Changing Sanctioned Module Play

We've released 16 PFRPG modules over the past two years. We have released more than 50 PFS scenarios in that time. Even if we continue to release 8 per year, at the most, you will run out sooner rather than later.

Of those 50 how many of those are Level 1-7? We had a Time period right before Josh left where most of the New Modules being released where Level 5 or Higher, that was a Hurt. It has gotten better since going to at least 1 low level scenario per Month, but it got behind.

We've released 16 PFRPG modules over the past two years. We have released more than 50 PFS scenarios in that time. Even if we continue to release 8 per year, at the most, you will run out sooner rather than later.

We will cross that bridge when we get there. Until then, we are enjoying the sanctioned modules immensely (one local is already taking signups for three separate tables of The Harrowing, the first beginning on Wednesday), and we like things how they are. Please don't take the accessibility of the sanctioned scenarios away.

Perhaps we could talk about my proposed solution above?

-Matt

Mike

No disresect intended. I don't follow. Maybe it is lack of sleep, maybe I am just getting old and dumb!

Surely, there is not an endless supply of mods or scenarios and indeed I am not sure there are any year 0 we can play at low tier. Given that there is a finite supply using them as deftly as I can seems wise! If running the occasional mod to allow a group of players to catch up so we can use some of the finite resource of scenarios with no low tier, surely that increases the resources available?

W

From the sounds of reading most of these posts, it sounds like lots of people are trying to level up new characters. I don't understand how, when so many of these new players have been caught up, why more mid to higher tier games are not happening. It sounds like everyone is running endless number of low level scenarios or using modules to continue to generate credit for low level characters. Why are none of these new players being introduced to tier 5-9 play? After 4 modules, they are eligible to play tier 5-9. I don't understand why this natural progression is not happening.

Mike of the 104 Scenarios we have Run locally *Minus the Modules* 96 of them where level 1-7 *Either Tier 1-7, 1-5 or 3-7*

We've released 16 PFRPG modules over the past two years. We have released more than 50 PFS scenarios in that time. Even if we continue to release 8 per year, at the most, you will run out sooner rather than later.

Mike. If I am wrong or being obtuse just tell me. Even if we adopt your plan unmodified it would still be possible for players to burn through most if not all the mods, ignoring the scenarios. Certainly they can with current releases reach cap using mods only.

You are right mods should be complemnetary and ecen secondary to proper scenarios but, frankly how we use the resource best seems to depend on how big/reliable a player base you have.

For me I would want to use them for effect, both in terms of fun and level mechanics, not as a replacement for scenarios but as a way to ensure better use of the scenarios out there.

W

I am assure I am not solicting your sympathy. I will risk explaining though I feel I am stating the obvious& I mistrust situations where I am asked to do so as I cannot really doubt but you fully grasp my point , rather you just don't agree with it!

The only part I disagree with is the suggestion that you have no options. Using your example, with Sea to Shore you have 4 legal characters and would be able to run 2 pregens which are actually above APL. Seems like a perfect fit and gets them a big break from the tier 1-3 stuff. The 7th level PCs might get a little grumbly about pulling the wagon, but at least they get to play at level.

If you have a core of players who have in this case 2 guys with barely eligible toons and the 2 more with nothing over 5th and then 2 more with level 1 or 2 max, then the first 4 will be playing their lowbie characters. All the time. If a new fella joins and or someone quits again the convoy will move at the speed of it 'lowest ship!

Been there, done that. Am there, doing that rather. We have a small group also. Been playing subtier 1-2 for waayyy too long. I just ran a similar group through Feast of Ravenmoor which is an excellent module.

From the sounds of reading most of these posts, it sounds like lots of people are trying to level up new characters. I don't understand how, when so many of these new players have been caught up, why more mid to higher tier games are not happening. It sounds like everyone is running endless number of low level scenarios or using modules to continue to generate credit for low level characters. Why are none of these new players being introduced to tier 5-9 play? After 4 modules, they are eligible to play tier 5-9. I don't understand why this natural progression is not happening.

You are not taking into account the Swinging door that at least I see, New players come, then they go, then new players replace them while a small few keep around and keep making new PC to play with the revolving players.

Edit: Sometime some of the Old players come back, then go again. My Player base is not Consistent.

Every time the New players out number the Old players I need to start all over again, which we went through recently.

I am taking into account the swinging door. I was coordinating at 8 different stores and locations. I did it for a year so I know all the growing pains.

heretic wrote:

Mike

No disresect intended. I don't follow. Maybe it is lack of sleep, maybe I am just getting old and dumb!

Surely, there is not an endless supply of mods or scenarios and indeed I am not sure there are any year 0 we can play at low tier. Given that there is a finite supply using them as deftly as I can seems wise! If running the occasional mod to allow a group of players to catch up so we can use some of the finite resource of scenarios with no low tier, surely that increases the resources available?

W

From the sounds of reading most of these posts, it sounds like lots of people are trying to level up new characters. I don't understand how, when so many of these new players have been caught up, why more mid to higher tier games are not happening. It sounds like everyone is running endless number of low level scenarios or using modules to continue to generate credit for low level characters. Why are none of these new players being introduced to tier 5-9 play? After 4 modules, they are eligible to play tier 5-9. I don't understand why this natural progression is not happening.

Mike

For us it because we use scenarios most of the time. Mods are only really good when you have ppl who can guarrantee to be there every week for 3 or 4 weeks! Our experience is echoed by others here. New players come and go. You cater for them with low tier Scenarios. Some of them stay, some drift off, new ppl join in dribs and drabs.

Doing a module with the guys who do stick around is away of getting a quorum of players who can actually form a table that is not low tier!
While still ensuring plenty of low tier PCs available to play with the new guys, while we try to drive number up.

