Pathfinder Society 2: GM Stars, Replay, and Boon Carryover

Huzzah!

I like the boon table approach, but it should provide some scaling benefit for the more "valuable" 1st edition boons. A GM race boon and a common player boon are not equal.

Providing a way to earn-up to more impressive 2nd edition boons is also desirable. A Hero Point is nice. It's not nearly as nice as opening a character option up.

I haven't seen it mentioned, but I also could have missed it being mentioned in a previous post or discussion: Will version 1 GM credit continue to apply to version 1 GM stars once version 2 starts?

Reporting will continue to be supported exactly as it is now.

I don't think any of these replay options are "good". Option 1 and 3 seem the best, but without knowing the actual numbers, it's impossible to judge.

Not knowing the team's expectations on replay, it's really hard to evaluate any of the replay options. For example, what does "Modest" mean? Modest could mean 1, it could mean 5, it could mean 15, 30... all depending on the audience.

That said, option 1 sounds the best to me given what I understand of things right now.

Re: replay, there are other variables at play that could significantly change how people interpret this. Will we continue to be able to use one Expanded Narrative boon per season to recharge GM stars, for example?

I do not agree with the decision to not honor the hardworking GMs who earned their stars. System comprehension is only one of many aspects that make a great gamemaster.

(Also, I still think "sihedron" is a cooler name than sigil or glyph and would still technically be a star.)

For replays, I vote for option 1, though it would be nice your GM stars expanded on it.

ex.
X+GM stars replay per year

Replays: I like 1 or 3. My opinion on 3 depends on how technically feasible it is. I also don't understand how it meets the stated goal of '[normalizing] the progress of groups,' but that's a big picture factor that doesn't really pertain to me.

Boon Table: Ultimately, OP has to do what they believe is best for OP, but the described system doesn't really inspire me to volunteer to GM PFS 1 scenarios going forward. Specials, online, as long as some form of indefinite replay is going to be supported, probably. Running 3-5 tables of the same scenario over and over for PFS 1? No, that doesn't interest me.

Fortunately, I enjoy SFS and anticipate jumping right into PFS 2, so that probably falls under "acceptable loses."

I like replay option 3 the best.

As for boons... I'm not a fan of the proposed system, personally, because of what I value about boons. My favorite boons were always those that offered a new character option or design choice. Turning something that let me create a character I couldn't otherwise create, into a boring power-boosting numbers benefit, isn't especially valuable to me.

That said, assuming option 2 doesn't get too much support, I can just save them for PFS1. I have so much left to do in this system. ^_^

Counter-intuitively, we value the boons that make our characters cosmetically or narratively unique rather than those that make our characters more powerful.

Examples of PFS 2 effects I'd be more interested in:

* Elvish weapons are considered common for this character
* Dwarvish weapons are considered common for this character
* You can create a half-elf with aquatic elf ancestry, which allows you to take 'Quick Swim' as an Ancestry Feat (either with or without meeting the prerequisites).
* You can create a bleachling gnome: your ancestry boosts are Constituation and Intelligence rather than Charisma.

If replay option 3 can be programmed to calculate your recorded sessions and appear on players' account pages next to GM stars and/or games played, then it sounds great. However, it shouldn't be another bookkeeping item for players to have to spend 30 minutes reconciling chronicle sheets and recorded sessions every few months to check.

If it can't be calculated within the account page, then replay option 1 would be the next best option for veteran players to help fill tables and continue playing.

I don't know if an automated reset date on replaying would also help. Set a date, like six or seven years, where sessions that you played that long ago are re-opened for replay.

I like replay option #3. Option #1 is also good.

I'm not happy with the boon table scheme. Only getting weak temporary bonuses from sacrificing valuable 1st Edition boons that do cool stuff for your character would feel more like a slap in the face to most players who invested in 1st Edition.

I will echo the response of Blake's Tiger. I value boons that are fun. Not necessarily boons that are powerful. I like boons that add flavor or add to a character's narrative or make them stand out.

