Worried that PFS Core will split the community


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
4/5

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm glad that Core addresses some of the issues that some people have with PFS Organized Play, but I am very concerned what this will do to the community. I fear that at locations without a large player-base, it will become more difficult to find tables now. I don't want our lodge's weekly two scenarios to become one core, one non-core (giving me only one choice if I want more content than one book). I really, really worry that this will make it even harder to find high-level tables (already difficult). I worry that this will draw some of the players I enjoy playing with away from normal PFS. The blend of optimized veterans, casual roleplayers, and beginner players was something I enjoyed, not something I felt needed "fixing."

This could be helpful, but I am terrified that it is going to cause harm to the community that I love so much.

1/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

There are literally dozens of pages expressing the same view. You're not alone. Up until this I'd say PFS is the best RPG organized play I've ever been a part of now I'm not sure it's going to stay this way.

4/5

I'll admit, I have high hopes that this will, somehow, improve the community. It could work... but it's a gigantic risk. This is dangerous for PFS. It's not a risk I'm comfortable with the community taking.

Sovereign Court 5/5 Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a very valid concern, I think.

I know that, in an area like my own, it will simply help grow the game. But I have scores of players, many of whom have been playing since the beginning, and I have been managing my player base carefully for all that time. So, it is easy for someone like me to implement an idea like this, and not at all impact the existing number of games offered or the player mix that people are so fond of.

I think the same concern is valid for conventions; especially the smaller regional conventions.

I hope that the people in charge (Mike, specifically) have proven that they are pretty good at reacting to problems and correcting them. I hope that these concerns are watched carefully by leadership, and that if they prove to bear fruit, fixes are put in place. I know I trust him to do that.

I have a new concern (unfortunately a concern with no real foundation for being addressed). The Classic (or Legacy, or Normal) campaign is in desperate need of new content. It has grown to the point that the paltry two scenarios coming out each month are just not enough to support the player base that exists. I, and others, have been saying that Paizo needs 3 (or more) scenarios published per month for years.

My concern is that this will be seen by Paizo as a doubling of available content. It's a stop-gap, if you will, on the need to add content to the Classic Campaign, solving all the problems of how often the "old guard" is able to play in one fell swoop. Thus, the idea of publishing more than two scenarios per month will forever be tabled as unnecessary. Which is a bad move.

My two cents, of course. Take them how you will.

Grand Lodge 3/5

I think it will come down to people voting with their feet (or butts in chairs is perhaps more correct in this case). If a small local scene ends up going from two tables to one core and one standard table per week it will be because people want to play core. If they don't the core tables will get cancelled and turn back to regular tables.

It is understandable that people are worried about this if they don't want to play core, but at the same time it is a little selfish of them to complain that this will ruin their chance to have fun because others want to play something different than them. Perhaps we all need to be ready to compromise a bit on what sort of game we want to play.

4/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One way for smaller groups to handle this is to schedule twice as many tables as they usually do, and see if people sign up for Core or Standard. If you get a split, then you can take steps to deal with it, but likely most players in your group will prefer one or the other.

(I know not every group does advance sign-ups, so let this be your excuse to do it! It is an essential step in growing your lodge, it results in better games since GMs can prep more effectively, it allows more players to know before they get there what PC they're playing so they can be prepared, and on the off chance someone can't play any of the scenarios that week, they know before hey get to the venue. I can't stress enough how important this is. It basically moves you from an open private game to a public lodge, and that helps attract more players and GMs.)

As for convention play: it will be interesting to see how this gets handled at PaizoCon this year. Mustering tables will be much more difficult, I expect, since now it's not just level, class, and friends, but also Core or Standard, that needs to be done. Although, from a GM point of view there is no difference who sits down at the table.

I have my concerns as well, and I expect our Lodge council will wind up doing a bit of adjustment in the way they do things. I also know that we already have a huge number of folks making their Core characters and being excited to be able to play low-level scenarios again.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Lamplighter has the right of it. We've started adding a Core table of the 1-5 being offered that day to our Warhorn, and seeing which table garners the most signups. If the Core table has enough and the other doesn't, we'll run a Core game, and vice versa. If both earn enough signups to be a legal table, we run both. This is of course dependent on table space, but we are lucky enough to have gaming stores that are accommodating of our needs.

