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

Wednesday, November 14, 2018

This is our third installment discussing our original sticky forum threads regarding the transition of the Pathfinder Society between version 1 and 2 of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. In past blogs, we discussed Tiers, Level Gain, and the Roleplaying Guild Guide and Boons & Chronicle Sheets. This week, we focus the conversations around converting PFS version 1 items, namely GM stars and boons, and what replay may look like for PFS version 1 after we launch version 2.

As each member of the Organized Play team focused on two issues, this week's blog includes discussion from myself, Lead Developer John Compton, and Developer Michael Sayre. Linda's got the week off from writing blog posts, but she'll be back in two weeks to discuss the final installment of original thread follow-up when we discuss Factions and Fame.

With the final installment of the blog in site and our refocusing of each issue to the most popular or most feasible options, we are closing down the original discussing threads. We wish to thank everyone who provided feedback, as it allowed us the opportunity to make PFS version 2 a community focused organization. While we know we cannot please everyone in all things, creating an organized play program that appeals to our community remains a top goal of the team.

Looking at today's topics. I focused on the GM stars conversion and PFS version 2 GM status indicator. Currently, the community poll regarding what to call GM status markers in PFS version 2 shows glyphs, but the poll doesn't close until December 1, so you still have time to weigh in. Submit your vote by visiting the October 3rd Organized Play blog and scrolling to the poll at the end.

GM star conversion is one area we've mostly made a decision on, as that choice isn't based on the results of the Pathfinder Playtest but entirely on player feedback, our analysis, and the ability of our technical department to support display of GM status markers. 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.

We are currently in discussions as to how to process 5-nova GMs for Starfinder. We would like to automate some aspects of the process and are investigating with tech the feasibility of this option. We also are looking at how to make the Venture-Captain assessment more objective and standardized. In moving forward on the nova discussion, we intend that criteria to become the standard for both novas and PFS version 2 GMs achieving their 5th status marker.

Moving on from GM status, developer Michael Sayer weighs in on the matter of replay:

Replay Options

As some number of you all reading this might be aware, we've asked the community what your thoughts are on replay for the current PFS campaign and set up a thread for that discussion. There were a lot of thoughts and opinions expressed, running the gamut from not extending replay at all to opening everything up for unlimited replay.

Taking all of your feedback into account along with the prospective health of both editions of Pathfinder, we've come to the conclusion that the "no additional replay" option is not the correct path forward for the community as a whole. We believe that some additional replay options for the current Pathfinder campaign will be necessary for the health and well-being of those existing communities that rely on these play opportunities. That being said, we will not be implementing any changes to replay until mid-September to early October in 2019, and whatever replay option(s) we introduce will almost certainly be specific to the existing campaign as a means of compensating for the fact that we will no longer be producing new scenarios and will not reflect potential changes for Starfinder or the new edition of Pathfinder.

So, all that information out of the way, allow me to talk about what that really means for our GMs and players! We've come up with three new variations on our plans for expanded replay in the current PFS campaign once the new edition launches. These take elements of some of our earlier suggestions modified through your feedback and some discussions with our tech team to discover what was possible, and we'd like your input here to help us narrow down which of these options you'd most prefer as a community.

  • Option 1: A modest, fixed number of replays that would renew on a seasonal basis. These replays would not be level or character locked and would give opportunities to progress new characters through old stories or seat players who have already completed an adventure so that a full table can be formed.
  • Option 2: A more generous but fixed number of replays for all players and GMs. This would work much like option 1, except instead of a small pool that would refresh each season, you'd get a larger pool to spend at your discretion. However, with this option once you've used all of your replays, that's it.
  • Option 3: A sliding scale, fixed number of replays based on a percentage of total games played. This option would work much like option 2, except instead of everyone getting the same number of replays, the quantity of replays offered would scale up based on the number of games you've completed. This option would likely include a weighting mechanism whereby the number of GM stars you possess add some number of additional replays, rewarding our most devoted players and GMs with additional replays. One distinct benefit we see in this option is that it will help normalize the progress of groups with a mix of new and long-time players; long-time players will have more replays since they have fewer unplayed scenarios available to pick from, and newer players should find that it's easier to get tables for the remaining scenarios they still haven't played.

