|⦵ Eric Stevens|
|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
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?