You can see an example of our first game day with Core offerings here.

Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis

I intend to introduce CORE slowly, a little at a time. 1 table the first time and see how that goes.

It may be a case where 1 week we run 2 Regular PFS tables and 1 CORE, then the next week run 2 CORE and 1 Regular. I'm going to clearly let my player base drive the decision based on what they want to play (or not want to, as the case may be.)

There is interest for CORE in my area, but from discussions online and off, it seems the preference is for regular PFS, with some CORE.

If that's how it shakes out, that completely works for me. We'll find the right balance after some trial and error.

1/5

Personally I plan to play Core online and regular IRL.

Grand Lodge 2/5

Mark Stratton wrote:

I intend to introduce CORE slowly, a little at a time. 1 table the first time and see how that goes.

It may be a case where 1 week we run 2 Regular PFS tables and 1 CORE, then the next week run 2 CORE and 1 Regular. I'm going to clearly let my player base drive the decision based on what they want to play (or not want to, as the case may be.)

There is interest for CORE in my area, but from discussions online and off, it seems the preference is for regular PFS, with some CORE.

If that's how it shakes out, that completely works for me. We'll find the right balance after some trial and error.

As a player in your area, I know my and my wife's votes are both for non-core games. PFS is where we go to play non-limited games.

4/5 *

That's interesting, since PFS has so many limitations compared to a home game! I assume the home game GMs in your area just choose to limit their campaigns?

1/5 Contributor

We've been having trouble mustering even one table for Tuesday night games lately. It's my hope that Core will pique the interest of some folks who've drifted away, but we'll see. The store owner/organizer himself isn't interested in Core play, and I'm sure there are others (regulars and, er, drifters) who won't be either, but maybe this will bring some folks back and/or seem welcoming to newcomers who might have been worried about barrier-for-entry issues.

Grand Lodge 2/5

GM Lamplighter wrote:
That's interesting, since PFS has so many limitations compared to a home game! I assume the home game GMs in your area just choose to limit their campaigns?

Yup

Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis

claudekennilol wrote:
As a player in your area, I know my and my wife's votes are both for non-core games. PFS is where we go to play non-limited games.

There will still be plenty of regular PFS games to choose from. :-D I still don't know how the schedule will play out just yet, so there's still some time to figure it all out.

Thanks!

Silver Crusade 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
That's interesting, since PFS has so many limitations compared to a home game! I assume the home game GMs in your area just choose to limit their campaigns?

Every home game I've played in or run has been WAY more limited than PFS. It is a big attraction for me that PFS has so few limits on character creation.

Silver Crusade 3/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Lamplighter has the right of it. We've started adding a Core table of the 1-5 being offered that day to our Warhorn, and seeing which table garners the most signups. If the Core table has enough and the other doesn't, we'll run a Core game, and vice versa. If both earn enough signups to be a legal table, we run both. This is of course dependent on table space, but we are lucky enough to have gaming stores that are accommodating of our needs.

You can see an example of our first game day with Core offerings here.

Your event perfectly illustrates the fears that some people are experiencing.

Currently, your event has the following games scheduled (with the number of people signed up).

CORE Wounded Wisp (Tier 1-2)
GM: 1
Players: 3

Wounded Wisp (Tier 1-2)
GM: 0
Players: 0

Of Kirin and Kraken (Tier 7-11)
GM: 1
Players: 3

The second table on the schedule (normal mode Wounded Wisp) is less likely to fire.

If I am a player in your area who is uninterested in CORE, then your added table has actually taken an option away from me.

I think that is a legitimate concern.

I understand that this schedule is 3 weeks out, and a lot can change. There are groups that ARE exactly 8 players. Every week they run two tables of 3 players each. CORE will potentially be disruptive to these groups.

Sovereign Court 5/5

The Fox wrote:

....

The second table on the schedule (normal mode Wounded Wisp) is less likely to fire.

If I am a player in your area who is uninterested in CORE, then your added table has actually taken an option away from me.

I think that is a legitimate concern.

I understand that this schedule is 3 weeks out, and a lot can change. There are groups that ARE exactly 8 players. Every week they run two tables of 3 players each. CORE will potentially be disruptive to these groups.

