Changing Sanctioned Module Play

I have carefully considered these changes to module play and I actually like the consumable usage and death penalties. They make sense to me and it really isn't that big of a deal to get them in-line with PFS scenarios. My issue lies solely with the pre-gen idea. It just feels clunky to offer this as the option over just leveling up one of the player's current characters. If you GM more than play, it sounds like a good compromise, but if you play characters you design and build more than you GM, it sounds like a great opportunity to do something else with that 8-12 hours of your time. If there were a signup for a module and I didn't have a character within the level range, I'd rather order a pizza, grab a couple of people and play Red Dragon Inn and watch an episode of Doctor Who or something. That's just my personal take on things, and it wouldn't necessarily be Doctor Who.

I appreciate the work you've done so far and your dedication to PFS is nothing short of amazing. Keep it up!

I have not run any of the sanctioned modules for Society play, save MotFF and WBG (which hardly count).
The main reasons, in order:

• scheduling increased play time, and getting away from the stand-alone, anyone-can-show-up session
• increased prep time
• lack of thematic tie-ins to PFS
• lack of consequences (no used consumables, no death)

However, as an observer who has been in on this discussion from the start (during the Replay threads), I'm fully in support of the framework Mike has come up with.

I want to address a few of the complaints.

These changes get away from the original intent of providing a way to close the level gap
The original intent of sanctioning modules was not to close the level gap, but (as MillerHero pointed out and linkified) to allow more play opportunities to players who were complaining about running out of scenarios if they couldn't Play, Play, Play. Being able to use that greater play opportunity to bring character levels in-line was merely a side-effect of the rules being set up the way they were.
Problem is, it only closes the gap if you use it that way. And if you're continually having to run modules, it's not working.
The way it closes the gap:

The changes mean you cannot use modules to "fix" characters
Unfortunately, bad things happen to adventurers. A player cannot use module play to boost their rewards to raise a killed character, so why should they be able to use it to gain rewards to remove a lesser condition?

The pre-gens suck, and are not an option for play
I have players playing a 7th-level Ezren, and a 5th-level Valeros (the original builds, not the improved ones from this year), which started play as 1st-level pre-gens. Some people optimize, some don't. While they are not optimal, the pre-gens are valid, survivable characters.
And honestly, it is better for the campaign as a whole if the pre-gens are not overly optimized. It is better if people want to play their own characters.

Some modules are not survivable at the end, because they presume you have levelled
Under the current proposal, modules are playable by any character within 1 level of the stated starting level.
So, "Carrion Hill" is playable for 4-6 characters of levels 4-6 (stated for 4 characters of 5th). "Crypt of the Everflame" is playable by 4-6 characters of levels 1-2.
The level variance and the increased party size can offset some of the tougher later encounters.
However, a GM may have to consider their group when picking an adventure.

I'm not opposed to tweaking things a bit (like looking at pre-gen linking), but I'm fully behind the general idea.

Neil

On the face of it I liked what you said about the proposed system (now we have more low tier mods) being just as good for fixing level disparity when normal scenario play is for what ever reason mired at low tier only. BTW I never imagined this was one of the reasons why mods were sanctioned, it was a happy side effect (cf aspirin and strokes, Viagra and well you get the idea)

Thing is, surely it will only help with the people who are there when you start playing the low tier modules. If you are lucky enough to get 2 new players who have become regulars and you want to get their highest level PCs say 2nd up to 5th you could start a chain of low lvl mods.

If after a couple of those, someone's job means they have to leave the group and another couple join you are back at square one.

Except that you cannot redo the mods other than GMH

The problem is not the need to get ppl with mid level PCs up to 7-11 but to get players who live in an area where there are not enough players to allow a mid tier table at games days without drastically reducing the facility to seat new players and get them involved and hopefully in turn become regulars.

Allowing the free application of XP by letting people use mods as they have been gets around this problem as you could do eg Ebon destroyers and apply the XP where it is needed. It is not an infinitely scalable solution but it give another useful option without in my honest opinion undermining the integrity of OP.

Once you get to the point that there are enough players with lvl 5 PCs that the requirements for GMs for low tier tables is no longer an issue, you are heading into the territory where you don't need to fix level disparity at all.

W

heretic,

As soon as you give players the option to play something other than their own character for credit, you have undermined the integrity of organized play. The players are playing a pickup game and getting PFS rewards for doing so. They aren't accepting any greater risks than reading one of the Pathfinder Tales books so their rewards should be commensurate with that.

I like Mike's solution but I would be open to other ideas so long as they incorporate the idea that character advancement should be tied to actual character accomplishments and risks characters have taken. The current system (and most proposed alternatives) fail miserably with regards to this.

heretic,

As soon as you give players the option to play something other than their own character for credit, you have undermined the integrity of organized play. The players are playing a pickup game and getting PFS rewards for doing so. They aren't accepting any greater risks than reading one of the Pathfinder Tales books so their rewards should be commensurate with that.

I like Mike's solution but I would be open to other ideas so long as they incorporate the idea that character advancement should be tied to actual character accomplishments and risks characters have taken. The current system (and most proposed alternatives) fail miserably with regards to this.

That is why I suggested to still allow people to use the old Module system of making your own PC but the new system for Linking the risks to one of your PCs like the new Pre-Gen system. This gets around the whole Pre-Gen issue adding more risk then needed but still links a "real" pc to all the risk of the Module.

I was shot down by everyone, but it seems like a great option for those of us that still want the Modules for play fo everyone and for those that want the Risk as part of the modules.

Edit: This would fix the majority of the complaints by those who don't like the new system fully and at the same time everyone else who wants the Risk still there.

That is why I suggested to still allow people to use the old Module system of making your own PC but the new system for Linking the risks to one of your PCs like the new Pre-Gen system. This gets around the whole Pre-Gen issue adding more risk then needed but still links a "real" pc to all the risk of the Module.