I feel like GMs should be rewarded between systems for 'insert symbol name' conversion or reductions. A meager reduction in 'insert symbol name' accumulation is hardly going to scare away new player/GMs. Its not like they have a substantial mechanical benefit in 1e (+1-+5 once a game on a re-roll). So I highly question why a person having any amount of 'insert symbol name' deters another person from stepping up to GM. On one hand the obtainment of symbols is like obtaining reddit upvotes (essentially meaningless) so I feel like it doesn't really matter what you decide to do. However, you and others make a base assumption here that they are in fact rewarding to people who have invested hundreds of hours volunteering for your company. With that assumption in mind, it feels like you are basically hosing 1e GM volunteers for no reason. A key question is:

"Will the 2e Playest games GM'd contribute towards the 'insert symbol name' 2e PFS accumulation?"

(note I have seen 0-2 star GMs who are far better GMs then a 5 star, so again I'm really confused as to why you are taking away the imaginary point system you've set up as a metaphysical reward basis).

In terms of the 1e to 2e boon conversion. Your suggested change sounds lack luster and disappointing. Why can't you just let people trade in a race boon for a race boon? Your likely going to have season 1 or season 2 early race access boons anyways. So where is the harm in just letting them be exchanged. Those races generally get added a year later to the greater public anyways (e.g., legacy races in starfinder) so why are we splitting hairs about the 'long term' power gains here turning off new players. Its just silly if you ask me. To swap a character defining choice type boon that is 'no more powerful than any other for a extremely short term one off buff boon just sucks. Why bother at all. I have hundreds of normal chronicle sheets filled with that kind of 'boon' and 90% of them sit there unused. The 10% used are only for the bonekeep type adventures where I take extra preventative actions to ensure my PC keeps living.

The decisions being promoted above basically sound to me like a abandonment of your 1e PC player base. Anything that you gave in 1e that got people excited or having fun as a reward for making the campaign successful are being striped away in the red herring name of 'don't scare the new players'. Why not support your existing 1e fan base instead of ditching them in favour of the 'generically ambiguous new 2e PC' you keep formulating in these posts. The end result of the 2e treadmill math is a dramatic reduction the power floor/ceiling gap between any two PCs. So at this point you are essentially taking away flavour options (race A vs. B) and saying they are being removed because of game balance. It doesn't compute.

I am still in favor of NO REPLAY.

I am also still in favor of no replays, and I'm amazed that the option is being dismissed entirely rather than including it as an option for us to vote on.

I agree with my twin...

"THREEEE"

For replays, options 2 and 3 are non-starters, because they run out eventually. Only option 1 will actually allow people to continue to play PFS 1e.

Honestly, the opinion of no replays, or severely limited replays (what we have now) baffles me. If a group wants to munchkin their way through the same "valuable" scenarios and crowd out new players, that is a social problem, not a game rules problem.

I haven't seen it mentioned, but I also could have missed it being mentioned in a previous post or discussion: Will version 1 GM credit continue to apply to version 1 GM stars once version 2 starts?

"At this time, we are not planning converting GM status from PFS version 1 to version 2. We've also decided not to do a weighted model, where your first marker would be subsidized through your earned PFS version 1 GM Stars. Many factors weighed in on this decision, but in the end, we noted that the systems are substantially different, eighteen months into Starfinder we already have 4-nova GMs and carrying over discourages newer members of our community from participating."

See paragraph five in the Blog.

I am also still in favor of no replays, and I'm amazed that the option is being dismissed entirely rather than including it as an option for us to vote on.

1. It's not a democracy. Ultimately, all we can ever do is express our opinion to the OPC, but how they incorporate it is fully in their control. I'd like a better boon conversion option, but I'm not going to demand an online poll to determine what they do let alone a poll for an option that they already said was a hard no.

I like the prize table concept for using up unassigned boons.

Also, I'm 100% behind Option 1 for replays. It's the only option that allows players to continue indefinitely into the future, which I feel is incredibly important.

I am in favor of whatever option requires the least amount of book keeping and cross referencing.