Whichever of these options you help us choose will be implemented about 1-2 months after the new edition releases, and will comprise the basis for continued play in the current campaign going forward, so let us know which option you think will be best for you and your local gamers!

Speaking to people at conventions, one of the most frequent conversations revolves around PFS convention boons and what will happen to them in PFS version 2. Organized play lead developer John Compton answers that:

Any discussion of how we're handling First Edition benefits going into the Second Edition campaign has always juggled at least three common considerations: established player loyalty, new player accessibility, and ease of implementation. I explore these ideas in one of our earliest Pathfinder Society blogs about the new edition, and these have been key in our examination of how to handle First Edition boons—and when I discuss boons here, I'm primarily referring to stand-alone boons commonly referred to as "convention boons" or "race boons," acquired through special events, the regional support program, and more.

So how do boons play out when examining these three considerations? From an established player loyalty perspective, having First Edition boons grant some benefit in Second Edition is typically good because it means that up to 11 years of play (and as much as 8 years of earning these boons) translates in some way to the new campaign. That's generally a nice feeling. The several counterpoints are discouragement of new players, design load, bookkeeping, and volume.

The more advantage a long-time player has, the more it can disincentivize someone joining the campaign. We hope that Second Edition's campaign can serve as a good jumping-on point for organized play, and starting people on a largely even playing field is important to us. From a design perspective, we have to balance how much time is involved in facilitating boons from one campaign to affect the other; this is one of the reasons that creating a conversion guide for all of the boons out there isn't feasible. Creating a whole bunch of conversions for boons would also be tricky because they'd require a lot of on-the-ground bookkeeping with trade-ins or validation, likely falling on the shoulders of venture-officers. In terms of volume, we have to consider not only that some very active players might have many dozens of boons, yet other campaign veterans may only have a couple. Anything we implement would need to ensure that somebody sitting on a boon trove wouldn't completely dominate the system while also ensuring that someone who has only a few boons still feels there's some benefit to using those boons for something in Second Edition.

When we considered the intersection of modest cross-campaign boon interaction, a realistic design footprint, ease of implementation for local organizers, and managing volume, we found ourselves repurposing a somewhat familiar tool: the "prize table" mechanic. This mechanic presents each player with their own set of potential prizes, which the player can purchase with some campaign currency (such as with the Playtest Points from our Pathfinder Society playtest). With few exceptions, there's only one of each prize, so a player can't just buy the same thing over and over.

What would this look like for boons? We're currently considering a Chronicle sheet similar to the Master of Spells/Scroll/Swords sheets issued for Pathfinder Society a few years ago. We intend one Chronicle for Pathfinder Society version 2 and one for Starfinder Society. A player may use one sheet in each campaign. Each Chronicle would include 5–8 benefits—most (or all) of them limited in scope to a single encounter or scenario, some of them personal boosts, and some of them benefits that could only be used on allies. In addition, we like the idea of having several benefits that would grant a notably bigger benefit if the player spent more than one boon when activating it. To use one of the benefits, you would take an unassigned boon, mark it to show it's been expended, and check off the benefit you used on this prize table Chronicle sheet.

For example, the Second Edition benefits sheet might have one option that says "Check the box that precedes this benefit and expend a boon to gain 2 Hero Points that last until the end of the adventure. If you expend two boons when activating this benefit, grant two other players 1 Hero Point. If you expend three boons when activating this benefit, grant every other player at the table 1 Hero Point." You expend your First Edition "Share the Wealth," "Celestial Traveler," and "Expedition Manager" boons, granting everyone at your table Hero Points that could avert death or turn the tide in a tough encounter. Once you use it, this benefit would be gone.

So how does the prize table approach to boon conversion aim to tackle the issue?

  • It presents the means to expend boons from one campaign on another to a limited degree—particularly in ways that provide a short-term benefit, not a permanent advantage.
  • By presenting a strong initial benefit, players who have only a few boons can still get a substantial benefit. By providing some options to expend additional boons when activating a benefit, those with many boons still have an outlet that doesn't substantially increase the frequency with which they can activate these benefits.
  • By including numerous options (and in some cases requirements) for these benefits to assist others at the table, these benefits can represent an experienced player's sharing their wealth with others, not excluding other players who don't have the same number of boons.
  • It places tracking in the hands of the players by means of a downloadable sheet.
  • Creating several such benefits sheets is a realistic project for the organized play team, in addition to the other projects we're currently handling.