I was shot down by everyone, but it seems like a great option for those of us that still want the Modules for play fo everyone and for those that want the Risk as part of the modules.

Edit: This would fix the majority of the complaints by those who don't like the new system fully and at the same time everyone else who wants the Risk still there.

The problem I see with this is it's not something your character is accomplishing. At best it's something a possible future version of your character might accomplish. You are advancing your character using things he didn't accomplish.

I see the role of the pregens as a way to fill out a table in a pinch and nothing more. This is why I like Thursty or Blazej's suggestions of allowing pregens or even player generated characters to play through and get a boon other than exp or prestige/ fame.

I see the role of the pregens as a way to fill out a table in a pinch and nothing more. This is why I like Thursty or Blazej's suggestions of allowing pregens or even player generated characters to play through and get a boon other than exp or prestige/ fame.

Why would I want a rule that is even more Restrictive than the One given by Mike? That is a terrible idea and does not address those that are having problems with the new rule at all.

I am suggesting a rule that fixes the issues we *as in people who don't like the new rule* are having and you still have all the risk.

I thought we were looking for a reasonable Compromise for those that have issue with the new rules, not ideas that make it even worse. Sorry for misunderstanding your post.

I'll repost my quote above since you seem to have misunderstood it.

I like Mike's solution but I would be open to other ideas so long as they incorporate the idea that character advancement should be tied to actual character accomplishments and risks characters have taken. The current system (and most proposed alternatives) fail miserably with regards to this.

I changed the emphasis slightly since you missed that bit.

I'll repost my quote above since you seem to have misunderstood it.

Quote:

I like Mike's solution but I would be open to other ideas so long as they incorporate the idea that character advancement should be tied to actual character accomplishments and risks characters have taken. The current system (and most proposed alternatives) fail miserably with regards to this.

I changed the emphasis slightly since you missed that bit.

Well then my Post is to everyone But Dennis since we want to go in opposite directions..;)

I support the changes. While being able to level up new PCs to match the vets or to get through the low levels without having to play them might be convenient, it defeats one of the tenets of organized play. We don't allow people to create characters at levels above 1. Letting people use modules to level up PCs for no risk is just like letting them start characters at higher levels.

As for a way for vets to get their multiple low-level PCs up to the 5-9 Tier so you can run those games for them: ask them to GM every so often. GM credit not only helps the issue of "fixing" character level issues, it allows your group to grow and prosper, giving you flexibility in who can run what scenario and still get credit. (And yes, I know GM credit provides "reward without risk" in a way, but frankly we need GMs or it all falls apart. Credit helps convince some GMs to GM, so it's a necessary compromise.)

Finally, if you're the main GM and the coordinator, it's probably best to forget about your own GM Chronicles when scheduling games. Sure, it's nice for the occasional GM who doesn't want to fall behind his friends when it's his turn in the hot seat. If you GM most of the time, though, you very quickly realize you're never going to play any of these artificially-leveled characters, and it just limits the scenarios you choose to run which further limits your players' options. It's not worth the scheduling headache, trust me.

Well then my Post is to everyone But Dennis since we want to go in opposite directions..;)

I see, so you are willing to compromise with anyone who already agrees with you, that makes sense :D

Snarkiness aside, I suspect that is more or less the heart of the issue. The current policy completely severs the relationship between character advancement and character 'accomplishments' which is the norm in PFS. This change brings the two more or less back in sync. I doubt you are going to find a lot of compromise so long as your suggestions ignore this fairly core concept.

Dennis,

There are all sorts of ways in which characters receive rewards without the characters doing much. Right now, I have a 4th level monk who makes use of a racial boon, two extra traits, two free vanities, all from convention boons, and a good chunk of experience from GM credit. He has a boon because I played some pre-gens in the Beginner Box Bash. He has a couple of boons because I bought some books.

So, that horse has left the barn. Preserving the sanctity of character endeavors is a fine principle, but it runs orthogonal to the principle of throwing out little boons and incentives here and there to get players interested in PFS OP. (Principles do that; it's their nature to bend to compromise.)

---+---

I would be interested in hearing why the campaign coordinators decided, back a year and some ago, to lighten the risk of death and consumable expenditures in modules. We have the stated reason module play was introduced: to make more opportunities to play. But who decided to make them risk-light?

(And yes, I know GM credit provides "reward without risk" in a way, but frankly we need GMs or it all falls apart. Credit helps convince some GMs to GM, so it's a necessary compromise.)

I just wanted to say, that for GMs there is some 'risk', outlays of time/cash for scenarios.

Sure the reward is intangible for the real world risk involved, but who hasn't seen virtual items for sale on e-bay?

I would be interested in hearing why the campaign coordinators decided, back a year and some ago, to lighten the risk of death and consumable expenditures in modules. We have the stated reason module play was introduced: to make more opportunities to play. But who decided to make them risk-light?

This is probably a good point. Wish this was made somewhere to the beginning of this discussion, since an answer might have changed a lot of suggestions in this thread.

Michael

I agree - some more background might have resulted in less discussion.

Chris

My personal experience (negative) with module play might mirror the reasons why there was a change (I'm not saying these are the reasons - but they could contribute).

In my very first module - Godsmouth Heresy with a group of experienced players - everyone took great care to start with a character with enough XP to maximize consumables and to ensure that they all had a wand of CLW. I'm not innocent myself - I think as Drunken Brute I showed my greatest treasure - a Potion of Cure Moderate Wounds with the personal sigil of the Para-Countess (the latter was fluff - but I got it from a chronicle and not sure I would have bought it otherwise).
I even doubt I used it - but that was because of all the wands and the very generous sharing of them I never needed to use it in any way.

But yes - it left a bad aftertase which luckily was not repeated when I had some more inexperienced (naive?) players on my table when I ran it.