If the Core Wounded Wisp table doesn't go off, it doesn't necessarily mean it didn't go off because it was Core.

So, it's not sound valid logic to say Vanilla PFS players suffered the loss of an opportunity by including the Core table in that example.

*edit= it is sometimes hard to keep the difference between sound logic and valid logic straight...

1/5

deusvult wrote:
The Fox wrote:

....

The second table on the schedule (normal mode Wounded Wisp) is less likely to fire.

If I am a player in your area who is uninterested in CORE, then your added table has actually taken an option away from me.

I think that is a legitimate concern.

I understand that this schedule is 3 weeks out, and a lot can change. There are groups that ARE exactly 8 players. Every week they run two tables of 3 players each. CORE will potentially be disruptive to these groups.

If the Core Wounded Wisp table doesn't go off, it doesn't necessarily mean it didn't go off because it was Core.

So, it's not sound valid logic to say Vanilla PFS players suffered the loss of an opportunity by including the Core table in that example.

*edit= it is sometimes hard to keep the difference between sound logic and valid logic straight...

So if one or two people sign up for that or if one GM and 2 players sign up then yes Core took as many as 3 players away from the game at least for the night possibly for longer.

Grand Lodge 3/5

Undone wrote:


So if one or two people sign up for that or if one GM and 2 players sign up then yes Core took as many as 3 players away from the game at least for the night possibly for longer.

But you are assuming that those people would have played the standard format, and that might not be the case.

5/5

Undone wrote:
deusvult wrote:
The Fox wrote:

....

The second table on the schedule (normal mode Wounded Wisp) is less likely to fire.

If I am a player in your area who is uninterested in CORE, then your added table has actually taken an option away from me.

I think that is a legitimate concern.

I understand that this schedule is 3 weeks out, and a lot can change. There are groups that ARE exactly 8 players. Every week they run two tables of 3 players each. CORE will potentially be disruptive to these groups.

If the Core Wounded Wisp table doesn't go off, it doesn't necessarily mean it didn't go off because it was Core.

So, it's not sound valid logic to say Vanilla PFS players suffered the loss of an opportunity by including the Core table in that example.

*edit= it is sometimes hard to keep the difference between sound logic and valid logic straight...

So if one or two people sign up for that or if one GM and 2 players sign up then yes Core took as many as 3 players away from the game at least for the night possibly for longer.

And possibly, if they get to the store and find out they have a split sign-up they talk to each other and work something out about what second game to offer that night? Or, in the current signup, it's still 2 tables going off, and that's what he's had at the location before this...but now with options.

Silver Crusade 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Suppose there are 9 of us in this local group (this is actually realistic, I am prepping to run a table for 3 tonight parallel to the table of 4 that my friend is running).

Absent of the CORE campaign, there are two options:
Wounded Wisp (Tier 1-2);
Of Kirin and Kraken (Tier 7-11).

The nine of us will need to work out who sits where. But at least we have two choices of tables for shuffling butts in chairs.

With the CORE table added, we still have only nine players. So only two tables are going to fire. If one of those is the CORE table, then we have removed an option for those uninterested in playing in that campaign. If someone has already played the scenario in the normal campaign, they will be walking home without a game.

5/5

The Fox wrote:

Suppose there are 9 of us in this local group (this is actually realistic, I am prepping to run a table for 3 tonight parallel to the table of 4 that my friend is running).

Absent of the CORE campaign, there are two options:
Wounded Wisp (Tier 1-2);
Of Kirin and Kraken (Tier 7-11).

The nine of us will need to work out who sits where. But at least we have two choices of tables for shuffling butts in chairs.

With the CORE table added, we still have only nine players. So only two tables are going to fire. If one of those is the CORE table, then we have removed an option for those uninterested in playing in that campaign. If someone has already played the scenario in the normal campaign, they will be walking home without a game.

BUT- you have added an option for those who want it.

If you have 9 players and less than 4 want CORE...don't offer it. Do what you have been doing and offer 2 tables of games, and shuffle butts in chairs.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Fox wrote:

Suppose there are 9 of us in this local group (this is actually realistic, I am prepping to run a table for 3 tonight parallel to the table of 4 that my friend is running).

