|
I don't think there is a huge problem with replaying scenarios (as long as its a new character).
If a person who has played the scenario before is using OOC knowledge to abuse the scenario, the DM has the right to tell the player that their PC wouldn't KNOW that knowledge, and thus cannot act upon it. The one issue I can see with OOC knowledge that you cannot control as a DM is resource management, I guess. If you remember that Act I of a scenario takes place the day before Act II starts, I guess I could see a caster using up all their spells...Conversely if you know all five Acts take place in one night, you would probably manage your resources more conservatively...
The main reason I think you should be able to replay a scenario is it just allows for more playing! I think that's been said a hundred times already, though. Im lucky in that I play with a very regular group of friends, and actually hadn't actually played PFS outside of this group until Dragon*Con last week. But for someone who plays without a group, floating from game store to game store, it would really suck to be looking forward to a Friday night game, arrive, and realize that you've already played the one they're playing...
Also, its not like replaying would become some huge movement, either. Given the choice between a scenario I've already played, and a brand new one, Im always going to pick the new one.
Plus, I really want to replay Murder on the Silken Caravan because its a big meanie and pretty much one-shot me :(
|
As I recall, one of the things Living Forgotten Realms lost when they allowed replays was the whole of Finland, including Sampo Haarlaa, the Point of Contact for Northern Europe. They still haven't managed to get a replacement, and to date no convention in Finland has run a single table of Living Forgotten Realms. (Granted, driving off every active RPGA member in the country required a bit more than allowing replays, but that was one of the core issues.)
While Pathfinder Society in Finland isn't quite as centralised as the old RPGA thing was, allowing replays would still very likely kill off PFS at our conventions, probably to be replaced by Living Greyhawk legacy games or nothing at all. As the RPG adminstrator of the biggest Finnish convention, Ropecon, I would prefer not to see this happen.
|
|
As I recall, one of the things Living Forgotten Realms lost when they allowed replays was the whole of Finland, including Sampo Haarlaa, the Point of Contact for Northern Europe. They still haven't managed to get a replacement, and to date no convention in Finland has run a single table of Living Forgotten Realms. (Granted, driving off every active RPGA member in the country required a bit more than allowing replays, but that was one of the core issues.)
While Pathfinder Society in Finland isn't quite as centralised as the old RPGA thing was, allowing replays would still very likely kill off PFS at our conventions, probably to be replaced by Living Greyhawk legacy games or nothing at all. As the RPG adminstrator of the biggest Finnish convention, Ropecon, I would prefer not to see this happen.
Why would you quit PFS altogether if replaying is allowed? Why do you think that every other PFS player in Finland would also quit playing? In another thread, you said, "In Finland, our active PFS player pool is about 30 strong, with five active Dungeon Masters." Do all 34 feel the same as you?
I've tried to avoid singling people out in this thread, but this type of scare tactic doesn't seem to add much to the debate. "Rational discussion" was requested, and I don't see how threats qualify.
|
Well, I suppose a GM could refuse to run a game if one was going to replay. You can't force a GM to run a game, can you?
But even if that's possible, replaying would inevitably affect the scenarios. As I stated some pages ago (I think?), some scenario concepts would just fail miserably. True sandboxes would be pretty hard to pull in a replayable convention environment. A replayer would know the quirks and the overall delicate plot, thus rendering it useless. Even if this would be frowned upon, a player might do something stupid like this, leaving a sour taste on co-players' tongues.
So to prevent from "sour tongues" becoming a reality, the scenarios would have to be strictly linear adventures with very little to spoil in order to work in a replayable environment. I just wouldn't be enthusiastic about the scenarios anymore, knowing they cannot hold real intrigue.
To derail this a little, I come to wonder the impact of gaming culture in general. Trying to form a game environment requires a compromise that will satisfy the majority. If, however, the difference between the two groups isn't all that great, an alternative solution should be found.
|
As I recall, one of the things Living Forgotten Realms lost when they allowed replays was the whole of Finland, including Sampo Haarlaa, the Point of Contact for Northern Europe. They still haven't managed to get a replacement, and to date no convention in Finland has run a single table of Living Forgotten Realms. (Granted, driving off every active RPGA member in the country required a bit more than allowing replays, but that was one of the core issues.)