When I GMed The Cult of the Ebon Destroyer there where two levelled up characters. One level 6 who was 'just out' and got 2 extra levels. That one was no problem.
And we had a level 1 Oracle with 1 or 2 XP GM credit - leveled up as one-trick pony to maximize healing. I still remember the discussion here when I posted the experience and mentioned the 24 HP healed via Cure Light Wounds and was told that is impossible - as it turned out it was. It was a misinterpretation of stacking rules.

This oracle was a test to try out how far you can go to do nothing but healing. The player had fun for this one module - but I doubt the character was played again for real very much - especially as I told him later that his whole concept was build on a misunderstanding of the rules.

This is my personal - very, very limited experience. But expect these or similar experiences to make their way up to Paizo.

So, that horse has left the barn.

You are suggesting that just because there are lesser sins a greater is Ok and I don't buy it. Most of those boons are *very* minor and limited in availability and scope. The traits are pretty significant but I hadn't even heard about those until now, how many people got those? The race isn't even advancing the character, it gives the *player* some extra options.

How many conventions can you attend? How many beginners bashes can you put on (you can only get the boon once so it doesn't matter)

I would be interested in hearing why the campaign coordinators decided, back a year and some ago, to lighten the risk of death and consumable expenditures in modules. We have the stated reason module play was introduced: to make more opportunities to play. But who decided to make them risk-light?

That is a good question.

The problem I see with this is it's not something your character is accomplishing. At best it's something a possible future version of your character might accomplish. You are advancing your character using things he didn't accomplish.

I see the role of the pregens as a way to fill out a table in a pinch and nothing more. This is why I like Thursty or Blazej's suggestions of allowing pregens or even player generated characters to play through and get a boon other than exp or prestige/ fame.

Dennis

This is indeed the heart of the matter. Now I enter this dialogue in good faith, rather than a debating contest. I agree that in principle one should earn the right to play higher level games.

Neither I nor indeed Dragnmoon, whom I have locked horns with in the past, but seem to be of a mind with in this matter, are , I think, arguing that the current situation should remain unchanged.

In particular I think there is widespread support for the changes re having either the real PFS character or in the case of a Pre-Gen a linked real charcter.

Thus I feel that it is important that in these discussions people drop talk of reward without risk. Any benefit a PC gets is done at risk of it's death.

The bone of contention is the significant benefits many us of feel have come from the side effect of the old system i.e. allowing level balancing among players from small player pools who really have earned their stripes in terms of the numbers of games they have played and will play at low tier. Their doing this not least to facilitate new players in general and growth of the local PFS scene in particular.

The question is if this practice is useful in areas with limited numbers but not in well established areas is it really worth banning it as being beyond the pale in terms of PFS integrity?

W

The way it closes the gap:

Veteran has played all low-level scenarios, and has only 5th-level characters. Newbie joins in. GM runs modules to get Newbie to 5th, while Veteran plays a new character in the modules. That way, everyone is eventually at same level.

C+P part of the original blog post, emphasis mine:

Basically, with the new rule set like it is, your example works for low level modules only. If it was switched so they were playing a high level module, with the newb being the one playing a pregen, then only the short-term problem of how to sit everyone at a table RIGHT NOW is solved. It does nothing for the long term, cause the new player just spent 2-3 sessions worth of time earning credit that he cant apply until he reaches that higher level, whereas the veteran can apply it right now, making the gap even bigger.

Now, if Im misunderstanding this, please tell me.

ALSO, the way Ive been reading this stuff with the pregens the entire time is that if the pregen lives, the character gets the chronicle when they reach the appropriate level for the module. If the pregen dies, the character dies RIGHT THEN. Is that right, or would the death hold off until the character hits that level, therefore giving them time to save up? If the latter, Im MUCH more ok with this idea than I was. :P

It's interesting that this blog post come up now, as in my idea to get my local players to the local convention in February, I am offering a module each game day instead of the newest Season 3 scenarios. I'm hoping to create more of a draw to the convention amongst the local populace. We generally have about 3-4 tables each game day, so I think this is comparable to heretic's and Dragnmoon's turnout, maybe a bit less.

We started with Crypt of the Everflame. I posted on the Warhorn and Google Group site that we were doing it this way, and for people to come prepared with new level 1 or existing level 2 characters. We had three full complete tables (two had 6 players, one had 5, IIRC) and no character deaths.

On Saturday, we are taking those players through Masks of the Living God, which may be significantly more difficult as they are all mostly level 2. I designed it this way due to it being a story arc, not knowing the unintentional side effect that this is sort of a beta test of the proposed new rules.

Next month, we will be offering City of Golden Death. Now, characters who started at level 1 will not be able to play this with the character they played MotLG, so they'll either use the 4th level Pre-Gen, or an older character that is within the level range of 4-6.

One of my local GMs volunteered to run these back to back (even though I like to give them every other month off) because he liked running the complete story arc. The players all embraced starting new characters and there was a level of excitement as they all started out at the same level, or close to the same level.

The bone of contention is the significant benefits many us of feel have come from the side effect of the old system i.e. allowing level balancing among players from small player pools who really have earned their stripes in terms of the numbers of games they have played and will play at low tier. Their doing this not least to facilitate new players in general and growth of the local PFS scene in particular.

I think I've mentioned this in the past, but I'll mention it again. I help run a fairly small setup here, on a typical week we have 6-12 players. The only times we've used the modules has been special side events, because of the scheduling problems in dealing with a multi-week module with an intermittent player group are too weird. So modules just don't enter into the equation for our bi-weekly game night.

So this idea that the modules are somehow critical to the growth of small PFS groups is just doesn't match my experience.

I love the decision to allow Pathfinder Society Characters the ability to play beyond 12th level. I am hopeful that at some point you start producing scenarios that support up to 15th level, or even up to 20th level. Anyway, I love and support the idea.