Ultimately this would be unlimited replays, but of the options listed (none of which I am a huge fan of) options 1 seems to require the least amount of paperwork and looking up which character has played what, and which thing I ran etc.

I will also second (third? fourth?) the notion that _flavor_ boons are the best boons. I absolutely loath boons that offer one time benefits, or that can be only used in extremely limited situations. I am never going to remember that I get +1 to hit vs kobolds from cheliax on the third wednesday of the month.

My absolute favorite boon of all time was the merfolk boon. Sure it ate up a bunch of clearly superior boons, and allowed access to a mostly useless race , but it was both fun, flavorful, and did not require me to remember some random floating bonus, or track a limited use effect.

Option 3 for replay, please. There can't really be infinite support of PFS1, and it's always harder to schedule a vet than a new person. This gives Lodges more ability to schedule PFS1 games for a long time without losing veteran players (whoa re often also GMs).

Option #3 seems like the best option to me. It's hard to say for sure because we don't know the numbers.

In the end I vote for whatever option lets me play PF V1 the most.

As far as GM Stars not carrying over, I understand the reasoning, but I'm conflicted. A couple of points to consider:

I think that the main thing most GMs gain as they run more games is not rules mastery, it's setting mastery and storytelling ability. This is as valid in PFS2 as in PFS1.

On the disincentive for new players: some newcomers may be put off by veteran players who have more Glyphs*, but consider the converse: a GM that reached 5 stars several years ago may now run fewer times per week/month/year than they used to. Maybe they've taken on admin duties at their Lodge, or concentrate on running no=-credit games to recruit new players, or organize cons, or became a Venture-Officer, or all of those things. Those experienced GMs could be put off by the fact that they have to "pay their dues" all over again, competing with the folks who are still gaming every day. I don't want GMs or Lodges to be put in the position of needing to drop important-but-unrecognized-by-Paizo volunteer work so they can re-build GM cred and whatever benefits again.

So yeah, conflicted. We expect a lot of new players, but we are counting on a lot of existing GMs. Tough balance.

I also want to say that flavor boons, even if they give little no mechanical bonus are much preferred to anything that is one time use or boons that are only useful in very specific circumstances.

Permanent, thematic boons are something I am vastly more interested, rather than turning my collection of PF1 boons into a blank currency.

Tonya,

Thank you for recapping the discussion for those of us that are just entering the fray of these important topics.

Regarding PFS 1E Replays: I'm of the opinion that Option 1, is probably the most viable for the veteran players who have been the foundation Organized Play, and will provide the means by which these veterans players might be able to continue to provide value to 1E tables, both as players, and as GMs, while still permitting them to receive benefit (i.e. chronicles), for so long as 1E retains interest.

I believe it's a safe assumption that the cadence of scenario publication is unlikely to change from the current model (~2 per month). If we assume that our veteran players (who have few, if any, playable scenarios) will pick up PFS 2E, this means that those veteran players, who are often the backbone of our store presence, and attend on a weekly basis (sometimes more) will have PFS 2E "completed" each month in 2 sessions with nothing further to play (for benefit), unless we provide a means of allowing them to continue to garner benefits (i.e. chronicles) for their 1E characters via replay.

The ability for these veteran players to continue to garner "personal benefit" in the form of chronicles for 1E scenarios will also help to maintain the flow of traffic in our Friendly Local Game Stores, who are the backbone of some of our Lodges facilities.

Thank you for permitting me to provide my thoughts.

Shared the blog with my players last night. All agreed that we'd need to see numbers first, but most leaning towards 3 if the numbers are sufficient and 1 if they are not.

I would vote 3, the my second vote would go for 1, if 3 were not chosen.

Personally I lean toward a very generous 1.

Re: replay, there are other variables at play that could significantly change how people interpret this. Will we continue to be able to use one Expanded Narrative boon per season to recharge GM stars, for example?

Currently, the idea is that all three of these options would be in addition to the replay opportunities already available.

I am also still in favor of no replays, and I'm amazed that the option is being dismissed entirely rather than including it as an option for us to vote on.