Absent of the CORE campaign, there are two options:
Wounded Wisp (Tier 1-2);
Of Kirin and Kraken (Tier 7-11).

The nine of us will need to work out who sits where. But at least we have two choices of tables for shuffling butts in chairs.

With the CORE table added, we still have only nine players. So only two tables are going to fire. If one of those is the CORE table, then we have removed an option for those uninterested in playing in that campaign. If someone has already played the scenario in the normal campaign, they will be walking home without a game.

That's why I encourage most groups to work out an advanced signup policy, and most individuals to live up to any commitment they sign up for, whether it's for Judging or Playing. That way you pretty much know who's going to be seated and for what. Worse case scenario: No one makes a trip for nothing.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Game Master wrote:
I'll admit, I have high hopes that this will, somehow, improve the community. It could work... but it's a gigantic risk. This is dangerous for PFS. It's not a risk I'm comfortable with the community taking.

I see Core as addressing a need that many have expressed a desire for. I also don't see the need to think of this as splitting the community. It's still the same game, just a more restricted set of house rules.

Silver Crusade 3/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kevin Ingle wrote:
The Fox wrote:

Suppose there are 9 of us in this local group (this is actually realistic, I am prepping to run a table for 3 tonight parallel to the table of 4 that my friend is running).

Absent of the CORE campaign, there are two options:
Wounded Wisp (Tier 1-2);
Of Kirin and Kraken (Tier 7-11).

The nine of us will need to work out who sits where. But at least we have two choices of tables for shuffling butts in chairs.

With the CORE table added, we still have only nine players. So only two tables are going to fire. If one of those is the CORE table, then we have removed an option for those uninterested in playing in that campaign. If someone has already played the scenario in the normal campaign, they will be walking home without a game.

BUT- you have added an option for those who want it.

If you have 9 players and less than 4 want CORE...don't offer it. Do what you have been doing and offer 2 tables of games, and shuffle butts in chairs.

I understand that we have added options for those that want CORE. That is not in dispute.

I am trying to explain the concern shared by those that do not want CORE.

Some people, myself included, view CORE as a completely different game than PF. Suppose that the warhorn schedule looked like:

Go Fish (The card game)
Players: 4

Wounded Wisp (Tier 1-2)
GM: 0
Players: 0

Of Kirin and Kraken (Tier 7-11)
GM: 1
Players: 3

Those 4 players playing Go Fish used to play PF. This situation is awesome for those 4 players who found each other and now get to play Go Fish with each other. There's no denying that. They are getting to play their favorite game and they are very happy. And since they like to play PF also, they still have two options.

But the other four players have lost an option. They don't want to play Go Fish. They want to keep playing their favorite game, PF. To them it feels like they have lost an option. Yeah, sure they still have two options, but if one of them is Go Fish, it doesn't feel like it to them.

And that is the important point. It is how people FEEL about their options, not their actual options.

If people FEEL their options are diminishing, and if those FEELINGS are not addressed, then they leave.*

* There is actually considerable scientific research supporting this reality.

5/5

The Fox wrote:
Kevin Ingle wrote:
The Fox wrote:

Suppose there are 9 of us in this local group (this is actually realistic, I am prepping to run a table for 3 tonight parallel to the table of 4 that my friend is running).

Absent of the CORE campaign, there are two options:
Wounded Wisp (Tier 1-2);
Of Kirin and Kraken (Tier 7-11).

The nine of us will need to work out who sits where. But at least we have two choices of tables for shuffling butts in chairs.

With the CORE table added, we still have only nine players. So only two tables are going to fire. If one of those is the CORE table, then we have removed an option for those uninterested in playing in that campaign. If someone has already played the scenario in the normal campaign, they will be walking home without a game.

BUT- you have added an option for those who want it.

If you have 9 players and less than 4 want CORE...don't offer it. Do what you have been doing and offer 2 tables of games, and shuffle butts in chairs.

I understand that we have added options for those that want CORE. That is not in dispute.

I am trying to explain the concern shared by those that do not want CORE.