I think I've mentioned this in the past, but I'll mention it again. I help run a fairly small setup here, on a typical week we have 6-12 players. The only times we've used the modules has been special side events, because of the scheduling problems in dealing with a multi-week module with an intermittent player group are too weird. So modules just don't enter into the equation for our bi-weekly game night.

So this idea that the modules are somehow critical to the growth of small PFS groups is just doesn't match my experience.

Dennis. You did indeed mention that you don't have a large player base and that this has lead to a lot of low level play. From my perspective If you have the people for two tables on a weekly basis then you are doing pretty well and certainly I presume you are aware that It is wrong to assume your experience reflects let alone trumps that of other people's. To read you putting words in my mouth in relation to it being critical to the growth of small PFS groups is rather depressing TBH.

Putting my own words mouthwards: It is not in all cases either critical or useful. In some circumstances is could be both. It is not just a matter of the numbers attending but the regularity and frequency of those ppl attending. However in my case and apparently in others it is a really useful tool I am unconvinced we should deny ourselves.

As things stand if I wish to try and grow the local player base it will mean that such time as I can devote to PFS will be with new players. And for clarity there are not enough resources to do more!!!! The more experienced guys like me will be GMing or playing low tier. I think I have enough regulars to have a cadre of higher level players (5+) but only half of them have characters within 9 scenarios of 5th level.

If however we can use modules which can be done in situations where there are less than 5 hours available for each session, it allows a respite from endless low tier play and let's the more experienced people play usefully with the more recent starts and much sooner we have a much healthier player base and level spread.

Now we could just ditch PFS play and use the time we spend on it playing something else that does not require endless low level work but I don't want to have to go down that route. Playing Ebon Destroyers was great for us as a group and reinvigorating the PFS side of things. Explaining that it was a brief interlude, repetition of which is about to banned from on high is not something I look forward to.

W

Since we don't have enough opinions in here already :P

Overall, I like the changes. I like that consumables spent carryover and that there's going to be dramatic/cinematic/climactic options for level 12 pcs instead of boring old retirement.

Quick question, and apologies if it's been answered, didn't have time to mine through 7 pages of replies today -- are these changes proposed or already implemented? I'm running some module play in two days and it'd change the level dynamics of the group a bit

Before this change, my group was going to use modules to "take a break from PFS", while still leveling a casual player's low level PC. My players could play some experimental PCs or pregens, have some fun. Now, we can't level the low level PC, because we can only apply those chronicles when our PCs get to level 9 (Harrowing).

Yes, we could level the low level PC with scenarios, but like I said, my players wanted "something different" (non-PFS, possible high level) while still accomplishing that same goal. Sometimes a game with no consequences is exactly what you need! The entire point to the module is that whatever happens in the module doesn't matter, but playing still accomplishes the goal of leveling a low level PC. And if you screw up, you get less rewards or possibly no rewards. So there were consequences, they were just light.

Also, modules were also a way another player could have GMed without worrying about PFS rules or screwing anything up permanently. You guys want modules tied tightly to a PFS PC, my point is that there were benefits to not having the module tightly tied to a PC.

In the past I considered playing modules at conventions (and I'd apply that credit to a 1st or 2nd level PC), but if I can only apply the credit to a level-appropriate PC, no thanks, I'll pass and find something better to do with my time.

Anyway, I understand why the changes are being made, so that the modules have consequences and there's significant risk involved. The side effect for my group is that it takes away a fun option. I suppose it doesn't matter that much (especially since I'm in the minority), it just means that my group will never use (or play) modules in the future.

So this idea that the modules are somehow critical to the growth of small PFS groups is just doesn't match my experience.

Confirmed. My small group (10-15) hasn't run a single module in our existence (approx. 3 months) and the scenarios have been leveling our tables just fine. The higher one is in the 6-7 tier now.

I AM SOOOO Down with this! Playing my retired 12lvl character in sanctioned high level games! Sign me up!!!

As an idea.. how about a Scenario that takes the Adventurers into Geb... to capture/Rescue Arazni from the Ghost king Geb... maybe with the Clergy of IOMEDAE restore her Divine status? THAT'S EPIC Story! :)

I have a few reasons why I do not like the limiting of the sanctioned modules to characters of the appropriate level only.

Personally I like being the current flexibiity of leveling up a character to play a high level module. It allows me to explore a path of feat selections and items to see if they are viable. I know that some people can read over everything and just see how it will all fall together but for me it helps to actually play it through and it is much more enjoyable.

With the group of people that I play with we range from people who game weekly to ones who primarily go to conventions because they cannot make the times that the games are run at game stores to people who only want to play occasionally. With being able to adapt our characters to the level of the module it gives us a PFS game that we can play when there is not a regular PFS module that our characters can sync up on.

I have had a module come out that I thought looked like a lot of fun and I wanted to play it immediately. However the character that I wanted to play was no where near the correct level. With leveling I was able to go ahead and play. If I could not have leveled I still wouldn't be able to play it for several months and to be honest I probably would not have encouraged the GM to buy the moudle.

I can see that there is a problem with the ways that people are abusing the leveling process. Consumables are the biggest one that jumps out. Adventures get much easier if everyone plans to burn an entire cure light wand during the course of it. I don't have a great solution to this or any of the other abuses, but I feel that restricting to appropriate leveled characters is downgrading the fun level.

My few suggestions.
Tier the price of consumables, ie if the module is 1-4 normal price, 5-9 double the price, 10+ triple the price. This will help to reflect that the character used a few of these to get to that level.
If a character dies in the module and cannot be raised in the module then the charater suffers the normal penalties. If they have the PA/gold to get raised then all is okay, if not too bad.

Okay, so I managed to get through the first two pages of this thread before realizing that I just wasn't going to make it through 5 more pages. Also, it seems that all salient points had already been brought up by about halfway through the second page. So, this is just my two cents about the proposed rules, with the caveat that all of the sides of the debate, even the ones I don't personally agree with, have good and valid points.