W

I am taking into account the swinging door. I was coordinating at 8 different stores and locations. I did it for a year so I know all the growing pains.

Though I live in the 7th Largest City in the US *Population wise* we are grossly under supported with Gaming stores. We have 1 in the entire City that strongly caters to Gamers and allows us to play at. I would love to be larger and to have a Larger gamer base to pick from and it is there, I just don't have the Space to put them.

Austin has the same problem though his players have been more constant.

At one time we tried to mix Austin a San Antonio Player base, but because his players have been more Constant and I mostly run Low level Scenarios most of them could not play because they already played the scenarios. Though I still try to go up there as Often as I can on His game day.

He also plays only once a Month while we play 2 to 3 times a month.

And if that quorum is growing together, why are they not continuing on with 5-9 & 7-11 scenarios, while new players are not playing low level. From the outside in, it looks like you are hurting your loyal player base by catering to one or two new players. It is imperative for the success and continued growth of a region, to schedule regular game days with some sort of reservation system. It isn't fair to your regular players that they have to keep making concessions for the occasional new player.

Michael Brock wrote:

I am taking into account the swinging door. I was coordinating at 8 different stores and locations. I did it for a year so I know all the growing pains.

Though I live in the 7th Largest City in the US *Population wise* we are grossly under supported with Gaming stores. We have 1 in the entire City that strongly caters to Gamers and allows us to play at. I would love to be larger and to have a Larger gamer base to pick from and it is there, I just don't have the Space to put them.

Austin has the same problem though his players have been more constant.

At one time we tried to mix Austin a San Antonio Player base, but because his players have been more Constant and I mostly run Low level Scenarios most of them could not play because they already played the scenarios. Though I still try to go up there as Often as I can on His game day.

He also plays only once a Month while we play 2 to 3 times a month.

It sounds like the best thing you could do is schedule games in advance and run those games without chaging the schedule on the fly to accommodate a new player. Teach the player base to sign up in advance and it makes your planning so much easier. Trust me, I've been there and done it, and grew a player base from 5 to 168.

And if that quorum is growing together, why are they not continuing on with 5-9 & 7-11 scenarios, while new players are not playing low level. From the outside in, it looks like you are hurting your loyal player base by catering to one or two new players. It is imperative for the success and continued growth of a region, to schedule regular game days with some sort of reservation system. It isn't fair to your regular players that they have to keep making concessions for the occasional new player.

I am not sure who you are speaking to hear, but I don't see them as hurting my Loyal Player base as long as they have a Game to play for Credit, and Up to now that has always happened because the don't mind making New PCs.

If things stay constant like it looks like, I should be able to pull out of it, Though I am little Worried about February because I am getting twice the amount of tables at the Local Convention this year and I expect that to bring in a lot more new players like it did last year. At least for a Short time.

heretic wrote:

I am assure I am not solicting your sympathy. I will risk explaining though I feel I am stating the obvious& I mistrust situations where I am asked to do so as I cannot really doubt but you fully grasp my point , rather you just don't agree with it!

The only part I disagree with is the suggestion that you have no options. Using your example, with Sea to Shore you have 4 legal characters and would be able to run 2 pregens which are actually above APL. Seems like a perfect fit and gets them a big break from the tier 1-3 stuff. The 7th level PCs might get a little grumbly about pulling the wagon, but at least they get to play at level.

Quote:

If you have a core of players who have in this case 2 guys with barely eligible toons and the 2 more with nothing over 5th and then 2 more with level 1 or 2 max, then the first 4 will be playing their lowbie characters. All the time. If a new fella joins and or someone quits again the convoy will move at the speed of it 'lowest ship!

Been there, done that. Am there, doing that rather. We have a small group also. Been playing subtier 1-2 for waayyy too long. I just ran a similar group through Feast of Ravenmoor which is an excellent module.

Dennis

If the mod on the table, bought and paid for is Ebon Destroyers or even a higher level one then the choice is put playing it on the back burner for probably months or even years or play it with the rules available. Not much of a choice. Or buy more modules/scenarios that can be used at the low levels that a break from was so welcome. Allowing an occasional higher level mod adds a little bit of spice to those of us who don't get to play outside of low tier and realy does no significant harm to the integrity of PFS play.

Glad to hear that Feast is good, planning on running it in 2012 :o)

W

W

It sounds like the best thing you could do is schedule games in advance and run those games without chaging the schedule on the fly to accommodate a new player. Teach the player base to sign up in advance and it makes your planning so much easier. Trust me, I've been there and done it, and grew a player base from 5 to 168.

Mike I do... Been doing that since Day 1, and I keep a very detailed tracking of what everyone has played, that is the only reason it has not fallen all apart.

Now getting everyone to Sign up every time that is the Issue.

I rarely run anything on the Fly because I always pre schedule making sure everyone has a Game to play.

Like I said that is getting Harder..

Edit: Also if I ever had a Consistent 17+ player base I would start having problems since I can't support much more then that because of Lack of locations to play in San Antonio. I have played at My house a few times but the Wife would not like that too many times..;)

Edit Edit: I schedule My games a Month ahead with very rarely that schedule changing

Pathfinder Society to San Antonio
Pathfinder Society to San Antonio Warhorn

And if that quorum is growing together, why are they not continuing on with 5-9 & 7-11 scenarios, while new players are not playing low level. From the outside in, it looks like you are hurting your loyal player base by catering to one or two new players. It is imperative for the success and continued growth of a region, to schedule regular game days with some sort of reservation system. It isn't fair to your regular players that they have to keep making concessions for the occasional new player.