While Pathfinder Society in Finland isn't quite as centralised as the old RPGA thing was, allowing replays would still very likely kill off PFS at our conventions, probably to be replaced by Living Greyhawk legacy games or nothing at all. As the RPG adminstrator of the biggest Finnish convention, Ropecon, I would prefer not to see this happen.
Why would you quit PFS altogether if replaying is allowed? Why do you think that every other PFS player in Finland would also quit playing? In another thread, you said, "In Finland, our active PFS player pool is about 30 strong, with five active Dungeon Masters." Do all 34 feel the same as you?
I've tried to avoid singling people out in this thread, but this type of scare tactic doesn't seem to add much to the debate. "Rational discussion" was requested, and I don't see how threats qualify.
Sorry Bob
I tend to agree with NiTessine who speaks as a con coordinator and most likely has a good measure of the Finland players. As someone who runs the NYC group I would be inclined to stop organizing if Pathfinder went to a completely open replay policy. Aside from my personal distain for such a system. It makes organizing more difficult as re-players might try to deny spots from first time players.
I do agree with a policy of allowing a generic character being used to fill a table for no credit/cert if the recording system could be made to handle PFS#-R as others have suggested.
Just my opinion
|
|
Why would you quit PFS altogether if replaying is allowed? Why do you think that every other PFS player in Finland would also quit playing? In another thread, you said, "In Finland, our active PFS player pool is about 30 strong, with five active Dungeon Masters." Do all 34 feel the same as you?
You've got three of those active five GM's speaking up against replays in this very thread. Most of the active players are former LG-players, who decided against LFR, one of the reasons being the replay rule. So I'd say its a safe bet to say that most Finns are opposed to allowing replays in Pathfinder Society as well.
The most likely outcome of allowing replays in PF is a complete break-away from the main Pathfinder Society global campaign, which would then be replaced by a localized version (a very large and organized "home game" if you like). We'd still be using the modules and the basic structure. We'd just "house rule" said replay-rule, along with a few other rules we don't agree with. The replay rule would end up being the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. Then again, I'm sure the global campaign would do just fine without this rather small, albeit very vocal minority of players.
|
|
Here's another option.
If replays are allowed, how about designing the adventures to include more variety? For a given Act, how about giving a few options per tier? Obviously NPC's would be too difficult and lengthy to include multiples, but what about Bestiary creatures? Give the GM a choice of a Spider Swarm or a Centipede Swarm. Give alternate energy sources for creature/NPC special abilities. For casters, provide alternate spell blocks. If there's 3 tunnels, have the GM decide which tunnel leads to which rooms/encounters.
"I've played this before, and I know there's Vipers so I'm going to prepare Delay Poison." BAM! Boa Constrictors this time! Where's your grease spell when you need it? :D
|
|
If replays are allowed, how about designing the adventures to include more variety? For a given Act, how about giving a few options per tier? Obviously NPC's would be too difficult and lengthy to include multiples, but what about Bestiary creatures? Give the GM a choice of a Spider Swarm or a Centipede Swarm. Give alternate energy sources for creature/NPC special abilities. For casters, provide alternate spell blocks. If there's 3 tunnels, have the GM decide which tunnel leads to which rooms/encounters.
I'm a lazy bum, so I'll just quote myself from another thread:
How's this: once a year Paizo puts out a module ideal (from what I take is the preference of at least some of the people against meta-plot in this thread) for the pick-up replays gamer. It would consist of a dungeon with five rooms. For each room there would be an encounter chart on which the GM rolls randomly when the group enters. This module, and only this module, could be replayed indefinitely, since it would be different each time! Ingenious! And no pesky fluff or plot getting in the way of a good old fashioned slug-fest! Roll for initiative, its time to role-play!
Yes, I am indeed joking.
|
I'm strongly against it. I just don't like the idea of people playing with pre-knowledge of the event. I understand it as a strategy to fill tables and allow others to play, but I just don't trust other people to not meta-game. The people I know from playing with them already, fine -- they can avoid the meta-gaming, and play without revealing prior knowledge. Other people, that I don't know from Adam, not so sure.