To preface, I've only played three actual PFS mods, though I've run well over 20 sessions (lack of stars aside), but I've never had a chance to play or run any of the modules. Honestly, they've always seemed a complete tangent to the campaign, and there's never been a need for me or any of my players to turn to them. That being said, what I would like to see for sanctioned module play is real risk, real rewards, and as much continuity as is possible in an organized play environment. I don't like the idea of having proxy characters (pre-gens or otherwise) or having artificially de/leveled versions of your characters. I think playing a sanctioned module should be a very special sort of event, a major undertaking. While I deeply and viscerally understand the issues that can arise with level gaps in smaller groups, I really dislike the idea of using it as a level catch-up. I would be perfectly happy for sanctioned module play to be level-appropriate characters only. To go even further, I wouldn't even mind lower than average Prestige awards, but very cool and special rewards on the Chonicles.

As for allowing sanctioned module play for characters above 12th level, I'm all for that, too. It's obvious there's a desire for it, and I think that modules are, in general, a much better solution than producing a lot of special scenarios.

There's been a bit of a tangent discussion of the pre-gens rolled into this discussion as well, so I'll comment on that as well. In my opinion, pre-gens serve two major purposes - to add to a small party to round out abilities that aren't already represented, and to provide players new to PFS a way to join in a game in a sort of walk-in fashion. To emphasize those points, I am whole-heartedly behind the idea of making the pre-gens a little more optimized, along with adding pre-gens for the classes that don't already have them. One of the other things that I would really like to see is to have character sheet versions of them available, as well as the stat block versions. The stat block version is incredibly useful for a GM, but is less than optimal for a player - especially a new player.

So, all in all, I quite support the proposed changes - admittedly, though, it is because it more closely supports my idea of what place modules should have in the campaign. Even if it comes down to making absolutely no changes to the way modules are currently played, though, it won't affect the way that I run my Game Days or my view of the campaign as a whole.

Also, I think it speaks a lot of Mike that he made the announcement, and opened it up to debate, opinions, and criticisms.

I have a few reasons why I do not like the limiting of the sanctioned modules to characters of the appropriate level only.

Personally I like being the current flexibiity of leveling up a character to play a high level module. It allows me to explore a path of feat selections and items to see if they are viable. I know that some people can read over everything and just see how it will all fall together but for me it helps to actually play it through and it is much more enjoyable.

With the group of people that I play with we range from people who game weekly to ones who primarily go to conventions because they cannot make the times that the games are run at game stores to people who only want to play occasionally. With being able to adapt our characters to the level of the module it gives us a PFS game that we can play when there is not a regular PFS module that our characters can sync up on.

I have had a module come out that I thought looked like a lot of fun and I wanted to play it immediately. However the character that I wanted to play was no where near the correct level. With leveling I was able to go ahead and play. If I could not have leveled I still wouldn't be able to play it for several months and to be honest I probably would not have encouraged the GM to buy the moudle.

I can see that there is a problem with the ways that people are abusing the leveling process. Consumables are the biggest one that jumps out. Adventures get much easier if everyone plans to burn an entire cure light wand during the course of it. I don't have a great solution to this or any of the other abuses, but I feel that restricting to appropriate leveled characters is downgrading the fun level.

My few suggestions.
Tier the price of consumables, ie if the module is 1-4 normal price, 5-9 double the price, 10+ triple the price. This will help to reflect that the character used a few of these to get to that level.
If a character dies in the module and cannot be raised in the module then the charater suffers the...

Sigh, I just spent 30 minutes typing a post and then paizo gave me a 404 error when I hit submit. I'm not retyping it. Mostly, I agree with this. I signed up for a module subscription primarily because the current levelling flexibility allows our small group of friends to play together no matter what the level of the module. I'd probably cancel my subscription and just buy the occasional low level module if these rules go into effect. We just wouldn't be able to make a table for the ones above 3rd level with our group. I'm not opposed to consequences at the end of the module, but I do like the current level your own character ability rather than having to use a pre-gen who will likely be playing up and get killed.

I do like the possibility of playing 12th level characters and allowing them to level past 12. I'd hope there'd be multiple paths to get to an appropriate level, though, since a lot of people may have already played the higher level mods with other characters. (I'd hate to be blocked from playing anything past level 13 because I'd already played Tomb of the Iron Medusa and couldn't get to level 15, for example.--I didn't, but I did run it, so most of my group would be in that boat.)

Dennis Baker wrote:

So this idea that the modules are somehow critical to the growth of small PFS groups is just doesn't match my experience.

Confirmed. My small group (10-15) hasn't run a single module in our existence (approx. 3 months) and the scenarios have been leveling our tables just fine. The higher one is in the 6-7 tier now.

I have to say that the so-called small groups referenced are bigger, in general, than the small group I get to (when I can) run for.

1-2 new players, sometimes (and we have had to raid the MtG players to get them, sometimes)
1-2 experienced players.

Once or twice, I have had a group that was 6 or 7 players. We were fairly regular, than a few things happened, including losing the former VC, and the holidays. The last few times I ghave tried running have been .... a waste fo time, really. If I am lucky, I get one person interested in PFS, or I get two players, but not even at the same time, one has to go before the other asrrives.

One of the things I had used the modules to do was to work on the frustration this can cause, and reduce the chance of my burning out from always running the same thing time after time.

Add-in that the regulars include folks who have played most of the older scenarios, and that the former VC had asked me to try and stay in the older scenarios to leave the newer ones available for NeonCon play....

The modules were going to be used to fulfill several purposes:
1) Things to run that would allow the regulars to play & get credit.
2) Something that I could have run at a higher than subtier1-2 level, for variety for the GM.
3) Something that would let the regulars maybe get some play out of their older characters, instead of pulling out their umpteenth new PC.

Instead, I am left, yet again, with dealing with limited players, limited scenarios available to run, and my own frustration on yet another rules change in PFS.

