Why should I / shouldn't I allow you to re-play scenarios?


Pathfinder Society

101 to 150 of 414 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Chris Mortika wrote:
Darius Silverbolt wrote:

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.

re-plays with highter level character no it wouldn't. but re-plays with new low level character would help the new guy level up with the people he is trying to play with.

Liberty's Edge

Lylo wrote:
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.

Seconded.

As far as replaying scenarios, whatever is deemed best for the PFSOP is fine with me, but this is a let down.

in the grand skeem of faction points. in less you are runing the same faction throw more than once it shoudn't skew things. 1 for andoran and 1 for osaron just mean thoes 2 are now even. as for the other faction if I play them to the total gain will be 0. and if I don't play them. thay wouldn't have got any thing from me any how.

The Exchange

Joshua J. Frost wrote:
I'm looking for a rational discussion...

I might be violating the rational requirement but here goes -

A player can play any scenario any number of times with any character for full credit.

Guidelines -
1) the player must inform the DM that he is replaying and the DM must make sure the other players at the table are aware of who is replaying (DM should check chronicles)
2) replayers must avoid using OOC knowledge as much as possible and can be dismissed from the table for repeated or egregious violations
3) no player can be made to play at a table with replayers (similar to the 'no player can be made to play up' rule)

If we are to have replays, the system should be simple.
Replays shouldn't penalize people for dropping down to an alt when they are helping new players come into the society, or when they are helping to fill a table, or when their main has died and couldn't be raised and they are starting over, or when they show up at a place to play and the only mods that are running are ones they have played, or any of the other reasons given in favor of replays.

Could someone play the same mod 5 times in a row and get all the gold and all the PA? Sure I guess. Doesn't sounds like fun to me, but if he wanted to, what difference does it make?

Liberty's Edge

For myself, I am against replaying modules.

To my knowledge, Paizo has never billed Pathfinder Society as a living campaign - rather they refer to it as an organized play opportunity. This being so, I believe Pathfinder Society nontheless exudes a 'living' feel and I believe replaying modules would take away from that. As a veteran of Living Greyhawk and Living Arcanis I believe Pathfinder Society has the potential to meet and even exceed the high level of roleplaying excellence presented by these two systems in the past. If we are allowed to replay modules I feel that this will encourage the mod writers to include less roleplaying and more hack and slash to facilitate repeated playings. Personally, this is not the road I wish them to travel down.

I realize that replaying adventures could be helpful when introducing the game to new players or when starting up new characters. However, I believe veterans of the game look for an experience that requires canniness and finesse in order to succeed and I do not think that kind of module could be replayed and still produce the same sense of achievement and accomplishment. It's like using Microsoft Picture It! vs. Photoshop for photo editing. Picture It! is great when you're first getting started, but when you know what you're doing and want a satisfying result, you use Photoshop. Replaying might satisfy new players, but don't we need to satisfy the experienced gamers too?

Given my argument, if Paizo does decide to allow replaying, I have one suggestion/plea. Make high-level play non-replayable. At that point you won't have any new players, no new characters, just experienced players and people. Just a thought.

The Exchange

Syra wrote:


Given my argument, if Paizo does decide to allow replaying, I have one suggestion/plea. Make high-level play non-replayable. At that point you won't have any new players, no new characters, just experienced players and people. Just a thought.

I think this is an excellent idea.

Just throwing it out there:
tier 1-7 & 1-5 unlimited replay

tier 5-9, 7-11 & 12 no replays

Liberty's Edge

Joshua J. Frost wrote:
Deussu wrote:

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.

maybe you could set scenario up as 1 time (murder mystery and the like) or replayabuls(with other character and diferint tier). like Black Waters this is a point A to point B scenario. between the party mix and tier, it realy isn't the same game.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

I vote keep the rule as is: no replays.

Seems like when you change a rule you just end up getting a flood of people saying 'it wasn't enough and needs more changes.' Case in point: GMs getting XP for eating mods. And you get people digging up quotes that only support their side of it, when in reality you need to go back and read every post.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Fundamentally, I am against re-play. However, I think that the primary discussion revolves around new players coming to PF. From what I see, the issue with multiple, experienced players with higher-level PC's coming together for a scenario that some have played, others not, is a rarity. So if the focus is on new players being brought into the society, then we are talking about leve 1 mods anyway. So why not make replay permitted for 1st level only? That would prevent any "cheating" while still making it possible for experienced players to draft up a new 1st level PC and play with credit. [EDIT] although if PA is going to be used to advance the setting and determine future events, then no PA should be awarded for replay.[/EDIT]

The alternate thought (and one that has been posted numerous times) is to allow re-plays, but with pre-gens only. I would support this, but would like to see each icon (not just the current four) to have a pre-gen version. The benefit to the non-credit player would be the oppotunity to "test" a class they may not have played before. At least that would make the time worth it to me.

In any case, at it's core, any re-play situation must start with a conversation between the play and the GM. If any meta-gaming or prior knowledge is introducted by the replayer, he/she will have to leave the table.

Liberty's Edge

Lylo wrote:
Syra wrote:


Given my argument, if Paizo does decide to allow replaying, I have one suggestion/plea. Make high-level play non-replayable. At that point you won't have any new players, no new characters, just experienced players and people. Just a thought.

I think this is an excellent idea.

Just throwing it out there:
tier 1-7 & 1-5 unlimited replay

tier 5-9, 7-11 & 12 no replays

I could kinda of go along with no replay for highter level characters. I'm mostly looking to get other people up to speed. but at least 1st-7th level would let people get a feel for what thay want to play in the higher tear. I know I have a few characters I would like to try. but the fear of being punsh for haveing more than 1 character doesn't sound like fun to me.

Lantern Lodge

Ok, if the main problem is to attract more players, i'll tell you what you have to do:

Promote in Europe!

Honestly, there is lots of potential. The only problem is that you only focus on America and a little bit on England. I understand, it's convenient 'cause the speak english, but come on.
In France, Netherlands and here in the greatest country in the world (of course Germany and not Kazakhstan ;) ) are at least as much players as in the USA. Even though we received little to none support during the Living Greyhawk days, Ekbir, Adri and especially Sunndi had a very interessting, active and healthy community.
At the moment we don't have PaizoCons, GenCons or Society Szenarios in our language, but if Paizo would support those countries even a little bit, they would make tons of money.
There are a many people dying to help Paizo to conquer the world of RPGames and defeat the evil Wizards from the Coast (like Wormys_Queue who translates nearly everything Paizo-officials write about Pathfinder). Just talk to the communities. They are usually organized in Forums and easy to find.
For example:
I recently read that the admin of germanies biggest D20 community (dnd-gate.de / nearly 4000 users) tried multiple times to get in touch with Paizo, but never received an reaction. Is this called ignorance, arrogance or just bad business acumen?
It is certanly not the kindness Paizo is so famous for.

...And please forget about this re-play-nonsense.

This post is written in a harsh tone, I appologize if anyone is offended, but this is an aggravating topic for foreigners.


Joshua J. Frost wrote:

On the flip side, are the specific reasons why you, the players and GMs of Pathfinder Society, would be in favor of allowing players to re-play Pathfinder Society scenarios?

I'm personally in favor of playing scenarios again. Different characters should be able to play the same scenario because, from an ingame stand point, just because Ramatan the lvl 6 wizard has fought scenario X, doesn't mean that Samir, the lvl 2 fighter/cleric has.