We're interested to hear feedback on this plan, which we believe is a solid solution in handling the limited transfer of First Edition boons into Second Edition's campaign.

Next week, join organized play lead developer John Compton and developers Linda Zayas-Palmer, Michael Sayre, and Thurston Hillman as they preview the November Society scenario releases.

As a heads up, the Paizo offices are closed November 22nd and 23rd due to the celebration of Thanksgiving in the United States.

Until next time—Explore, Report, Cooperate!

Tonya Woldridge

Organized Play Manager

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Organized Play Pathfinder Playtest Pathfinder Society
151 to 179 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade ** Venture-Lieutenant, Online—PbP aka Redelia

Another perspective on how many replays are needed per year:

I only play as PbP. If I assume I play an average of 8 games at a time (across all campaigns), and each game takes 8 weeks, then that means that I play about 48 games a year. For me, a minimum of half of them will need to be PFS1, so that's 24 PFS1 games a year. (I would actually prefer a higher percentage be PFS 1, but that's the minimum for a satisfying play experience). This would mean that I calculate 25 replays a year in perpetuity being what I need to keep playing in a way I enjoy.

Grand Lodge ***** ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

Forty-eight games a year is equivalent to a weekly game night at a store -- that sounds fair -- but I'm trying to calculate why we need 25 replays to support 24 PFS1 games? Couldn't some of your games come from your unplayed backlog? Or from APs and modules and such?

This is assuming that you have an unplayed backlog. I know multiple players in Minnesota who are nearly complete, and can only come in now when we offer new content. I realize that for those players, the 12 a year limit means they only can join us once a month. Still, I am worried that too much replay is as problematic here as too little. I don't want to have lousy tables as a GM where NONE of my players are surprised by the storyline. I got sick of that in the Confirmation, and gave up on that game because of that.

Where does the balance point lie? 6 seems too little. 24 seems too much. But I realize that I am grasping at straws and making guesses. We likely won't know until 2020 what the right balance was.

I'm also hoping that the first PF2 adventures are engaging enough that they can take up some of those gaming slots. We're also starting to get more and more Starfinder adventures too.

Part of what is making us all so nervous is the uncertainty looming with PF2. Still, the design team has been steadily fixing the roughest edges of the Playtest, and our adventure writing team is top-notch. We have John and Linda and Michael all scheming to create new PF2 content for us. I'm really hoping that we won't need more than 12 PF1 games a year to keep going because we'll be swept into an awesome new storyline in Season 11.

Hmm


Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Forty-eight games a year is equivalent to a weekly game night at a store -- that sounds fair -- but I'm trying to calculate why we need 25 replays to support 24 PFS1 games? Couldn't some of your games come from your unplayed backlog? Or from APs and modules and such?

(This is assuming that you have an unplayed backlog. I know multiple players in Minnesota who are nearly complete, and can only come in now when we offer new content. I realize that for those players, the 12 a year limit means they only can join us once a month.)

I'm also hoping that the first PF2 adventures are engaging enough that they can take up some of those gaming slots. We're also starting to get more and more Starfinder adventures too.

Hmm

Even if there was a backlog, that won't last forever. "In perpetuity" was used - this is the long-term view. Some smaller number might work for a year or two, then suddenly become useless.

Silver Crusade ** Venture-Lieutenant, Online—PbP aka Redelia

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My concern isn't just for next year, it's for making sure I can still play PFS1 in a decade, when I have no backlog left. I don't think it's likely campaign leadership will loosen up replay further in a few years, so I need replay set somewhere that I can still play 10 or 20 years from now.

And yes, I'm planning on some Starfinder, that's why I said only half of that gaming needed to be PFS1. Maybe a few adventures will even end up being PFS2. However, both Starfinder and PFS2 are far too low magic to be satisfying if less than half of my gaming bandwidth is PFS1.

Grand Lodge ***** ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

I shouldn't edit after posting -- you folks have responded to the original version of my post! You're like lightning!

I also realize that my viewpoint is more transition than perpetuity-oriented. I loved the adventures of PF1, and still want to continue being able to play some of them, but really... I see the whole world of Organized Play moving on in the next 2-3 years.