Still waiting to hear if a scenario my original PC played during Season 0 will ever get properly credited in; if the former VC/coordinator will ever move the GM credit from the character it was illegal for to a character for whom it would be legal; and for the new VC to setup the GM meeting he mentioned so we can discuss his plans and our contributions for the local area for PFS.

Sorry, end rant.

Before this change, my group was going to use modules to "take a break from PFS", while still leveling a casual player's low level PC. My players could play some experimental PCs or pregens, have some fun. Now, we can't level the low level PC, because we can only apply those chronicles when our PCs get to level 9 (Harrowing).

Yes, we could level the low level PC with scenarios, but like I said, my players wanted "something different" (non-PFS, possible high level) while still accomplishing that same goal. Sometimes a game with no consequences is exactly what you need! The entire point to the module is that whatever happens in the module doesn't matter, but playing still accomplishes the goal of leveling a low level PC. And if you screw up, you get less rewards or possibly no rewards. So there were consequences, they were just light.

Also, modules were also a way another player could have GMed without worrying about PFS rules or screwing anything up permanently. You guys want modules tied tightly to a PFS PC, my point is that there were benefits to not having the module tightly tied to a PC.

In the past I considered playing modules at conventions (and I'd apply that credit to a 1st or 2nd level PC), but if I can only apply the credit to a level-appropriate PC, no thanks, I'll pass and find something better to do with my time.

Anyway, I understand why the changes are being made, so that the modules have consequences and there's significant risk involved. The side effect for my group is that it takes away a fun option. I suppose it doesn't matter that much (especially since I'm in the minority), it just means that my group will never use (or play) modules in the future.

Jason,

Would linking the fate of a character played at higher level in a mod to that of the one that gets the XP really ruin the fun? You would still get the fun of a higher level but with added frission of knowing that the result matters too!

What's really frustrating is not allowing the XP to assigned to where it will most usefully be applied.

W

Briefly

There is a clear gap developing between those ppl who have small irregular PFS player bases , (and sorry 2/3 weekly tables is not small, though it could easily be very irregular) and those who have a player base of what ever size that allows natural growth of tables to include low, mid and high level play.

When you need all available players to fill the table you always play at the lowest tier. Even a single new player means playing at 1 or 1-2.

If you manage to expand from 1 table of 6 to 2 of 3/4 the same problem will apply.
Please, please stop assuming because it is not a problem where you are it is not a problem elsewhere.

No one is insisting that ppl use anything other than 'real' PFS characters in mods, just that where it is way to manage the levels in a genuinely small AND irregular player base, you don't dismiss our problems because they just don't match your experience.

W

There is a clear gap developing between those ppl who have small irregular PFS player bases ...

....you don't dismiss our problems because they just don't match your experience.

If you want to say "Hey this is great for my group!" then that's fine. When you try to suggest it's somehow a generic problem among 'small groups', I completely disagree because I've been there. I've dealt with that issue on and off for nearly three years now. Several other people have said likewise.

I'm going to chime in on this one as well. I play in a location where we currently run a session a week, and sometimes a second. A few of the characters prefer to play just a single character instead of creating multiple characters to play the different modules with. At our location, we have a myriad of players that have either hit level 12, or will hit it within the next month to month and a half.

This is where my problem with the new module rules comes into play, as the location that I play in we're going to start to run the modules on our secondary playing day. Unfortunately, there are players that I run with that can't complete a long module in one sitting, and under the new rules, would be disqualified from using their characters during the normal weekly scenarios that we run mid-week.

This would diminish the capacity for, at least me, to run the modules and rely on continuing to run older Season 0 and Season 1 content, that we are already doing every other week in our mid-week game.

In my opinion, the current module rules work.

As far as higher levels are concerned, I would love to see scenarios brought in that will allow 12+ characters to continue to play until they hit the new level cap. Without that, I wouldn't want to see a new cap. No reason for it.

BTW - Played 1, GMed 1 (two separate occasions) planning on GMing at least 3 more.

Quote:

There is a clear gap developing between those ppl who have small irregular PFS player bases ...

....you don't dismiss our problems because they just don't match your experience.

If you want to say "Hey this is great for my group!" then that's fine. When you try to suggest it's somehow a generic problem among 'small groups', I completely disagree because I've been there. I've dealt with that issue on and off for nearly three years now. Several other people have said likewise.

Dennis

Two things

1) you simply cannot not legitimately assume that your experience mirrors other ppls to the point where you can dismiss my concerns as being singular to my group. I am not saying that this will help every small group just that it will some.
2) Both sides of the argument has proponents on this thread, I recognise this. I am surprised you felt it appropriate to say that your experience trumps mine because some ppl here agree you?

Oh and playing 2/3 tables weekly is still not I am thinking bad going nor should that set be compared as similar to places running a table once or twice a month!

Best Regards
W

P.S. Even if the tables were turned the putative benefits that the disputed changes would bring would not convince me to mess with what helps you, just cos I don't need or want to work that way

Would linking the fate of a character played at higher level in a mod to that of the one that gets the XP really ruin the fun? You would still get the fun of a higher level but with added frission of knowing that the result matters too!

I think what you're saying is that if I have a level 1 PC, Tim, would it be fun if I made a level 9 version of Tim to play "The Harrowing"? The answer is yes.

Unfortunately with the new rules, you can't do that. You either need to play an UNMODIFIED PFS PC or a pregen. Any module of level 9 or greater, you must play an unmodified PFS PC. Why would I want to play a module at levels 9-11 when there are so many awesome PFS scenarios to play?? In any case, only a very small number of players will be able to play these high level modules in the future. It's very limiting.

In addition, I thought it was a very nice option for players to be able to create completely new characters at the given level, for a change of pace, for something different.