I think the biggest reason to not allow this would be people who cheat or game the scenario. I think that point is a bit moot, as anyone who actually wants to cheat, can just purchase a pdf for < $10 and read through it prior to playing. I think the game, as its structured, already assumes people won't cheat. When we roll a 4, we won't say its a 16 because we're pretty sure that DC is around a 15. We won't come up with just 1 extra potion of cure moderate and retroactively put it on our character sheet.

Furthermore, I think it would go a long way to helping people play more often. In my group, we play every week. We usually do a new mod, and one old mod. Sometimes, this means that you have to sit out for a few weeks, because you've already played these. It would be nice to be able to play too.

Just my $0.02

Liberty's Edge 4/5

No. I'm strongly in favor of NOT allowing replays.

Mike

3/5

Me: All my play is PFS and most is online so the more opportunities to play in PFS the more opprotunities for me to play.

IMO, the biggest reason to allow replay is because everyone of the PFS scenarios is coming from Paizo and we are only getting one or two a month. In Living Greyhawk, we could generally play two cores a month plus one local regional, plus any number of other reagionals if we were willing to travel. Until the last year, we were limited by Time Units, but that never seemed to impact my play and was just more bookkeeping. I'm glad PFS doesn't have it.

I think replay should be allowed:

  • to fill a table
  • with a different character with a different faction
  • with some scenarios (mystery / detective based) that are "No replay"

    If you increase the number of scenarios available per year (3 per month?), then maybe replay only to fill a table and no faction credit, no experience and half gold.

    It was mentioned that recent PFS scenarios seem to be just 3 or 4 combats linked together with little role play. From what I've played, this seems to be the case. More scenarios with more role playing (and good role playing = 1 combat) is very much desired.

    -Swiftbrook

  • Dark Archive

    A couple fellow PFS players wrote:
    Allowing replaying will encourage scenario authors to only produce hack & slash scenarios.

    I have to disagree with this one. If these were authors trying to make a living off of what they produce, they might feel constrained to only produce the most popular type of story. Given the scale of PFS, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it is impossible to support oneself writing scenarios for PFS. So, the authors we're talking to are doing this on the side, in their leisure time. To warrant investing their free time, it has to be an idea that the author is excited about. I don't think what excites these authors is going to be influenced very strongly by the small portion of their audience who might replay the scenario.

    Also, I don't think anyone is asking for scenarios that are specifically replayable. Primarily, we want a fantastic scenario. If that fantastic scenario is replayable and we have a desire to replay it, then even better. Replayability is not going to be a selling point that will influence Josh or scenario authors. No PFS player is going to say, "Hmm, there are twelve reviews saying that #77 Linear Dungeon of Boredoom is really lame. But wait, it's replayable, so I could be bored to tears two or three times. Sold!"

    Many PFS players wrote:
    Replays should only yield partial credit.

    As discussed in a few threads about GM rewards (here, here, and here), the effectiveness of a character includes their level, their wealth, and their access to items. If you artificially stunt the acquisition of gold or prestige award, then you end up with characters with noticeably less power than their level would indicate. This negatively impacts the enjoyment of the player of the nerfed character, it makes it much more difficult for the GM/scenario author to gauge what the party can handle, and it could contribute to an increase in character deaths or party wipes (worst case).

    If we end up with a system where replays are allowed but yield only a half-strength character, then we will have made the situation worse. We'll have spent time codifying a set of rules to do something no one will want to do. Replay characters will tend to be segregated from non-replay characters, which could effectively give us two smaller groups (replay PFS and non-reply PFS) which don't really play together. That would be bad for our growth.

    I understand the mindset of, "I did things 'right' and got this reward. You did things 'wrong' so you should get less reward." I understand thinking of PA and gold as the results of a scenario, but they are not ONLY rewards. Because of how fundamentally they are tied to the effectiveness of a character, they are also a cause as well as an effect. They help determine how well a character performs in the next scenario.

    I read suggestions of partial credit as, "I would like to see people bringing nerfed characters to the table." I just cannot see how that improves anyone's Pathfinder Society experience.

    I think what we really want is a level playing field. We don't want GMs to get full gold for eating a scenario, because they didn't have to use consumables, clear conditions, or risk death. We don't want GM Reward characters to have an advantage over regular characters. We don't want replay characters scoring max gold and 2 PA every single time because the average character doesn't get those max rewards. We don't want them to be overpowered, and I don't think we really want them to be underpowered, either.

    So, what's average? How many potions should a PC have to quaff each scenario? What's the average death to scenario ratio, 1 to 12? 1 to 15? What's the average PA per scenario, 1.5? 1.75? 1.0? Ideally, we should have wealth that's pretty close to the PC wealth by level table in the Gamemastering chapter of the book. I don't have access to all the scenarios, but if someone who does could work out what percentage of Max Gold we would need to spend (on consumables, conditions, and death) to bring us down to the level of the PC wealth table, it might help. I would be happy to crunch the numbers, but I don't have the data. If folks did want to send me the Max Gold figure for each scenario they have, they're welcome to email me. I think it would help to quantify just where this level playing field ought to be.

    Sorry for another long post,
    Bob

    email:
    bobhopp a gmail d com

    Shadow Lodge 1/5

    Murdoc Strangways wrote:
    I know I have a few characters I would like to try. but the fear of being punsh for haveing more than 1 character doesn't sound like fun to me.

    How are you punished for having more than one character? The way PFS is structured, a certain character can only play 33 adventures before you retire and once you hit level 6 and 8 you are no longer able to play the low level adventures. That means, that especially as new adventures come out, second and third characters will be necessary to keep playing the new adventures.

    I'm also seeing the replay argument as somewhat impatient. Right now, we're barely into year one of PFS and so there are only 28 adventures to play. If I remember correctly, most of the adventures will not be retired. Over time that means the library of playable adventures will grow and the complaints of running out of adventures to play will dwindle to a very dedicated few. We know that paizo is a relatively small company with limited resrouces; perhaps patience is the most prudent choice.

    The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

    Bob, you note:

    Bob wrote:


    As discussed in a few threads about GM rewards, the effectiveness of a character includes their level, their wealth, and their access to items. If you artificially stunt the acquisition of gold or prestige award, then you end up with characters with noticeably less power than their level would indicate. This negatively impacts the enjoyment of the player of the nerfed character, it makes it much more difficult for the GM/scenario author to gauge what the party can handle, and it could contribute to an increase in character deaths or party wipes (worst case).

    If we end up with a system where replays are allowed but yield only a half-strength character, then we will have made the situation worse. We'll have spent time codifying a set of rules to do something no one will want to do. Replay characters will tend to be segregated from non-replay characters, which could effectively give us two smaller groups (replay PFS and non-reply PFS) which don't really play together. That would be bad for our growth.

    Two notes: first, I'm imagining that a character who played nothing but replays would, indeed, be significantly less powerful than one who didn't. But a character who has died and been raised a couple of times is significantly less powerful, as is a character who hasn't managed to succeed very often on her faction missions. These things happen.

    Second, we already have a class of people whose characters are "nerfed" in exactly the way you describe: those people who spend the bulk of their PFS time GMing.

    Liberty's Edge

    marvin_bishop wrote:
    Murdoc Strangways wrote:
    I know I have a few characters I would like to try. but the fear of being punsh for haveing more than 1 character doesn't sound like fun to me.