I just don't trust the average player to play "nice". Sorry, far too many cheating folks out there -- just the types that would exploit the allowance of replays, in my opinion. Seen them at most every convention I ever went to with LG, and heard plenty of stories from others. If people are already cheating, why open another avenue to help them do more of the same?
So... replays being allowed at all would, to my mind, have to be allowed only under limited circumstances:
1) No credit received, or at best partial credit for being a good guy and helping a table get filled. So maybe GM-level credit.
2) A strongly worded policy of disallowing of meta-gaming -- the GM should be on the lookout for abuses, and sanctions / revocation of credit for the scenario should be held over people's heads
3) A GM should be fully empowered to disallow any replayers at the table if they so choose.
|
|
I am strongly against this. For many of the reasons mentioned above involving OOC knowledge and ruining the fun of others.
I can see allowing someone to replay a mod, but only if using a pathfinder society pregen and not getting any credit for it applied to any character of theirs. This is to satisfy the real world need to sometimes put a table together where there are not quite enough people to get one to go off.
As for the argument that this allows more people to be able to play a mod, I would say this isn't necessarily the case. It also makes it easier to make a table without leaving your own limited social circle, thus making people less likely to invite new players in.
If the rule does go into effect, i would be a lot less likely to continue playing. For sure i would not invite people to replay a mod to anything i muster.
First of all, let me say this before I post my next question:
I HAVE NOT MADE UP MY MIND ON THIS ISSUE, NOR AM I MORE THAN PASSIVELY CONSIDERING SUCH A CHANGE TO THE SOCIETY. YOUR INPUT IS VALUABLE. PLEASE CONTINUE TO OFFER IT.
Now, that said, what if replay looked like this (condensed version):
1. You can only replay with a different character.
2. You cannot "spoil" the scenario for anyone who hasn't played it.
3. Replays should be rare and should only be used to insure a table (or a player) plays that wouldn't otherwise be able to play. For example, this would be like PFS's "soft" ceiling of 6 players and "hard" ceiling of 7.
As others have mentioned above, we're allowing pregens to replay scenarios already in order to insure as many people as possible get to play. What do those opposed to replay see as the difference between pregen replay and replay with another character?
I'm genuinely curious
|
|
1. You can only replay with a different character.
2. You cannot "spoil" the scenario for anyone who hasn't played it.
3. Replays should be rare and should only be used to insure a table (or a player) plays that wouldn't otherwise be able to play. For example, this would be like PFS's "soft" ceiling of 6 players and "hard" ceiling of 7.As others have mentioned above, we're allowing pregens to replay scenarios already in order to insure as many people as possible get to play. What do those opposed to replay see as the difference between pregen replay and replay with another character?
I'm genuinely curious
1. I think this is an obvious requirement.
2. How do you prevent someone from spoiling? With punishment? I don't see a rule or statement on this being effective (enough).3. Similar to #3. How do you keep this rare? If I want to try a monk and I've already played the scenarios being offered, can I?
Could we focus more on getting those that want to replay to GM? Would that provide the same "global" benefit as replays?
Regarding the Pregen replays. Right now there's no incentive to use those other than to fill a table. There's a VERY small incentive to play a new class when using a Pregen.
If we were to allow replays, I believe the incentives for doing so need to be focused on rewarding the player filling a table. Filling a table with a Pregen is an honorable act.
|
|
Now, that said, what if replay looked like this (condensed version):1. You can only replay with a different character.
2. You cannot "spoil" the scenario for anyone who hasn't played it.
3. Replays should be rare and should only be used to insure a table (or a player) plays that wouldn't otherwise be able to play. For example, this would be like PFS's "soft" ceiling of 6 players and "hard" ceiling of 7.As others have mentioned above, we're allowing pregens to replay scenarios already in order to insure as many people as possible get to play. What do those opposed to replay see as the difference between pregen replay and replay with another character?
I'm genuinely curious
I'd be fine with it assuming the different character gets full credit for the replay.
Also, quite a few have posted that they don't want to play with someone replaying. So I'd like to see something stated that a player can't be forced to play in a group with someone who is replaying. (even at the cost of the table not being run)
|
|
A thought crossed my mind.