I'm going to argue that there were advantages to modules only being loosely linked to a PFS PC. The results didn't matter as much, which was a good thing. It was a good break. Some GMs complain that their players were more Kamikaze, however I don't see that as a bad thing. Did the players have fun? Sure they did. And while having that fun break, they also leveled a low level PC in the process. Win-win.

What's really frustrating is not allowing the XP to assigned to where it will most usefully be applied.

I agree. The major problem I have with these changes is that the module chronicle doesn't apply to Tim until he's level 9. So modules no longer help level low level PCs.

Like I said though, the play style of the majority clearly overrules us, but I'm ok with that, there's lots of other things to do with my time.

Quote:

There is a clear gap developing between those ppl who have small irregular PFS player bases ...

....you don't dismiss our problems because they just don't match your experience.

If you want to say "Hey this is great for my group!" then that's fine. When you try to suggest it's somehow a generic problem among 'small groups', I completely disagree because I've been there. I've dealt with that issue on and off for nearly three years now. Several other people have said likewise.

So your reply to the sentiment that 'your anecdotal experiences cannot be extrapolated across the whole of PFS play' is that your anecdotal experiences are (as stipulated) different, and therefore other concerns must be isolated?

I'm sorry, but that reads as very disrespectful. If this is a situation with which you have dealt for three years (longer than my involvement with PFS), might you offer a solution for how this concern was relieved?

I apologize if this comes off as antagonistic; that is not my intent. My general concern is that there will be players who were allowed to advance PCs under one set of rules and subsequently there will be players who are not allowed the same flexible opportunities. My concern is that it seems to be a bit of an uneven playing field. Granted, this is going to happen to some degree as an OP campaign. Scenarios are retired/removed from play (on a similar note, the Prestige rewards from older mods are different depending on when they may have been played, as is how Prestige is earned). Rewards that are offered at major conventions do not make their way to general availability (I am thinking of a different campaign when I consider that issue). These are, by themselves, minor concerns. However, when they accumulate they seem to be something more.

While I understand the motivation behind the proposed changes -- we all want a better, stronger OP campaign -- I do not know if disallowing players from "leveling" existent PCs up or down to play sanctioned modules is the best answer. I do like the reality of there being risk to the PC who receives the chronicle.

However, my greatest desire would be for PFS to open up scenario play for characters beyond 12th level (and not just module play). I have found (and this is anecdotal, to be sure) that there is less of a commitment to individual PCs and the setting than a previous OP campaign in which I played that finished with mods being written for 18th-20th level PCs. This is not about the "power" of those PCs, but rather the amount of play one can experience with one character. I do not know that sanctioned modules will offer the same level of involvement, especially given how they are not directly tied to the ongoing story of the Pathfinder Society.

I apologize if that comes off as a rant (and even more so if it appears to be uninformed). However, I do think that some of the concerns tend to get overlooked because they don't seem to effect certain vocal parties. So long as the campaign is taking steps to grow and provide a consistently rewarding play experience -- and provided I wish to continue to play -- I will go along with the announced changes. I do think that the proposals as first proposed were not particularly well thought out or forward thinking, but I am not in charge of the campaign. Nor do I speak for or represent anyone other than myself. As such, I must look upon my concerns as they relate to me and not others, excepting (of course) where I see fellow players post concerns that echo my own. I can understand where Dennis can take the input from several players who agree with his sentiments and feel that his experiences are not isolated, but I do not believe that necessarily translates into a truth.

That's about all I have to say on the subjects of the changes and how we respond to one another here.

While it's not an issue now, (since my PCs are levels 2 and 3) I can see something similar coming.

I've a friend moving back into the area. So she starts first level. Unlike me she has a family and a life, so she likely won't play as much. What do we do when Rey (and his peers) are level 6 and she's only 3rd or 4th? What do we do if her daughter wants to play and we're 8, she's 3 and her daughter is 1?

Like I said elsewhere I keep the maps for Crypt in my pack, along with my mini which has all the scenarios. So if we have enough to split tables, that's fine. I can take the lower table. But we've been lucky to have 4 players on some nights, let alone 8.

.
.
.
.
.

Regarding sanctioned modules, I would advocate using the simple
solution of requiring a character of appropriate level to play.
This simple solution removes the complexity of pre-gen linking.

If you want to play in a level 8 module, you need to have a legal
level 7-9 character. Playing a pre-gen for credit is not allowed.
This would match with the current rules for playing in scenarios.
It is the same model that worked well in a prior living campaign.

There would be one reward on the module chronicle, since modules
are not tiered. Everyone gets 3 XP, 4 PA, and same possible gold.
The GM would receive an identical chronicle, and use the current
rules to apply in the future if lacking an appropriate character.

I just read the blog post and read a few pages of the posts. Forgive me if I don't slog through all of them.

I can understand removing the artificial level-up rules that currently exist. The no-risk aspect doesn't sit well. I like the real risk of death when playing or GMing.

I don't really care for linking a pregen to a real character. Seems like a rather clunky way to interject real risk for players that are playing a pregen.

I would like to see a way to level a character in the midst of a module. I have played in one module (via PbP) and it is my understanding that all of them level you at some point during the module. I'm not sure how you would do this though. I'll think about that for a bit...

Kudos for making post-12th level play an option.

I would like to see a way to level a character in the midst of a module. I have played in one module (via PbP) and it is my understanding that all of them level you at some point during the module. I'm not sure how you would do this though. I'll think about that for a bit...

i forgot to mention that this is something i would like to see as well. as most of the modules seem to be written with the idea of characters gaining a level during the module (an anecdotal observation, but one that i've gathered by reading a lot of people talking about how deadly the modules can be).

Characters advancing midway through an adventure is entirely dependent on the experience one can gain while going through it. As such, some adventures assume a level gain and others do not.

.

If you want to play in a level 8 module, you need to have a legal
level 7-9 character. Playing a pre-gen for credit is not allowed.
This would match with the current rules for playing in scenarios.
It is the same model that worked well in a prior living campaign.

