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

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"?...

I think you've been pretty constant in showing your support and appreciation both online and in person at conventions :-) :-)

cycnet wrote:

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"?...

So I can only speak from my own perspective, and I’ll be honest and upfront and say that my gripe is mostly with how the conversion of GM markers is being handled. I can understand not doing a 1:1 conversion of GM markers since the systems are different and you want to encourage new members of the community to run games. However, I feel that having GM markers from PFS v1 not carry over at all disincentivizes established GMs from continuing to run PFS v1 events for players who still like the old system/campaign. I was working on my fourth GM star when the new edition was announced and my goal over the last few years had been to reach the five star level; however, my motivation to keep working towards that goal flagged as soon as I started hearing the discussion about how markers would be handled between systems. I figured, “Why even bother chugging away to get a fourth or fifth star in the PFS v1 campaign if that work will be meaningless in a year?” And I bet I’m not the only one having those reactions. Organized play only works if you have volunteers who are willing to give of their own time and spend their own money to run games (as a GM who is not a venture officer, I still have to buy the scenarios that I run), and the reality is most gamers would rather play a game than run one. For GMs who have invested a lot of time and practiced their craft to earn their stars, it feels like a betrayal to have that all wiped away for the sake of “new members of the community” who may not even show up to run games (remember all of the new players that WotC was counting on with the launch of D&D 4E?). I guess I would turn the question back on the decision makers at Paizo, as a three (almost four star) GM why should I bother continuing to run PFS v1 events (and buying PFS v1 scenarios to do so) when it doesn’t get me anywhere in the new campaign? Why wouldn’t I invest my time and money in the new campaign, in Starfinder, or in some othe game company’s organized play campaign?

My decision to give away my entire PF1 boon folder at the start of Season 10 seems to have been the correct one. If I had hung on to them, I would have been disappointed with the PF2 trade-in options. Instead, I've gotten my full value out of my unused PF1 boons by handing them out to players and seeing them be happy.

So... Everyone, how about we help brainstorm some more appealing trade-in options? Fun backgrounds? What would you like to see that is fun and flavorful without being over-powered?

Tonya, was there a decision on whether Playtest games can count towards glyphs? I do think that if you GMed the playtest and helped build PF2, you should have a slight head start on Glyphs.

As for replay, I like Option One. It's simple and friendly.

Thanks!

Hmm

More examples of conversion boon's I'd be infinitely more interested in:

* A noble title (or even a knighthood)
* Adoptive ancestry: allow you to take 1 (2? 3?) feats from your adopted family's ancestry feats as your own ancestry feats (assuming physically capable). You don't get more feats, you just get more options.
* Domains, spells, skill and weapon for some number of Empyreal Lords that a character could select as a deity. Sure, they may become redundant in time as Empyreal Lords get added to the Additional Resources, but early access is nice. This does come with the disadvantage that it requires additional creative resource/time.
* The ability to permanently change the element of one 1st level spell (or even specifically just burning hands) for one character.

I very much like the idea of trading in boons with a prize table methodology, but if I spend a race boon, I would want a similar type of benefit, something long-lasting and flavorful without being overpowered. Obviously, trading race boon for race boon would be nice (if not feasible at the start of PF2 content being released).

As for replays, option 3 sounds nice, but would require an immense amount of bookkeeping. Potentially we could have a base number of replays that increases with GM stars? Say, 10 a year plus one for each GM star you have.

Thanks, Venture-fam! You folks are the BEST! <3

I like the concept of Option 3, especially as an organizer because I think it would create an incentive to run a variety of scenarios rather than repeating the same ones over and over.

I am concerned about how anyone would track it. It is already challenging to track play history and replays.

So... Everyone, how about we help brainstorm some more appealing trade-in options? Fun backgrounds? What would you like to see that is fun and flavorful without being over-powered?

As for replay, I like Option One. It's simple and friendly.

I agree here re: replay, sometimes the simplest solution is the best one.

I'm also in agreement that trading in a race boon should have some sort of permanent effect. Possibilities:

* Learn an obscure language for free.
* Access to an uncommon weapon.
* Access to a custom wayfinder.

Far and away, Option 1 is the best fit for my local area, and for me personally.

I'd go with option 1, although if numbers permit I'm also in favor of option 3.

