, as a community, want to deal with such people is, I think, a major question. But that's a way bigger issue than this rebuilding thing. I basically consider it a separate topic altogether.
Option 1-4, on the other hand, are fine in my eyes. In every case the player in question has done the work necessary to plausibly explain the changes to his character, as far as the in-game perspective of the other PCs is concerned (or the changes were small enough that no explanation is really necessary or called for). Therefore, no one else's character continuity is altered by those players' decision to change what they are doing.
There are only three reasons I could see to oppose this kind of play.
1. "The point of the game is making system choices for your character and you're stuck with those choices if you make bad ones."
I'm going to come out and say it. This is just stupid, especially in a system like d20 that demands you plan your build several levels in advance. Many systematic effects can work out differently in play than you possibly could have imagined when designing the character. Sometimes you misinterpret a rule, or there are changes to it. Sometimes you interpret a rule correctly, but a lot of GMs don't understand the RAW and won't let you play it. Sometimes you just make a stupid mistake because you were rushing to update the character before game and you didn't want to make people wait. Sometimes new material comes out, or you just become aware of existing material that does what you wanted far better than what you have. In all of these cases, you will have a much better experience if you just change the thing that's bothering you. This is not about min-maxing and power gaming. It's about not turning us all into neurotic OCD jerks, hands shaking over the keyboard as we enter our stats with dread, wondering if we're making a mistake that's going to render the character boring 6 levels from now. In no way is it interesting, in-game or out of game, to simply be stuck with the consequences of mistakes like this. Such a hard nosed approach to the game benefits no one, and needlessly punishes the inexperienced, as well as anyone that tries to make interesting character builds that might be a little off the beaten path. In my mind, those are the two groups of players we should be giving the most support to.
2. "I had to work for my guy's stuff, damn it, and I'm not going to just stand quietly while your guy gets all this stuff he didn't earn in play."
I've already covered it in a lot of my other posts here, but this kind of stance only makes sense when "earning" the stuff your character has is meaningful. That means that stuff has to be rare or restricted in some way, and/or difficult to get. In that case, absolutely. But none of that is true in PFS, hence this attitude is rendered meaningless. The players who rebuild their guys have "earned" what they have as much as you did: they've had their asses in the seats long enough to get the XP. And as far as expendables are concerned there are plenty of ways to deal with them. They are barely a speed bump to rebuild-friendly play, so nobody start in on those again.
3. "Experience has shown that when players are allowed to rebuild, overall enthusiasm and participation diminishes."
Well, first of all it just isn't true that there's some kind of empirical evidence for this. Even if you can prove correlation you can't prove causation in these cases I've heard cited, and I'm pretty certain no one has actually funded anything like a scientific study of this. So I really don't know what to say about this.
|
|
3. "Experience has shown that when players are allowed to rebuild, overall enthusiasm and participation diminishes."
Well, first of all it just isn't true that there's some kind of empirical evidence for this. Even if you can prove correlation you can't prove causation in these cases I've heard cited, and I'm pretty certain no one has actually funded anything like a scientific study of this. So I really don't know what to say about this.
There is no reason to fund such a study. As you say, it could never prove causation. No statistical analysis can, and any so-called "professional" study that claimed to would be useless.
There is, however, a great deal of anecdotal evidence, for whatever it's worth, to support this position. Pathfinder Society is arguably the most popular organized play campaign of all time. 60,000 people worldwide play the game. I don't know how we could ever really understand what gets them to play, even with a very carefully worded and administered survey or study.
Again, I don't think errata-based rebuilds should be a problem. I stated before that I would even be ok with every-level rebuilds.
It wouldn't hurt my own characters' continuity. I still get excited to "unlock" new feats and abilities as I gain in-game experience.
But at some point we need to say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". I would be interested to know what percentage of PFS players are more casual rules-wise. Mike Brock had posted that the average player attends two games per month. This SUGGESTS that most players are not too wrapped up in this sort of debate at all.
PFS is getting long in the tooth. We're now in the sixth year. D&D Next is on the way. If the campaign is to continue to thrive, there are myriad issues that likely need to be addressed, and this just isn't one of them.
I don't know what the right answer is for the campaign, but I also don't think anyone at Paizo has the time or resources to figure it out.
