Pathfinder Society 2: Replay, Rewards, and Rebuilds

Exclusionary: You can't play 'x' because you can't GM at conventions whether it be due to logistics, lack of support, etc.

Inclusive: The following are the things that everyone has access to, regardless of convention/FLGS/online status...

Have I GM'd solely to pick up a Race Boon? Yes.

Have I GM'd solely to help out the local PFS area? Yes.

But I *had the option*, the *opportunity*, and *the resources* to do so.

Those are not givens, especially the way the current third-hand view of convention support appears to run.

I could be mistaken, things may not have required getting support packets after some conventions, or not having them issued at all because conventions weren't 'big enough to matter'. I'm only a player that GMs to help out, because I burnt out *horribly* in two organizations from lack of support from those organizations. Coordinating all of this sort of thing is no picnic, and mad props to keeping the trains running.

You can't apply those terms to the system of Pathfinder Society or Starfinder Society, though.

I am 0.1% magnesium. That doesn't mean that I have a melting point of 1202 degrees F.

No offense but that smells an awful lot like everyone gets a trophy just for participating. While that make some people feel good, it also creates a lack of incentive to excel and by excel I mean contribute extra time (i.e. GM). I would certain prefer a world were we don't need incentives for people to GM, but I'm told time and time again that is not reality. So, unless/until we come up with an alternative reward for GMing that has the same value as access to restricted race boon, I have to continue to promote it as the best available solution. All knowing that there are some people due to geography or other personal limitations who will not have an opportunity to earn them. I am sorry about that, but I will always decide in favor of the majority on cases like this as that maximizes our efforts and our limited reward opportunities.

Arguably, it's a 'trophy' for anyone that has already 'paid' to 'win' once already because the purchase of the source material to use said hypothetical Ancestries would be the pre-existing 'gate' for it, rather than requiring someone to pay 'twice' for the same privilege.

What alternatives could be brought forth that would be 'worthwhile to GM for' that are not Ancestry Boons and avoid this?

I brought out a few ideas earlier, but didn't hear a lot back on them.

I'll try to think of more when I'm at work tomorrow.

Anytime you come up with an idea, first ask, "would I give up playing something I really, really want to play, to GM because of what I'd get?" And assume you don't usually altruistically GM. If you even for a second hesitate, just assume it's not good enough.

Race boons are something tangible. They allow you new mechanics to play with. New stories to play with. The represent a bit of pride for earning this cool new toy that you can show off to others. That last is probably, unfortunately, the most important.

So, if the new ideas don't represent a new mechanic that can represent a new thing for new stories that nobody (or few) else have so you can show off, it's likely not good enough. Small bonuses, rerolls, titles, etc, don't really check enough of the boxes. Rebuilds are too circumstance specific, because not everyone could use one.

So what would make someone who normally wouldn't GM say, "I want to GM for that!"

So far, rare races is about it without making some boon that's overpowered.

I brought out a few ideas earlier, but didn't hear a lot back on them.

Here's the secret: it doesn't matter what you reward the GM volunteers with. Some portion of the player population will argue that it is unfair and that they don't have the same access to those rewards, be it a +1 to a knowledge check, a race boon, or a +10 stat boost. So, on the issue of "solving" that problem, there is no solution.

Race boons are, at least, valuable enough to lure GM volunteers and power neutral (i.e. they don't give GMs an advantage in play over other players).

Two bits of data that I'd love to know and which I assume could be extracted from the organized play database

I'd be curious to know what % of PFS sessions are at conventions and what % take place in non-convention settings.

For individual players what's the mean % of convention PFS sessions out of total PFS sessions, and what's the standard deviation. In other words, how important is convention play at the individual level and do most PFS players have similar amounts of convention play or is there a broad range where a number of players have a lot of convention sessions and another set of players have very few.

This would give us an empirical base for looking at how, when, why, and to whom GM boons should be awarded.

Why would you change the method for GM boon awarding based on those metrics?

If it should be based on info from the Paizo database I think that the following metrics are more important:
A: % of players in a year that have their first reported game at a convention
B: as A, but with number of games played per year since starting and dollars spend
C: as A, but with number of games GMed per year since starting and dollars spends

To name just a few things

Why would you change the method for GM boon awarding based on those metrics?

If it should be based on info from the Paizo database I think that the following metrics are more important:
A: % of players in a year that have their first reported game at a convention
B: as A, but with number of games played per year since starting and dollars spend
C: as A, but with number of games GMed per year since starting and dollars spends

To name just a few things

A couple of thoughts/responses:

1) I'm not proposing these as metrics for awarding boons. I'm saying they would be useful data in order to discuss the metrics used for awarding boons.