Some scenarios marked for allowing replaying. It was exactly that Spire of Nex that gave this idea. Little variation (say, a small table of monsters to choose from) and basically the same plot line, but maybe a different location (either by a table of any place the GM chooses).
Then the plot-arcy things could be left non-replayable. Everyone's happy. I sure am great. No need to send flowers.
Edit: Gosh, these two threads seem to be blending. I'm having trouble choosing where to post now.
|
|
I'd be fine with it assuming the different character gets full credit for the replay.
Now, that said, what if replay looked like this (condensed version):1. You can only replay with a different character.
2. You cannot "spoil" the scenario for anyone who hasn't played it.
3. Replays should be rare and should only be used to insure a table (or a player) plays that wouldn't otherwise be able to play. For example, this would be like PFS's "soft" ceiling of 6 players and "hard" ceiling of 7.
I'd be fine with it assuming the different character gets no credit whatsoever for the replay. Also, I'd like some sort of mechanic for enforcing rule 2 on this list. Something like, say, the GM having absolute say on when this rule is being broken and the offending player loosing his character permanently. As to what constitutes a "rare occurence".. there should be definite guidelines to determining this. I'll second the notion that a GM or player should have the right to refuse a replay character at his table.
Out of curiosity, why would you allow only a second character to replay and then not give them any rewards for playing? Presumably they'd have to spend resources during the course of play (gold, potions, scrolls, etc) and then not get anything back for playing. Wouldn't that, inherently, kill such a system before it started?
|
|
First of all, let me say this before I post my next question:
I HAVE NOT MADE UP MY MIND ON THIS ISSUE, NOR AM I MORE THAN PASSIVELY CONSIDERING SUCH A CHANGE TO THE SOCIETY. YOUR INPUT IS VALUABLE. PLEASE CONTINUE TO OFFER IT.
Now, that said, what if replay looked like this (condensed version):
1. You can only replay with a different character.
2. You cannot "spoil" the scenario for anyone who hasn't played it.
3. Replays should be rare and should only be used to insure a table (or a player) plays that wouldn't otherwise be able to play. For example, this would be like PFS's "soft" ceiling of 6 players and "hard" ceiling of 7.As others have mentioned above, we're allowing pregens to replay scenarios already in order to insure as many people as possible get to play. What do those opposed to replay see as the difference between pregen replay and replay with another character?
I'm genuinely curious
That sounds like exactly the kind of tool I would like available when coordinating events. For the record, I really, really would not want people to replay events, but I want the option available if needed to keep people playing. The above works really well, especially if "spoiling" the event is spelled out as a suitably horrible thing (akin to dying, getting arrested for a serious matter, i.e. the character goes boom if the player does it).
|
|
I definitely think the ability to replay should be restricted to new characters.
In may be best to limit replays to older mods, such that no replays can be occur with mods released in the last 2 months or possibly in the current season. With this limitation convention games wouldn't be affected by replays as the PFS games at conventions tend to be for the latest 4-6 mods.
If people are replaying mods it will tend to be in home/store games where you are more likely to know the people you are playing with and GMs can arbitrate players who metagame or reveal the module's plot.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Thanks for listening to our feedback and taking it into account beyond just the first level of questioning, Josh.
1. This seems obvious. I would still prefer replay to be limited to pregens, though.
2. As has been said before, this seems hard to enforce. I also think that everyone will have a different interpretation on what constitutes "spoiling." And if someone, even unintentionally, spoils a scenario, it could potentially ruin the play experience of new players who could then be turned away from PFS altogether. If there are so many people on here as vehemently opposed to replays, there are bound to be plenty of people not involved in the discussion who may quit or never get fully involved in PFS with the same opinions.
3. I think this is the only way do it if they are going to be allowed at all. Someone should be able to advance an "alt" only when it ensures a table goes off. I don't know how to enforce this though. Perhaps a way of reporting that something was replayed which wouldn't allow for more than one replay PC to be reported per table.