Mike

I am clearly not communicating very well. Sorry

So I will be blunt. I have too few players to seat tables of 4 or more where there there is an APL high enough for these 5-9 & 7-11 scenarios. If everyone stuck around longer than a month or two then it would not be an issue. Sadly they don't all stick around!
I am actually endevouring very hard to change that.

So to recap, with a small player base when one does get a player who wants to stick around, playing a module in addition to the regular monthly scenario days, helps allow regular players a break from low tier work and allows the new guy to join the quorum I mentioned! Allowing free use of the modules available is an asset here.

I hope that clarifies a bit

Thanks

W

Right, I've slept, my fever has gone down somewhat, and I'm going to make a final post here to try and concisely outline the sticking points in these new changes.

1) Where I play, we have about 16 PFS players, and we regularly (every fortnight or so at the moment) put together a table and run a module. Currently, we almost exclusively use the modules as ways for new people to catch up with new characters. In the area, we've run Godsmouth twice and Ravenmoor once for the express purpose of levelling characters from 2 to 3, so that they can get in on 3-7 mods. Now I appreciate that Godsmouth levelling will still be possible under the new rules, but it does cut out most of the other options, and I don't know many people that want to have every new character run through First Steps and then Godsmouth as their first games.

2) As I mentioned in my last post, several of these modules have their end-game encounters predicated on the players having levelled up earlier in the module. I believe that Everflame and Godsmouth both do this, as well as seveal of the higher level mods. PFS characters playing these mods do not level up, and that makes some of the final encounters a beast. Locally, that is likely to be the biggest deal breaker on the use of pre-gens. The pre-gens are already unoptimised, and may be a level lower than the mod anyway. Combine that with the fact that by the end they're actually level-2, and, well...squish.

For an example, go look at the final encounter of Crypt of the Everflame, and compare that to level 1 pregens. Yeah.

3) I guess I get that the no consequences thing was a problem. Like I say, we haven't had that many modules run here, so I don't have the experience of some of the people on these boards. I personally never found people abusing the consumables rule, or taking crazy risks because of the death rules - they just wanted the chance to try out a character at a higher level and see how they worked. But 16 people and 3 modules is a small data set, and if people with more experience have seen heavy abuse, then I guess I don't have a good counter to that.

4) In conclusion, for us, the accessibility of the modules was their biggest draw. We don't play that many modules, preferring the scenarios when possible. Under these new rules, we're unlikely to play any modules at all.

I will admit as I go to Bed that I do have another Option now that Modules are not an Option.

Instead I can have the low level players come to my house on the Long weekend to play some Low level scenarios to catch up.

Though I will miss the Modules very Much they where a good change from the normal stress I feel from running scenarios. I feel less guilty when "Kyle" happens.. ;). Also IMO they are much better written.

Once Again Crystal Thanks for The Harrowing!

Edit: though that would mean excluding players which I was trying to avoid.

Instead I can have the low level players come to my house on the Long weekend to play some Low level scenarios to catch up.

[snip]

Edit: though that would mean excluding players which I was trying to avoid.

Dragnmoon

This is the only option long term. I'm in a similar situation - my wife has been sitting at every table. In addition she started to go to conventions and while I GM she is playing every single slot available.

Yes - in summer I started to GM sessions without her - it's the only way to long term build a healthy group and allow others to catch up. I can't take off a scenario because she has played it.

When Mike says to use sign-up early this also means to offer a scenario that maybe one or two core gamers have already played. It is the only way that others truly can catch up.

I will soon have to do the same for a co-GM and voracious gamer who also is always around. So far I rely on scenarios that my wife played at CONs for him. Soon I will have to schedule the occasional game without him.

This won't be easy - but it is for the better long term.

Thod

Heretic

Where are you from? The solution for higher level play that I found works for me is to offer an invite for a weekend gaming and to have the core players (2) and get 3 visiting players from other gaming groups that have similar issues to come along.

It is like a 1 table mini-con for a weekend. Enough to play around 4-5 slots and as the people I invite are hard-core gamers they have high level characters already and often love to play more with these as well. The 4-5 slots are enough for 1 module and 1-2 scenarios or 4-5 scenarios.

It won't work for everyone. You need the space to accomodate other gamers or it quickly becomes costly.

But I found one further benefit to this - it forms friendship and it is great now to go to conventions as you meet these people again.

I managed to do this three times this year at my place and once I travelled elsewhere. Interestingly it was VERY hard the first time to get a group together at all. It seems to get easier once you have several willing player to travel and once they feel comfortable at your place. I'm in Deal, UK (close to Dover) and I'm happy to travel elsewhere if anyone needs an additional higher level player (or even GM).

Thod

Edit: and to add to the earlier post towards Dragnmoon. These special events are hard-core only and I exclude the occasional players. I think by having some options for new players only and some for core gamers only with the majority open to everyone that I strike the best balance possible. Having it always open to everyone just doesn't work.

I was Assuming the PA reward would go up to 6PA because of the Increased Risk. If it is 4 PA that makes it even less likely I would run them since the players would get more out of Scenarios, which seems OK by Mike anyway.

You are assuming that everyone will always get 6 PP out of a scenario.

Do you just arbitrarily let folks get the faction missions, whether they make the difficult (or potentially impossible) rolls?

The average is right about 4.5 PP or 4.75 PP for every 3 scenarios or ever level as it were.

The 4 PP of a module falls into that calculation rather nicely.

Mike, I like the changes, I have been adding module play to conventions as multi-slot specials. Hardcore players like hunkering down with a good day of long play sessions at a con, starting at 9AM and carrying through the day.

I wish that there was a good way to add a module to the genre of an adventure path, like Carrion Crown or Jade Regent. If may be a good gateway drug for adventure path players to try society play, and PFS players to enjoy adventure paths.

On this next topic, I don't know if I should start a separate pregen thread or not.