Some people, myself included, view CORE as a completely different game than PF. Suppose that the warhorn schedule looked like:

Go Fish (The card game)
Players: 4

Wounded Wisp (Tier 1-2)
GM: 0
Players: 0

Of Kirin and Kraken (Tier 7-11)
GM: 1
Players: 3

Those 4 players playing Go Fish used to play PF. This situation is awesome for those 4 players who found each other and now get to play Go Fish with each other. There's no denying that. They are getting to play their favorite game and they are very happy. And since they like to play PF also, they still have two options.

But the other four players have lost an option. They don't want to play Go Fish. They want to keep playing their favorite game, PF. To them it feels like they have lost an option. Yeah, sure they...

Best of luck to you...

Grand Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The Fox wrote:

The second table on the schedule (normal mode Wounded Wisp) is less likely to fire.

If I am a player in your area who is uninterested in CORE, then your added table has actually taken an option away from me.

I think that is a legitimate concern.

Certainly. However, there is a fact you are unaware of. Two of those Core players are UNABLE to play Normal Mode, due to having played everything. In this case, the replayability of Wounded Wisp alleviates that fact (and is part of why I chose it for that pilot test of Core signups). If I had done like our next game day did and offered Core and Normal sessions of a non-replayable scenario, those two would not have shown up. The Normal Mode table would not go off anyway. (Barring further signups, of course, which I hope to see in the next week.)

Silver Crusade 3/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kevin Ingle wrote:
Best of luck to you...

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

I was not talking about myself. I have plenty of options, both PFS and home games that CORE is probably not going to affect me much. I'm simply asking that those who are excited about CORE — especially VOs — to be cognizant of the fears that are being expressed by others.

I think those fears are real, they are plentiful, and they are legitimate.

And those who have expressed those fears have been largely dismissed, out of hand, by most of the VOs who have chosen to respond.

"Best of luck to you..." is the opposite of helpful.

Instead of trying to prove that those who are fearful are wrong, I recommend trying to ease their fears.

1/5 Contributor

So, setting aside miscommunications, possibly earned defensiveness, and various ancillary issues of relatively minor importance, can we say that a review of the (now three) main discussion threads on Core play show that the one real area of concern folks have is the possibility of diminished play opportunities? Is that what everything really boils down to?

Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis

The Fox wrote:

I was not talking about myself. I have plenty of options, both PFS and home games that CORE is probably not going to affect me much. I'm simply asking that those who are excited about CORE — especially VOs — to be cognizant of the fears that are being expressed by others.

I think those fears are real, they are plentiful, and they are legitimate.

And those who have expressed those fears have been largely dismissed, out of hand, by most of the VOs who have chosen to respond.

With respect, Fox, I don't believe this is accurate. Many VOs have posted here, indicating their willingness to try to work with the concerns that you (and others) have raised, have offered suggestions as to how to try to mitigate or address them, and have generally tried to be helpful.

I don't think it is fair, or accurate, to suggest that somehow "most of the VOs who have chosen to respond" have dismissed those fears.

I just don't read it the same way you do.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are a bazillion anecdotal scenarios that we can describe where CORE will work, won't work, kinda work, whatever. The hope is that local groups will not view this as a black and white, play or leave, situation. since the first OP starter there have been issues to overcome from party mix choices, to level coordination, etc. I think if everyone involved acts like an adult, communicates their wants/needs with the local group, solutions and compromises can be reached. IMO, this is really no different a challenge than most of the ones we encounter when organizing events. Sure it adds another challenge, but it also affords another opportunity. Please keep an open mind and work with your local organizers.

Explore! Report! Cooperate!

4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Fox wrote:
Kevin Ingle wrote:
Best of luck to you...

"Best of luck to you..." is the opposite of helpful.

Instead of trying to prove that those who are fearful are wrong, I recommend trying to ease their fears.

I agree. "Best of luck to you..." in this context is dismissive and disrespectful, especially coming from someone who's supposed to serve as a leader for the community.

Silver Crusade 3/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
The Fox wrote:

The second table on the schedule (normal mode Wounded Wisp) is less likely to fire.

If I am a player in your area who is uninterested in CORE, then your added table has actually taken an option away from me.

I think that is a legitimate concern.

Certainly. However, there is a fact you are unaware of. Two of those Core players are UNABLE to play Normal Mode, due to having played everything. In this case, the replayability of Wounded Wisp alleviates that fact (and is part of why I chose it for that pilot test of Core signups). If I had done like our next game day did and offered Core and Normal sessions of a non-replayable scenario, those two would not have shown up. The Normal Mode table would not go off anyway. (Barring further signups, of course, which I hope to see in the next week.)

Yes, I can certainly appreciate that. No doubt this situation is great for those two players.

Again, I'm not saying CORE is bad, we shouldn't try it.

I'm saying that people are scared that CORE is going to take away options from them.

CORE is absolutely great for a large population of the PFS community. There is no denying that. And I'm really happy for them. I really am. I know that my own VC and many of his crew have completely played out PFS, and CORE allows them an opportunity to play. Awesome!

I know that there are many people who are very happy about the scaling back of options, and that is getting them excited about the campaign. Awesome!

But there is also a segment who feel otherwise. Their voice is just as valid as those who are stoked.

Shadow Lodge 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:

One way for smaller groups to handle this is to schedule twice as many tables as they usually do, and see if people sign up for Core or Standard. If you get a split, then you can take steps to deal with it, but likely most players in your group will prefer one or the other.

(I know not every group does advance sign-ups, so let this be your excuse to do it! It is an essential step in growing your lodge, it results in better games since GMs can prep more effectively, it allows more players to know before they get there what PC they're playing so they can be prepared, and on the off chance someone can't play any of the scenarios that week, they know before hey get to the venue. I can't stress enough how important this is. It basically moves you from an open private game to a public lodge, and that helps attract more players and GMs.)

I can tell you for a fact that this doesn't solve stuff everywhere. In our area what is likely to happen when we schedule these 2 events instead of one is that we now have to saddle one of our GMs with another night they have to work into their schedule and instead of having 1 table of 4-6 we get 2 tables (on 2 different nights) of 2-3 as people pick the day that better matches their schedule, when their friends play, what night works better for their baby sitter, the one that matching their college schedule, or maybe is core or not core. Just adding days in areas like ours where players are coming from up to an hour and a half away or are spread out to on average 1 every 2.5-3.75 sq miles and even with facebook, locally managed scheduling sites, and paizo.com just adding extra dates can already put too much stress on the system if they are not CAREFULLY managed. Core just throws another level of complexity into the system that can already put it at risk and still feels a lot like a band aid for most of the problems it seems to have been designed to solve.

At best it seems to give a temp solution to replays (an issue that only those with a rather large amount of play time in our area seem to have but YMMV) but it still fails to address a lot of the major problems I hear new players at the table discuss when I ask them. It doesn't address player understanding of the rules, it doesn't address ease of entry to the most difficult mechanics to comprehend for them (magic), it doesn't address dislike of certain players, it doesn't address teaching player consciousness at the table (i.e. would playing this character with this group of people/GM make the whole experience for all of us better or worse?), and it doesn't address making players feel more connected to the story or narrative of PFS than just being murder hobos for the grand lodge. I mean Core still doesn't address what the hell I'm supposed to say to new players or GMs coming into S6 but having to play scenarios where Torch is an ally even though the whole of society wants him in chains at best or in the ground at worst.

Silver Crusade 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Stratton wrote:
The Fox wrote:

I was not talking about myself. I have plenty of options, both PFS and home games that CORE is probably not going to affect me much. I'm simply asking that those who are excited about CORE — especially VOs — to be cognizant of the fears that are being expressed by others.

I think those fears are real, they are plentiful, and they are legitimate.

And those who have expressed those fears have been largely dismissed, out of hand, by most of the VOs who have chosen to respond.

With respect, Fox, I don't believe this is accurate. Many VOs have posted here, indicating their willingness to try to work with the concerns that you (and others) have raised, have offered suggestions as to how to try to mitigate or address them, and have generally tried to be helpful.

I don't think it is fair, or accurate, to suggest that somehow "most of the VOs who have chosen to respond" have dismissed those fears.

I just don't read it the same way you do.

You are absolutely right. I apologize. In reality VOs have, by and large, been patient and understanding. It only takes a couple of remarks by a few individuals to distort that perspective. Again, I'm sorry.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Fox wrote:
Instead of trying to prove that those who are fearful are wrong, I recommend trying to ease their fears.

The problem is, that is exactly what most of the VO's have tried to do. Give encouragement and solutions on how it could work. People post an example of their concern, and someone posts a suggestion how to overcome it. Most of us have said at least once, that we don't deny the concerns, we just think that the level of passion being attached to some of the concerns, may in fact, be unfounded, or at least over-reactive.

For those with fears how this is going to impact them, what are we supposed to do? It seems that the response to either wait and see how it works out in your area and/or to work with our local organizers for the best solution is not being received as an acceptable response. So I ask, What should we be saying? If offering possible/constructive solutions is not the answer, then what is?

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The Fox wrote:

Again, I'm not saying CORE is bad, we shouldn't try it.

I'm saying that people are scared that CORE is going to take away options from them.

And rightly so. The Phoenix VOs had our monthly meeting Tuesday night, thankfully directly after the announcement, to discuss handling Core. We are doing our best to offer both, but as you say, player interest will win over all. I intend to keep playing Normal Mode even with my 30-odd scenarios left to play, and obviously running to keep Normal scenario offerings available. I'm doing my best to answer the concerns you and others raise (and I even raised them myself on the VO forums when we first started talking about this months ago.) In all honesty, I can't guarantee what you fear will not happen. I can only work to prevent it.

Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Fox wrote:


You are absolutely right. I apologize. In reality VOs have, by and large, been patient and understanding. It only takes a couple of remarks by a few individuals to distort that perspective. Again, I'm sorry.

You don't owe me an apology, Fox. You know, these discussions, they're all from people trying to make better the game they love. And, sometimes things don't translate well over text or bulletin boards or whatever (a fact my SO reminds me of when something I think is HYSTERICAL comes out as anything but in a text message.) :-D

We'll all get through this new addition to the game, and I think in the end, it will work out to the better for most everyone (there will be challenges, sure.) And, honestly, we can have all they hypotheticals we want "What if this happens" In the end, though, we just need to see how it actually plays out, and make adjustments as we go.

Hang in there!

1/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Instead of trying to prove that those who are fearful are wrong, I recommend trying to ease their fears.

The problem is, that is exactly what most of the VO's have tried to do. Give encouragement and solutions on how it could work. People post an example of their concern, and someone posts a suggestion how to overcome it. Most of us have said at least once, that we don't deny the concerns, we just think that the level of passion being attached to some of the concerns, may in fact, be unfounded, or at least over-reactive.

For those with fears how this is going to impact them, what are we supposed to do? It seems that the response to either wait and see how it works out in your area and/or to work with our local organizers for the best solution is not being received as an acceptable response. So I ask, What should we be saying? If offering possible/constructive solutions is not the answer, then what is?

I think some people, not accusing anyone in particular, only want to hear that Core is a fad that is going away soon. Some of that is simple fear of change, but I am sure that there are a lot of other reasons that I can not think of right now. Personally I think that Core is a wash at worst, but that does nothing to help others' concerns.

1/5 **

The Fox wrote:

Again, I'm not saying CORE is bad, we shouldn't try it.

I'm saying that people are scared that CORE is going to take away options from them.

Understandably so. In my opinion, this discussion has to begin with acknowledgment of the validity of that concern.

That being said, every VO I know will do everything in his or her power to accommodate as many players as possible as often as possible. Further, if Core proves to be problematic, I'm confident campaign leadership will adjust as necessary.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

doc the grey wrote:
It doesn't address player understanding of the rules, it doesn't address ease of entry to the most difficult mechanics to comprehend for them (magic), it doesn't address dislike of certain players, it doesn't address teaching player consciousness at the table (i.e. would playing this character with this group of people/GM make the whole experience for all of us better or worse?), and it doesn't address making players feel more connected to the story or narrative of PFS than just being murder hobos for the grand lodge. I mean Core still doesn't address what the hell I'm supposed to say to new players or GMs coming into S6 but having to play scenarios where Torch is an ally even though the whole of society wants him in chains at best or in the ground at worst.

To be fair, most of those issues cannot be significantly impacted by a campaign mechanic. Learning rules, table etiquette, season to season variations are all things that require management at a grass-roots level. It is a responsibility each individual has to learn for themselves combined with mentoring and feedback from their peers. There is no magic rule that we can put in place to address personal issues and/or personality conflict between players.