No replays was one of our earlier options and wasn't dismissed entirely; as I linked in the blog this is something we started discussing and considering several months ago and on which we have received considerable feedback from players and venture officers.

Ultimately there needs to be some form of expanded replay made available, otherwise we truly would be abandoning the current campaign, at least for our most ardent players and GMs who already consume materials as fast as (in some instances faster than) we can create it. This is especially true for small lodges who are already struggling to seat tables due to their players not having identical play progressions.
Ultimately the venture officers in charge of each region will be making the decisions about what scenarios they want to run and when they want to run them. Giving them tools to make that an actual decision where they can control and implement the solutions that work best for them instead of forcing them to struggle within a narrowly defined space of whatever cross-section of unplayed scenarios might be left is going to be important for the health and continuation of a number of regions.

For what it may be worth, I think Option 1 is preferable. Reasonable replay that would enable:

a) experienced players to continue to meet monthly to (re)play some PFS 1.0 scenarios together; and,

b) experienced players to gain some credit (and thereby incentivize participation / full tables / fun times) when they tag along to support new groups/players playing through PFS 1.0 content for the first time.

Small lodges, like ours here in Halifax/Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, benefit greatly from the enthusiasm, engagement, and knowledge of veteran PFSers. There are some great PFS 1.0 stories to be told to new players who want to play PFS 1.0, and option 1 helps new players experience that content (if, as is usually the case in my experience, there are 1-2 brand new players in the hopper, and a motley crew of veterans with different play experiences for whom sometimes new-to-them content can be scheduled, but who sometimes find themselves filling out a table for a scenario they have already played).

Plus, it would be a nice gesture to providing at least a minimum of "Legacy" support to the system many veterans have expended significant piles of gp and years of their lives investing in. Helps offset the great devaluation to come with the advent of PFS 2.0. ;)

(Tongue in cheek reference to the GP = SP change in the new system, and an acknowledgement of the real financial cost that Paizo will be asking new players to bear when they switch to 2.0. Coming from the CCG/LCG world, the current play value of 'legacy' products influences perception of the longevity/value of today and tomorrow's 'new' products, at least in my experience... .)

@ any veteran PFSers with piles o' GM boons, etc, for PFS 1.0:

Don't think you'll get value for your trade-in at the PFS 2.0 table? Then come on down to Honest Redgar's Used Boon Emporium! No sp, gp, pp, or ep will change hands, we favour the good ol' fashioned barter system. Who knows what wonders might be found in our vaults that could form a bargain to satisfy Abadar himself!

Who knows, Grandmaster Torch might even make you an offer you can't refuse!

(Offer not valid where prohibited by law, scripture, or Dragon. Your mileage, much like that of our inventory, may vary.)

While I like the prize table approach I think ifd you sacrifice permanent (race) boons you should get a permanent benefit in PF2.

Though it is difficult to make a reasoned choice without at least knowing the ballpark the numbers will fall in, for replays I currently favour version 1. Version 3 has some appeal, however, I am concerned that there would be a scrambling to chase unreported games or hard feelings from those who have many games not showing in the system at the time the replays are assigned. I also wonder how it will affect play as the date for conversion approaches.

As to boons, I am one of those not expecting any carry over from one version to the other so this table simply offers me some options which I may or may not choose to avail myself of. Thank you.

I like option 1 for replays if we have to have replays at all then that's the one I will choose.

As far as the boon trade in or whatever, I also believe that if I turn in a GM race boon that I had to GM 5+ tables at GenCon to earn I ought to get one of comparable value, NOT a one or however many time mechanical value benefit!

As an aside, I have found that after the announcement of PF2 I have been GMing less PF1 and more Starfinder and I will continue to do so as I believe we are now in a time of diminishing returns for PF1. I also almost always take a SFS boon over a PFS boon if give the choice unless it is a race boon or something that I can use on a current PF1 character immediately. That's just my YMMV.

Again,

Option 1

Better or weighted Boon for Boon transfer system.

A GM has the right to deny replaying an adventure to players if she feels uncomfortable running an adventure for players who have foreknowledge of the story.