At convention play, you get 4.0 hours to play. I make sure the trains run on time at my RPG floors, its hard to refrain from activating the shock collars the judges wear.

A new player needs a character that they can pick up and play, because there is nothing less exciting than two hours of watching a new player and an old hand go through character generation.

We ask players at game days and cons to bring in legal "ready to wear" pregens they made for Pathfinder Society (or other systems), preferable from Hero Lab or some other program. We then proudly display the characters on a table near the RPG room muster station.

Old veterans love it because they can support their claims they can create a character of a certain class better than anyone else. The only thing they like better is arguing with another old hand about the character concept they brought. ("A social rogue? You can't be serious!")

New players look through them, and pick one. To keep pregens reasonable I salt the mine a little and ask a few trusted character mechanics to make some simple to play concepts.

Since players are new, the judge can go over the sheet, and let the new player tweak the character. Occasionally we will see characters the following year from the stack of character from the last year, which builds a lot of venue loyalty.

Seeing the discussion, for higher level substitutions players are restricted to the pregens Paizo publishes. I have never provided anything but the stable of shrink wrap pregens. Providing pregens of higher than 1st level is not legal for play.

Perhaps as part of the chronicle sheet for the modules, four or five pregens can be supplied that are thematically appropriate like Goblins. So when I open the extra PDF to go with a module that has the chronicle, I can find pregens that can be optionally used for that module ready to go.

Ok, having meandered through the thread, a couple random musings.

• I thought the purpose of PFS was to sell product? If it still is, then 'phasing out' WBG* (or really any PFRPG module**) would be counterproductive yes?
  
• I'm not as keen on the 'linking before the adventure' to an active PC, especially since the pregens are, ahem, not as optimal as a 'home grown' character. Along those lines, I will admit I liked the 'theorycraft' possibility of playing a future incarnation of my PC.
  
• The 'dead is dead' aspect does bother me, as I mentioned elsewhere.
  

Some other thoughts.

"You can play module only once for credit." I would rather that be "Per character." (I'd rather that be for the scenarios too, but I can see a lot of abuse). It can't be a matter of spoilers. I'm a subscriber, so I have *all* the modules in PDF, accessable at any time. Same thing goes for scenarios.*** Being able to play a module again with a different character, for credit would a) encourage play of the modules, b) allow new players to 'catch up' while older players could 'build their stable' c) possibly sell more modules.

"You can make it to level 15 w/o playing a scenario." So? How often does this actually happen? "Corner cases make bad law."

"Death should mean something." It already does, doesn't it? A reduction in gold and XP. That I lose a 7th level Valeros and a 3rd level magus dies in his sleep of an anyurism half a world away is just as "meaningful" as Valeros dying and Talyn only getting two XP rather than three. Heck it's just as meaningful as if I GMed half a dozen scenarios and he's suddenly 5th level.

I'm all for clarification and changes. No rules system is static after all. But I don't like these changes.

At least we're set for new players. I have first steps printed out and in my 'GM folder' and the mapsheet for Crypt of the Everflame handy at every session. Unfortunately saturday went sideways with me being the only person there at noon.

*

From the sounds of reading most of these posts, it sounds like lots of people are trying to level up new characters. I don't understand how, when so many of these new players have been caught up, why more mid to higher tier games are not happening. It sounds like everyone is running endless number of low level scenarios or using modules to continue to generate credit for low level characters. Why are none of these new players being introduced to tier 5-9 play? After 4 modules, they are eligible to play tier 5-9. I don't understand why this natural progression is not happening.

To offer my (albeit limited) perspective, in my area we have similar difficulties. I think the real difference has to do with the number of players we have to work with. At my local gaming store, we have a smallish group of players with PCs around level 5 or so, and another "wave" of relatively new players, with PCs at level 2 or 3. The problem is that we often don't have enough people to run two tables.

So if, for example, suppose I have three "veteran" players and three "newbies" show up for a game. That means we need to play a low-tier module. We can't seat both a high and low-tier table, because someone will need to GM the new table, and either no one has a scenario prepped or there are not enough players to make two tables when one of them is GMing.

Compounding the problem is the fact that the newer players tend to be more casual, only showing up occasionally. So we get a different mix of people each time, and thus only rarely get to play a high-level table.

The modules are a nice bit of flexibility allowing the new people to experience high-level play and the "veterans" to play their existing characters or create new PCs.

Though I am still in this conversation and giving advice with what we got, my Mind has not Changed. I am very Disappointed we are going away from being able to Use Modules for Groups that have a huge Disparity of levels.

You seem to argue in a way that ignores options you don't like.

Pregens are an option to do what you say is being removed.

Just because you don't like playing pregens and don't consider them an option for YOU, does not mean they are not an option.

Mike has also said a rework of the pregens is something on his plate.

Give him time to actually do all the work.

Just wanted to give a second perspective about Atlanta since I've seen it both from the bottom up and the top down.

Now getting everyone to Sign up every time that is the Issue.

This was definitely a problem we had at the beginning as well. I'm not sure exactly what solved our signing up problem, but I think it's because we created an online community at Georgiapfs.org. This is possibly one of the best things that Mike did when he started up the Atlanta Lodge. It doesn't cost much, but we have people going to the website to talk with each other about plenty of PFS and non-PFS things.

As for the other reasons that we've seen more sign-ups? We remind people to sign up before every game day, and have been pretty forceful about it. Perhaps a bit too much, but it definitely has helped us.

Edit: Also if I ever had a Consistent 17+ player base I would start having problems since I can't support much more then that because of Lack of locations to play in San Antonio. I have played at My house a few times but the Wife would not like that too many times..;)

While we don't have that problem per se, in Atlanta we've begun to expand beyond game stores. We have game days at bookstores, hobby stores (Hobbytown USA), as well as bars (we just had a game day at Manuel's Tavern last night).