As far as the difference between pregen replay and personal replay, I see the difference as being one of motivation. If my goal is to spread PFS, to help a player get a scenario under their belt, or get a table off that would otherwise send people home without having fun, then I am happy to play a pregen. If my goal is to level up my other PCs through grinding, of course I'm going to want to play my own character. Since I don't really mind waiting to get my characters to level cap in their own time, I wouldn't really do that. But over and over, the proponents for replaying scenarios have cited PFS growth as the primary motivator. There seems to be a disconnect between the arguments and the motivation. I would prefer we not open the door to grinders though. Inevitably, they will become second class citizens, so to speak, in that many GMs or players would refuse to play with them. I don't think the Society will benefit from the negative feelings that may come as a result.
|
|
As far as the difference between pregen replay and personal replay, I see the difference as being one of motivation. If my goal is to spread PFS, to help a player get a scenario under their belt, or get a table off that would otherwise send people home without having fun, then I am happy to play a pregen.
Yoda describes my feelings on the issue perfectly here. I don't see it as an issue of motivations *to* replay, but rather motivations *while* replaying.
With a pregen, there is generally no question as to motives, and it even wouldn't be much of an issue to allow replaying up to the soft (6 seat) limit. While you could have players with nefarious "helping others" purposes, it generally would be to have some fun when no unplayed scenario is available.
Other pluses:
On a purely personal note, I think more people playing with/as the iconics is fascinating and fun. It'd be neat for most everyone to have some memories of that time Ezren got stuck in an entangle and desperately cast his magic missile to try to help, only for it to be absorbed by a brooch of shielding (hi Ross!).
|
|
First of all, let me say this before I post my next question:
I HAVE NOT MADE UP MY MIND ON THIS ISSUE, NOR AM I MORE THAN PASSIVELY CONSIDERING SUCH A CHANGE TO THE SOCIETY. YOUR INPUT IS VALUABLE. PLEASE CONTINUE TO OFFER IT.
Now, that said, what if replay looked like this (condensed version):
1. You can only replay with a different character.
2. You cannot "spoil" the scenario for anyone who hasn't played it.
3. Replays should be rare and should only be used to insure a table (or a player) plays that wouldn't otherwise be able to play. For example, this would be like PFS's "soft" ceiling of 6 players and "hard" ceiling of 7.As others have mentioned above, we're allowing pregens to replay scenarios already in order to insure as many people as possible get to play. What do those opposed to replay see as the difference between pregen replay and replay with another character?
I'm genuinely curious
1. Mandatory.
2. Really just needs a "dont be an a-hole" rule. Spoiling the scenario is cheating. Punish as so. Intentionally acting on OOC knowledge is also cheating. Its easy to act on OOC knowledge without even realizing, so maybe a gentle reminder from the DM that your character doesnt know some fact or has no reason to act that way. I guess Im operating under the general assumption that PFS players are generally mature enough not to be jerks about OOC stuff.3. Replays should be rare, very rare. There are a lot of scenarios out there, no reason to try and "farm" scenarios to level your character. I think most people, presented the choice, would chose a new one. Where I would like the option to replay one is a situation where I get all excited to go to a game store and play DnD all night (and looking forward to my "Pathfinder Society" night really helps me get through lameness of work, sometimes!), only to show up and find out they're playing a scenario I've already played.
I've only been playing for about 6 months, though, so chalk up my idealism to naivete and the luck of playing only with very mature/skilled players recently.
As others have mentioned above, we're allowing pregens to replay scenarios already in order to insure as many people as possible get to play. What do those opposed to replay see as the difference between pregen replay and replay with another character?
I'm genuinely curious
I think some people bristle at the thought of players "grinding" old modules to "level up" their backup character(s) (like in an on-line computer game).
|
|
Out of curiosity, why would you allow only a second character to replay and then not give them any rewards for playing? Presumably they'd have to spend resources during the course of play (gold, potions, scrolls, etc) and then not get anything back for playing. Wouldn't that, inherently, kill such a system before it started?
Not only is there no motivation, theres also a substantial risk involved. Every time I embark on a PFS game, there is a very real risk that my character could die. I would NEVER play a game where not only is there substantial risk involved, but there is 0 prospect for gain.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I really, really dislike replaying of mods by players. I do not want someone who knows the entire story at my table either DMing or playing.
Actually, I'd like my DM to know the entire story.
--+--+-
But this brings up the question of DMs. (Or, as they're known in Pathfinder, GMs.)