2) I think A would be a useful piece of data, as recruitment is important. However, retention is also important. One could ask, what's the mean number of PFS sessions per year for those whose first game was at a con as opposed to those folks whose first game was in a non-con setting.

3) I think B and C would be very difficult, if not impossible, to calculate for two reasons:

a) Dollars spent per individual is getting in to sensitive proprietary data territory, and Paizo might not want to release such info.

b) Players and GMs may purchase a lot of Paizo products indirectly through physical and online game store, rather than directly through Paizo. Thus there would probably be a lot of sales that would impossible to link to individuals.

I would just like to have this conversation be based more on data and less on individual experience and speculation

Between unreported sessions (yes, there are people who simply don’t report), human error in reporting, and technical errors in reporting (we recently suffered through 6+ months of a damaged database) I don’t know that we can rely on the integrity of the reporting system at this time. Based on high level observations I can say with some confidence that non-convention play is significantly higher than con play. What the precise number are, I don’t think anyone could say. Also, many new players either don’t register their characters right away or fail to use the confirmation code on the card we issue and wind up with a different number which skews the data. Most decisions like this have to largely be based on feedback from players taken from various forums (here, Facebook, etc) and first hand knowledge gained from attending a lot of events, something Tonya, John, Linda, Thursty, the RVC, and some VC do and help Paizo staff decide on the parameters for the campaign.

Between unreported sessions (yes, there are people who simply don’t report), human error in reporting, and technical errors in reporting (we recently suffered through 6+ months of a damaged database) I don’t know that we can rely on the integrity of the reporting system at this time. Based on high level observations I can say with some confidence that non-convention play is significantly higher than con play. What the precise number are, I don’t think anyone could say. Also, many new players either don’t register their characters right away or fail to use the confirmation code on the card we issue and wind up with a different number which skews the data. Most decisions like this have to largely be based on feedback from players taken from various forums (here, Facebook, etc) and first hand knowledge gained from attending a lot of events, something Tonya, John, Linda, Thursty, the RVC, and some VC do and help Paizo staff decide on the parameters for the campaign.

Agreed. The metrics, unfortunately, that are useful for determining what is good for the campaign, are largely anecdotal.

From my experience in being on the leadership team in the Twin Cities for 5 years, Conventions supply more new players than game day play. And we ran enough tables in a week to equal a 30 table convention on a good week. So while our two largest conventions are topping 100 to 110 tables now, we hit that many tables in a month of regular play.

That being said, we don't run 110 table conventions without enough GMs willing to show up and GM 110 tables. And while many in the Twin Cities are willing to GM 2 or 3 tables over the course of a 5 to 7 slot convention just to be helpful, I am positive that at least a few pick up enough tables to qualify for a race boon, because they want the race boon.

I'm not sure any other type of boon would be as powerful in recruiting convention GMs without making that boon able to make more powerful characters just because it adds power.

Out here, we've got a few other incentives for GM's. At our 3 big local cons, GMing 3 games gets you a free badge. The big one though is that we have 2" diameter metal coins cast each year based on the season logo, and give those to anyone who runs 5 games.

So, based on anecdotal data (which seems to be the best available), cons are more important for recruitment and non-con play is more important for retention. Is this a reasonable conclusion?

How about my second question - to what degree is con involvement distributed equally through the PFS membership? Which of the following scenarios seems to be more accurate?

1) With a hypothetical PFS of 1,000 members and 3,000 con play/GM slots per year, does each member play/GM at a con 3 times per year (the case with con experience is equally distributed).

2) With the same hypothetical 1,000 members and 3,000 con slots, do

a) 333 of members play/GM a total of 2,000 con slots per year with each such player having 6 con experiences per year,

b) 334 of the remaining players play/GM the remaining 1,000 con slots and thus have 3 con experiences per year,

c) Finally, the last group of 333 players doesn't go to any cons and thus obviously has 0 con experiences per year (this second case is clearly the scenario where con playing/GMing is not equally distributed throughout the PFS community).

Is there any sense whether scenario 1 or scenario 2 is a better description of the current state of affairs? Based on my own limited experience, I would say that scenario 2 is more likely.

Oh conventions are certainly not evenly distributed. That’s part of the reason that there is so much excitement when people learn that the online region offers cons... A very large percentage of my online folks can’t get to any other conventions.

To have Conventions, you need:

• Population density of gamers (almost said dense population of gamers)
  
• Large venues
  
• Marketing
  
• Organizers
  
• Excitement that brings people out.

Most locations cannot get the population density or venues to support a lot of cons.