Edit Edit: I schedule My games a Month ahead with very rarely that schedule changing

It's possible that might not be far enough in advance. We try to schedule each quarter. I.E. January-March schedule goes up December 1st, April-June schedule goes up March 1st, etc. In addition, related to sign-ups, if we get enough people asking for a different scenario a few days in advance (usually the Wednesday before the game day) we will take schedule changes. This encourages people to be active in the forums as well as to simply visit the website. Also we have also started some "Wild Card slots" once some of the stores got big enough. Our Galactic Quest game day last weekend had 32 players, so once you get a certain base the problem just fixes itself.

Thod, I am from N.Ireland, we actually met at PaizoCon UK this year, I am the bearded felllow whom shares your interest in Dwarven Forge etc :-)

When oh so long ago...I suggested to the remnants of the old LG players to try PFS we had a flurry of activity particularly over Xmas and I played and GM several sessions. However time limitations and an established LFR game meant PFS tailed off and I looked to new people to continue. I ran PFS at our local games club but only those scenario that can be run at or under 4 hours were suitable so this increasingly was not an option. We do have monthly games either at home or at the Arkham Gaming Centre, where we're running our biggest event to date this Sat.

I have also run PFS at gaming conventions here and in the Republic of Ireland.

Not wishing to go into painful detail some players join for a while, some go. The regulars playing low lvl to facilitate the new guys. With limited opportunities to use anything other than level 1 or 2 PCs the higher level ones rarely get an outing. To do a table of a higher tier on a monthly game would mean using all our GMs & most of our players at one smallish table, and telling the new guys, sorry we have no room this month.......not a recipe for success. I try to seat as many ppl and all of us are prepared to do this to make PFS grow.

With established players having to leave and the need to use the core players to seat even 1 table with the new guys, having a mod that we can play over a number of sessions at the games club and use the XP to get those new guys who are in it for the long haul, up in levels so I eventually will have enough players for tables on a Monthly game that's not catering for the otherwise very very welcome newbies!

The way our lives work out even all day Home games are more trouble than they are worth for several of us :-(. Much as I love the idea of a weekend mini con, and have looked at it, logistically, for now at least it is a non starter.

So for me losing mods as a way to manage level disparity among my core players would be a blow, I hope that it does not come to this as modules complement scenarios but offer facilities that scenarios do not and I'd hate to see that go.

W

During our game night yesterday at Enchanted Grounds in the Denver area this was a subject of discussion. Everyone seemed fine with the changes. Specific points included:
There should be no XP/PP/Gold penalty if you die because hopefully you will pay the penalty if you are raised.
They like the idea of taking the risk for the reward.
Nobody seemed too worried about being able to play a mod with a three level range (Carrion Hill 4-6) if that is how it works out.

Most of the players like the option to toss in a module from time to time, but it is not a big staple of our PFS diet so the changes are not a big deal.

Granted we have over 180 players signed up to the yahoo group for the front range and the game days often fill up immediately when offered. Our player base has gotten very good at sign ups because you will struggle to find a seat if you don't sign up quickly when the games are offered. In most cases an extra table is not an option because the store is already at capacity.

I can see where this new rule may be difficult for a smaller player base but hopefully that will change as the group grows. We view the scenario's as the core of PFS and the modules as a change up because the modules don't have a good tie into PFS.

I've played 4 modules, GMed 3.

I am under the impression that Modules were sanctioned for the reason Lisa Stevens mentioned back in November of 2010 - to fill in the gap for those who are so committed that they blow through the new scenarios faster than she can blink.
That goal has been met and it is not proposed to change.

Doug Miles wrote:

I would be interested if everyone who is commenting like/dislike could state how many of the modules they have played or GMed under the current OP rules.

I don't play or GM modules or PFS scenarios. I just like arguing about PFS rules on message boards.

I'm like Kyle. I'm boycotting PFS until I get to buy an elephant since someone killed my wolf.

Mike

As much as I try not to post on these topics due to my snarky disposition towards the interbutz...

1) Don't drop WBG, that's just shooting yourself in the foot. Whether it was a threat or not, this is just a silly idea. I've run WBG about 10 times this year (4-5 of them at PAX), and it's probably the best tool for recruiting new players into Pathfinder. Retiring it as a module because special concessions would need to be made for it is a bad choice. It's a scenario where you play goblins, no matter how you look at it; you'll have to make special rules for it.

2) If there are so many arguments for the abuse of Pre-Gens in modules, why not treat them like Pathfinder Tales? If you don't play through a module with your PFS character, and instead take a pre-gen, then all the module should offer is access to extra gear / maybe a boon down the line when your PFS character reaches the appropriate level. No XP, no extra gold. This way, players have some incentive to play a pre-gen, but the goal is always to get a group of PFS characters together where you'll get the biggest bang for your buck.

3) With regards to constantly making new players. I understand the point of catering to 1-2 new people all the time makes the higher level PFS players suffer (I really do). The problem with not catering to these new players extends beyond the Society and into local politics. Many PFS groups (that I know of) operate out of a gaming store, so if new players come up and they're turned away because the other players are not interested in helping them out, then those dejected players are likely to go to other local gaming stores and talk shit about either PFS or (more likely) the store it was hosted at. Gaming store politics are BAD for this, and I know locally we do our best to make sure that new players are as welcome as can be, even if it means some of the higher level members have to suffer through more low-level play. It sucks, but catering to new players is also a key part of building a strong community.

That being said, the use of Warhorn has really helped out a lot with this problem, and things are quite organized down here thanks to the efforts of our awesome local VC/VL. :)

If the mod on the table, bought and paid for is Ebon Destroyers or even a higher level one then the choice is put playing it on the back burner for probably months or even years or play it with the rules available. Not much of a choice. Or buy more modules/scenarios that can be used at the low levels that a break from was so welcome. Allowing an occasional higher level mod adds a little bit of spice to those of us who don't get to play outside of low tier and realy does no significant harm to the integrity of PFS play.

I can sympathize with bought and paid for as well. I'm not sure when the new rules will be finalized but it sounds like you have at least a couple weeks to get your first session in so you can get grandfathered in :D

It's not that I hate the existing rules, I just prefer the new ones by a big margin and don't see them as this huge impossible burden to overcome if you know in advance they are in place.

Why it can be hard to play Tier 5-9.

People in general don't like to play down. Generally the adventure is less fun because its too easy and is less rewarding.

So lets say you've got 4 players that have been chugging along and 3 of them have level 4 characters, and one has a level 3 character. Along comes a new player. Rather than have the new player play up at tier 4-5 (something discouraged by the guide) The 4th level players are responsible and make brand new characters. The player with the 3rd level character thinks hmmm I'm going to be playing with a bunch of lvl 1s I might as well make a new character as well instead of playing down.

These players have a jolly time for about 2 months (say 8-9 scenarios) with little bobby only showing up half time. Then another new player shows up. The original players now have 2 lvl 3/4 characters, the previous new player has a 4th level character and little bobby has a 2nd level character. Well little bobby can keep playing his character but the other players make new 1st level characters to play with the new players.

Story time (that may help enlighten)

This last summer before moving to Iowa I spent some time in the Bay Area visiting every PFS venue available(Were mostly very good, although I did have a couple of bad expirences). There were a whole lot of them and visiting them all was very time consuming but I felt I learned a lot about the different ways people played PFS.

One of the things that I saw happening several times (especially on the smaller venues that were more geographically isolated) is that they were managing to run one, maybe two if they were lucky tables. With rotating players and only one table I think it would be virtually impossible to ever get to the high level scenarios

(You could in theory schedule one but you'd basically be planning to turn away all the new players that night, or have them play a higher level scenario on a pregen for no credit with the additional punishment of never being able to receive a chronicle for that scenario)

The struggling little PFS group and game store likely can't afford to turn away anyone. Occasionally they probably manage to run 4-5 but with only 1 to 1.5 tables a night it can be incredibly difficult to get to higher level play.

As much as I try not to post on these topics due to my snarky disposition towards the interbutz...

1) Don't drop WBG, that's just shooting yourself in the foot. Whether it was a threat or not, this is just a silly idea. I've run WBG about 10 times this year (4-5 of them at PAX), and it's probably the best tool for recruiting new players into Pathfinder. Retiring it as a module because special concessions would need to be made for it is a bad choice. It's a scenario where you play goblins, no matter how you look at it; you'll have to make special rules for it.

I couldn't agree more about this. WBG is special anyway since you're playing pre-gen goblins, and it is a great recruiting tool -- it got my non-gaming spouse playing.

ThornDJL7 wrote:

Do these modules get playtested at all before they go into print? The encounters don't seem very well thought out as far as likely outcomes.

Playtesting is the responsibility of the adventure writer once the text comes in to Paizo, we don't have time to playtest them. The information that a playtest should reveal is something that the adventure's developer is responsible for fixing.

So in theory, in a best case scenario, the author either playtests the adventure himself or has a friend do it, and then the adventure also has a round of development from someone here at Paizo who makes a final pass on the adventure to make sure it's presented properly. If an adventure makes it through to print and it's still got some problems with balance, there's all sorts of possibilities for why that occurred.

When they do, the BEST way to respond is to let us know. But not just by saying, "OMG THIS WAS TOO HARD IT SUCKED!" Because that doesn't tell us anything. Give us detailed feedback why was it hard? What did we overlook? Did we forget to explain something? How could we have improved things?

This way, we can not only learn from our mistakes, but we can also see if the problem REALLY lies with the adventure or if it was just a set of bad die roles or even user error NOTE: I'm not saying anyone who's complaining about a module being too hard is automatically at fault, but it can happen. I've seen bad reviews of modules before by players who had a terrible time with the module, but in reading their comments it's obvious that most or all of their problems were with changes the GM made to the module or obvious errors or even maliciousness on the GMs' behalf.

By pointing out key problems, we avoid that entirely and cut right to the "how can we improve our development process for adventures" part of the feedback.

This right here is my biggest issue with the modules as presented to PFS. They IMO do not get enough testing, and thus can theoretically be extremely easy, or in my experience absolute overkill. I do not like the fact that death has no "real" consequence, but the fact that these are not put to as stringent testing and development as normal PFS scenarios isn't good either. I see only two ways to deal with this, put more development to make sure that modules don't instant TPK your party as written, or give your players a cheaper way to deal with power creep modules. I'd prefer better development personally.

Note: This is my response to the initial post, and I've only read the first page of comments so far.

My advice to Dragonmoon and others with level differences. Have one day a week, or two weeks that is high level night, in my area it is 7-11 in your area it could be 3-7 to 5-9. Hope this helps. As well looking back over the seasons I feel it is a bad idea to run the 1-7 range mods with first or second levels, since we have First Steps and allot of 1-5 tiered scenarios. The Bloodcove, Devil and City series, are good 1-7 mods to fill a gap for tier differences. In my group we have plenty of players wanting to get into our high level night, a new player with help from mods will be coming this next week, he joined during the begginer box event has has been at almost every PFS event since.

Me, personally, I'm not terribly fond of at least one of the changes related to the below-level-9 pregen. I'm not sure how common this situation is, but I'll explain-

I don't have the opportunity to play very often. At this point, I believe I've played more sanctioned Pathfinder Modules than PFS Scenarios (edit: not quite, as it turns out, but the modules are the ones I'll most likely be able to play going forward). One big reason is that I've played these modules with friends who do have higher-level PFS characters; it's the most likely way I'll have a chance to play with them in PFS.

Besides that, one of the most fun parts of it was creating the high level characters. I will probably not have the chance to level up this way through regular PFS adventures for some time; it was a fun way to see what my character might be like at higher levels. Pregens would remove that part of fun.

For Doug Doug:
I've played in 1, and I've run 3.

What I don't understand is that if Modules were so good at fixing the problems between different leveled characters, why didn't they get played more often to get folks out of 1-5 and into higher tiered play? Sounds like it didn't do anything to alleviate those issues. What it actually sounds like is this was a nice option, but never became a mainstay at game days. A nice tool to have, but still not getting as much regular play as your monthly released scenarios.

And there is all this talk about using them to cater to new players? Modules, by far, are the worst way to introduce someone to PFS (unless they are specifically tailored for level 1 players). Modules seem like they cater to the majority (notice not all, but majority) of people who've already played PFS for quite some time and want a different change of pace from your standard 4-5 hour scenario. That's at least what I've seen at game days all over Atlanta.

And I think it is a bit disingenuous to point to "well this is going to reduce module sales." Maybe it does, but we don't know what type of sales figures Paizo had on modules prior to adding module play and since then. I'd like to think there was an increase, but maybe the increase was negligible. But to use that as a point in this discussion is laughable until you can produce figures (which none of us non-Paizo folks can).

My advice to Dragonmoon and others with level differences. Have one day a week, or two weeks that is high level night, in my area it is 7-11 in your area it could be 3-7 to 5-9. Hope this helps. As well looking back over the seasons I feel it is a bad idea to run the 1-7 range mods with first or second levels, since we have First Steps and allot of 1-5 tiered scenarios. The Bloodcove, Devil and City series, are good 1-7 mods to fill a gap for tier differences. In my group we have plenty of players wanting to get into our high level night, a new player with help from mods will be coming this next week, he joined during the begginer box event has has been at almost every PFS event since.

We do not have the Luxury of having another Night... That is the problem when you have only one Store that caters to RPG players in the 7th largest city in the US.

First, regarding most of this thread: tl;dr

Second, I have GMed Godsmouth Heresy once, and have played it twice (First time, in person, for credit. Second time, in a PbP on the boards, no credit)

My thoughts on this blog post:
I enjoy module play. I am glad they are sanctioned.

I like the 12+ rules presented here, though I find it odd do have Eyes of the Ten 1 to be worth 2xp. Personally, I think if you are going so far as to change all of that (Module Chronicles to have more wealth, changing experience on Eyes of the Ten, etc), then you may as well just change the entire 12+ leveling process.

It'd be easier, in my opinion, to say that after you hit level 11, it takes 4xp to gain a level. Each of the Eyes of the Ten can be worth 1xp, getting you exactly to level 12, as it has been, and each module can be changed to give out 4xp and 4PA for completion. This does a couple things for you:
1) Eyes of the Ten isnt weird with one of them being worth 2xp.
2) All modules being worth 4xp/ 4pa is much easier to divide up in the event that someone isnt able to complete the entire thing/ dies part way in.
Leaving it so you are always 1xp from a level is just akward, and kinda pointless, I think.

As far as the new rules for modules go, I really DO NOT like what you have got listed in this blog. Im not neccessarily a fan of the way it is now, but I think this is too much of a change in the other direction. Also, I dont like Dragonmoon's idea of let the players choose, cause people will just play with one set of rules, and print the other chronicle.

I agree that the modules need to make death and consumption a part of it, and not handwave it away, but I dont like how it is presented here, not do I like how you are changing the eligible character part to bring it 'more in line' with the rest of PFS. My suggestions to improve what youve posted are:
1) The entire 'your character is linked to the pregen' thing needs to go away. There is no reason cause a pregen died that your character should die, too. That isnt how playing a higher level pregen works in a PFS scenario, so why should it be like that in a module?
If someone wants to play a pregen, cause they dont have a high enough character, it should either A) get no chronicle (like how PFS scenarios work), or B) leave it like it is, where it can be applied to a character.
2) I understand the original reason modules were approved was to help groups who were scattered on their levels, but if you want to make it more likely the rest of PFS, then I suggest just dropping that as the reason, and make it so you can only play through them with an appropriately leveled character, or a pregen who fits into the tier. If death and consumables count in a module, then A) you play your own character and risk dying and using your own consumables, or B) you play a pregen. If it dies, your done with the module. If you get far enough to get partial credit, the partial credit chronicle can be applied to a character with a 'pregen died' note marked by the GM, and the player cant play the module again, since they now have a chronicle (lvl 1s aside). If they dont get far enough to get partial credit, either dont give them a chronicle at all (but they are still done with the mod for this run through, but can replay it later on), or give them one with 0xp, 0gp, 0pa. It gets applied to a (doesnt matter which) character, and the player cant play it again.
3) I dont really like the part where it says 'when your character reaches the appropriate level, the chronicle can be applied'. I think if you play a pregen, you should get to apply it to any level character you want, giving it the appropriate amount of treasure for the level.

I think that's all I've got. My apologies if some/all of these suggestions/ arguements have been made and dealt with already, but as I said at the top, this thread is tl;dr.

I dont expect this last statement Im going to make to matter to TPTB on if they want to listen to my ideas, but Im saying it anyway: If the 'Pregen dies= Character dies" thing stays, I will never again play through a module (not counting short ones like We Be Goblins), and I will do my best to convince any players at my venue that those are a bad way to go with a pregen before I run one for them.

I don't get this. In every home campaign I've ever played, and I'd wager that a majority of people have played, you don't jump your character around levels just to play specific modules. Your GM typically will buy and run a module that fits the levels of the characters (or rewrites the module to fit the level of the characters if they like the story of the module well enough).

I've bought modules before in 3.5 and in pathfinder, because they looked cool. If it didn't fit in with a home game it was time to roll a new character at level Whatever so we could play the new module that weekend.

I bought Witchwar Legacy to run it as a send-off game for a buddy that was leaving town. So we all made 17th level characters to play. We could've played Iron Medusa. of the 4 players: the man of the hour didn't have a PFS character, 2 had retired 12th level characters, and 1 had a 10th level character. But its more fun to play high level. So we rolled 17ths, and had a blast in an 8 hour game.

I've never tried to fit a module in to a homegame. To me they're one-shot adventures. Which fits in pretty well with PFS, even though they weren't written for PFS.

1) Eyes of the Ten isnt weird with one of them being worth 2xp.

Eyes of the Ten part I is a double scenario so it doubles the length of time to run and doubles the risks you encounter. That is the reason for the double standard rewards. It is the only double scenario we have so it is unnecessary to revamp the entire rewards system just because there is a single anomaly.

When I first read this proposal I was ready to grab a torch and pitchfork but after reading through and seeing some of the postings I've calmed a bit. Here is where I'm still having issue and why I feel death should not be risked... or maybe half risked (pay half price for resurrection) in a module since they are special out of campaign play. They are outside of campaign play. By that I mean there is no faction mission. If anyone is familiar with the 'Secret Wars' series from Marvel in the 1980's I view sanctioned modules (regardless of how they were intended to be viewed, this is my view) as something like that. Our PC's were pulled from the regular world and stuck in this alternate reality. If they weren't high enough in level some mighty power advanced them to that power and if the PC was not change happened. So If they 'died' in this world they just woke up in their bed as if nothing happened...
Now if the modules were to be tied to the actually campaign, ie faction missions and the possibility to advance your factions cause then people would probably more accepting of death being a risk. As it stands right now that is my biggest concern with the rule change. Why should my fighter pay the ultimate cost in a module where I'm not advancing the goals of Andoran?

We do not have the Luxury of having another Night... That is the problem when you have only one Store that caters to RPG players in the 7th largest city in the US.

I sympathize. It seems we don't get to play the high level scenarios as much in manhattan, because there's always more of a need on our one game night for 2 lower level tables, 1-7 usually, and fewer hardcore gamers that have the 7-11 characters. The higher level stuff takes more organization, Its one of the few reasons i'm still happy to go to local conventions. They may not have Regional Play like living greyhawk did, but I am usually able to get one or two higher levels games that I need at a convention. But I can only afford to go to like 1 or 2 local conventions a year, or one big convention like gen con.

godsDMit wrote:

1) Eyes of the Ten isnt weird with one of them being worth 2xp.

Eyes of the Ten part I is a double scenario so it doubles the length of time to run and doubles the risks you encounter. That is the reason for the double standard rewards. It is the only double scenario we have so it is unnecessary to revamp the entire rewards system just because there is a single anomaly.

Ah. I havent played or ran any of those, so I was unaware that it was longer. Thats a good reason to do it like Mike has it layed out in the blog then, though I still find it odd to always be at 2/3 of the way to the next level. Maybe an Eyes of the Ten: Epilogue, to get you to 13? :P

Also, I stand by my suggestion of the higher level modules being changed to 4xp/4pa, if for no other reason than ease of division.

You seem to argue in a way that ignores options you don't like.

Pregens are an option to do what you say is being removed.

Just because you don't like playing pregens and don't consider them an option for YOU, does not mean they are not an option.

Mike has also said a rework of the pregens is something on his plate.

Give him time to actually do all the work.

Some of the pregens suck. ESPECIALLY at higher levels.

I've seen the Ninja played. Don't even mention optimized. It can't DO anything and its got less HP than the wizard at 7th level. IF the company is going to provide pregens to demonstrate the flavor of certain classes, and they DON'T want them dying during a scenario ( which i've seen happen 3/5 times to 7th level pregens ), then the pregens should follow the general advice I think is out there for society play: have a good constitution ( you don't want to die at -10. you want to die at -14. and +2 hp/level will seriously help avoid that.), be versatile. have multiple weapons that deal different types of damage ( the cleric only had a slashing weapon. when it came to skeletal undead Kyra was borked ). have scrolls of utility spells and memorize more useful combat spells.

Ah. I havent played or ran any of those, so I was unaware that it was longer. Thats a good reason to do it like Mike has it layed out in the blog then, though I still find it odd to always be at 2/3 of the way to the next level. Maybe an Eyes of the Ten: Epilogue, to get you to 13? :P

Also, I stand by my suggestion of the higher level modules being changed to 4xp/4pa, if for no other reason than ease of division.

its not a bad suggestion for the 13th+ level scenarios, since it does make it easier for tracking, but it wouldn't make too much of a difference, and it would be two different rules for advancement and more templates for them to publish for the modules. I could see it causing confusion and some headaches.

[be versatile. have multiple weapons that deal different types of damage ( the cleric only had a slashing weapon. when it came to skeletal undead Kyra was borked ). have scrolls of utility spells and memorize more useful combat spells.

In general, I'd agree with you. That the pregens are under-optimized. Some of the choices made in their builds are just strange choices.

That being said, if I created a Cleric of Sarenrae, I am not using anything but my scimitar. If I'm facing skeletons, then I either deal with the DR, I use channel, or other spells to deal with them.

That is a roleplay choice I would choose to make as a Cleric of Sarenrae. So I don't see that really all that under-optimizing for Kyra.