Online will likely be the last bastion of retro-PF1 play two-three years from now, unless some areas specifically have a 'Retro' night devoted to PF1 adventures. Still, there's only so many systems most of us can run at one time. If it succeeds, PF2 will be the new normal for Organized Play.

Hmm

Silver Crusade ** Venture-Lieutenant, Online—PbP aka Redelia

That's where the difference lies, then. I plan that in 40 years, it's a Pathfinder 1 game that someone is going to be rolling my wheelchair up to. Or maybe Pathfinder 3, if that returns much more to its roots than PF2 is going to be.

To me, Pathfinder 1, although not perfect, has reached a level of quality to joing Chess, Checkers, Parcheesi, Clue, and Risk as a game that will be played still in centuries, not just in decades.

Do classics make as much money as the new hot thing? No, but there is a steadiness there.

Grand Lodge

I honestly feel like in 2-3 years we might either be seeing Pathfinder 3.0, or the death of Paizo as a company. Based on what I have seen voiced here on the forums, over on reddit, facebook, in person, etc. A large portion of the PF1 community is vastly dissatisfied with PF2. Nothing about it is groundbreaking enough to steal a meaningful share of the market away from D&D5E, and they are going likely to lose a lot of loyal PF1 customers.

If I am wrong...great...I'll either play PF1 home games, or move on to a different system.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slyme wrote:

I honestly feel like in 2-3 years we might either be seeing Pathfinder 3.0, or the death of Paizo as a company. Based on what I have seen voiced here on the forums, over on reddit, facebook, in person, etc. A large portion of the PF1 community is vastly dissatisfied with PF2. Nothing about it is groundbreaking enough to steal a meaningful share of the market away from D&D5E, and they are going likely to lose a lot of loyal PF1 customers.

If I am wrong...great...I'll either play PF1 home games, or move on to a different system.

I'll be honest, I am a little worried about PF2 going the way of 4th. :-/ I am hoping that they can keep enough PFS1 players in PFS2 to help build PF2 into something great, cause lets be honest the likelihood of people leaving 5E (given its current popularity) for PF2 is probably not all that high. Losing even some of your PFS1 base would most definitely not be good, which is why I'm hoping they recognize as much as reasonably possible the commitment their PFS1 base put in when designing PFS2, i.e. Stars, Boons, etc. *cross fingers*

Silver Crusade ***** Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Toronto aka pauljathome

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
Still, there's only so many systems most of us can run at one time.

Man, is THAT right. Between PF1, the many versions of PF2, and Starfinder I'm getting lost even with just the basics (I had to ask tonight whether I needed to confirm that a 20 was a crit :-) :-))

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Agent, Rhode Island—Lincoln aka Upaynao

Slyme wrote:

I honestly feel like in 2-3 years we might either be seeing Pathfinder 3.0, or the death of Paizo as a company. Based on what I have seen voiced here on the forums, over on reddit, facebook, in person, etc. A large portion of the PF1 community is vastly dissatisfied with PF2. Nothing about it is groundbreaking enough to steal a meaningful share of the market away from D&D5E, and they are going likely to lose a lot of loyal PF1 customers.

If I am wrong...great...I'll either play PF1 home games, or move on to a different system.

I feel like that's a little overdramatic. But you are welcome to hold your opinions on PF2.

Sovereign Court *****

Some questions on the mechanics of "Replay" Options being offered...

Say I played scenario #0-01 Silent Tide long ago, and then some years later I burned a GM Star Replay to play it again...

Now we have Option (1, 2 or 3)... can I Replay it AGAIN? Can I replay it again ON THE SAME PC?

And if the answer to the first of those is a "yes", could I then set up to Replay it again?

Do these Replay Options allow multiple Replays of the same scenario? (or for Options 1 and 3, Replays across more than one year?)

not that anyone would ever consider "gaming the system" to get selected scenarios onto all their PCs...

10 or 20 Replays:
heck, maybe we should set the Number of Replays to 20? or 10? so we'd be "Taking 10" or "Taking 20" on Replays? (runs for the exit)

Grand Lodge ***** ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Nosig,

Replaying a scenario on the same PC will never be allowed. Meanwhile, we'll have to see how the final rules shake out. It'll be interesting to see what our Campaign Leadership decides on this matter.