I enjoyed the doll analysis that Erick gave. Good stuff. But you know what I'd do, speaking as a parent of two young children? I'd tell my kids to go pick one of the other toys I'd bought for them. Sorry I had to take apart that old toy, it wasn't safe. But your mom and I have bought you hundreds of other toys. You seemed to like them all when you got them. Why not play with one of them? I am under NO obligation to provide a new toy. And neither is Paizo.
|
Mike Brock had posted that the average player attends two games per month.
Can you link to this? The most recent data posted by Vic Wertz showed the average player's participation was much lower.
I keep an eye on a number of places online where PFS is discussed (some specific to the UK), am friends on Facebook with many UK players, and chat with the PFS players in my local area. This errata/limited rebuild issue hasn't even merited the slightest murmur of discontent.
|
|
I would suggest that you are actually the one creating the binary here. In your mind, continuity matters or it does not. My opinion is that continuity can, but does not necessarily matter.
As it turns out, I was one of the pro-rebuild voices when Ultimate Campaign came out. We're probably closer ideologically on this issue than either of us realizes. If Player A shows up at his next game with red hair instead of black, or two daggers instead of an axe, what business is it of Player B?
Despite that, if unlimited rebuilds were an option, I don't think I'd continue with PFS. Each session would become a standalone encounter rather than a progression in an ongoing story, and for that, I'd rather just play a really good board game for those four hours.
Regardless, the campaign maintains a certain level of continuity. It's flawed, necessarily--sometimes a character must experience Part IV before Part II and misses Part III because his player's car broke down. But a player and her character must live with their choices. Increasingly, this is borne out in how the scenarios are written. Many of the Season 4 and 5 scenarios have in-story choices the characters must make, whose outcomes are recorded and eventually become canon (in aggregate--again, a necessary crack in the fourth wall).
If you find those choices to be inconsequential, then you're probably not very engaged in the story. And maybe you don't care about the story, which is fine. But if you're not particularly interested in the ongoing story and not particularly interested in ongoing character development, what's left? A series of combat encounters that you insist are trivial?
Again, I'd urge you to find a way to challenge yourself, as a 4-hour session of rolling dice without consequence or emotional investment sounds very unfulfilling.
Option 1-4, on the other hand, are fine in my eyes. In every case the player in question has done the work necessary to plausibly explain the changes to his character, as far as the in-game perspective of the other PCs is concerned (or the changes were small enough that no explanation is really necessary or called for). Therefore, no one else's character continuity is altered by those players' decision to change what they are doing.
I mostly agree here. The problem is that you can't really legislate something as subjective as plausible in-game explanations. So instead they're using the Ultimate Campaign rules, which, for the most part*, stick to the plausible in-game explanation of a training montage.
*Racial traits?
Anyway, I promise that's the last I'll say on unlimited rebuilds and will instead focus on those driven by errata.
Personally, I'd be okay if errata rebuilds extended to pre-requisites. I don't see that as particularly damaging one way or the other. Now, even then, there'd have to be restrictions. Does 'pre-requisites' include ability scores? Race? Class features? Can I dump Int if I no longer want a nerfed Maneuver Feat and its pre-requisite Combat Expertise? I'd say no. I imagine you'd say yes. And that's where we'd continue arguing about where to draw the line.
|
|
I'd tell my kids to go pick one of the other toys I'd bought for them. Sorry I had to take apart that old toy, it wasn't safe. But your mom and I have bought you hundreds of other toys. You seemed to like them all when you got them. Why not play with one of them? I am under NO obligation to provide a new toy. And neither is Paizo.
Sure. But making a rebuild is actually the closest analogy to the kid just playing with one of the other toys you already bought him. Not giving the rebuild is like locking the other toys up for 9 months (assuming a 7th level character and the proposed average 2 games a month) before he gets to choose one.
Also bear in mind that it really costs Paizo nothing, even in terms of staff time, to allow the rebuild.
|
|
This errata/limited rebuild issue hasn't even merited the slightest murmur of discontent.
Obviously I can't say for sure, but I suspect this is true because people just ignore the rules and rebuild when they have a good reason to. I've seen it happen many, many times, and I never felt the player doing it was being abusive. I always fully supported their reasoning. And you know, I suppose as long as Paizo never enforces any of their rules, then it's cool. But then, again, I have to ask why they're there in the first place. It's like Colonel Graff says in Ender's Game, if you want to make absolutely sure someone will do something, make a firm rule against it which you then barely enforce.
|
|
Despite that, if unlimited rebuilds were an option, I don't think I'd continue with PFS. Each session would become a standalone encounter rather than a progression in an ongoing story...