I ripped this sentence out of context, but if this would apply to all kinds of replay then I don't mind the option to have unlimited replays.

The decisions being promoted above basically sound to me like a abandonment of your 1e PC player base.

This, this entirely. Basically if you like PF1e, you're being told to get lost here.

I haven't done a lot of organized play because it isn't supported here, but I had hoped it would still be a real option post 2nd edition (which I do not like and will never like).

This is making it clear that not only will it not be a real option, but that anyone who was invested in it is not appreciated by Paizo.

Hi :-)

Boons - it's been said a few times but what makes a boon fun is that it makes a character different - a permanent fun boon is waaaay better than a mechanical benefit.

Even if there's little or no mechanical benefit I'd far rather have a flavor boon.

Also, spending boons for one off bonuses (no matter how powerful) would be pretty soul destroying (bye bye vanarra, dhampir, ganzi - hello minor benefit on rolls).

GM boons are a thank you for the time effort and often money that GMs have put into making conventions fun. Printing, buying maps, buying minis etc... quite often you'll look round a convention hall and see GMs have scratch-built 3D terrain or created unique minis for important foes... We do it to make the gaming experience as fabulous as possible for our players, GM boons have always been really important to me in feeling that Paizo values that effort and investment.

It's also a matter of respect and courtesy.

We need to respect and understand the amount of time and sacrifice PF1 GMs have put in (at least, I HOPE they've put in) to make PFS an organizational success that is growing.

Failing to do so, or devaluing the play experience to the point that it is no longer viable does the community no good, and will encourage independent communities to spring up, without the safeguards, without the measured pace, and with a definite decline in quality assurance as time goes by.

I've played, GM'd, and coordinated for campaigns in settings that have had their rules turned obsolete.

The OrgPlay leadership role is no picnic, and the amount of work involved at times can be soul-searing.

As far as replay options, I suspect 1 is the most viable of the three, followed by 3 if the logistics can be reliably worked out.

As far as Boons?

Something with flavor or history versus some random 'one-off' reroll or die bonus, please. A lot of resources were devoted to earning those in some cases, so turning them from Guinness to Miller Lite is not the solution...

Red Griffyn wrote:

The decisions being promoted above basically sound to me like a abandonment of your 1e PC player base.

This, this entirely. Basically if you like PF1e, you're being told to get lost here.

I haven't done a lot of organized play because it isn't supported here, but I had hoped it would still be a real option post 2nd edition (which I do not like and will never like).

This is making it clear that not only will it not be a real option, but that anyone who was invested in it is not appreciated by Paizo.

I'm trying to understand the sentiment expressed by Cycnet, Red Griffyn, and others and would appreciate some feedback.

As I see it, if Paizo wanted to abandon PFS version 1 when we started PFS version 2, we would just shut down reporting, no longer count PFS v1 tables for event support, not count PFS v1 activities when looking at Venture-Officer coverage in an area, stop sanctioning APs, and not look at what convention rewards post-Gen Con 2019 would be available. This would be far less time consuming and relieve some of the time-stressors of the Org Play team. We haven't taken any of those steps to date and our communications with the community are directly opposite. Communities that continue to play PFS v1 post-Gen Con 2019 will be able to do so and those games will count towards community/convention totals. Boons will still work, games still count towards GM Stars, and players may register new characters on paizo.com.

Statements about not supporting PFS v1 with new scenario production after July 2019 are absolutely correct. We do not have capacity in our team to produce more than 4 scenarios & 1 quest a month, along with the supporting material such as sanctioning , additional resource review, and convention support. So we have to cut something and PFS v1 scenarios is where we are doing it.

In what ways are we showing we are abandoning our players, do not appreciate our player base, or are making PFS v1 "not a real option"? What actions could we take that would change this feeling? What messaging should we be focused on?