Hmm

*** Venture-Agent, Minnesota—St. Louis Park aka BretI

If we need over a dozen replays, I would like some of those to be handed out to the venture agents that have to organize tables. Sort of like the Glutton for Punishment boon.

Allowing someone to replay in order to make it easier to schedule a table is something I would love. I know this could be abused, but hopefully the venture lieutenants and venture captains would control that.

Shadow Lodge ***** ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bret Indrelee wrote:

If we need over a dozen replays, I would like some of those to be handed out to the venture agents that have to organize tables. Sort of like the Glutton for Punishment boon.

Allowing someone to replay in order to make it easier to schedule a table is something I would love. I know this could be abused, but hopefully the venture lieutenants and venture captains would control that.

not every venue has a venture critter. The system really should be designed to be functional without them.

Grand Lodge

Gregory Rebelo wrote:
Slyme wrote:

I honestly feel like in 2-3 years we might either be seeing Pathfinder 3.0, or the death of Paizo as a company. Based on what I have seen voiced here on the forums, over on reddit, facebook, in person, etc. A large portion of the PF1 community is vastly dissatisfied with PF2. Nothing about it is groundbreaking enough to steal a meaningful share of the market away from D&D5E, and they are going likely to lose a lot of loyal PF1 customers.

If I am wrong...great...I'll either play PF1 home games, or move on to a different system.

I feel like that's a little overdramatic. But you are welcome to hold your opinions on PF2.

It might be a bit dramatic...it could take 5 years. ;)

I am just speaking from my own personal experience. As someone who has been an avid RPG player since 1979, and someone who works in a game store. I have been around the industry for most of my life. I have watched game companies rise and fall. I have watched amazing games flounder over bad business decisions. I have watched other companies swoop in and save game systems.

Everything I am seeing happen with Paizo and PF1 vs PF2 I have seen before. We shall just have to sit back and see if history repeats itself...again.

The Exchange *****

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Nosig,

Replaying a scenario on the same PC will never be allowed. Meanwhile, we'll have to see how the final rules shake out. It'll be interesting to see what our Campaign Leadership decides on this matter.

Hmm

Replays on the same PC:

While I realize that we all know that Replaying a scenario with the same PC is not (currently) allowed - this is something that I have had to explain more than once to players just learning about "Replays".

"No, if you have played Confirmation on this PC before, you may not play it again with the SAME PC - though you can with a DIFFERENT PC."

I even once had to explain that someone could not replay #8-07 Tome of Righteous Repose with the same PC ... "But last time I played it at LOW tier, this time I'm doing it at HIGH tier".

and ... the rules do (over time) change, so heck, while I figure that replaying a scenario on the same PC (is not currently) allowed, I do not feel comfortable saying "Replaying a scenario on the same PC will never be allowed." The rules covering Replay going to change. Will this one remain unchanged?

Replaying the same scenario more than once...:

Several posters in this thread have expressed the desire (I think) to not bother tracking what scenarios they have Replayed before. Basically, they will track whether they have PLAYED a scenario, and if they have then to Replay they will "burn a replay" from the total allowed.

It would work something like this...

Nosig: "0-01 Silent Tide is the low level game this week? Oh, I've played that before, so I guess I'll need to use one of my Replays - but that's ok, I've got X of them left."

Hmm: "But didn't you Replay Silent Tide last month?"

Nosig: "Yeah, but I like the boon on it, so I actually try to get it on all my starting PCs. That's why I request it to be run so much... ".

So... Is that scenario I described above going to be "legal" with the Options offered? Currently, with the existing Replay rules it is not. We can (currently) only use Replays to Replay a given Scenario once (as a Player or Judge) - though I have had to point this out to more than one person signing up to (re-)play a certain Season 4 scenario more than once (or trying to gain the CR for judging it more than once).

If the existing (single replay per scenario) rule is going to still be valid going forward, then we are actually still limiting the universe of available scenarios right? I mean, I have personally hit this limit more than once now. (one example) I have played and replayed #2-25 You Only Die Twice, so when it was selected to be run at the local venue I needed to say "sorry - I can't even burn a re-play for that one. I've done it twice already". How long until we start hitting this more and more - especially with the expectation that "if there's a conflict, we can just Replay the scenario..."?

Anyway, thanks everyone for your insights! And for those of you in the U.S. "Happy Turkey Day"!