Let's say that Frick and Frack play Module #62. Then, a couple months later, a few other people want to play Module #62. Frick plays a secondary character through the adventure. Frack serves as the GM.
Is everybody who's pro-repeats comfortable with Frick's getting credit and experience for this, but not Frack?
|
Sometimes some of the senarios contain a element that makes for replay difficult to not meta game. Shipyard Rats comes to mind.
And honestly this is really were I think that it gets squirlly. PF is a game that has options for alot of things. Most people want to try out new things, change it up a little. But if player decides to do something just because he/she wants to try something differant, how many GMs might interpret that as "metagaming"?
Is this just me or is this a fine line. How do you know when someone is just doing something differant "just because" or there doing something to beat the system, not win the game? I don't really want to put a player on the spot in the game, but I don't really want my other players to feel like they are losing out.
Here is another issue. Griefing. If I play an adventure as one faction 1 and a complete the faction goal, and I then switch factions on the do over, what prevents me from preventing me from stopping/hindering another player from reaching said goals?
I know these concerns sounds like I am totaly against this. I'm not really. But this may need to addressed. What I really want is what's best for PS. I really am having fun with PS.
|
|
What if we could leave replaying to Pregens only but somehow reward a person filling a table using a Pregen?
Reward them with gold or PA to apply to their lowest level character?
Only allow one "fill the table" reward per table?
This is where things become acceptable, but very difficult to balance/manage. Theoretically, if you "fill-in" at 20 tables, your character gets a lot of benefit.
|
|
This is where things become acceptable, but very difficult to balance/manage. Theoretically, if you "fill-in" at 20 tables, your character gets a lot of benefit.What if we could leave replaying to Pregens only but somehow reward a person filling a table using a Pregen?
Reward them with gold or PA to apply to their lowest level character?
Only allow one "fill the table" reward per table?
GREAT! That's 20 tables that wouldn't have played otherwise! :)
By that I mean, you only get a chronicle sheet (reward) if you're:
1) At a table of 4 and only 4 players.
2) You're the only replay pregen. (obviously first time pregens could be there!)
If people are out there only filling in as the 4th person just to increase power of their "real" PFS character, so what?
|
|
What if we could leave replaying to Pregens only but somehow reward a person filling a table using a Pregen?
Reward them with gold or PA to apply to their lowest level character?
Only allow one "fill the table" reward per table?
There already is a mechanic for rewarding players not running their primary characters during a game session. Its called the GM reward.
So, yes, running a pre-gen for GM reward -equivalent benefits would be acceptable.
Thank you, Hogarth. That's exactly what I'd like to avoid, that is, the situation where players can grind through sessions just for the rewards. This isn't role-playing at all in my opinion.
|
|
The only replay option I would support is the ability to play an iconic for the sole purpose of making a legal table.
Eric W. Brittain
I'm a big +1 on that. I support things that let tables get played that otherwise aren't possible, but I would want to remove any rewards directly towards someone's specific character. Give them GM-level credits for helping get a table launched, but remove motivations to spoil things with meta-game knowledge.
|
|
There already is a mechanic for rewarding players not running their primary characters during a game session. Its called the GM reward.
That's an entirely untrue statement. That mechanic does not reward players. That mechanic is in place only if a GM must "eat" a scenario. It has nothing to do with primary/secondary characters, unless the GM has multiple characters of varying tiers.
|
|
Why would you quit PFS altogether if replaying is allowed? Why do you think that every other PFS player in Finland would also quit playing? In another thread, you said, "In Finland, our active PFS player pool is about 30 strong, with five active Dungeon Masters." Do all 34 feel the same as you?I've tried to avoid singling people out in this thread, but this type of scare tactic doesn't seem to add much to the debate. "Rational discussion" was requested, and I don't see how threats qualify.
Dude, I've seen it happen. I know precisely what I'm talking about. It's a dealbreaker for me personally, and if you've got five GMs and even two quit because of the replay, the rest may follow just because their friends dropped the campaign. None of us think a replay rule is a good idea. Dunno about the whole playerbase, but their opinions don't count before they step up and start running games, anyway.
I would agree to a replay rule that only allowed playing an iconic character for no credit, and only to make a legal table.
|
|
- Only with a pre-generated character.