    How are you punished for having more than one character? The way PFS is structured, a certain character can only play 33 adventures before you retire and once you hit level 6 and 8 you are no longer able to play the low level adventures. That means, that especially as new adventures come out, second and third characters will be necessary to keep playing the new adventures.

    I'm also seeing the replay argument as somewhat impatient. Right now, we're barely into year one of PFS and so there are only 28 adventures to play. If I remember correctly, most of the adventures will not be retired. Over time that means the library of playable adventures will grow and the complaints of running out of adventures to play will dwindle to a very dedicated few. We know that paizo is a relatively small company with limited resrouces; perhaps patience is the most prudent choice.

    I understand more scenario are on the way, but they are not here yet and I'm talking about now. but it seems to be set up to run 1 character per season. well my gaming group games plays a lot, 1 to 3 scenario a week (16 so far). my primary character played 14 out of the 20 low tier scenario. my second character was made just as much to cache up other people, who missed games or cons as it was to play something new. with out replaying leaves only 6 low end scenario to do that with. (*) if replay to fill out the table but playing a 1st or 2nd Lv character with out getting any gold, gear or better skills ( sound like old school D&D, and Oh how I don't miss that) just to help some low level or new pathfinder play cache up. that sound lame to me ( I think GM should get something for there time every time WINK. not that I run) I love the game. but I don't every want feel helping some one new is a waste of my time. " sorry kid I don't have time to help you, come back in a few month and we will see what we can do. may be". it would also be a disserves to them making them play down a tier helping them, or to me getting killed playing up to there level. and so we don't for get getting nothing for it.

    if and thank god I didn't. played 3 characters equally with no replay allowed I would end up in a few weeks from now with 3-3rd Lv character, and not be able to play tier 5-6 and beyond till new low end scenario came available, and there only a few games a month (*) (sound like a penalty to me. )

    let us not for get the gaming convention. how lame would that be after hundreds of miles and hundreds of dollars for hotel and con fees. then not play pathfinder because my 6th Lv character played all the low tier scenario they are running. so my other 1st or 2nd Lv character can't be played. you play what thay ran. it's not like I can tell them what they have to run for me. ( O well it looks like D&D 4th for the weekend. how's that for being punished. I think dunking for razor blades in the kitty litter box would be as much if not more fun. lol)

    so yea as time most of this will work is self out. but not all.

    * I understand more scenario are on the way, but they are not here yet and I'm talking about now.

    Liberty's Edge

    Chris Mortika wrote:

    Bob, you note:

    Bob wrote:


    As discussed in a few threads about GM rewards, the effectiveness of a character includes their level, their wealth, and their access to items. If you artificially stunt the acquisition of gold or prestige award, then you end up with characters with noticeably less power than their level would indicate. This negatively impacts the enjoyment of the player of the nerfed character, it makes it much more difficult for the GM/scenario author to gauge what the party can handle, and it could contribute to an increase in character deaths or party wipes (worst case).

    If we end up with a system where replays are allowed but yield only a half-strength character, then we will have made the situation worse. We'll have spent time codifying a set of rules to do something no one will want to do. Replay characters will tend to be segregated from non-replay characters, which could effectively give us two smaller groups (replay PFS and non-reply PFS) which don't really play together. That would be bad for our growth.

    Two notes: first, I'm imagining that a character who played nothing but replays would, indeed, be significantly less powerful than one who didn't. But a character who has died and been raised a couple of times is significantly less powerful, as is a character who hasn't managed to succeed very often on her faction missions. These things happen.

    Second, we already have a class of people whose characters are "nerfed" in exactly the way you describe: those people who spend the bulk of their PFS time GMing.

    dieing is not a real issue. if I die I'm not sticking for an hour or more on the chronicle or scenario sheet that said heres for nothing. if I you don't have the sheet it didn't happen work both ways. an I think that was posted as much some where.

    Shadow Lodge 1/5

    Murdoc Strangways wrote:
    I understand more scenario are on the way, but they are not here yet and I'm talking about now. but it seems to be set up to run 1 character per season. well my gaming group games plays a lot, 1 to 3 scenario a week (16 so far). my primary character played 14 out of the 20 low tier scenario. my second character was made just as much to cache up other people, who missed games or cons as it was to play something new. with out replaying leaves only 6 low end scenario to do that with. (*) if replay to fill out the table but playing a 1st or 2nd Lv character with out getting any gold, gear or better skills ( sound like old school D&D, and Oh how I don't miss that) just to help some low level or new pathfinder play cache up. that sound lame to me ( I think GM should get something for there time every time WINK. not that I run) I love the game. but I don't every want feel helping some one new is a waste of my time. " sorry kid I...

    1 to 3 scenarios a week, every week with 2 new adventures a month?

    Is it really more fun to spend 75% (on average) of your time playing adventures you've already played? Why not take up something else three weeks out of four and play PFS the one week when it comes out? I know paizo puts out plenty of other awesome stuff.

    I personally think it would be imprudent of the campaign staff to make decisions based on immediate needs without considering the long term implications. However, decisions based just on the long term can be very frustrating in the present. A balance is probably best with a slight focus on the long view.

    2/5

    Bob Hopp wrote:
    Elyza wrote:
    a separate character built solely for replay with a ####-#R society number

    +1

    Elyza, this is a fantastic idea for all the reasons you listed. Great job.

    I second this idea.

    However, this doesn't take into account the situation where a character is a replay character for a few levels and then becomes the player's main character, and no longer replays scenarios from a certain point.

    This assumes the character will always be a replay character.

    Syra wrote:
    Given my argument, if Paizo does decide to allow replaying, I have one suggestion/plea. Make high-level play non-replayable. At that point you won't have any new players, no new characters, just experienced players and people. Just a thought.

    If they're going to allow replays, I think they need to allow them at all levels.

    Most replays will only be played on an emergency basis, used to fill out a group. It won't matter whether you limit them to high or low level play because the majority will, by definitely, always be low level.

    A rare number of replays will reach high levels, but I think it would be unfair to the gaming group that got them there to lose that player just because he is level X.

    Also, if replay scenarios are worth only limited rewards (1/2 gold and 1 PA max), the replay would be quite disadvantaged compared to the other characters. Again, you could play it, but would you want to if you had a choice?

    2/5

    Murdoc Strangways wrote:
    dieing is not a real issue. if I die I'm not sticking for an hour or more on the chronicle or scenario sheet that said heres for nothing. if I you don't have the sheet it didn't happen work both ways. an I think that was posted as much some where.

    I had to read this a couple of times for what you're saying to sink in. Are you seriously saying that if your character dies, you leave without waiting for a GM to fill out a chronicle sheet for you and then, as if by miracle your character didn't actually die? Seriously? How old are you? Also, surely you are aware that GM's report session results to Paizo (that is, who played what, how many prestige points were earned and who got killed)? Meaning a dead character is a dead character is a dead character, regardless of the existence of a chronicle sheet.

    EDIT: On the issue of no replays or replays allowed: Allowing replaying of scenarios is something that really shouldn't happen in any kind of campaign continuity. If I wanted to replay adventures I'd play a computer game or a board game. If replays are allowed in PFS I'll most probably join NiTessine and call it quits for society play.

    The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

    Bless you, Navdi, for saying that more eloquently than I could.