I'm not a big fan of the boon table for reasons mentioned by several other people already: some specialty boons are more far-reaching or permanent in v1, especially those for convention attendance and/or GMing (not to mention auctions) - boons which, essentially, had a cost in both money and time (either travel, admission to the event, and/or time preparing scenarios for GMing) and - forgive me if I'm misunderstanding this - they are being reduced to one-off number crunches? It sounds like expediency is taking precedence over respecting the previous playerbase, which might be necessary by logistics, but I wish there was another way to integrate those older boons into v2 play in a way that feels more 'fair.' Understanding that it's not feasible for the transition team given the complexity of the process doesn't make it sting less on the receiving end ^_^;

TL;DR
I think that encouraging new players is always the goal, regardless of version, but removing incentives/rewards from your existing v1 fanbase may discourage them from switching to the new game - and if you lose/alienate enough of your experienced GMs by 'leveling the playing field' and ignoring the hard work they've done for Paizo and PFS over the years it's going to be harder for those new players you want to attract to find a table to play at.
But of course those are some big 'ifs' and it all might be smooth sailing, so only time will tell!

I believe that the GM star issue is a technological one more than anything else.

I've said this in the old discussion, but I think what is making the GM star issue harder to swallow is that it's the same campaign--same setting, same players, same GMs, same directors--with an updated rules set. Starfinder was probably relatively easier for people to accept because it was a new campaign--new setting, new director, and potentially a very different player/GM base--with a new rules set (admittedly more similar to PF1 than PF2 is to PF1, but nobody new that at the time). For me, I was far enough away from getting to 5 stars that I didn't have an opinion about the decision, but for those with 5 stars and especially those who were almost to 5 stars, I can empathize.

However, what I really wanted to ask about was this idea that players or GMs having things that new players don't have at the start makes new players less likely to come back. Is there any data that says this is true? There might be. It just doesn't jive with my experience.

I decided to spoiler these for length.

Replay (a bit of restatement)
For PFS1 the current option is 3; 0 open replay and up to 5 open replay opportunities based on GM stars AND GM activity in the current season. Replay for no credit costing expendables and risking character death is allowed. Specific scenario/module are replayable. A few boons allow open shareable replaying to support PFS play.

I prefer option 3 for the future PFS1 campaign after PFS2 starts.

Boon transfer
hmmm... I can see the ease of implementation of this method. I would hope there is some equivalence in ability between the language of the boons.
I have two questions about the period(time) of the offer and scope of the offer.

Will this be permanent? Can we trade in a PFS1 boon for PFS2 boon in 2020?

Are GM boons available as well as convention boons?
The term "boon table" refers to Convention boons only as that is what is offered at the GenCon boon table.
Typically GenCon GM boons allowed a character rebuild and opened several race option(s). Local convention GM boons had a more restricted language that opened a race option. Local convention boons were a subset of the GenCon convention boons.

Yet another example of a boon conversion that I'd prefer:

* Inherited Wayfinder (I know one exists in PFS1 so a different name): You may purchase this Wayfinder enhancement for XX prestige. The adventurer who recruited you into the Pathfinder Society bequeathed his or her wayfinder to you. It is made of [silver/jade/bone] and bears the inscription of his or her name on the case. Instead of casting light, it allows you to cast prestidigitation at will.

I love prestidigitation.

I love unique looking wayfinders.

First off, I'd like to thank the organized play team for the time and effort put into reading our various suggestions and coming up with the options presented here.

In terms of replay, I have a slight preference of option 1. Option 3 sounds neat, but I fear that it would prove to be overly complicated and difficult to implement.

Yet another example of a boon conversion that I'd prefer:

* Inherited Wayfinder (I know one exists in PFS1 so a different name): You may purchase this Wayfinder enhancement for XX prestige. The adventurer who recruited you into the Pathfinder Society bequeathed his or her wayfinder to you. It is made of [silver/jade/bone] and bears the inscription of his or her name on the case. Instead of casting light, it allows you to cast prestidigitation at will.

I love prestidigitation.

I love unique looking wayfinders.

Without making any promises, I would like to say that as far as roll forward benefits for players of the current campaign who want to carry forward mementos of their characters' accomplishments into the new campaign, there are several things we're looking at that probably won't require you to expend boons at all but might tie into things like having played a certain number of scenarios during a particular season or having played all of a given story arc. Exactly what that might look like is something we really can't nail down while the new rules are still in flux, but there is a distinct possibility (can't reiterate enough, no promises, all is just intent at this point) that dedicated players and GMs who make the jump to the new campaign will have some permanent options in the vein of backgrounds and/or wayfinders that won't cost any boons at all.