I guess my experience of the game is that this is already true. I understand that some groups get into more of a home game vibe though, especially when it's pretty much the same people playing every week. And that's cool.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I guess my experience of the game is that this is already true. I understand that some groups get into more of a home game vibe though, especially when it's pretty much the same people playing every week. And that's cool.
Despite that, if unlimited rebuilds were an option, I don't think I'd continue with PFS. Each session would become a standalone encounter rather than a progression in an ongoing story...
I "venue-hop" in my local area based on which place is running a scenario I can play on a given weekend. Even so, I feel like there's an ongoing story with my PCs (especially with my cleric, who was a geared toward fighting demons even before Season 5's theme was announced). Heck, the PC I'm probably playing this weekend is sort of a follow-up to my first PC to hit 12th, with a backstory relating to actions taken by that 12th-level PC.
|
|
Fair enough. Honestly I'm just trying to think of an argument against it right now. It's true that Paizo doesn't have to spend a minute of time for you to rebuild your character. And yes, asking someone to start over from scratch is a big pain, especially when it's a higher-level character.
PFS already allows a form of scenario-by-scenario rebuilds. They're called pregens. Want to play a wizard one week and a barbarian the next? Grab one from the free download!
Sure, you don't get the satisfaction of actually choosing gear, or ability scores, feats, etc. But it is something.
I think, though, that familiarity leads to comfort and growth. I imagine that most people are familiar and comfortable with the idea that a character starts at level one and advances, gaining abilities and powers. You can start over at the beginning, but not partway through. It's a model that's time-tested and works. Is it the best approach for everyone? Certainly not.
But it IS the method behind the most popular roleplaying ruleset of all time (and yes, in terms of sales, that's Pathfinder folks).
In short, I too would support a liberal approach to errata-based rebuilds. It doesn't cost Paizo anything, and it could go a long way to retaining some very valuable customers. But anything beyond that would blow the paradigm the game works under, and we're just no there, IMO.
@Paz - thanks for your amazing search-fu! I was actually thinking of that post by Vic, so my apologies for quoting the wrong man, and the wrong figures!
|
|
Personally, I'd be okay if errata rebuilds extended to pre-requisites. I don't see that as particularly damaging one way or the other. Now, even then, there'd have to be restrictions. Does 'pre-requisites' include ability scores? Race? Class features? Can I dump Int if I no longer want a nerfed Maneuver Feat and its pre-requisite Combat Expertise? I'd say no. I imagine you'd say yes. And that's where we'd continue arguing about where to draw the line.
I think I'd actually be satisfied with this. You can change the affected feats and any feats that were prerequisites of those feats. Sure, it's not ideal, but I for one would be satisfied.
In my ideal world, there would be only two rules for players at a PFS table:
1. You will attempt to maintain suspension of disbelief (insofar as a fantastical magical world is concerned), and the illusion of a continuous storyline.
2. You will not play characters that regularly trivialize encounters at your appropriate CR.
As far as the rest of it, anything goes.
|
If rebuilds included prerequisite feats, then this would be reasonable in my mind. Asking for a full character rebuild or some other nebulous restriction like "until player is content" is unnecessary.
In the case of Crane Wing, the likely cause for a lot of the moaning is that if the player dipped 2 levels into MoMS to get Crane Wing early, those levels are now useless. I think allowing the class levels to be retrained is too much.
EDIT: I recently applied a gencon rebuild GM boon to this 10th level barbarian I had. I played it the other day, and I didn't have as much fun with him as I had hoped. I think it was because there was this nagging uncertainty on whether his build would be effective because of the lack of testing I've had with it. There were a lot of things that could have been cool, but didn't quite behave in the way I had expected. With a normal character, you have lots of opportunities to test out their effectiveness, and it allows for better planning for what to take in subsequent levels. There was no opportunity to test here and it was pure theorycraft. I think he'll be more fun later, but its difficult to figure out what fat I need to trim.
|
|
2. You will not play characters that regularly trivialize encounters at your appropriate CR.
Oh, that would be such a wonderful rule. Especially if you had the opportunity to retrain away the options which end up trivializing encounters. It would give PFS one of the main strengths of a homegame, the ability to fix what's not working.
-Matt
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
2. You will not play characters that regularly trivialize encounters at your appropriate CR.Oh, that would be such a wonderful rule.
Only if we institute mandatory training for GMs to learn the difference between "trivializing" and "successfully overcoming". :/