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bret Indrelee wrote:
I would like some of those to be handed out to the venture agents that have to organize tables. Sort of like the Glutton for Punishment boon.

As a VO, I do not want to have to manage replays. I already have enough to do.

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Slyme wrote:
Everything I am seeing happen with Paizo and PF1 vs PF2 I have seen before.

I have a similar history with RPGs and I don't see the current concern over PF2E as any different than virtually every edition of every RPG I've ever seen. The exception might be DnD5E since 4E was soo universally disliked that they could have done almost anything with 5E and it would have been readily accepted. Otherwise, even DnD has experienced the same vitriol about their newest system going all the way back to when OD&D was "replaced" in the last 70's. I can more easily understand the gripes from the younger or less experienced players who have not gone through this process before, but for those of us who have seen this phenomenon countless times before, there is no reason for all the "grrr."

Grand Lodge ***** Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:
will never be allowed

I think everyone should be careful about the word never when it comes to Paizo. Their typical response to questions that finite is "while we are not currently planning on [it], future considerations could change."

For example, I've heard people claim that Paizo promised to "never" release a new edition of their game when PF1E was released, but AFAIK they did not actually say that. I recall quite specifically both Erik Mona and Jason Bulmahn saying on more than one occasion that they simply had no lans for a 2nd edition of the Pathfinder RPG, but they never said never.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've seen it stated here on the forums, as well as elsewhere, but the last time I saw this level of pushback on a new edition of a game was D&D4E.

I don't want Paizo to crash and burn...I want them to have a long, successful career. I personally do not like PF2, and have no plans to support it though. I really wanted to like it, I pushed the store I work at to buy the playtest books, but there are too many things about the system that I do not like, most of which are fundamental to the framework Paizo has built the game around. At this point, nothing Paizo can do will make PF2 into a game I will enjoy playing...and that is fine...I don't enjoy playing most of the RPGs available on the market. I really wanted to like Starfinder too...I bought the first copy of the rulebook that came into the store I work at, actively pushed for SFS games in my area...then I got to reading the rules, and was sorely disappointed. I played a grand total of 4 games of SF before I completely lost interest and have not even touched or looked at my book since.

The one thing that does bother me though, it the apparent lack of support for their current product going forward. There has not been any specific thing that has triggered this that I can point to, but to me at least, it feels like Paizo is trying to kill PF1 so they can fully focus on SF and PF2

I have played dozens of game systems in my RPG lifetime, many of them are long dead and forgotten. Some of them are still going strong, without my active support. Some of them changed editions, losing my support, never to regain it. Some companies have gone to the brink, then managed to pull themselves back. Some have died and been consumed by megacorporations.

Only time will tell what happens to Paizo and the world they have created for us.


Blake's Tiger wrote:
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.

For us PFS is stalling once a month, because we have to play SFS the 1st & 3rd weeks. (Two weekly tables: PFS/PFS one week, PFS/SFS the other.) If non-SFS (ie PFS only) players say they aren't going to make it on the SFS week, the VO cancels PFS table. Shadowrun has monthly table (at the next nearest venue) because it wasn't pulling a weekly crowd (I am not sure how often it fires).

Most of the SFS players, are out of PFS scenarios they can play so why wouldn't they go to the table the can play? It is indicative of our PFS1 future.

I like option 1 on the replay question, (if you are counting).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I spent six years getting my Eagle badge.
I completed over 30 merit badges to do it. Attending classes in summer, spending Saturdays working on them. Going out of town for week long ventures to do it.
I spent hours and hours every month doing community service, and days and days most summers.
I starved, froze, and burned. I got dunked in glacier fed waters, tipped out of perfectly good canoes, ate green hamburger, slept in wet sleeping bags and poorly constructed snow caves. I have bled from knife cuts, rope burns, loose screws, chopping wood and had a bullet explode in my campfire.
And I earned my Eagle badge.

And I can't be a scout anymore because I am over 18?

I spent 10 years getting my 3 GM stars and I can't be a +3 re-roller anymore?
uhmmm... OK. I can deal with that. :)
(I mean no offense to those who use their GM stars to replay scenarios and especially not to make light of those who use their stars to run specials!)