No one’s option was dismissed. The reality is we’ve spent the last few months or more arguing about replay and PFS2 GM credit. Paizo has listened to the comments, reviewed the options and decided their course of action. Personally, I don’t want to see replay expanded, but that option is no longer on the table. Moving forward I can be part of the solution and support the one I can most tolerate or I can bail on the whole subject. Arguing about no expanded replay is falling on deaf ears at this point. I would strongly encourage everyone to take a similar review of the state of affairs. This thread is no longer about unlimited replay, or no expanded replay or transferring star credit to PFS2, it’s about the options offered in the blog. Let’s focus on those.

re: Replays

Option 1 seems to be the only option that allows for continued play on an ongoing basis. So I'd have to go for that.

I think I would really prefer an option 1.5 that relates to option 1 the way option 3 relates to option 2.

Option 1.5: A sliding scale, fixed number of replays based on a percentage of total games played that would renew on a seasonal basis.

If you've played a lot you get more replay opportunities because it's harder to find a game you haven't played yet. This should allow players who wish to continue playing first edition to do so, indefinitely.

What I really want to see is better support in the IT. The system currently complains when you use a GM star to replay something that you've played it before. I would like some way to tell it that its authorised.

On replay, I think option three is really unfair to new players. When you sit at a table and someone is “forced” into a replay situation, the length of their play history does not impact the viability of that table or the experience of that player at that moment. I shouldn’t be any more able to replay than a player who joined the campaign last month.

If the idea is to allow PFS1 to continue indefinitely option two would not support it. A finite replay system will cause the campaign to end as people run out of replays. If that is the intent, fine, but that is not the impression I am getting from leadership

Option 1 seems the best, not because I like it as an option, but of the three, it seems the most fair and it will allow replay as long as there are players willing to play.

I also want a system that is easy to explain and easy to implement. Sliding scales with some arbitrary formula to determine the number of replays is an unnecessarily complicated feature.

I'm trying to understand the sentiment expressed by Cycnet, Red Griffyn, and others and would appreciate some feedback.

I should be clear up front that I'm quite comfortable with Paizo's position. I agree that you ARE continuing to support PF1 to the extent that you reasonably can while making PF2 your very clear primary focus.

I think that the sentiments expressed are just people expressing frustration and not being particularly careful in the WAY that they're expressing that frustration.

Speaking only for myself, I believe that the reality is that (at least in my local area) PFS1 will fairly rapidly die off as a viable proposition after GenCon 2019. I just think that not many tables will actually fire.

Again, speaking only for myself, I'll have probably played EVERY PFS1 scenario before the end of 2019. Replay will keep me playing a little longer. I'll likely run some PF1 games if players explicitly request them.
But my default position will be to run PF2 games.

So, I believe that it is quite reasonable that people expect PFS1 to gradually die out. It will happen more quickly in some areas than in others but I expect it to be the rare location that has any in store PFS1 games in 2021.

And people who prefer PF1 to PF2 just wish that wasn't true. That fact frustrates them. And their statements about lack of support are really just venting that frustration publicly.

No one’s option was dismissed. The reality is we’ve spent the last few months or more arguing about replay and PFS2 GM credit. Paizo has listened to the comments, reviewed the options and decided their course of action. Personally, I don’t want to see replay expanded, but that option is no longer on the table. Moving forward I can be part of the solution and support the one I can most tolerate or I can bail on the whole subject. Arguing about no expanded replay is falling on deaf ears at this point. I would strongly encourage everyone to take a similar review of the state of affairs. This thread is no longer about unlimited replay, or no expanded replay or transferring star credit to PFS2, it’s about the options offered in the blog. Let’s focus on those.

As people know, I fairly often publicly disagree with Bob. This is NOT one of those times :-). He is right. Opinions were considered, decisions made. Its time to accept those decisions and move on.

As to replay options, I want as many as possible frontloaded as much as possible. Correctly or incorrectly I think PFS1 is likely to only have a fairly limited time span before it disappears (at least locally) and I want to play as much as possible in that time period.

Even though the Sihedron may look cooler, it's the symbol of the seven sins**, each one of which makes for a bad GM. They're not marks of achievement, they're penalty flags.

The sihedron originally represented the fruits of just and honorable rulership.

...and the swastika originally represented good fortune. Sometimes, things change meaning.