But conventions can be great. They bring in new players, and they can bring a community together to do something awesome. Skalcon raises money for charity, but all kinds of conventions do neat things.

The same convention locally brought in me, Bret, Rosc, Kyle and Stephen. We played. We liked it. We followed PFS to various gaming stores, and then we turned into GMs. Kyle and Stephen dragged two friends in, and they became GMs too. Three of us are now VOs who organize PFS.

I think that daily GMing is important. I GM in my store and in my region regularly without rewards. But con GMing is important too, and I would not be here in PFS without it.

Hmm

I think pjrogers is making some interesting observations: conventions and regular local play are both important, but we're having this discussion without much real data to go on. It's rather speculative.I

I also think Tallow has a strong point: whatever incentive you give people who GM at conventions has to be really good. So good that you can use it to convince people to try it for the first time, and to do it again next time. Is it even possible to invent such a reward that other people won't be jealous of?

Finally there's a particular turn of thought I'm seeing in the "but I made a catfolk" - in any home campaign, the GM isn't going to allow everything either, and a player coming to the table with a character without any consultation is going to run up against that.

I'm not a huge race boon person, but I can appreciate the reasons for keeping certain races rare, and also a certain level of I paid for the book I want to be able to use it (I find Starfinder has been way too stingy in opening access to the races). I did like that they introduced a race in a scenario that does not exist in any source book. If the GM race boons were handled that way it would certainly feel very special and not invalidate any part of a book you paid for.

If the GM race boons were handled that way it would certainly feel very special and not invalidate any part of a book you paid for.

I wish that was a solution, but it would only lead to the inevitable outcry, "Why do only GMs get to play that cool race?"

Also, in SF, they've done a good job so far at making classes and feats race-neutral. You might need 4+ arms to take a certain feat, but there are at least 3 races with 4+ arms and there may easily be more in the future, so it's better than requiring the race Kasatha for the feat.

PF2, however, seems to be baking ancestry feats into the system, so either the OPC would need to develop entire feat lines for their unique PFS2 GM ancestries. They are more likely to co-opt the published ancestries as they're released like they did with races in PFS1.

I agree that there would still be an outcry, but it address a part of the issue and maybe makes it easier to keep things away from the current situation where there is a dozen or 2 special races that are all partially locked away. I'd like to see a lot less total in PFS, and experience more of the Cantina feel in SFS.

I'd prefer to see the 'reasonably common/uncommon' races that are not CORE readily accessible, and the 'outliers' accessible via Reward.

ie, Tengu, Kitsune*shudder*, Geniekin, etc = 'ok' with limitations on the number players may have and Assimar/Teethling tier characters available only via some sort of GM Reward.

Either that, or write the flavor around the races EXPLAINING why they aren't available like they used to be. ...that sounds like it would be a lot more work, imo.

GM Stars - I know I personally have put a lot of work GMing for 1st Ed. I would like to see something to transition to 2nd, the subsidizing sounds half alright.

Boons - I am ok with a complete fresh start here, but the idea for trade for benefits seems nice too.

Replay - There is quite literally, absolutely no reason that you should not allow unlimited replay. With the definition of a limited library of scenarios to choose from in a dead campaign, why not allow people to play through them how they see fit? Also, I would open up all races and classes to 1st edition society. Again, with a dead campaign, there is no reason to keep policing it, you are creating more work for yourselves and the GM's.

Replay - There is quite literally, absolutely no reason that you should not allow unlimited replay.

No. It is not "quite literally." There are a number of reasons not to allow unlimited replay and most/all of them have been expressed dozens of times over the years as well as in this thread. No one should be telling anyone else their OPINION is wrong. Some people like the idea of unlimited replay, many people don't. The fact of the matter those opinions are valid from the perspective of the individual. We need to stop acting like one side is "right" and the other "wrong." The only thing "wrong" about this conversation is the insistence that this is anything other than a difference of perspective.

I think the 'singular' replay (if things have not already been replayed via other means) might be one of the better compromises out there, but the reporting system would probably need to be a bit more robust to be able to handle it?

However, not firmly camped on it, the idea of allowing GMs to give a 'replay' (via 'stars method')to players is another option for GMs that like to GM, I guess?

Definitely do not want factory-style exclusionary boon-farming unlimited replay.

Hello and I realize I am joining this a bit late. I've Played RPGs for 35 years and one of the things that drew me to Pathfinder was the 3.5 rules set up and Organized Play. I have never seen such a net worked game.

The ability for my best best friend I and to take our post and play characters to Gen Con, and have them accepted at any table was massively impressive. After one year of Pathfinder, I was hooked.

That said, I am the casual gamer, I cannot play like I used to in high school, college, deployed and before kids.

I would caution against a total clean slate and total restart with 2nd Edition. While I am optimistic that many of changes will be great for mechanics and spirit of the game, a lot of hard work, time and investment went into where our group of 35-45 something "old dudes" is at. I am not sure I, or the core group I hang out with and play want to start over completely.

While I recognize that some business decisions have to be made, I encourage the leadership at Paizo to conduct a survey of registers registered Pathfinder society players to get the wildest possible feelings, ideas and opinions on this subject.

TSR did not do this with 2nd Edition D&D to my knowledge, or with 4th Edition which in my humble opinion turned a lot of folks off. I thought 2nd and 4th sucked and I wont bother to look at 5th while there is Pathfinder.

If the larger player base does not feel that they at least had a chance to voice or vent their concerns, 2nd Edition might be slow going at first.

Replay I do not see the harm in replaying. Sure, you might have a few spoilers, but its still fun and the dice always get a vote too!

Rewards and Rebuilds I recognize that not everything will translate, but recommend a conversion system be developed and actually put in the final approved 2nd Edition core rule books. Boons could be tough. Cosmetic ones like different races and minor things should be pretty easy. Things that give significant player advantages, perhaps not. I do think that rebuilds should be allowed. If I have a 8th Level Magus or Fighter, I should have the option to rebuild that character under the new rules. I really don't care about equipment and gear, give me a bag of gold and my prestige points and let do what I can to replace, etc.

I don't have all the answers, but I hope my recommendations are at least considered.

I don't hate race boons, but I do want them to be more flexible. And I don't mean just "each has multiple race options".

I have race boons sitting in my binder just slightly younger than some of the players at my tables. Of those, 3/4 of the races on them are currently legal without a boon at all.

Why do I still have those boons? Mostly because I didn't want to start a new character. There are only so many scenarios available to be played, therefore only so many characters I can advance. I want(ed) to focus on the character I was playing at the time, not start a new one, so the race boon sat in my binder until it was forgotten about.

Xenophobia was a step in the right direction, but you had to earn it separately from the race boon in question. And to be honest, how often do those exotic races appear?

I would like to see all race boons contain multiple options.

Option 1: The ability to start a new character with a special race. The option should be either several uncommon races, or one exotic.

Option 2: A more 'powerful' ability, but one limited to the races in question in Option 1. (IE: Favored enemy bonus against the races in Option 1.)

Option 3: A 'minor' ability themed based on the races in Option 1, but not dependent on scenario writers using the race more frequently. (IE: The races in Option 1 are the elemental races. The bonus here is minor once-a-day elemental resistance versus one element.)

Options 2 and 3 should be attachable to preexisting characters, or to new characters who aren't going to start as one of the races in Option 1.

Boons: I like the idea of boon currency or for trade ins. I know quite a few people with xenophile/xenophobe boons that would love to cash those in for a random 2E store support boon. p.s. I am in love with the Extra Hours boon.

GM Stars: I think a rework of the system would be great

I think we keep GM stars but make them global to all Paizo products.
keep novas novas. Then create individual system Glyph or Rune with a reduced number for 2E and 1E. Stars where intended as a way of showing experience and dedication at running games for/with Paizo.

Character conversion: 100% agree with start fresh with a few "legacy boons" or boon trade ins from pfs1.

Replays: I could totally see either going to unlimited or jumping the number to 1 free replay. Functionally keeping track of the 1,2,3,4 extra replay rule might get cumbersome so just go unlimited and let people play their favorite scenario arcs/adventure paths as much as they want. (Though you may have to put a limit on legacy boon replays or boons that apply to other characters if you are no longer limited by stars) example lets say in season 10 on an adventure you go find some druids and they promise to reincarnate you and it lets you play from a list of special races in 2E. someone plays it 5 times and gets 5 cool race boons for 2E. Just a thought.

Has any new information about the actual effects of the Legacy boons that people earned been released? 2E is out, but haven't seen any new information, so left wondering what they actually do.

You can see all of the details of the PFS2 playtest boons on your Organized Play area, on the Boons tab.

You can see all of the details of the PFS2 playtest boons on your Organized Play area, on the Boons tab.

Not ALL the details. The excavation boon doesn’t show everything. Which is why my 2001 pc has seen 0play and I REALLY want to try him out but some booms have a short life span in terms of play/level. I love LOVE my solar cannon boon for my mechanic but I’m creeping up on a level where it simply isn’t going to be useful anymore. I figure one or two levels more

Boon Text

Good news is Ramlock's tower scales with your level.