Seriously though, I do feel a little more attached to the race boons. Being self-employed makes cons more than a little difficult. Not only does the trip cost money, but that is a week of no-income. I would like the permanent boons like my oread/grippli/leshi to have a little more conversion going forward than just the prize table award. I DO like the prize table/faction card idea for the 'smaller' boons I have (access to a psionic class ability/special mount/prosperity/even my jester cap and arrow-day-whatever-that-was boons.)

I only last summer got my -1 to seeker level & barely played my -8 (his protege) in one game.

I know rebuilds are hard to come by, and I would happily 'expend' my samsaran boon to rebuild -8 into PF2. (samsaran+undine?) see what I did there!

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Slyme wrote:
Everything I am seeing happen with Paizo and PF1 vs PF2 I have seen before.
I have a similar history with RPGs and I don't see the current concern over PF2E as any different than virtually every edition of every RPG I've ever seen. The exception might be DnD5E since 4E was soo universally disliked that they could have done almost anything with 5E and it would have been readily accepted. Otherwise, even DnD has experienced the same vitriol about their newest system going all the way back to when OD&D was "replaced" in the last 70's. I can more easily understand the gripes from the younger or less experienced players who have not gone through this process before, but for those of us who have seen this phenomenon countless times before, there is no reason for all the "grrr."

What surprises me is that I'm not sure anything has been learned from the past. 3.5 was popular but had issues, so they created 4th which...crashed and burned. PF1 rose out of the ashes of 3.5 and has been doing well. Then 5E came and people flocked to it, partially because it wasn't 4th (I agree there) but also for it's clean simplicity.

Now Paizo is taking a well liked game (ala 3.5) and creating one in what, 1 year? I want to say that 5E took waaay longer than 1 year to "perfect". Why is Paizo rushing this so much? Why not engage the PF1/PFS1 community more instead of leaving them behind? I think if they took another year to refine PF2 and also come up with better compensation for PFS1 people that they'd be far far better off. This all feels quite rushed and like PF1/PFS1 is being left at the altar, very perplexing... I REALLY hope I'm wrong on all this, but I'm not feeling great (and I want to). :-/

**

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Now Paizo is [creating a new edition] in what, 1 year?

No, they created it over however long they took and then playtested it for 1 year to do exactly what you claim they're not doing--engage the PF1 community.

Shadow Lodge

Blake's Tiger wrote:
Quote:
Now Paizo is [creating a new edition] in what, 1 year?
No, they created it over however long they took and then playtested it for 1 year to do exactly what you claim they're not doing--engage the PF1 community.

lol I'm sure they internally tested, I meant external feedback. The community is who they are selling to, not themselves. They should allow for more time, but that's just my crazy opinion! ;-)

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

If they can, they will.

The Exchange *

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I have to agree with Blake. Besides I'm not sure how much more Paizo can be engaged with the PF1/PFS1 community. I mean really, do want weekly updates to the rule set? A longer playtest period? Im at a loss. If you are saying that they shouldn't have done a new addition in the first place, or that your special whatever class/archtype/magic item/ect wasn't included in the Core rules, or I'm mad because....CHANGE then say that and we can talk about it.

Myself personally I have been in awe with the amount of engagement that Paizo has shown the community. The forum threads, the almost twice monthly rules updates, the sheer number of blog post to address concerns, are almost overwhelming to keep up with! My biggest gripe with the playtest is that speed and number of updates have made it hard for me to keep up with them in order to be adequately prepared to run the scenarios and provide my players with a great experience.

I am looking forward to the actual PF2/PFS2 rules and scenarios coming out at GENCON 2019. I am looking forward to continuing the stories of my PFS1 characters and can't wait to create new stories for new characters in PFS2! YMMV

*** Venture-Agent, Minnesota—St. Louis Park aka BretI

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Bret Indrelee wrote:
I would like some of those to be handed out to the venture agents that have to organize tables. Sort of like the Glutton for Punishment boon.
As a VO, I do not want to have to manage replays. I already have enough to do.

I don’t want to manage them either, but I would like some help figuring out what people can play. The Glutton for Punishment boon can make that easier, which is why I mentioned it as an example.

As an organizer at a location, having a few replays you can give away so you can run a legal table would be nice.

**

This is interesting. Limiting people's options is not always the best thing especially in areas where there may be little to no PFS activity.

151 to 179 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild / Paizo Blog: Pathfinder Society 2: GM Stars, Replay, and Boon Carryover All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild