|
I'm opposed to re-plays. I strongly feel that allowing re-play would degenerate PFS into nothing else than a mind-numbing hack & slash festival. Even though it already is...
Re-playing would practically eliminate all chances for scenario authors to create delicate murder mysteries and just go the easy route of "5 combat encounters in a row" (I seriously *HATE* Trouble With Secrets). And even if you think you can avoid people who use metagame knowledge at tables, you're wrong. They are inevitable, and best found at conventions.
If one wishes PFS to become more of a board game, then allow replay. That day I'll quit.
|
Hell No.
It is all about the storyline. after all it is supposed to be a roleplaying game not a MMOPRG. If you allready know what happens, you can force the outcome. Plus its like giving them the Chronicle Sheet right away with max. Gold and Prestige Points.
This is the very reason I don't play Living Forgotten Realms.
Re-playing would practically eliminate all chances for scenario authors to create delicate murder mysteries and just go the easy route of "5 combat encounters in a row" (I seriously *HATE* Trouble With Secrets). And even if you think you can avoid people who use metagame knowledge at tables, you're wrong. They are inevitable, and best found at conventions.
If one wishes PFS to become more of a board game, then allow replay. That day I'll quit.
Couldn't have said it better!
Majuba wrote:
Joshua J. Frost wrote:
Joe Cirillo wrote:
Isn't one of the purposes of the Pathfinder Society is to see which faction comes ahead? This would make it totally counterproductive and completely skew the results.That hasn't been the case since very early in the playtest during Season 0.
That's a bit disappointing to hear.
This is a major turn off for me. Please don't drop the idea of the race of the factions to power and control over Absalom.
And Josh,
I am glad you ask for feedback. Here is another one:
Please focus on tricky plots rather than hack 'n slash. It seems like it is allready starting to become like Living Greyhawk was in it's finall months, where every Scenario was like a Steven Segall movie or a bad porno. There might be a storyline, but it is only an excuse for some serious action.
|
I wouldn't mind replay as long as players had to play with the pregens, basically a player helping to fill out a table or if a group were bored and wanted to run a favorite module over again. In those cases I wouldn't have a problem with it.
I liked the pregen addition that was done at Gen Con and definitely want to see that kept.
As for LFR like, the biggest upside to replay is that it gives the GM a chance to play the module if he has to burn it. Finding judges in our local for RPGA was getting difficult but once they incorporated replay we suddenly had no problem getting judges as they could play in the module later.
If PFS would adopt a storyline format similiar to Legend of the Five Rings, where every adventure counted toward an overarcing story, then I'm definitely against it.
Josh,
There are a few lengthy answers here and glancing over them I'm sure I'm reiterating a few.
1) In the structure of other campaigns that allow re-playability, I feel, that intrigue is absent. Why? It's nie-impossible to keep people on the "edge of their seat" with the plot if they've played the mod two times before (so they leave it out) is my guess.
2) Metagaming with 'blab guy' is a problem for two reasons:
A) He can ruin the plot for everyone else.
B) He makes traps, ambushes, secret doors etc. ineffectual plot devices.
Everyone thinks it's a bummer if they play 'X' character and access would be perfect for their 'Y' character. But to make this possible, you have to ask yourself; What do I have to sacrifice to do this? I don't feel it's worth it.
If number of playable mods is one of your concerns, I think the focus on quality over quantity should be maintained. This has been one of the hallmarks of Pathfinder so far and the result has been beautiful!
...Besides, I have avidly tried to play everything out there (mod-wise) and I've only played around 1/2. I'm sure there are people out there who have played and ran every mod and wait impatiently every month for the new PFS mods to be released but I think they are the minority.
You were thinking about making the print mods available for PFS play right? If mod numbers are a problem you can always re-visit this idea.
Just a few thoughts...
James
|
Yes, with no credit, ONLY when there are three players and the game would not make otherwise. We would have to trust our membership on that. A line about encouraging that person not to provide inappropriate aid could be added to keep the honest people honest.
A more complex and therefore less desirable idea I had was to label mods 'Replayable' and 'Not Replayable'. Label investigatives 'no'; label delves 'yes'. This would probably lead to flame wars over judgement calls on rating some mods as R or NR.
When I first started running Living Greyhawk games in this area, we had several occasions where people drove quite a distance, only to find that one person had to cancel at the last minute, etc. I really got to hate that rule about four for a table to make. I learned to start taking a Dungeon magazine with me, but the guys that wanted to do the campaign, it was a major let down.
A no-credit replay so a table will make would be a friendly and compassionate rule for new groups. I'd support that.
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads
|
People are allowed to replay, for no credit, with an approved pregen, though. It's in the rules! So if the problem is that you have people who want to replay a scenario so that new players can play an otherwise incomplete table, what's stopping you?
Easy answer for me Yoda. That player doesn't always show up.
When you have 2-3 tables in play if a player can’t get credit they play in a game where they can and the newer players don’t integrate with the group. With the restrictions on the replay I suggested no one will really want to replay if they can avoid it. The reason I put it in there is that when a player decides to play down to help some lower level people he can get some “DM” style credit for a spare PC the player might want to try out. It is easier to get people to play down if they can get something. I never want to force players to play down. I also think it’s just as equal of a crime to let level 1 players to tag along with level 4+ groups on a constant basis. Sure the big paycheck at the end is nice but they don’t get to pitch in much manner combat wise. Role-playing wise it is easier to fit in but many of the modules are combat focused.
Using a pre-gen once or twice is fine. I know the rules let me use pre-gens where I need too. I am all for it and as DM to fill a 3 man table I am not one cancel a game. I will as DM field a PREGEN (usually a mute cleric) and run the group. I don’t say squat, players do all the work, and I just ensure the 4th man aka pre-gen just keep the game going and players don’t get over ran by an encounter. I have never had to do this outside of a level 1 game.
Using pre-gen to allow a new player to "try out" PFS at what ever the mod is for the night to see if he likes the game no problem for me either.
I think my problem hit us because when we merged two local groups it made mod picking harder. Harder is fine. We play once a week and we are discussing on how to "avoid" running out of modules to play. Then as we played new people wanted to play which is awesome. But many of the lower modules like the tier 1-2 or 4-5 modules the groups have cleared. So we have made it harder to get the new guys with the current groups.
I purposely run a table for level 1’s to get them to higher levels so we can toss into the other groups. Granted I am thinking of switching the day for the level 1 table to allow two plays in one week for lower level players to catch up some but the wife may tell me “whack” NO!
If PFS switches to a more solid story line for a season or makes it where the actions of the factions have a direct result of affecting something then I wouldn’t have asked for replays to Josh. The reality is that Paizo didn’t want to have faction to directly compete for the annual prize. The storyline so far is loose. You can run the modules in what ever order and you’re not losing anything for the most part. This setup makes the environment replay for players possible without hurting the system.
Yes you have to be mindful of the blab player but this exists already. Any one can download the modules and read or the most common is the fact the players have a game night talk about their adventures with their friends and people here what happened at the other tables.
|
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads
|
Yes, with no credit, ONLY when there are three players and the game would not make otherwise. We would have to trust our membership on that. A line about encouraging that person not to provide inappropriate aid could be added to keep the honest people honest.
What do you do when have a new player who WANTS to play and all you have is Lv 4+. Some with say with take a PRE-GEN which is 100% leagal.
Yes it is.
But how long do you keep telling people here is a level x pregen and you get no credit. Over and over?
How long do you expect people to play with that?
From what I am reading I am think my group is at the wrong end of the spectrum when it comes to "getting things to run smoothy" If that truely is the case then I can accpt it and move on but I am going to lose players over this. Not the older ones but new players.
|
|
I can see Darius' and pedr's points and I'm experiencing the same thing with 10 people (home game, convention, and other friends). The above solution might be the best. Full XP, 1/2 gold, 1 PA max. Reducing the gold and PA hurts enough that people will only do this if they have to.
This is why I am for allowing players to replay a scenario but with restricted guidelines.
1. XP , No change
2. ½ GOLD award maximum. Day job not affected.
3. For adventures with 2 PA possible only 1 can be obtained for a replay PC.
4. New PC MUST be in differant faction
I agree with Darius and Josh. Give replay the same reward as a GM eating a scenario. It's enough of an incentive for experienced players to play down on occasion, but not enough that players will prefer it to playing new scenarios.
It sounds like you have a particular scenario that makes the 1 run mods difficult for your group. I guess my question is, why can't you get one of the players who've played all said scenario run mods for the new players on days/nights when you are not available?
|
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads
|
It sounds like you have a particular scenario that makes the 1 run mods difficult for your group. I guess my question is, why can't you get one of the players who've played all said scenario run mods for the new players on days/nights when you are not available?
They don't want to DM. I am TRYING to get a few higher level PC's to DM some but people have to want to DM.
They don't want to DM. I am TRYING to get a few higher level PC's to DM some but people have to want to DM.It sounds like you have a particular scenario that makes the 1 run mods difficult for your group. I guess my question is, why can't you get one of the players who've played all said scenario run mods for the new players on days/nights when you are not available?
I live in Iowa and, as you can guess, our clubs tend to be on the small-ish side. It just comes to a point that you gotta say, "if you want to play -all the time- you've gotta be willing to run every now and again."
That's the way it's always worked in our clubs.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
What do you do when have a new player who WANTS to play and all you have is Lv 4+. Some with say with take a PRE-GEN which is 100% leagal.
Yes it is.
But how long do you keep telling people here is a level x pregen and you get no credit. Over and over?
But allowing re-plays doesn't solve that problem. They new guy is still not going to be able to use his character with the other PCs. The issue there is a discrepancy in character level, not a dearth of adventures.
Not everyone is capable of playing with character knowledge and not player knowledge. [snipped text]I'm finding it difficult to distinguish the scenario of the individual who reads an easily-available module prior to play from the individual who replays a scenario he/she has played before. In both cases, you have the problem above.
Of course, this argument doesn't imply that one should make it necessarily "worse" by allowing replays of an adventure, but it does illustrate the point that OOC knowledge is not necessarily absent from Pathfinder Society.
It's not a bad idea to allow scenarios to be repeated for *no* credit (by different characters), if such an allowance would allow a table to run that might not otherwise have been able to. Perhaps along that line a limited amount of reward could be gained for replay of scenarios. For instance, 1/3 (or 1/4) of the gold/xp/etc.
I've given this some thought, and I think I echo both of Rubia's thoughts above with the following addition - different character, different faction, also, I'm not convinced that a reward should be offered.
I think the first point needs to be stressed, which is why I bolded it above.
Best.
|
|
Hell No.
It is all about the storyline. after all it is supposed to be a roleplaying game not a MMOPRG. If you allready know what happens, you can force the outcome. Plus its like giving them the Chronicle Sheet right away with max. Gold and Prestige Points.
This is the very reason I don't play Living Forgotten Realms.
Re-playing would practically eliminate all chances for scenario authors to create delicate murder mysteries and just go the easy route of "5 combat encounters in a row" (I seriously *HATE* Trouble With Secrets). And even if you think you can avoid people who use metagame knowledge at tables, you're wrong. They are inevitable, and best found at conventions.
If one wishes PFS to become more of a board game, then allow replay. That day I'll quit.Couldn't have said it better!
Majuba wrote:
Joshua J. Frost wrote:
Joe Cirillo wrote:
Isn't one of the purposes of the Pathfinder Society is to see which faction comes ahead? This would make it totally counterproductive and completely skew the results.That hasn't been the case since very early in the playtest during Season 0.
That's a bit disappointing to hear.
This is a major turn off for me. Please don't drop the idea of the race of the factions to power and control over Absalom.
And Josh,
I am glad you ask for feedback. Here is another one:
Please focus on tricky plots rather than hack 'n slash. It seems like it is allready starting to become like Living Greyhawk was in it's finall months, where every Scenario was like a Steven Segall movie or a bad porno. There might be a storyline, but it is only an excuse for some serious action.
+1
|
|
What say you?
Thanks for asking, Josh. Since we have chosen this hobby, we PFS players have opted to place you personally in control of some of the details of how we have fun. I grew discouraged recently when I read things like, "I have no plans to change how GM Rewards/Day Job Rolls work." I interpreted that as, "Even if there's an easy way to make things better, I'm not going to change things. I have spoken. I am the law." Seeing this thread makes me think I might have misinterpreted you, and for that I am glad.
That's not worth credit, IMHO.
Uh oh, rewards based on subjective evaluation of the quality of other players' roleplaying. That way lies the Dark Side. To apply rules to a large group, I think we have to keep them quantitative.
Organized play should be a shared continuous storyline.
Wait, what storyline? Of all the thousands of PFS players out there, only a tiny fraction even have the option of playing scenarios in any desired order. If a player lives in an area so saturated with PFS players & GMs that they can just wait for someone to run the numerically next scenario, that's great for them. But I see a lot more instances of GM's saying, "I'm going to run scenario X at time Y" both at conventions and FLGS game days. Players in those situations must choose to play scenarios in the order they are offered, or they can decide to skip that con/game day. You might say it's okay to suggest they pick some other way to have fun that weekend, but I disagree for reasons I'll make clear in a minute.
If you allow replays, I will quit playing PFS.
Wow, really? Even if it has no effect on you? Just knowing that Jenny in Detroit is playing through #6 Black Waters a second time with a different character, that's enough to make you forsake this pleasurable pastime? How is this different from me reading #6 before playing it? That's legal, I did it, and now you're aware of it. Have you quit yet? No? Then perhaps what you meant to say is that you will quit if:
A. you find yourself forced to play PFS with players who are replaying the scenario and deliberately or accidentally spoil the surprises for you.B. you find yourself forced to play PFS with players who have previously replayed scenarios and whose characters now have more wealth than yours (always getting max gold, never paying for raise dead).
C. you find your suspension of disbelief is strained by your knowledge that two characters of the same player have rescued the same princess.
I would like to point out that (in the case of A or B) you can always ask if other players are replaying the scenario and choose not to play with them if so. As a GM you could similarly add "No replays, please" to your posting of the date, time, and scenario # you are planning to run. If this choice means that a player or a whole table (due to too few willing players) doesn't get to play PFS that day, then I consider that an argument FOR allowing replays. As for C, I don't really consider it a valid argument when thousands of characters have rescued that same princess, but I listed just as another possible interpretation.
Here are the top three imperatives for Pathfinder Society:
1. PFS must continue.
2. PFS must be fun.
3. PFS must be fair.
Number one is important, and I fear that some (not all) of the naysayers are ignoring the fact that if PFS stops being profitable for Paizo, you can kiss it all goodbye. The Paizo staff has repeatedly demonstrated that they are not evil, money-grubbing villains, but they still have to pay the rent. It is in all of our best interests that Paizo continues to profitably crank out more fun stuff for us to play with. This means that if making some sacrifices in fun or fairness nets us gains in stability, then we can't just dismiss the idea out of hand.
So, will allowing replays cause PFS to increase or maintain profitability? I think it would. Based on anecdotal evidence (all I have, and unless I am very much mistaken all Josh/Paizo has) potential new PFS players have had trouble filling a table because otherwise-willing veteran players have already played the scenario. Allowing replays will increase the assimilation of new players into our collective. More new players = good. Unfortunately, allowing replays will reportedly cause some veteran players to leave. Losing veteran PFS players = bad.
How many would we lose & how many would we gain? Nobody knows. I think this thread will help get a sense of that, but unfortunately it will be skewed by who sees it. The veteran players will see it and post, but the potential new players are not likely to be avid readers & posters on these forums and will never know of this discussion. Eventually it comes down to Josh making a decision based on the data he has. I think it benefits us as a group if he has the best data possible. So, even though I can't understand wanting to quit PFS based on this issue, I encourage you to post if that's what your really going to do. After all, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Thanks for listening.
|
|
If you come across a table of 3 (fourth cancelled), the GM gives one of the players a pre-gen to control. Problem solved.
Wait, Josh said here that four is the hard floor. Saying that he meant four characters is a slippery slope. If one player- or GM-run NPC is acceptable, how about two? What if I've got a potential new player who really wants to get into PFS with scenario #1, but none of my veteran PFS players want to play #1. Why can't I run the game with the new person running their own character and three pre-gens?
Suffice it to say I don't think you can logically solve a problem with the rules by suggesting we bend the rules a little. Are we trusting every other participant to understand that "common sense" dictates that one NPC is okay, but 2+ is not? I don't see how we can trust the judgment of PFS participants in some areas (playing with NPCs) but not in others (replaying).
Re-playing is an awful idea. People who've done it (I think Bob Hopp mentioned doing something like that) generally say it was poo and not fun.
Thus don't do it.
So, it's not as fun, therefore it's forbidden? Yes, I did say here that it "ruined" it & "sucked all the enjoyment out of the experience" and that hurts my argument a bit. However, keep these things in mind:
A. I exaggerated a bit. I wrote that when I was feeling most negatively about the experience. I still had fun. I still plan to continue to play PFS.B. Reading the scenario beforehand was only part of the problem. My roleplaying sucked. The GM went easy on us. I felt the scenario was too lethal for 1st level characters (as written).
C. None of the other players was impacted by my reading of the scenario. I didn't spoil any surprises. I didn't contribute to finding any treasure we would have otherwise missed.
I think legislating how much fun we can or can't have is a little too much micromanagement for me. Moreover, since reading the scenario beforehand is already allowed, outlawing replays does not prevent the potential negative impacts of foreknowledge of the scenario. It does rob us of the benefits of replaying, though. New players can more easily form a table and get involved in PFS. Veteran players who tire of their first character can try something new without having to wait for new scenarios to be written (having played a large portion of them already). Unless you outlaw pre-reading scenarios, outlawing replaying only hurts us.
|
|
I'd like to get a sense of the community. What say you? Should I or shouldn't I?
My Position: Allow replays with a different character for the same rewards a GM gets for eating a scenario.
Magnitude: I'm not going to stop playing PFS either way, but I do think that allowing replaying would help increase the rate at which PFS acquires new players.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Bob,
If nobody else thinks to mention it, that was a terrific post.
I'm still not convinced that re-playing solves the problems that people are presenting.
Let me ask a question: a DM gets absolutely no benefit from re-running a scenario. Why should a player? (If I DM a scenario, for half-maximum rewards, do you think that I should then be able to play the scenario for half-maximum rewards?)
|
|
why I say yes...
a) there is the possibility the character didn't finished the scenario(aka died) or they didn't succed
b) there are small tables, sometimes filled up at last moment with someone who already played the scenario using another character... or its preferable to play with an smaller table where the odds are harder to beat and it ask more work of the DM plasying it?
c) it should be prerogative of a DM to know his players, if he feels someoen is mature enough to play an scenario againit should no be a problem, speciallyif he plays as another faction
d) if someone goes to a convention and the only open tables are for modules he already played with onecharacter, then he should not sit in any of them?
yes I see your point in that many people might metagame, others might not enjoy an adventure they already played... but I know that every DM plays diferent and each one is an experience... so neglecting this posibility accusing players of not ebing mature enought to know what they can or can't use in game, seems unfair.
|
|
Let me ask a question: a DM gets absolutely no benefit from re-running a scenario. Why should a player? (If I DM a scenario, for half-maximum rewards, do you think that I should then be able to play the scenario for half-maximum rewards?)
different character, it doesn't add ups... and if your original character already died then you are trying to get more or less on foot... is this unfair?
Let me ask a question: a DM gets absolutely no benefit from re-running a scenario. Why should a player?
Then let DMs benefit from re-running a scenario just like a player would (i.e. with diminished rewards, and no character can benefit twice).
|
|
Bob,
If nobody else thinks to mention it, that was a terrific post.
I'm still not convinced that re-playing solves the problems that people are presenting.
Let me ask a question: a DM gets absolutely no benefit from re-running a scenario. Why should a player? (If I DM a scenario, for half-maximum rewards, do you think that I should then be able to play the scenario for half-maximum rewards?)
Chris, I agree this a logical conclusion, to give DMs a reward each time they run a mod equal to 1xp, 1 PA, and 1/2 gold.. I think this would only help PFS by making DMing more desirable to people and rewarding all the hardworking DMs who promote PFS.
kelly
|
|
As another data point, a local player posted an open invite to play Eye of the Crocodile King tomorrow.
When I emailed my interest in playing, he responded to say that the scenario had changed to The Devil We Know Part 1. No reason was given, but it's possible that one of the other players had already played Eye of the Crocodile King.
However, I've already played The Devil We Know Part 1. Therefore the scenario either needs to change again, or I need to do something else tomorrow afternoon.
I've also watched Doug Miles do an amazing juggling act for two sessions of three tables next weekend where new players would like to experience Tide of Morning and Decline of Glory while veteran players have already played them.
|
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads
|
Bob,
If nobody else thinks to mention it, that was a terrific post.
I'm still not convinced that re-playing solves the problems that people are presenting.
Let me ask a question: a DM gets absolutely no benefit from re-running a scenario. Why should a player? (If I DM a scenario, for half-maximum rewards, do you think that I should then be able to play the scenario for half-maximum rewards?)
This is a good point Chris.
When a DM eats a module we post which "PC" of our gets the 1/2 credit.
I would think that you could replay the module but like my guidelines suggested it must be a differant PC with a differant faction than the PC that got the DM credit.
|
|
Regardless, I figure allowing re-play would effectively forbid any delicate plot-driven scenarios from forming. Yes, I'm still optimistic about it.
For example having a player re-play a scenario which consists a murder mystery (the guilty being the butler or something). Either this player spoils the thing for the team or sits quietly without giving any contribution to the group in fear of spoiling or using metaknowledge.
If, however, PFS will degenerate into a series of dull dungeon crawls (Trouble with Secrets, Eternal Obelisk), it's irrelevant whether a player can re-play them.
Preface: I've played some Living Greyhawk, a lot of Living Forgotten Realms, some Pathfinder Society and have run some of each of the three.
Cons:
1) Players know what's coming and might metagame, thus reducing the experience for all.
2) Players not wishing to metagame might coast, allowing those who haven't played the scenario to be the active participants.
Pros:
1) There are relatively few PFS scenarios, and it is becoming harder and harder to do a regular PFS game where someone hasn't played in Scenario X.
2) Sometimes having a player replay a scenario means the difference between 4 people getting to play and 3 people going home without having played at all.
3) Allowing people to play the scenario with multiple characters allows someone to not feel locked into one character.
4) Answering Cons#1 - There is no restriction on who can read a scenario before playing in it. A player who will metagame by repeating a scenario is probably similarly likely to do so by either reading spoilers or the scenario itself.
5) Answer to Cons#2 - Perhaps not so bad a thing. This might encourage newer players (those who haven't played in a given scenario) to be more active roleplayers and that the experienced players might not dominate the table.
6) If the goal is to get people playing PFS in larger and larger numbers, anything that enables them to do so should be seen as "a good thing". Rules that prevent players from playing should be seen as "a bad thing."
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Tampa
|
I used to think that re-playing a scenario was a really bad Idea, until I played it in LFR. In fact, I don't think I've played an LFR scenario where there wasn't at least someone who has replayed it. I have to say that I still don't enjoy re-playing a module as much as the first time, but it makes mustering tables sooooo much easier, particularly at conventions. Also, I haven't witnessed the player that ruins a mod, for the rest of the table. So it may not be as much of a problem as you think.