Again, not saying this to promise anything we might not ultimately be able to deliver, but just to note that the topics of this blog are fairly specific in their breadth and reach and do not necessarily reflect the entirety of the proposals we're considering to open up vanity benefits and other types of more flavor-oriented options for our long-time players.

That's a bit more hope-inspiring there Michael, thank you for writing that up.

The other thing, since it was kind of hinted at, was perhaps the prospect of the old 'vanities' (which were purchasable via PP, offered some flavor to a character, and were not significantly overpowering) being offered for a 'boon turn-in', perhaps at a 1:1 ratio with Prestige costs?

It's just a thought and I don't think it had been brought up yet?

Michael, that would be great!

Hmm

Personally, I'd much prefer replay option #1 with a decent yearly allotment. Everything else means there's a hard limit on playtime.

Granted, it's entirely possible that local PFS1 play will just stop before I actually hit the replay limits, but that's a different issue.

In regards to replay I feel option 1 is probably the best one available.

Here's another vote for Replay Option #1 - it's the easiest and simplest to implement and keep track of.

replay-guess #3 looks the best. GM stars should not transfer over. I think i am pretty good at pfs1 but not able to run pfs2 yet. boons arnt that important to me, so ok with what ever decide.

My decision to give away my entire PF1 boon folder at the start of Season 10 seems to have been the correct one. If I had hung on to them, I would have been disappointed with the PF2 trade-in options. Instead, I've gotten my full value out of my unused PF1 boons by handing them out to players and seeing them be happy.

Hmm

I have been doing the same - and have been donating them to the prize pool of our local charity raffles, so now I only temporarily have a couple of SFS race boons until they find a new home.

Option 1 seems the best of of the choices presented.

I do feel that the 5 Stars I earned are being devalued in the new world to come, the new rules aren't that different. The years spent organising tables and cons. The support we gave each other seems to not matter not very much.

How does somebody's else's s achievement lessen a new gm's motivation?

We climbed a mountain number one, and they get to climb mountain number two. Recognising the achievements of all is ideal. Demonising or penalising (removing the achievement) seems a great way disincentivising organiser's who have carried the OP for years.

I give away most of my boons, it's fun to see a player rewarded.

Some people see someones else's achievements and want to emulate their own success but others seem to think that achievement came at the cost of someone else.

We need to foster good behaviour and traits in OP. I see this complaints around con boons for years, this sense of entitlement rather than inspiration. We need to create opportunities for better behaviour, recognising the effort of those who came before fairly seems like a good idea.

Not in a mood to read all of how the discussion is drifting, and really not in a mood to see this go the way of the last thread, so here's my one comment.

I spoke with my normal group. We have been regularly and repeatedly disappointed with the playtest, even though some of the rules are real improvements (mixed "ancestries" being modifiers to a base "ancestry" is a significant improvement over the half-races of Pathfinder 1 as one example).

In short, we will keep playing Pathfinder and Starfinder. If you continue to support PFS, some of our Pathfinding will be Society games. If you support enough replay for our tastes, that will be part of it as well.

I feel like Option 3 would be the best in a perfect world, but the accounting sounds tricky. I support Option 1.

cycnet wrote:

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"?...

The problem in evaluating feelings of abandonment is that all of the things that one may perceive to be showing signs of 'support' can, in general, always be perceived as being motivated for self serving reasons. I will admit, I am generally pessimistic and that may have coloured my use of the word abandonment because really what I meant was 'slow rolling abandonment' in the context where abandonment means:

Abandonment: the act of putting an end to something planned or previously agreed to.

In my area, 1e interest has dropped significantly and 2e playtest has dropped to 0%. My closest local has died out entirely, my next two closest locals have a 50% attendance drop. Comment from various players/GMs/Venture 'x's solicited via forums/online chats/in person chats have identified the same attendance issue systemically across many locals.

It is simply a statement of fact/observation that the playtest has had a negative impact on interest for PFS. The question at hand is what % of lack of interest is due to people's dislike for 2e, what % is due to people's dissatisfaction with the level of post gencon 2019 1e support, and what % is due to the kingmaker game. The answer is difficult to parse out at this moment. As it stands I can say confidently that a non-negligible % is indeed due to the level of post gencon 2019 support.

What that means in a practical sense is people's dissatisfaction with the following areas:

1. Lack of New 1e Scenarios: People have many characters who's stories will simply be untold. Its a hard sell for people to keep playing when there won't be any new content going forward. I understand the commercial reasons for why Paizo isn't continuing support. But the player base isn't obligated to like the companies business decisions. No more 1e new content is ultimately a slow rolling abandonment of 1e. It has started the time limited clock. Whether it dies by lack of players, GMs, commercial support, etc. doesn't matter. The process of the unfortunate necessary 'transition' between editions has been called to order.

2. Lack of 1e to 2e Transference: The resolution to issue 1 is to provide people with a reasonable method/means of pulling forward their 1e PCs, their 1e GM credit, their 1e Boons, etc. to 2e. My statements on your blog post above come out of my complete disagreement that you are providing a reasonable level of support for these areas (i.e., to a degree where it would appear you are providing a meaningful level of 1e to 2e acknowledgement). From 1e to 2e I cannot, transfer characters or get credit from one to the other (i.e., my characters from 1e have essentially died). As a GM the only 'meta' acknowledgement of the hours spent volunteering are being wiped out as no acknowledgement of my effort is being awarded (i.e., stars to 'insert symbol x'). As a person with boons, they are being killed off as well. As stated in my first post, a 1e race boon is a permanent flavourful change that drives a character. It isn't necessarily a power gain as many races are worse or equivalent in power (e.g., kobolds) or the races are ultimately added to allowable choices in the campaign (e.g., SFS legacy races). So having to swap a permanent boon for a list of one time boons is not a captivating or inspiring change. These permanent these boons are part of the compensation from Paizo for making PFS successful (usually at conventions) to GMs who volunteer their time/effort. So again, those who are the most invested are the ones who stand to lose the most out of Paizo's edition swap and subsequent decisions on transference.

As to the suggested items of support, it is hard for really see these items as strong indicators of support vs. necessary actions to avoid having both PFS 1e and 2e campaigns die. You mentioned the following areas that indicate support:

A. Reporting/Registering new 1e PCs: A system that has been in place for all of PFS 1e, that now supports 2e and SFS. I am making a base assumption here that the overheads to cover data from 1e isn't a very large part of the overall system still required to keep your other campaigns reporting alive. So maintaining reporting/registering capability isn't really a indicator of abandonment. GMs input into the system and any reports of bad reporting have never been changed for me in the past few years so it is really near zero investment to simply add in legacy 1e data. Many of us use PFS session tracker, not your website for tracking either way (also a free low overhead system).

B. PFS 1e Event Support: Due to the lack of attendance, this is a necessary action to get many of the annual conventions off the ground. In my area alone, 3 annual conferences fell through even with dual edition support possibilities in the last few months. As stated above, this could be me being overly pessimistic. However, without this action I think Paizo would have two dead campaigns instead of just one. This category of support is a 'transition' requirement from 1e to 2e (not really an indicator of 1e support).

C.PFS 1e Venture Office Activities: Same as the above. If you forced venture "x"s to only do 2e to maintain their volunteer titles then you'd probably see a bunch of them just stop GMing. You'd have two dead campaigns instead of one (i.e., not an indicator of 1e support).

D. AP Sanctioning: Sort of a weird statement here. This is almost an activity that I'd expect to be done at AP issuance as opposed to months or years post release. Ultimately most people play campaigns outside of PFS then apply chronicles to their PFS characters. If there isn't any 1e going on and the campaign dies then this, again, isn't an indicator of support to 1e players.

E. Convention rewards post-Gen Con 2019:Cool. I agree this is something that at least shows a degree of support to the 1e base that isn't required per above. However, if 1e dies out any of these convention rewards will be dead and not usable because at best they will translate to a non-engaging one time boon list item. This devalues any provided boon.

F. Games in 1e Still Count towards GM Stars: The intent of the stars is that they recognize people's commitment to the community. However, you've stated that any 1e stars have 0 value in 2e. So this isn't an indicator of 1e support. As the campaign dies out and people transition to 2e they won't mean anything.

I think the thing that really was egregious in your post above was 'scapegoating' on new players, design load, bookkeeping, and volume. These are all bad arguments and red herring issues:

i) New Players:No new player will be intimidated by people with symbolic stars. I joined the campaign in season 7 or 8 and felt the need to give back BECAUSE of how much these other people were doing so. Their involvement/enthusiasm is what drove new players to join or to also GM.

ii) Design load:: This isn't a real issue either. Here is a easy solution that saves too much effort on Paizo's part. Step 1 is to rank boons by fairly wide/generic categories like: 1 - race, 2 - faction, 3 - Item/Spell/Class/other permanent, and 4 - one time. Then make up 2xboons per category for 2e and allow trade based on category. Ensure the 2e boons are engaging and enticing (i.e., don't make them one time boons like suggested above) and give a similair/comparable bonus in the new 2e boons. The 'design load' is now 2 boons per category (8 ish). As well, you can add to each category at a later date. So in season 2 if you make a new 'race' boon then if I still have something left over from 1e that is a race boon I can swap it. This keeps these 1e boons always and constantly relevant. It lets people hold onto boons to exchange them when they find a boon that they like in case they really don't like what you provided initially. I provides 1e players a continual fountain of hope as something they like is going to most likely come along eventually.

iii) Book Keeping: Bookkeeping is no different here than it would have been in 1e? Just make sure they have the 1e boon attached? With a limited selection of 2e boons based on categories means that it should be pretty obvious what is allowed. It should also be easy to audit by requiring both boons to be present? Again a red herring. As well, I don't know what it is like in your locals, but I've only been audited once and it was as easy and throwing a hero lab file to the GM to look at. It is extremely out of the ordinary to audit PCs, so this extra overhead on venture "x"s is really not going to exist. Especially if the kinds of available boons are publicly available an thus known to the majority of 2e GMs. Since you hold the 'reigns' on what the 2e boons are you again can avoid power gain, instead opening up compelling 'options'.

iv) Volume: This isn't a problem! Did the people who have 'lots of boons' not earn those boons? Why can't they exchange them one for one? If you have more 1e boons than someone else that is an indicator that you have GMd more than you played and never got the benefit out of the boon. It isn't controversial to let them have the benefit now. These are the people who are the lifeblood of the campaign, so why would you throw their 'compensation for volunteering' under the bus?

I can't tell if you've really convinced yourself that the above are going to be real issues or if you are trying to retroactively justify the decision that the company wants to make. But I see zero legitimate issues and am annoyed that such a big deal is being made of these things. The real issue is that people from 1e won't have any real transference of what they've accumulated in a meaningful engaging manner. The base assumption here is that 1e will die eventually, so how is Paizo going to make the community feel like their investment in 1e has any meaning in 2e? If you don't, then the feeling of abandonment will persist.

Option 1. Simple and renews every year.

The other ways of replay (Expanded Narrative) apparently still persist, so extra flexibility there.

Prize table seems an elegant way to consume outstanding boons. I intend to eventually use all my PF1 boons in PFS 1st edition games, except maybe Xenophilia :-)

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"?...

I'll offer my two cents. I would say that the organized play team is clearly making an effort not to abandon PF1e/PFS v1 in a precipitous manner. I think you folks in the organized play team have listened to player feedback and come out with some good ideas (that reasonable people can disagree about) designed to manage the transition period between PFE1e/PFS v1 and PF2e/PFS v2.

However, in many cases the opposite has been true of the PF2e design team in their communications and posts to the playtest forums. To my mind, they seem eager to abandon PF1e, and I have at times felt they were intolerant of those who had serious concerns about PF2e, the manner it which it is being created, and the direction it appears to be taking. The very nature of PF2e as a radical departure from what proceeded it is an implicit rejection and abandonment of that D&D/PF1e heritage and history.

In sum, I feel that the organized play team is doing its best to keep me engaged with Pathfinder and Pathfinder Society play, while the PF2e design team are the folks pushing me away and abandoning me.

Replay option 1 seems great, depending on specific implementation 3 could easily be as good or better.

Not super keen on the proposed means to deal with boons, from what I've seen "Check a box to get this one-time benefit" boons tend to either end up forgotten or deliberately held back "for when I REALLY need it." I'd rather see something similar tacked on to the PFS2 equivalent of those boons, in line with how some of this past year's con boons were able to scale by spending other boons (Such as the aquatic elf/gillman/merfolk boon)

I am for unlimited replay. There are many in my play area who don't plan on playing Pathfinder second edition but still want to play in PFS. You take away replays and you risk losing all the players not interested in second edition.

Replay:
rather than a hard limit or expandable limit, why not just state a VO signature is required for replay. That puts it in local hands and encourages participation in the PFS corps. two birds with one stone ya know...

For those who feel abandoned or unappreciated because there will not be the ability to transfer characters, stars, boons, etc, please consider another perspective. If those items can transfer to the new system then some will see that as encouraging those players and GMs to take their toys and play in a different sandbox. Thus, they will feel abandoned because they want to continue to play the current system and have been told they will be supported to do so.

In some ways, the Organized Play team are in a no-win situation. If they allow transference they are abandoning those who wish to continue as is. If they do not, they are abandoning those who wish credit in the new system for past endeavours. As I see it, they are trying their best to find a middle ground, allow some replay in 1, allow some credit for boons in 2. There is no way that they can make decisions that will please all and as far as I can tell, pretty much everyone thinks they are part of the majority.

I personally plan to play and GM both systems (as well as Starfinder). I will respect the stars, novas, and other GMing symbols for the dedication they indicate, regardless of the system being played. More importantly, I will respect the GM in front of me for the effort and ability displayed even if they have none of those symbols associated with their name. I am hoping we can all play nicely together for many years to come.

Without making any promises, I would like to say that as far as roll forward benefits for players of the current campaign who want to carry forward mementos of their characters' accomplishments into the new campaign, there are several things we're looking at that probably won't require you to expend boons at all but might tie into things like having played a certain number of scenarios during a particular season or having played all of a given story arc. Exactly what that might look like is something we really can't nail down while the new rules are still in flux, but there is a distinct possibility (can't reiterate enough, no promises, all is just intent at this point) that dedicated players and GMs who make the jump to the new campaign will have some permanent options in the vein of backgrounds and/or wayfinders that won't cost any boons at all.

Again, not saying this to promise anything we might not ultimately be able to deliver, but just to note that the topics of this blog are fairly specific in their breadth and reach and do not necessarily reflect the entirety of the proposals we're considering to open up vanity benefits and other types of more flavor-oriented options for our long-time players.

Honestly, I would like some promises about this sort of thing because I think it would help keep people engaged in 1e.

Being able to tell people that their 9th level Noble can hand down a knighthood to one of their characters would make people take notice. Minor mechanical benefits (such as giving Lore: Grand Lodge faction as a trained skill to use current playtest terminology) would also be welcome. I think there are a number of minor but colorful benefits that you could allow a character to bestow.

I would prefer it not require a Seeker level character to do so, but even if it does that may cause more people to try and get to level 12.

Please consider at least doing a blog to at least discuss this in more detail.

I like replay option 1, but it is conditioned on the number of yearly replays offered.

Given that Paizo has produced about 30 PFS scenarios a year, I would be surprised if they offered more replays a year than that.

Anything less than 6 replays a year would be "why bother".

In my mind, a modest number of yearly replays would be about 12-24.

12 would let me play at my FLGS once a month without worrying if the scenario was one I had played before. 24, twice, obviously. Anywhere from 12 to 24 would be nice.

12 to 24 a year sounds like more than a modest number to me. At that point you might as well make it unlimited.

One could play 5 games a week with their friends x 52 weeks in a year. That's 260 games a year. 12 doesn't even come close to unlimited.

Not to mention one of the fears was powering through series of scenarios over and over to build up these theoretical uber PCs. You couldn't do that with 12-24 (5th to 9th level [or to 2 x 5th level).

If the point is to allow persistance of PFS1 after the end of season 10, then you need to be able to play at least once a month or it's going to dry up due to the frustration of not finding a game that one is elligible to play.

EDIT: Not to mention those replays are split between playing and GMing. Replay will fuel people's desire to GM/GM scenarios that they've done as well.

As someone who plays PFS an average of once a week (occasionally 2 scenarios in one day), even 24 is nowhere close to unlimited.

Sure but Expanded Narrative will still be around so GMing earns you even more replays. Which should provide people with incentive to GM.

I don't think people hoping for single digit replays understand what is required to keep PFS1 going after Season 10.

Their willingness to expand PFS1 replays is the biggest signal that they're trying to support those who want to stick to PF1.

How are you going to get new PFS1 GMs going to earn their stars (and low star GMs earn more) for replay and their recharges for Expanded Narrative if you can't fill tables for them to run because your player base has already run through most content?

option 1 being at 12 to 24 would change my vote but I don't think that that's the plan

This is kinda hard to vote on without concrete numbers that will definitely matter to how viable the system is.

How are you going to get new PFS1 GMs going to earn their stars (and low star GMs earn more) for replay and their recharges for Expanded Narrative if you can't fill tables for them to run because your player base has already run through most content?

By getting new players who have the entire catalog of scenarios to play.

Blake's Tiger wrote:

How are you going to get new PFS1 GMs going to earn their stars (and low star GMs earn more) for replay and their recharges for Expanded Narrative if you can't fill tables for them to run because your player base has already run through most content?

By getting new players who have the entire catalog of scenarios to play.

But you're consistently going to put together those tables without filling them out with more experienced players? WHILE competing with adventurers league and PF2, and starfinder for low level players?

And the more experienced players are going to clear their calendar and drive half an hour to the game and hope that there are 3 newbies but not 5 newbies and that those plans don't change on the drive?

I cannot see that being doable outside of a major metropolis.

Blake's Tiger wrote:

How are you going to get new PFS1 GMs going to earn their stars (and low star GMs earn more) for replay and their recharges for Expanded Narrative if you can't fill tables for them to run because your player base has already run through most content?

By getting new players who have the entire catalog of scenarios to play.

...getting 3 new players simultaneously? That's not going to happen in my community.

New Player 1 shows up on week A. Nobody else is available to play PF1 (they're playing PF2 or something else because they've already played that scenario). New Player 1 gies home discouraged and never comes back.

New Player 2 shows up week G. Same thing happens.

Etc, etc, etc.

But you're consistently going to put together those tables without filling them out with more experienced players? WHILE competing with adventurers league and PF2, and starfinder for low level players?

Certainly not. But it's what you have to do.

...getting 3 new players simultaneously? That's not going to happen in my community.

No one has said that continuing PF1E play is going to be easy. Stop letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. That first player stays and plays 2E the first week, then the second player the next week, then the third shows up and hey, do you three want to try 1E for a weekend? Etc.

No one has said that continuing PF1E play is going to be easy.

But why do we have to make it hard(er)?

Harder in this case by giving saturated players a slow trickle of replays like they're some sort of priceless, limited resource?

I would argue that it is the other side ('no replays ever!') that is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good because they don't want to compromise.

For me, it's a more neutral area. PFS1 will not be offered in my area in an organized fashion; we just don't have the players to support multiple systems. I have 'plenty' of scenarios left to play. However, for those communities and sub-communities where players want to stick with the rule they like and/or don't want to shell out more money for a new systems after shelling out hundreds for the old system, which is their right, a decent number of replays each year is going to be necessary.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

But you're consistently going to put together those tables without filling them out with more experienced players? WHILE competing with adventurers league and PF2, and starfinder for low level players?

Certainly not. But it's what you have to do.

You can't tell people that something is going to work if they do something that they can't do: thats just not admitting that something isn't going to work.

Blake's Tiger wrote:

...getting 3 new players simultaneously? That's not going to happen in my community.

No one has said that continuing PF1E play is going to be easy. Stop letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. That first player stays and plays 2E the first week, then the second player the next week, then the third shows up and hey, do you three want to try 1E for a weekend? Etc.

If we're talking about the generic new new player who just got into the hobby or just bought a Paizo product and that product was the newly released, hotly marketed PF2, then why would he or she want to bother playing PF1?

They'll be invested in PFS2 and focusing on not falling behind their peers in character advancement in PFS2.

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

But you're consistently going to put together those tables without filling them out with more experienced players? WHILE competing with adventurers league and PF2, and starfinder for low level players?

Certainly not. But it's what you have to do.

You can't tell people that something is going to work if they do something that they can't do: that's just not admitting that something isn't going to work.

I breezed over that one, but that is exactly what he said. LOL.

'You certainly can't do it, but that is what you'll have to do.'

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,

Full stop here. As a VO in a region that can't take sufficient table size at conventions for granted, this is the single most important part to "is PFS1 still there".