Silver Crusade 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Suggesting that fears are "unfounded", or "over-reactive", and suggesting that people "wait and see" are not exactly easing.

Offering solutions has come across as dismissive. I don't know why. But it has. By more than one person. Perhaps it is the tone.

I don't know exactly what I would say if I were trying to ease fears about this issue. I know I wouldn't say "you are wrong to have that fear, and here's why."*

Possibly better would be "Your fears are justified and valid. There is every possibility that what you fear will come to pass. But none of us want that. We will do whatever we can to prevent that from happening. If your fears do, in fact, become the reality, then we will reverse course on this plan. We all care about the PFS community as much as you obviously do. We are here to support it, and to support you and your needs."

* I don't know that anyone has actually said that, but people are hearing that.

Silver Crusade 3/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
The Fox wrote:

Again, I'm not saying CORE is bad, we shouldn't try it.

I'm saying that people are scared that CORE is going to take away options from them.

And rightly so. The Phoenix VOs had our monthly meeting Tuesday night, thankfully directly after the announcement, to discuss handling Core. We are doing our best to offer both, but as you say, player interest will win over all. I intend to keep playing Normal Mode even with my 30-odd scenarios left to play, and obviously running to keep Normal scenario offerings available. I'm doing my best to answer the concerns you and others raise (and I even raised them myself on the VO forums when we first started talking about this months ago.) In all honesty, I can't guarantee what you fear will not happen. I can only work to prevent it.

Damnit, TOZ! You ninja my post about what VOs should be saying to alleviate the fear that people are expressing with a post saying almost exactly what I suggested! Curse you and your reasoned, measured approach to leadership!

Silver Crusade 3/5

Aaron Motta wrote:
The Fox wrote:

Again, I'm not saying CORE is bad, we shouldn't try it.

I'm saying that people are scared that CORE is going to take away options from them.

Understandably so. In my opinion, this discussion has to begin with acknowledgment of the validity of that concern.

That being said, every VO I know will do everything in his or her power to accommodate as many players as possible as often as possible. Further, if Core proves to be problematic, I'm confident campaign leadership will adjust as necessary.

I repeat my curses for TOZ upon you as well, bugleyman! Such understanding and empathy...

;)

Thank you.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Fox wrote:
Curse you and your reasoned, measured approach to leadership!

Reason? Leadership? I think you have the wrong guy...


TOZ wrote:
The Fox wrote:
Curse you and your reasoned, measured approach to leadership!
Reason? Leadership? I think you have the wrong guy...

I was confused when I read that too....

1/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.

TOZ and I were simply at the same meeting. Our VC whupped us into shape! ;-)

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Fox wrote:
it is the tone

Perhaps that is the crux of the issue. If anyone is reading tone into posts, they are making a mistake. Of course, I cannot speak for anyone else, but my approach to this is clinical. I have a lot of passion for PFS, but not for any specific rule (in fact there are number of them I wholly disagree with). I am interested to see how CORE is going to work out and since the decision to roll it out has already been made, I have hopes it will work and will endevour to make it so. However, I am not married to the concept and if it doesn't work, I will not force it on players I organize for, nor will I support its continuation.

The Fox wrote:
Possibly better would be "Your fears are justified and valid. There is every possibility that what you fear will come to pass. But none of us want that. We will do whatever we can to prevent that from happening. If your fears do, in fact, become the reality, then we will reverse course on this plan. We all care about the PFS community as much as you obviously do. We are here to support it, and to support you and your needs."

While not using those specific words that is exactly what we are trying to say.

After reading 1000+ posts over multiple threads and forums, the only conclusion I can come up with is that there is nothing we can say to appease the people with concerns, especially the ones who are die-hard against CORE. It seems the only solution is to let them vent and hope their fears will be assuaged when (hopefully) the program works. That doesn't mean I/we don't care about their concerns, it just means if there is nothing we can do or say to make a difference, then the best approach might be to remain quiet on the subject.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Aaron Motta wrote:
Our VC whupped us into shape! ;-)

My ankles are still sore.

1 to 50 of 90 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Worried that PFS Core will split the community All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.