I would like to see some mods designated replayable, and others that are non-replayable. I would not like to see mods replayed with the same character, but I would be ok with the ... another character different faction stipulation. Maybe this would help appease both camps, pro & con.
In my mind, the mods that are pure investigation mods... should not be replayed. But I really don't see an issue with replaying mods that are straight forward with a different character & a different faction.
|
I don't feel like there should be a hard rule against players playing a scenario more than once, but there should be a maximum number of times that this can happen...2 or 3 at the most. Obviously, there should be drawbacks to doing this, in order to avoid abuse. Perhaps a player cannot use the same character; and if they do, they gain no benefits; if they use a different character of the same faction they gain XP as normal, no PA, and half gold; if they use a different character of a different faction they gain XP and PA, but still only get half gold.
Cheers,
Gear
Thanks for asking, Josh. Since we have chosen this hobby, we PFS players have opted to place you personally in control of some of the details of how we have fun. I grew discouraged recently when I read things like, "I have no plans to change how GM Rewards/Day Job Rolls work." I interpreted that as, "Even if there's an easy way to make things better, I'm not going to change things. I have spoken. I am the law." Seeing this thread makes me think I might have misinterpreted you, and for that I am glad.
Considering I let the entire community provide feedback during Season 0, a lot of which was incorporated in the final rules set for Season 1, yes, I think you misinterpreted me. :-)
Pathfinder Society is a shared experience. I may be the coordinator of said shared experience, but my mind is open to new ideas. This thread came about after a very insightful email on the subject and I wanted to get the sense of the community, something I've done before (and something Paizo does quite often).
As for changing the GM rewards/day job items: the GM rewards system came about after a thread wherein I asked for everyone's opinion on just such a system (a thread very much like this one). It started with the release of v2.0 of the Guide in August. Within hours, folks were asking for changes. Where were they in the previous year when I had the thread open asking for their opinion? I should have more specifically said, "I'm not interested in making large changes to the Society mid-season" which is far more accurate a reflection of my sentiment on the matter.
Sometimes, however, there are things I may not budge on. Day job rolls are one of those. As the coordinator of the campaign, I'm going to keep my eyes, ears, and mind open, but sometimes I just need to stand resolute and say, "Sorry folks, this is the way it is." That won't always be the case, but sometimes it will.
If you come across a table of 3 (fourth cancelled), the GM gives one of the players a pre-gen to control. Problem solved.
Re-playing is an awful idea. People who've done it (I think Bob Hopp mentioned doing something like that) generally say it was poo and not fun.
Thus don't do it.
I'm sure I've been very clear on 4 being the hard floor. It's okay if you grab another person, such as a GM and give them a pregen and make them the fourth. It's never okay to allow one player to play two characters.
B. Reading the scenario beforehand was only part of the problem.
If I've given an indication somewhere that reading the scenario ahead of time is allowed please tell me where I've given that indication and I'll remove it immediately.
I see that I need to stress this in the next update of the Guide, but reading the scenario ahead of time is not allowed. At all. Ever.
Regardless, I figure allowing re-play would effectively forbid any delicate plot-driven scenarios from forming. Yes, I'm still optimistic about it.
For example having a player re-play a scenario which consists a murder mystery (the guilty being the butler or something). Either this player spoils the thing for the team or sits quietly without giving any contribution to the group in fear of spoiling or using metaknowledge.
If, however, PFS will degenerate into a series of dull dungeon crawls (Trouble with Secrets, Eternal Obelisk), it's irrelevant whether a player can re-play them.
I think, at this point, it's safe to say that I know exactly where you stand and that I've taken your feedback to heart and think on it each time I order/edit/develop a new scenario.
While I love new feedback, hearing the same feedback on a daily basis is not as useful for me.
|
|
I've also watched Doug Miles do an amazing juggling act for two sessions of three tables next weekend where new players would like to experience Tide of Morning and Decline of Glory while veteran players have already played them.
Juggling? Now this I've got to see!
Don't forget that I complicated things by GMing one slot and playing in the other, leaving us 2 slots for 10 a.m. and 3 slots for 2 p.m.
|
|
As for changing the GM rewards/day job items: the GM rewards system came about after a thread wherein I asked for everyone's opinion on just such a system (a thread very much like this one). It started with the release of v2.0 of the Guide in August. Within hours, folks were asking for changes. Where were they in the previous year when I had the thread open asking for their opinion?
This thread, that is. As to where they were during the discussion? The very same thread:
Personally I'm for GM getting a copy of the chronicle eaten.
I think the DM should get full XP, prestige award, gold and access for the module he has eaten.
GM's should:
1) Gain XP as if they had played the scenario,
2) gain prestige benefits as if they had played the scenario,
3) gain gold as if they had played the scenario,
4) NOT gain any faction rewards, and
5) be able to play in any scenario they have not yet GM'd.
