Normal PFS Core Suggestion Box

[redward]

Since Core was announced, I've seen a lot of posts from people voicing their concerns. I've also seen a lot of threats to quit PFS because of the change.

It may be because I'm dense, or because I'm in a large market city with several PFS options, but I'm having trouble understanding the real threat that Core poses to Normal Society play.

Since I've been among the voices that could well be considered dismissive of these concerns, I thought it only fair to try to offer an area free from judgment (at least mine, no guarantees). However I do ask that posters follow a loose format when posting:

First, identify your specific concern or concerns, e.g.,

• "I am concerned that Core tables will leave me without enough people to seat a Normal table" (details here will help immensely, such as "we only have 4 - 5 players each week and two have expressed interest in Core. I'm concerned we'll have weeks where neither mode can have a table.")
  
• "I do not want replays available only to characters under a limited set of rules."

Second, most importantly, for each concern you have identified, please propose a possible solution that the Campaign could implement to avoid impacting Normal play, e.g.,

• "Please only schedule Core tables after a Normal table has a minimum number of players."
  
• "Please consider opening up a single replay of each scenario regardless of play mode."

If you're happy with or indifferent to Core:

Then this thread isn't really for you. It's just a place to collect the thoughts of concerned Normal players. Since that applies to me (I'm indifferent), I won't be participating. I just wanted there to be a specific place for us Normals to voice opinions without clogging up the Core forums.

If you absolutely have to respond, please follow similar formatting:

redward wrote:

"Please only schedule Core tables after a Normal table has a minimum number of players."

"This solution prioritizes Normal players over Core players. Each should have an equal opportunity to play in their preferred mode."

tl;dr
If you have a concrete reason to believe that Core will negatively affect you, please explain why and offer a possible solution.

[The Fox]

Hmm...I am happy that Core will allow more options for play for the many players that have played out Normal PFS and for the indoctrination—er, introduction?—of new GMs to the game. I am indifferent as to whether I play Core or not; I will play Core if a Core table needs my butt in a seat, or if I have nothing else to play. And I am concerned that Core will negatively affect me because there are relatively few tables here each week.

(Actually, my personal concerns are not that extensive, because I have access to a lot of friends who are happy to play in home games.)

To address my concerns, I recommend that organizers talk to their players and find out what everyone wants to play. Do not go by simple majority either. Make sure to address the wants of your minority voices. If 3 people want to play Normal and one wants to play Core, offer a Core table once a month and ask the 3 players who only want to play Normal to play at that table for the benefit of the one Core player. That is a fair way to give everyone a chance to play the game they want to play.

[Tyrhan]

It's cool that Paizo has given people the ability to replay scenario's for credit. I think one possible issue (as in my case), maybe players have used a lot of core classes and already played using little outside of the CRB in scenarios prior to this announcement.

Not every person may be able to play in a home-brew campaign hence why they show up for PFS; it's like an MMORPG. You can pick it up when you have spare time, put it down, and then come back to it later on your terms. If the only option to replay things for credit also requires the CRB, maybe players are burnt out on that. In my case, I stuck to core classes because I enjoyed them. Only now, two years after playing in PFS do I really want to try out other classes. Due to limited availability to play, said characters will not reach high levels. To put things in to perspective, I have so few scenarios I can play that one existing character of mine could only reach level 9. From that point, the only remaining scenarios I have are all tier 1-5 (20 scenarios) meaning a character won't even get to 4th level. I can't possibly be the only person in that boat either.

Then there are also GMs who don't want to run core because they have no interest in it. We have people complaining that PFS is already too "restrictive" as is, the core campaign sure as hell isn't going to entice some players. I don't blame GMs for wanting to decide what they do with their characters, they shouldn't be force to run something they have no interest in.

I don't know what would be a better alternative to be honest. I see the point Paizo has made about making all scenarios infinitely re-playable. Though the core campaign seems to be more of a bandage/distraction.

Edit- I think that "Please consider opening up a single replay of each scenario regardless of play mode." would be a good way of making the player base happy.

[Matthew Pittard]

To be honest, like the Fox above I am a little concerned that locally (where we only PFS on a every second week cycle) that our smallish player base will be further halved.

Our VC has indicated

A) That normal will continue to be the new releases scenarios
B) Core will exist of pretty old scenarios. (In fact a lot of Season 0s are going to see the light of day again. Im due to run a CORE mists of Mwangi soon

I have no issue with that.

My BIGGEST concern is with getting the information that a scenario is indeed a CORE or normal out to players. Its .. easier for groups that use a Warhorn type system where you can directly spell out what campaign standard you will be using... but for more.. laid back groups where communication isnt great Im sure you are going to have instances of people rocking up without X character for the right game.

Sure this will gradually decline , but you are always going to get those types that dont read the blurb properly and turn up with the wrong stuff.

How to rectify this? Communicate to your player base more and be VERY clear about what is running. Plan further ahead.

[WalterGM]

Tyrhan wrote:

Edit- I think that "Please consider opening up a single replay of each scenario regardless of play mode." would be a good way of making the player base happy.

Here's a condensed info post I made about the history of replay in PFS. I recommend giving it a read.

[Tyrhan]

Walter Sheppard wrote:

Tyrhan wrote:

Edit- I think that "Please consider opening up a single replay of each scenario regardless of play mode." would be a good way of making the player base happy.

Here's a condensed info post I made about the history of replay in PFS. I recommend giving it a read.

I saw that post. That doesn't really address the fact that only people who want to play core are getting a benefit from this new campaign. I've done nothing but core characters the entire time I have participated in PFS (excluding one character I have made recently) and I'm burnt out on it. Core isn't exciting for everyone.

I appreciate you linking stuff, but I'm already aware as to how people can replay a scenario. Even as a 5 star GM, that doesn't exactly breathe life so much that you can do a lot, it just means you pick a few games you really enjoyed to play again.

[grandpoobah]

I'm interested and excited about the Core campaign, so I'm coming from a positive viewpoint. However, I do have legitimate concerns:

Problem: Adding complexity in scheduling. We need to strongly differentiate between Core and Standard scenarios when they run. Do you schedule a mod in both modes? or schedule a different mod for each mode? The real issue is that most players don't pay attention. As it is, we get regular instances of signing up with a level 8 for a Tier 3-7. Lots of players don't pay attention, and educating them is difficult. CORE mode adds frustration for organizers.

Solution: Let's create a simple PDF/Flyer for Core GMs. They can set it on the table when they set up. It can be a reminder that the game is CORE mode, and what that means (CORE rulebook only, with disclaimer). It's easier to say CORE rulebook (and then add a few things later). It's also good to advertise CORE mode to new players - it's a great way to learn a simpler version of the game.

Solution2: I recommend scheduling CORE games as Season 0 and Season 1 only (at least for a while). This helps differentiate a bit more. It's also a great incentive for GMs. CORE mode means the PLAYERS are core, it guarantees nothing to the GM. I can run PFS 6** in core mode and still need four bestiaries and ten other supplements. But if I run only Season 0-1, I know my job as GM is much easier. It's a great selling point for newer GMs that don't want to deal with as many rules issues.