    Murdoc does bring up the point that people who want to cheat -- walking up to their next GM and "forgetting" that their character had died, in his example -- exist in all large Organized Play environments.

    And it's easy in Pathfinder Society. (I know that I got a reputation as a hard-arse at Gen-Con for being one of the very few GMs who insisted on looking through every player's character records. More than a couple of the players had sheets that were completely blank, except they had the GM's signatures at the bottom of the pages. "Nope. Sorry. You don't get to play that PC at my table. Would you like to play a new Level One character?")

    But it's kind of pointless.

    Liberty's Edge

    I am against any replay.

    I once played a scenario I had already read (not a PFS one, mind you). And it was awful.

    I so desperately wanted to avoid being influenced by what I knew that I was always second-guessing myself.

    Truly, ignorance is bliss.

    Liberty's Edge

    marvin_bishop wrote:
    Murdoc Strangways wrote:
    I understand more scenario are on the way, but they are not here yet and I'm talking about now. but it seems to be set up to run 1 character per season. well my gaming group games plays a lot, 1 to 3 scenario a week (16 so far). my primary character played 14 out of the 20 low tier scenario. my second character was made just as much to cache up other people, who missed games or cons as it was to play something new. with out replaying leaves only 6 low end scenario to do that with. (*) if replay to fill out the table but playing a 1st or 2nd Lv character with out getting any gold, gear or better skills ( sound like old school D&D, and Oh how I don't miss that) just to help some low level or new pathfinder play cache up. that sound lame to me ( I think GM should get something for there time every time WINK. not that I run) I love the game. but I don't every want feel helping some one new is a waste of my time. " sorry kid I...

    1 to 3 scenarios a week, every week with 2 new adventures a month?

    Is it really more fun to spend 75% (on average) of your time playing adventures you've already played? Why not take up something else three weeks out of four and play PFS the one week when it comes out? I know paizo puts out plenty of other awesome stuff.

    I personally think it would be imprudent of the campaign staff to make decisions based on immediate needs without considering the long term implications. However, decisions based just on the long term can be very frustrating in the present. A balance is probably best with a slight focus on the long view.

    ok maybe I should give some detail on my gamming circle. there is 3 full time gamers and 9 who game when they can. out of all that there is 4 GMs. 1 GM can only plays or runs Tues. 1 is only available on odd Tues. the other are open for most any time. we play 4 hours Tues and or 8 hours on Sat. (not counting gaming cons) we keeping to the 4 hour scenario time limit. the guy who run love the fact there not a week of plain out the game and there characters don't lose ground when when not played. most of the player are just as all over the place as to when they can play. the hole thing is like herding cats. I don't really want to replay every game with 2 characters. but I play what's being ran, and if it help some one keep up good. how ever 1 or 2 1st Lv what ever with nothing is not going to really help a 2 or 3 of 4th Lv characters. and playing down is a bit of a hit on them to and playing up get your help killed quick. I don't want or expect the campaign staff to work them self's to death. some of us are looking at this as a way to keep balance, and not as a way to upset the cart. may be they can sun set law it, after date x, or scenario y then no more replay. I know not every one is in the same boat I'm in but my boat will have to fallow what ever the rulings ends up being. I just hope the ruling doesn't put a hole in my boat to soon.

    Liberty's Edge

    Chris Mortika wrote:

    Bless you, Navdi, for saying that more eloquently than I could.

    Murdoc does bring up the point that people who want to cheat -- walking up to their next GM and "forgetting" that their character had died, in his example -- exist in all large Organized Play environments.

    And it's easy in Pathfinder Society. (I know that I got a reputation as a hard-arse at Gen-Con for being one of the very few GMs who insisted on looking through every player's character records. More than a couple of the players had sheets that were completely blank, except they had the GM's signatures at the bottom of the pages. "Nope. Sorry. You don't get to play that PC at my table. Would you like to play a new Level One character?")

    But it's kind of pointless.

    fist off I would like to thank you for checking paper work. at lest some one does. I wish I could find to orignal post still looking. but here was the gist of it. if you die in 1 of your 1st 3 scenario rather than cabin copy it's twin. don't count that one and play on. 1st Lv can die easy, I role away from death. if you lose 2 low level scenario here and 3 there on and a few on another character from dieing. A. aventually short your self on Lv. B. becomes a hard sale C. character never develop. D. dumb, dull, and waste of time are the feeling some people start having about it. E. eliminates some of the need for replay

    Liberty's Edge

    having played a scenario with a level 2 rogue in tier 1-2 and again with a level 1 cleric same tier. the out come was NOT the same. what I learner, or had re-enforce.
    1 knowing a monster is behind the door or in the room may not save you.
    2 an ambush is still and ambush.
    3 any low level character is 1 failed save throw away from death, or just waiting for it's embrace.
    4 a failed skill roll can coast you your faction mission, or more.
    5 if the fighter get hit a few time just be for getting crited that may kill him out right. ( every one else the crit alone will do that)
    6 most spells are only haft as defective if the monster saves.
    7 the same or similar character mite not be played the same way by some one else.
    8 each character has a job to do, and handles things differently.

    Sovereign Court 4/5

    Murdoc Strangways wrote:
    <anything he says>

    Wha-...?

    What I can make of that he is already replaying scenarios, which outright is cheating, no matter which way you put it. Or maybe I'm just reading wrong, I don't know

    Although there are points being brought out: Ambushes aren't ambushes anymore. Spellcasters can prepare optimal spells for the scenario ("I know there's a monster which spits acid, so I prepare Resist Energy!"). Characters know about swarms and stock up with grenade-like weapons (Acid flasks etc.)...

    3/5

    Chris Mortika wrote:

    More than a couple of the players had sheets that were completely blank, except they had the GM's signatures at the bottom of the pages. "Nope. Sorry. You don't get to play that PC at my table. Would you like to play a new Level One character?")

    But it's kind of pointless.

    The specific example here is, in my view, one where a GM is being rather a hardass, despite having technicality on his/her side. At a major convention (where you may be trying to attract new players), it's deliberately obtuse to assume that all players would necessarily have time between rounds to do proper accounting. I know that I didn't have such time during the convention, and I wasn't planning any nefarious +5 holy avenger swords on my empty chronicle sheets. I simply didn't have time.

    The flip side of this issue is also worth noting:

    If this issue is truly a big deal, let's first examine why GMs signed blank chronicle sheets for those players. Once you've got an answer for that, then we can discuss denying a player a seat with their character on that basis.

    No offense intended, but common sense, decency, and maximizing fun should prevail. After all, this is supposed to be for fun. If some cheaters can more easily exploit the system due to such a stance, so be it. They're cheaters; they'll be discovered one way or another, and be ejected from PFS.

    Rubia

    Paizo Employee Director of Brand Strategy

    Rubia wrote:
    If this issue is truly a big deal, let's first examine why GMs signed blank chronicle sheets for those players. Once you've got an answer for that, then we can discuss denying a player a seat with their character on that basis.

    I think blank sheets are signed because GMs and players operate on the honor system. And yes, it can take longer than one would anticipate to calculate how much different things cost to sell and buy at the table. I know I was rushed out of more than one session that ran right up to the end and if I and the GMs or other players had been kept there to go over every minute detail we would have missed our next sessions or been in the way of incoming groups. Sometimes you just have to do what you have to do. It's a game, after all, and whether someone fills in their sheet at the table or afterwards, anyone can, at any time down the road, audit them to ensure that they upheld their end of the honor system. But this is the topic of a different discussion and should be taken to its own thread if we want to continue with it.

    The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

    Rubia wrote:


    The specific example here is, in my view, one where a GM is being rather a hardass, despite having technicality on his/her side. At a major convention (where you may be trying to attract new players), it's deliberately obtuse to assume that all players would necessarily have time between rounds to do proper accounting. I know that I didn't have such time during the convention, and I wasn't planning any nefarious +5 holy avenger swords on my empty chronicle sheets. I simply didn't have time.

    No offense intended, but common sense, decency, and maximizing fun should prevail. After all, this is supposed to be for fun. If some cheaters can more easily exploit the system due to such a stance, so be it. They're cheaters; they'll be discovered one way or another, and be ejected from PFS.

    No, Rubia. To cite one example, and not the most egregious, on the second day of the convention, one dude brought to my table a 6th-Level PCs with 17 chronicle sheets gathered over the past year, only the first and fifth of which are filled out at all, except for a scrawled signature at the bottom, and the Chronicle numbers. How much gold does the PC have? Well, I guess we could decide that he's made maximum gold every scenario and never bought anything.

    Does that strike you as maximizing fun? As the right choice?

    Why the hell do we have chronicle sheets? (In the example above, I wouldn't seat the guy's 6th Level character, so he went to another table, where the GM --naturally-- didn't even bother to check.

    And, I'm afraid we just disagree on time management. Filling out our chronicle sheets is part of our responsibility, as DMs and players. If a session runs late, it's still our responsibility.

    Liberty's Edge 3/5

    Chris Mortika wrote:


    No, Rubia. To cite one example, and not the most egregious, on the second day of the convention, one dude brought to my table a 6th-Level PCs with 17 chronicle sheets gathered over the past year, only the first and fifth of which are filled out at all, except for a scrawled signature at the bottom, and the Chronicle numbers. How much gold does the PC have? Well, I guess we could decide that he's made maximum gold every scenario and never bought anything.

    Wow, Chronicles with nothing but the GM signature on it? If that was a valid chronicle then the GM of that game is at fault. There are only two other 'shaded' sections that the GM really has to make sure he fills out and initializes - that is not an overwhelming burden to accomplish when handing out Chronicles.

    If we allowed characters to play with chronicles like this then there is almost no reason to have any rules discussions at all!

    Dark Archive

    As a new player, I don't have the wealth of experience playing the Pathfinder modules that most of you have... And that, I think, is very pertinent to the question. I have been out of the area for about a year and while I was gone my friends all started in on playing Pathfinder modules. Which is great! I like the changes to the system and enjoy haning out with my friends, so it is win/win for me.

    However, most of them have played through the beginning modules with their characters who are around the 5-6 area. I want to start a new character, but since everyone has already played the modules, I have no one to adventure with. I really don't see what the problem with them rolling a new character to accompany me through my adventures is.

    Besides, if someone wants to roll an alt it seems they would very quickly run out of ways to increase their level. As there are not a lot of modules currently printed for all level groups it makes sense to allow each character to go through each module once. It is a role playing game. So each new character should act( be role played ) as if they have no idea what is going to happen. I know it is hard to do, but if no one at the table minds and everyone is having fun, what's the problem?

    Also I think that people who run games should get some sort of bonus for running the module whether they already have credit for the module or not. They are doing the other players a service and so should be rewarded for choosing to help everyone else out rather than play in a module themselves. They are giving up time out of their schedules to help everyone else that they could spend trying to run their own character through a module.

    Anyway, that's my 2 cents. And like I said, I haven't played much( only 1 module do to the current restrictions ) so maybe I don't know all the reasons it would be a "bad idea". I just know it would make it easier to find groups to play with and thus easier to have more fun!

    Liberty's Edge 3/5

    Draeke Raefel wrote:


    However, most of them have played through the beginning modules with their characters who are around the 5-6 area. I want to start a new character, but since everyone has already played the modules, I have no one to adventure with. I really don't see what the problem with them rolling a new character to accompany me through my adventures is.

    Hi Draeke - welcome to Pathfinder!

    I can see how it is a problem for you to get in on some games to catch up to your friends level. My guess is if your only chance to play is with that one group you will be hard-pressed to catch up to them.

    There is a mix of Tiers that come out though, so your friends' primary characters probably will be too high to play some adventures soon. This would give them the opportunity to create new characters in order to play the lower-tiered adventures coming out.

    Dark Archive

    Short answer ="No"

    Long answer = "You should not let a player with prior knowledge of the inner plot workings replay the game unless he/she is getting zero benefit for playing said game, has no say in descisions/actions the group takes and is only there to help fill out a table that does not have 6 players."

    Scarab Sages 1/5

    I GM'd 3 scenarios over several sessions at DragonCon this weekend. I vote no a player should not be allowed to replay a scenario.

    As a DM I dont like the idea of running a player through a mod they have already played for fear of situations arising such as "well my last DM did it this way" or the player flatly accusing me of "doing it wrong" based on his previous experience. Anyone who has spent any time playing at conventions knows that at least one person at the even over the course of the weekend is going to have this kind of attitude.

    As a player I dont like the idea of playing with a player through an adventure he / she has already played due to spoilers. If someone else spoiled a mod for me because they had already played it that might be enough to make me get up and walk away from the table, or for me to ask the GM to have the spoiler excused from the table.

    I think the only way to allow someone to play a mod more than once is to impose several provisions on it, but in the end I think it would just be easier to say no.


    Wolf Alexander Vituschek wrote:

    Promote in Europe!

    Honestly, there is lots of potential. The only problem is that you only focus on America and a little bit on England.

    You may have a small misconception about our "promotion" here in the US. We are only able to attend conventions in the US (with some exceptions here and there) but we are promoting Pathfinder Society as a world-wide campaign. If folks want to start up their own groups outside of the US (as many have done already) or want to organized Pathfinder Society at events and conventions outside of the US (such as PaizoCon UK, Gen Con Oz, etc.) then they are more than welcome to and I will give them whatever assistance they need.

    In the very near future I will begin putting together a more uniform network of volunteers with regional coordinators spread out across the world. Even with such a system, we need boots on the ground. We need players in any country where they want to play Pathfinder Society to step up and run Society games at their local events or conventions. I know there are groups running in Finland, Israel, Germany, France, Italy, and many other non-English-speaking countries. If you want a regular PFS presence in your country, then start it up! I can only give you the tools, you and others like you need to take those tools and make something with them.

    Wolf Alexander Vituschek wrote:

    I recently read that the admin of germanies biggest D20 community (dnd-gate.de / nearly 4000 users) tried multiple times to get in touch with Paizo, but never received an reaction. Is this called ignorance, arrogance or just bad business acumen?

    It is certanly not the kindness Paizo is so famous for.

    I respond to all of my emails. If he didn't email josh@paizo.com, then have him email me again. If he emailed and hasn't heard back from me, he may have been lost in the spam filter--have him email me again. Was he emailing about Pathfinder Society? What specifically was he attempting to contact us about and to whom did he send his email?

    It's possible that it's just a language-barrier issue, but you like to jump to negative conclusion well ahead of any explanation. Please give me (and Paizo) some credit. We want to help and we will. :-)


    Murdoc Strangways wrote:
    dieing is not a real issue. if I die I'm not sticking for an hour or more on the chronicle or scenario sheet that said heres for nothing. if I you don't have the sheet it didn't happen work both ways. an I think that was posted as much some where.

    Your GM will report you as dead in our reporting system. Dead PCs can't be reported on anymore.

    Unless I'm completely misunderstanding you, what you're suggesting is cheating. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    Lantern Lodge

    Quote:
    Josh wrote:
    Quote:

    Wolf Alexander Vituschek wrote:

    I recently read that the admin of germanies biggest D20 community (dnd-gate.de / nearly 4000 users) tried multiple times to get in touch with Paizo, but never received an reaction. Is this called ignorance, arrogance or just bad business acumen?
    It is certanly not the kindness Paizo is so famous for.

    I respond to all of my emails. If he didn't email josh@paizo.com, then have him email me again. If he emailed and hasn't heard back from me, he may have been lost in the spam filter--have him email me again. Was he emailing about Pathfinder Society? What specifically was he attempting to contact us about and to whom did he send his email?

    It's possible that it's just a language-barrier issue, but you like to jump to negative conclusion well ahead of any explanation. Please give me (and Paizo) some credit. We want to help and we will. :-)

    Ok, I only wrote that he contacted Paizo. Certainly not about Pathfinder Society (probably about support or material for reviews) and I don't know which one of the Paizo-Staff he addressed.

    Original Quote (It's quoted out of context):
    Quote:

    Talamar @ forum.dnd-gate.de wrote:

    [...]Mal davon ab, das ich von Paizo mittlerweile gar nicht mehr viel halte, da sie auf zahlreiche Mails von mir, die ich im Laufe der letzten Jahre geschickt habe, nicht mal ein Wort geantwortet haben. Soviel dazu.

    Translates into something like this (please keep in mind that my english is bad and the translation might be partially wrong):

    By now I don't think much of Paizo anymore, since they never answered even with a single word on my numerous Mails I sended them over the past few years.

    ----
    But I am glad to hear that I was mistaken and I still can say Paizo is actually a nice company ;) .

    5/5

    I keep retyping how best to say this, but it never comes out correctly. I simply can not express how strongly I am against ever playing with or GMing for a "repeat" character.

    That said, if replaying scenarios were allowed in v3 of the Guide, I would ask that players and GMs not wishing to play with repeats be given special mention. Additionally, something along the lines of giving non-repeats priority at convention tables would be appreciated. (ex. GenCon generic tickets. If there's one spot left, and both have generics, but one player is a repeat for that scenario, the non-repeat gets preference)

    I realize that would get cumbersome, and it would be simpler to just disallow repeats. I would really hate to see someone's first time through a scenario ruined by someone playing their 4th character through.

    1/5 *

    I would never sign a blank Chronicle. The fact that anyone could fake it anyway is irrelevant to me; when I'm responsible for something, it gets done correctly.

    I have, when pressed for time, filled out the PA, money, and access sections, then let the players do the math, but frankly I strongly dislike even that. It just feels like I'm not doing my job properly. Players at my table deserve my best, even down to the paperwork. :)

    2/5

    Let me start off by saying I fully understand why players on this board don't want replays. But I'll keep my assumptions to myself. Having said that...

    GIVE ME REPLAYS!

    Unlike most of you, I live in an area where we have a very limited number of players. (Fewer than 6) I will liken my response to what it was like playing LG.

    There would be many times where a player (and a player is all it takes when you have only 5 people) has played a few scenarios at a convention. Now none of the other players can play said scenarios. Yes, he could use a pregen character, but my experience has been that a person plays unrationally or worse yet, bored when they have no vested interest in the character they are playing.

    When LG was around there were a lot more scenarios we could choose from. So there seemed to always be at least one or two that we could play. But it still made it very difficult, and sometimes would take an hour to figure out what everyone hadn't played and what could be played. As a DM in that system, I would download all the scenarios I could, just so we would have on hand the scenario we would end up playing. With the current system that gets really expensive. And I won't do it.

    On another note, with so few players, some of us who want to play storylines don't get to because one or two players have played a part of the storyline at another location. I saw this happen a lot in LG.

    I would like to see some version of replays, with some credit. Especially for GM's. As was previously mentioned by another GM, some of us are the only ones who GM in our group and thus will have inferior characters when we do get to a con.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Dark Archive

    Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

    Greetings...

    I wrote a long post on this subject back in July 2008 when we were having a very similar discussion regarding whether or not it was a good idea to allow replay in Living Forgotten Realms. (In that case, of course, the decision had already been made, which is obviously not the case here.)

    To be clear, I do not intend to state or imply that everything we do in LFR would also be a good idea in PFS. PFS and LFR are not the same campaign, they do not have exactly the same goals, and so forth. But they are both ongoing shared-world campaigns, and as such they do share many of the same (potential) problems. I would guess that many of the things Josh is contemplating as reasons to possibly allow replay in PFS are the same things we were contemplating as reasons to allow it in LFR.

    I still believe everything that I wrote back then, so I'm just going to take the lazy route and quote myself. :) Now that we've had over a year to see the replay rule in action, I'm 100% convinced that the decision to allow players to replay adventures was a good one for the overall health of the campaign. I know that decision cost us some players (including some who, clearly, are playing PFS now). But I think that allowing replay has helped LFR more than it has hurt LFR. The biggest issue where it helps is in making it easier for new players to get into the campaign by playing with their friends who have been playing the campaign for a longer period of time.

    Here's what I believe is the crux of the matter. The single most important thing for any campaign is that it has to bring in new players. If you are not bringing in new players then eventually your campaign is going to die, because no matter how good a campaign is, it will always have a certain amount of attrition, even among its most fervent fans. If you have 2000 absolute die-hard fanatics playing today and you add 0 new players over the next year, I guarantee you will have noticeably less than 2000 players a year from now. (To be clear, I just made that number up. I have no idea how many players PFS has.)

    Therefore you have to look for your friction points. You have to search for every possible obstacle that keeps new players from being able to join the campaign and you have to remove those obstacles ruthlessly. The only exceptions are for things that you consider core principles. It is never worth compromising your core principles to get more players. The tricky part is deciding what's a core principle and what's just a matter of style/preference. Your players will not agree on what the core principles should be, but as long as you articulate what those principles are, the vast majority of players will abide by them and uphold even the ones they don't personally agree with.

    By the way, this player attrition happens through no fault of the campaign (although the campaign can certainly hasten it by making bad decisions / putting out poor adventures). People have their circumstances change in real life and they can't play any more (or they can't play as much as they used to). People have bad experiences and quit the campaign in anger. Play groups break up because the only guy in a small town who was willing to organize games at the FLGS decided to stop. (That last one is the worst in many ways because it probably costs you at least 7 players, not just the one DM who decided to quit.) The list goes on and on.

    Bottom line, as a matter of sheer survival, you have to make it as easy as possible for new players to get tables, and (frankly) you also want to get as much mileage out of your content as you can, particularly when you are paying for that content to be developed (as is the case for both WotC and Paizo). I think allowing adventures to be replayed helps in a meaningful and measurable way with both of those goals in LFR.

    So again, I am posting this not because I think the decisions we made for LFR are necessarily the right decisions for PFS. Those who know me know that I also used to be the campaign director for Living Arcanis, and we did not allow replay of adventures in Living Arcanis, so I have personally been on both sides of this issue. I believe not allowing replay in LA was the right decision for LA, although with the benefit of hindsight I'm not convinced it would have been the end of the world if we had allowed it there, either. (We absolutely never would have allowed it, though, just to be clear.)

    For the record, over a year later, I would write nearly this exact same post today on the subject of why I think it was (and is) a good decision to allow replay of adventures in LFR. For purposes of this discussion, obviously substitute "PFS" for "LFR" and "RPGA" throughout the text. I also made a few hopefully-relevant annotations in brackets. :)

    Quoting my original post behind a spoiler tag because this post is more than long enough already.

    Talk to you later --

    Sean
    ----
    M. Sean Molley | sean [at] basementsoftware [dot] com

    Spoiler:

    (Reposted from here: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75854/19393542/Playing_an_Adven ture_Multiple_Times)

    Greetings...

    I'm happy to talk about this decision [the decision to allow players to replay adventures in LFR], why it was taken, and what we hope to accomplish by allowing people to play adventures multiple times. I recognize that some folks will probably never get on board with this idea, but I think for the vast majority of players this causes little to no harm and it does a great deal of good.

    First of all, let me tell you my philosophy on "cheating." I am not going to sit here and say that nobody cheats. Of course some people cheat. However, I don't think there is any value in trying to stop them. No matter what rules or systems you come up with, someone who is determined to cheat can easily get around those rules and systems. Most of the time, those things just make it even harder for honest players to play the game and have fun. For example, we could certainly make a rule that the DM is required to check every single character and confirm that the math is correct and the character has legitimately gained every XP and gold piece that the player claims. No doubt that this system would occasionally catch a cheater (and it would also find a lot of honest math errors). Of course, it would take an hour out of every single session while the DM laboriously audited each and every player character, and I am pretty sure that we would lose far more players because of the boredom and annoyance than we would gain from the subset of players who might appreciate the fact that nobody else at the table was cheating on their character sheet.

    The simple truth is that this is not a competition. The RPGA has to get away from the old "tournament" mentality or it will never appeal to the casual gamer. The D&D Championship is there if you want to compete. Living Forgotten Realms should just be about having cool adventures with fun people and enjoying the game of D&D. Therefore, if we have a choice between allowing something that will be a big benefit to the majority of players but at the same time it opens up an avenue by which someone could cheat to gain an unfair advantage, we're probably going to come down on the side of being open. In a team-oriented tabletop roleplaying game it's pretty hard to see how people who cheat are really cheating anybody but themselves anyway.

    I see allowing replay of adventures as being one of those things with a lot of potential win and very little potential lose. Yes I suppose there is some risk that a player will ruin everybody else's fun by shouting out all the secrets. But I really don't think that is going to happen much, if it happens at all. Someone who wanted to do that before LFR could simply order a home game with the same adventure or download it online (I'm sure all the RPGA adventures that have ever been published are available somewhere on the Internet) and read it before coming to the game. If you want to cheat and ruin everybody else's fun, you don't need a "replay rule" to enable that. It's quite easy to do. So I think this idea that allowing people to play adventures more than once is going to somehow unleash a horde of problem players who have been invisible up until now is a bit overblown.

    I have personally met literally thousands of different people during my time in the RPGA and I can count on one hand the number of people I have met at RPGA events who were just pure jerks. 99.99% of all the other people I have gamed with were nice folks who were there to have some fun. I think if anything people will go out of their way to avoid spoiling things for the people who haven't yet played an adventure. But if someone is a problem, the DM has tools to deal with that. We have made it very clear in the adventure boilerplate that the DM is empowered to do what she needs to do in order to help everybody have fun in LFR. If that means changing a few details then change a few details. The RPGA also has sanctioning mechanisms in place for people who are disruptive. A table DM with a problem player who is not playing well with others should be able to turn to the Senior DM just the same way she would if that player was kicking and screaming because his character just died to a critical hit from an orc with a greataxe.

    I also don't expect that replay of adventures will really be all that common. As someone already pointed out upthread, we will be releasing some 60-odd adventures a year. If you have time to play them all twice then more power to you but I suspect most people do not enjoy that luxury. It's going to be tough to keep up with playing everything once, much less multiple times. I think the situation where people will end up replaying an adventure will be those situations that already exist in the RPGA.

    - You have a couple of new players who show up at a convention to give the campaign a try but there isn't anybody who hasn't already played everything and nobody wants to make a new 1st-level character anyway because that means they wouldn't be able to play that adventure later with their primary character. No problem now because you can replay it. I think most people are perfectly willing to sit in and "play dumb" on a module if it will get some new players a chance to experience the RPGA, especially if they don't have anything going on in that slot anyway, but before now, you had to be willing to break the rules to do that (even if you didn't take an AR). [Note: potentially less of an issue in PFS because it is legal to sit at a table with a 1st-level pre-gen and play dumb in an adventure you've already played, with no rewards for your own character.]

    - You have a new adventure that nobody wants to DM because they won't get any rewards for their character and will fall behind their regular group. No problem now because you can replay it. Or you come to a convention and for whatever reason they were not able to get you into a slot zero. Before now you just had to grit your teeth and burn the mod. Now you can replay it. [Note: potentially less of an issue in PFS because you have a form of DM rewards, but we give away a ton of free product to RPGA DMs, and it's still an issue for us, so...]

    - You have one of those bummer game day situations where only 5 people show up. You need 4 players and a DM. But there is no adventure that everybody has in common that they haven't played so instead you have no game and everybody has to go home. (Or you break out Three-Dragon Ante [Yetisburg], which by the way I am not slamming as it is great fun, but when I show up to play D&D, I would prefer to play D&D.)

    - You have a bad experience with a DM who stayed up all night playing midnight madness and the adventure ends in 2 hours because the DM rushes through everything so fast you have no idea what was going on. Now you can replay it and get the proper experience. Or you have a TPK because everybody's dice went cold in the first combat encounter and you never got to find out what happened after that encounter. You can't replay it with the same character, but at least you can replay it.

    - You have two groups of friends who you like to play with but one group has high-level characters and the other group has low-level characters. You have multiple characters, so you can play with either group, but you have to be super careful about which adventures you play with which group of friends so that you don't miss part of a series with a character who played another part already. Now you don't have to worry about it.

    The list goes on and on. My point is not that replaying adventures is going to be as much fun as playing them the first time. Of course it is not as much fun when you already know the plot twists. But a good DM might be able to tweak a few things and throw you a curveball (I know I never run the same adventure quite the same way twice). Plus a great deal of the fun comes from the other people at the table and the roleplaying interactions between characters. That is going to be just as much fun whether you are going through the scenario for the 1st time or the 5th time.

    For me the clincher is simply this: if you feel that playing an adventure more than once is somehow contrary to the spirit of the game, you don't have to do it. I totally support anybody who makes the decision for themselves that they personally do not intend to ever replay an adventure and we tried to make sure that nobody would be punished in any way by the campaign rules for making that choice. You will not lose out on anything that anybody else can get because we do prohibit people from playing the same adventure with the same character. So if you play all 60 adventures one time each with your one character and I play all 60 adventures ten times each with my ten characters, then sure, I obviously have more total character levels than you at my disposal, but my highest-level character by definition cannot be any higher level or have any more stuff than your highest-level character so we are still on a level playing field.

    Anyway, that's probably enough for one post. I am happy to take any follow-up questions that folks might have or talk about this issue in more detail. I don't expect to be able to change everybody's mind, but I just ask that you give the idea some thought. When I first heard about this idea (quite some months ago) I had the same initial reaction -- it seemed wrong on some fundamental level because playing the same adventure twice has never been allowed. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that this really does solve a ton of problems. They are corner cases, but when they happen, they are really frustrating and they serve as a reason for people not to participate in organized play. Basically all this change really does (in my opinion) is helps honest people avoid being put into bad situations where they have to choose between multiple bad options (eat an adventure or cheat, play dumb to make a table and cheat or turn away new players, etc.) and it doesn't really enable any kind of cheating that people couldn't already do if they were so inclined. So to me it is a great change. I also think that most people will probably have little or no reason to actually take advantage of the replay rule, but now it is there if you need it.


    I'm against allowing replays. I sat at an LFR table recently and it turned out that all three of the other players had already played the module once. They were good players. They didn't throw out any overt spoilers. Neither, however, did they seem to be having a lot of fun. As far as I could tell, the players were essentially doing homework -- advancing characters beyond their primary PC through the only means available to them. Not allowing replays might paradoxically encourage players to have more fun (even if in another activity) since it rules this possibility out.

    Part of the joy of roleplaying games is being at least a little bit surprised about how things turn out, wondering where the twists and turns are going to be in an adventure, and adapting to changing circumstances on the fly as a team. There are a number of out-of-game reasons that allowing replays might be a good idea, but in the end replays undermine the sense of discovery that is fundamental to roleplaying.

    5/5

    Perhaps a better clarification:

    I never want to set at a table with people replaying a scenario. I don't have an inherent problem with people replying scenarios, just not at my table! ;)

    What about another option? For the first 6 months after a scenario has been released, no replays are allowed. After that time-frame, allow replays (with whatever restrictions, etc come with it).

    Liberty's Edge

    Deussu wrote:
    Murdoc Strangways wrote:
    <anything he says>

    Wha-...?

    What I can make of that he is already replaying scenarios, which outright is cheating, no matter which way you put it. Or maybe I'm just reading wrong, I don't know

    Although there are points being brought out: Ambushes aren't ambushes anymore. Spellcasters can prepare optimal spells for the scenario ("I know there's a monster which spits acid, so I prepare Resist Energy!"). Characters know about swarms and stock up with grenade-like weapons (Acid flasks etc.)...

    I would like to start off with I don't want to replay, I couldn't be happier playing only 1 character. but for some replay seem to be a necessary evil.

    one of my GM ran a scenario he played. he did it for 3 player who missed it the first time. he had me make a brand new 1st Lv. cleric to be a support/ healbot and be the 4th for there 2nd Lv character ( which at what point is it any deferens a pre-gen or npc tagging along) I and the other osaron failed our perception in the room where our faction idem was. ( knew it was there but heaving not made the role the first time. we left the room) I didn't tell the player he miss it and at the end no prestige was handed out, only about half the gold was handed out. ( for the same reason as be for) the scenario was posted as stander. I got a scenario sheet with a big 0 on it. so yes you read it right, I played the scenario more than 1 time. cheating? did cheat or up set the balance of play. I'm not shore where.

    Liberty's Edge

    Joshua J. Frost wrote:
    Murdoc Strangways wrote:
    dieing is not a real issue. if I die I'm not sticking for an hour or more on the chronicle or scenario sheet that said heres for nothing. if I you don't have the sheet it didn't happen work both ways. an I think that was posted as much some where.

    Your GM will report you as dead in our reporting system. Dead PCs can't be reported on anymore.

    Unless I'm completely misunderstanding you, what you're suggesting is cheating. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    sorry I can't find the orngle post. may be the misunderstanding is mine. however in a case of a total party wipe at 1st Lv is it still posted.

    Dark Archive

    Huppolitan wrote:

    I'm against allowing replays. I sat at an LFR table recently and it turned out that all three of the other players had already played the module once. They were good players. They didn't throw out any overt spoilers. Neither, however, did they seem to be having a lot of fun. As far as I could tell, the players were essentially doing homework -- advancing characters beyond their primary PC through the only means available to them. Not allowing replays might paradoxically encourage players to have more fun (even if in another activity) since it rules this possibility out.

    Part of the joy of roleplaying games is being at least a little bit surprised about how things turn out, wondering where the twists and turns are going to be in an adventure, and adapting to changing circumstances on the fly as a team. There are a number of out-of-game reasons that allowing replays might be a good idea, but in the end replays undermine the sense of discovery that is fundamental to roleplaying.

    There were three other players, so assuming LFR has a max table size greater than four, I'm guessing there were no other players available. So, if replaying had not been allowed, there would have been no game. You're saying you would rather have gone home than play that table? I'm genuinely curious.

    Setting aside my fundamental disagreement with legislating how much fun I can have, I'd like to point out that no one missed out on the joy of discovery here. Those other three players also got to delight in the twists and turns of that adventure. They just did so at an earlier date with different characters.

    Finally, I think the PFS rules should aim to encourage people to play PFS. If our aim is to encourage people to have the most fun possible, the Guide might start off, "Go have hot, hot lubbins with your spouse/partner. If that is not an option, use these guidelines to play PFS..." Since lubbins don't pay the electric bill, Paizo's probably going to stick with the PFS rules to promote PFS play.

    Dark Archive

    Kyle Baird wrote:

    Perhaps a better clarification:

    I never want to set at a table with people replaying a scenario. I don't have an inherent problem with people replying scenarios, just not at my table! ;)

    What about another option? For the first 6 months after a scenario has been released, no replays are allowed. After that time-frame, allow replays (with whatever restrictions, etc come with it).

    I feel like a waiting period where no replays were allowed would unnecessarily inconvenience both sides. Those against replaying would have to hurry to play every scenario within the waiting period. Those who felt the need to replay scenarios would be forced to wait.

    An example of the first case would be a player who does not have a regular group of their own, instead playing at conventions or game days. They have to rush around to make it to the right scenarios, rather than playing them at their convenience.

    For the second case, suppose part of a group attended a con & played a new scenario. When they rejoin the rest of their group, they still can't play that scenario (to advance an alt or fill out a table which would otherwise be short) during the waiting period.

    I think it's much easier to just specify if a certain table is going to allow replaying or not. If it's a home game where communication about who is playing is pretty easy, it's a non-issue. The GM just works it out, "Hey guys, we have five, but Brian could join us if he replays with his alt. Anyone object?" If it's a convention running only a handful of scenarios, they're probably running the newest ones. They can put "No Replays" in the blurb if they want. If it's a game day or online game where the GM tries to put together a table from whoever shows up, replaying only makes it easier. If Sally will only play if no one else is replaying, then that's no different from our current situation - she still be playing. If John can only play if he replays with his alt, then we've got one more player if there are no "Sallys" and no lost players (compared to the status quo) if Sally is there.

    There is a danger of players showing up to muster but not getting to play. Sally might find that the replayers are needed to make the minimum table size. John might find that the anti-replayers are needed to make the minimum table size. I maintain, however, that allowing replaying will only reduce the chances of people being turned away.

    101 to 150 of 414 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Why should I / shouldn't I allow you to re-play scenarios? All Messageboards