I like the idea of GMs getting one XP and one Prestige Point per scenario that they eat. They should also get the gold as if they had completed the scenario.
I'm in for: the XP, gold depending on character's level (I know there's some table in the DMG, but I can't find it. Wealth gained by level divided by 3), and maybe the equipment access... depending on the character's level. E.g. the DM's 1st level character couldn't get Tier 3-4's equipment access even if the group plays it on that tier.
I'd prefer full GP for tier. I'm still giving up all access and 'special' bits.
I agree with most of WHat Josh has recommended EXCEPT:
50% gold will mean that the PC will be incredibly behind.
|
|
I think, at this point, it's safe to say that I know exactly where you stand and that I've taken your feedback to heart and think on it each time I order/edit/develop a new scenario.
While I love new feedback, hearing the same feedback on a daily basis is not as useful for me.
I have a habit of expressing myself quite strongly from time to time. For that I apologize. After all it might just be a difference in gaming cultures, who knows?
I cannot neglect the fact allowing re-play would have its benefits, particularly with introducing new players to PFS and increasing longevity.
And regarding the fourth "virtual character" under the control of a player in tables missing one player being was a misinterpretation on my part.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I don't have anything new to add, but wanted to add my voice to not allowing replay.
First, I would really hate to be in a game with someone who had played it before, since even if they tried not to give anything away, I'd be afraid they would, and the whole point of playing is to handle the situations that come up without knowing how they will turn out.
Second, I don't think it would really be fair to allow someone to essentially have an advantage in their character's survivability. If I advance my character based on his skill and luck, then that's an accomplishment. If someone else does based on foreknowledge, to me, that's insulting to those who've taken their chances.
|
This is why I am for allowing players to replay a scenario but with restricted guidelines.
1. XP , No change
2. ½ GOLD award maximum. Day job not affected.
3. For adventures with 2 PA possible only 1 can be obtained for a replay PC.
4. New PC MUST be in differant faction
+1, though my own personal suggestion was going to be #3 alone. (And it's worth noting that I surely don't have as much experience with living campaigns as others here.)
|
|
If I've given an indication somewhere that reading the scenario ahead of time is allowed please tell me where I've given that indication and I'll remove it immediately.
I see that I need to stress this in the next update of the Guide, but reading the scenario ahead of time is not allowed. At all. Ever.
To the best of my knowledge, you have given no indication either way, until 7.5 hours ago.
If you're going to put something in the Guide, you may (or may not) want to note that foreknowledge of scenarios can also be gained by reading the spoilers in the GM Discussion Board.
|
|
Just a couple of comments I thought worth mentioning:
The corner case I'd like to make sure we don't allow: the same group of players repeatedly playing the same adventure, gaining experience and (perhaps reduced) gold.
Does anyone else think it's odd that we're discussing allowing players to repeat a module, when the DMs repeating a module get no benefit?
I deal with 2-3 tables at a time now and would you consider it fun to be a new players level 1 with a group that is level 8? Even if you didn't die what fun would that be?
I can see this as a serious problem, but I don't understand how offering people the option of replaying a scenario would help. This looks like the time and place to offer the low-tier player an opportunity to play a higher-tier pre-generated iconic.
(Edit -- unless all the people ready to play at level 8 would be willing to start new characters, and they've already played through all the available low-tier modules. But (1) I imagine that the problems with replays are *most acute* when you've got three replayers at a table with only one new player who's ignorant of the scenario, and (2) there are better solutions.)
I would like to point out. IF I can only get 1 leavel per module, and made a new 1st level to help run with and leavel some one new. when he gets to 8lv I would still be 1st lv. with no gold or gear. AND as it was put that fun would that be?
|
|
I would like to have the option to replay, but with the following stipulations:
1) The player makes a separate character built solely for replay with a ####-#R society number. This makes the replay character immediately obvious to a DM when the character joins a new table. It also keeps the purists happy, because all original (non-replay) characters are on a even playing field.
2) Make it suggested, but not required that the replay character having a different faction as the player's primary character. Since many DMs who would be replaying have read all the faction missions in their judging capacity, there are no surprises or puzzles here.
3) Table organizers attempt to make "all replay" or "no replay" tables. A mixed table is the last resort to make sure no player is turned away when they want to play.
4) In an "all replay" table, the party can choose to play up to the next tier. If you are a level 2 group, and the Society has scouted ahead and warned you that you will be taking on level 4 barbarians, you have an advantage. But you are also required to play smarter to take on those foes. Far more tactics are required when you are charging in as the underdogs against a greater force.
5) In an "all replay" table, the DM is allowed, and suggested, to move the mobs, traps, and other interesting items on the map to different locations, and even change up the encounter order when possible. Even a new map can be drawn, as long as the number of points of interest stays the same.
Why? Or in other words, the good points:
A) DM's who had to eat modules get to sit back and play more.
B) Players who have had characters die in a module get another shot at "solving the puzzle of life".
C) Those people that have voted "no" so far get to keep their PFS play clean of replays and are not competing or mixing with the replay characters.
D) I want to see Doug Miles playing at a table instead of DM'ing it every time. But, I am about 25 XP behind him and the other veterans in the area. The veterans all play the latest scenarios at one table, and then come to be on the other side DMing the newbies. (A BIG thank you guys!!) Since they are on the "other side of the table", we don't get see how the veterans *play*. This process would allow the veterans to mix with the newbies far more, without penalizing the veterans who want their primary character to grow fast by not missing anything.
E) Playing up and tipping the carefully planned "balance" against the characters makes the challenges far more interesting and thought provoking, and in the long run, more fun.
F) Sometimes, the play does not go as written/expected. An example from the last game: A good (was it bluff or diplomacy?) roll by the paladin and a 5gp bribe, and that whole fight with what looked like town guards was bypassed. But, the standard path to one of the other player's faction goal was then cut off and bypassed as well.
...Humble thoughts of a newbie who wants to play more...
|
|
Not everyone is capable of playing with character knowledge and not player knowledge. While I like to think I tend to play with people who can separate what their PC knows and what they know as players.So true...
At first, I was upset that I might miss scenarios or my PC wouldn't have received all the potential XP, but now that we are on the verge of retirement for lvl 12 PCs (next month?) and most players have second or third PCs for playing in different tiers, it's clear to me that no PC will ever have it all.
True its almost impossible for one PC to hit all the modules just right to have it all. But what do you do when the DM tell you the module of the day in the one that your 8th level monk played back when he was level 4 and all the players present are low mid level? Right now the only way to play in that game is PRE-GEN or just simply not play and I dis-like the not play answer.
Home games and local gaming store games can be very differant. My home game was much easier to plan. Local gaming store / local cons not so much.
Furthermore, now that access to magic is determined by prestige and not chronicle sheets, what specifically you get from one scenario and not the next is no longer an issue.I think allowing players to play scenarios is a slippery slope and not one I'd trust my own balance check on. I like this aspect of PFS just the way it is. Some other things might need to be looked into, but not this one.
I think this slope is slippary but can be managed were it wont be a problem. My #1 concern here is keep new players in the game and finding more new players. Hardest part is adventure management for DM's in running things that the masses haven't played yet. All the adventures have been played up too #31 (just havent gotten to 32 yet).
No one has ran them ALL but the modules have been played at one point or the other.
No one has played them ALL, but my gameing grop is tring our best. from the book releas to yeasterday we'v ran throw 16 modules, and afew 2nd time with new character. becaous not every one can make every game, or con. we play 1 to 3 modules a week. so by the frist of the year we mite played them ALL. it will suck haveing to want a month at a time for a few games to play. but it would seem that is how some want it to be with 31 modules, thay are saying I may have olny 1,11 lv or 2,6 lv character OR 10 character none of wich can be more than 2nd lv.
|
For several very good reasons all pointed out here already, I am absolutely opposed to anyone playing a PFS scenario more than once.
If you need a table filled, I would be in favor of using a Paizo supplied NPC for the GM to run.
I would very much agree with this.
As a player I would feel VERY uncomfortable playing with someone who has already played the scenario. As a GM I would be paranoid!
The ONLY way I would agree to re-playing a scenario is if everyone has already played it and all died and it is understood it is not an official game and doesn't count for anything at all. I SO want to do this and kill that damned waterbug! Someday waterbug you will get yours!
|
|
i have quite a bit of experience running events for both lg and lfr.
lfr's ability to replay mods can cause some problems, but all in all, i think that it has solved more problems than it has created.
as an organizer, it's a lot less stressful trying to marshal tables with a replay option than without one.
as a dm, i've rarely had problems with players using ooc knowledge while replaying a mod. if i catch someone doing so at a mixed table, i let them know then and there that if they do it again they're off the table. that's usually all it takes to solve the problem.
as a player, i don't like to replay mods, but there have been times at cons where it was the only option to play, and i'm glad it's there to fall back on.
with the passing of the faction race, i really don't think that a replay option would ruin the campaign in any way.
|
|
I did have a player repeat a scenario recently, to test out a new character and fill out the group. I think knowing that he wouldn't get credit really freed him to play with real joy, without any metagame suspicions about his character's choices.
As nice as it might be when gathering a new (or random) group together for a quick game, I wouldn't be comfortable having a player playing for credit in a scenario they'd played before.
I think perhaps allowing repeating without credit should be explicitly allowed, but not for credit.
what kind of test is it for a new character, if every time you play him/her thay are still 1st.Lv with no gear, gold, or skills. I'v plaied old school D&D, an now I don't.