There would be one reward on the module chronicle, since modules
are not tiered. Everyone gets 3 XP, 4 PA, and same possible gold.
The GM would receive an identical chronicle, and use the current
rules to apply in the future if lacking an appropriate character.

THIS.

heretic wrote:

Would linking the fate of a character played at higher level in a mod to that of the one that gets the XP really ruin the fun? You would still get the fun of a higher level but with added frission of knowing that the result matters too!

I think what you're saying is that if I have a level 1 PC, Tim, would it be fun if I made a level 9 version of Tim to play "The Harrowing"? The answer is yes.

Unfortunately with the new rules, you can't do that. You either need to play an UNMODIFIED PFS PC or a pregen. Any module of level 9 or greater, you must play an unmodified PFS PC. Why would I want to play a module at levels 9-11 when there are so many awesome PFS scenarios to play?? In any case, only a very small number of players will be able to play these high level modules in the future. It's very limiting.

In addition, I thought it was a very nice option for players to be able to create completely new characters at the given level, for a change of pace, for something different.

I'm going to argue that there were advantages to modules only being loosely linked to a PFS PC. The results didn't matter as much, which was a good thing. It was a good break. Some GMs complain that their players were more Kamikaze, however I don't see that as a bad thing. Did the players have fun? Sure they did. And while having that fun break, they also leveled a low level PC in the process. Win-win.

heretic wrote:

What's really frustrating is not allowing the XP to assigned to where it will most usefully be applied.

I agree. The major problem I have with these changes is that the module chronicle doesn't apply to Tim until he's level 9. So modules no longer help level low level PCs.

Like I said though, the play style of the majority clearly overrules us, but I'm ok with that, there's lots of other things to do with my time.

Jason you are ofc right in relation to the restrictions proposed. My question was aimed at finding out if some kind of compromise here would suit. I read your preference for the status quo which clearly won't be allowed to continue. I was wondering if it really was the ability to earn credit with no risk to the real PFS character that you valued, or the opportunity to allow players to occasionally play together at something other than lowest tier and try to manage the local level balance.

W

@Mike

There is the old Irish joke, where a tourist asks for directions and is told that if you are going there, I wouldn't start from here.

I feel a bit like that now about this thread. Let's be clear the opportunity to use modules to help with level smoothing is pretty new, there have not been that many modules sanctioned for very long. Getting so many more available so quickly since your appointment is great big feather in your cap.

It might surprise followers of this thread but: Gaming at a level you have not earned by actual play is not something that I would have approved of myself. The LFR idea of create at any level and get playing left a sour taste in my mouth.

It was not until by accident when we ran Ebon Destoyers I saw the real benefit to a problem dogging my attempts to spread the PFS gospel! That being once a couple of ppl leave a small group, you get in a cycle of recruitment and low level play that slowly drains the enjoyment that seeing characters progress brings to the gaming experience.
Let alone the logistical pain of either burning scenarios at low tier or endlessly churning First Steps or MotFF.

Thing is when then quantity and quality of attendance means a choice letting everyone play but at low tier...

OR

excluding players who actually do want to play regularly along with any brand new players dipping their toes in the PFS waters....

because that month or week I am catering for say 3/4 players who want to play with older PCs....

will this not result in contraction rather than growth?

W

excluding players who actually do want to play regularly along with any brand new players dipping their toes in the PFS waters....

because that month or week I am catering for say 3/4 players who want to play with older PCs....

will this not result in contraction rather than growth?

And I think - if done correctly - the answer is No and rather your players will thank you in the long run.

See Analysis part 3 where I have an all inclusive and a more restrictive scenario (based on random shopw up) and had more overall games and higher level games using the more restrictive model.

As organizer - especially with small groups you can do better than random. And a lot depends on letting people know beforehand.

The whole motivation behind my analysis is to proof in a non-anectdotal way that this indeed is the case and to give guidelines about what to look out for.

I'm running here a 1 table event. I just lost 3 regular players - one permanent as he moved country. Two of these are of the rare 'have level 5+' species. It is a setback - but I managed to get 2 other players up to that level again - so tier 5-9 play has resumed.

To enable this needed a push and one player got special treatment to enable that. I now got a new player - so focus will shift towards him to make him feel comfortable and to come regular.

In parallel I grow a 'junior' league - currently 4 kids from my sons school. They will reach level 2 or 3 next week. And I already planned their second character (number 4 for my own son) after Christmas done with the Beginner Box without help followed up by Crypt of the Everflame.

Will there be cross-over? Maybe - if needed I will use the junior league as an option for a new player to catch up. Or it is a special boon for a player in the junior league to play with the adults on a higher tier (and likely helping me out along the way).

Situations are different wherever you play. It can be tough, you can have setbacks. But there are ways to work around them - or at least try. And low level modules should offer me enough possibilities as well. Looking forward to Feast of Ravenmoor and Mask of the Living God - two scnenarios fitting perfectly on the quest from level 3 to 5 for the higher tier scenarios.

I don't think it helps saying you can't play a pre-gen in a sanctioned module when you can't in a scenario. Paizo wants to use this as a marketing tool and require someone in a group that is running the mods to buy the sanctioned modules. So I think its acceptable to allow play for credit of a pre-gen in a sanctioned module.

Mike

If this is a situation with which you have dealt for three years (longer than my involvement with PFS), might you offer a solution for how this concern was relieved?

I did, as have others. It seems arguing is more interesting than talking about solutions.

It was not until by accident when we ran Ebon Destoyers I saw the real benefit to a problem dogging my attempts to spread the PFS gospel! That being once a couple of ppl leave a small group, you get in a cycle of recruitment and low level play that slowly drains the enjoyment that seeing characters progress brings to the gaming experience.

Here is what I don't get. When you are playing Ebon destroyers with no-one actually playing their character, are you even playing PFS? The only place it relates to PFS is the fact that you get a chronicle at the end.