- No credit whatsoever (maybe some of the snacks and a pat on the back for being a good sport)
- Only to make a legal table
To me this form of "replay" feels very void. Consider a situation where the GM lives in the middle of Nowhere. Four (4) players intend to travel there to play a game. Only three (3) arrive, since the one's (1) car broke down halfway there and thus cannot attend. Since the GM lives in the middle of Nowhere, he/she/it cannot get another player anywhere. Instead he'd have to play one pre-generated himself to form a legal table.
I don't see why that setup would need another player, regardless of anything. Sure, a hard floor of 4 players, as Josh said. What about the GM of Nowhere? I doubt they should cancel just because one's car broke down or something else.
1. You can only replay with a different character.
2. You cannot "spoil" the scenario for anyone who hasn't played it.
3. Replays should be rare and should only be used to insure a table (or a player) plays that wouldn't otherwise be able to play. For example, this would be like PFS's "soft" ceiling of 6 players and "hard" ceiling of 7.
1. Makes perfect sense.
2. Are there going to be ramifictions a judge can impose if they do? If not, it is not inforceable.3. I think this is too vague and is easily manipulated. How do you prevent a person from showing up to one big con or several seperate events and signing up to play the same event over and over? Sure, eventually, this guy may get caught. If he's audited all he has to say is he 'needed' to be put on the tables to make the legal.
I think some people bristle at the thought of players "grinding" old modules to "level up" their backup character(s) (like in an on-line computer game).
And this is happening. I was judging an LFR adventure recently and discovered that 5 of the 6 players at the table were replaying the adventure - and not just for the first time. One had played the adventure with 5 other characters. The sense of mystery and adventure was lost. In short, they were grinding the adventure for XP and treasure. I'm being farmed as a judge. Add to this that they knew the adventure better than I did (my first time running it and they had been through it 5 times) and had no problems correcting my running of the event, it was a humiliating and unnerving experience.
I recommend against allowing replays carte blanche. I saw another suggestion on the board to allow replays on certain adventures. That could be a workable solution. You'll have to pick your adventures very carefully for that to work though. Either the adventure has very flexible encounters or doesn't rely on mystery or puzzles.
|
I'm being farmed as a judge. Add to this that they knew the adventure better than I did (my first time running it and they had been through it 5 times) and had no problems correcting my running of the event, it was a humiliating and unnerving experience.
Ugh, that sounds horrible! I can't imagine being a DM when all of the players know the adventure better than me from playing it before. At that point why even go through the motions of the game?
|
|
1. You can only replay with a different character.
2. You cannot "spoil" the scenario for anyone who hasn't played it.
3. Replays should be rare and should only be used to insure a table (or a player) plays that wouldn't otherwise be able to play. For example, this would be like PFS's "soft" ceiling of 6 players and "hard" ceiling of 7.As others have mentioned above, we're allowing pregens to replay scenarios already in order to insure as many people as possible get to play. What do those opposed to replay see as the difference between pregen replay and replay with another character?
I'm genuinely curious
This sounds good to me. I think showing trust for our membership on item two is a nice touch.
After ruminating on Sean Molley's post, I have softened my stance a little. The goal does need to be getting new people in, not having them stand around while we hunt down other players who haven't played the adventure while several willing participants who HAVE played it are standing nearby.
Living Death players seemed to be especially enthusiastic about going to extraordinary lengths to allow new players to participate. It wasn't so that their characters could get more certs, either. At any con where LD was being played, I felt like they were so enthusiastic about their product and their community that they just drew people who otherwise wouldn't have a table (LG, LA, etc.) into their claws...err, fold.
I'd like PFS to have that reputation. After reading Sean's post, I think I would favor any reasonable means to allow a new player to get a table. If there are three other people who love Pathfinder and PFS so much that they are willing to start a new lvl one or use a pre-gen so a new guy can play, I *want* those guys to sell the new guy on this IMHO amazing community.
Two CAMPAIGN problems I see with replay:
1) Player 'A' sits at a table with player 'B.' They are different factions. Player 'B' completes the mod completing both faction objectives getting 2 faction points. Then player 'A' plays the same mod again with his secondary, which is the same faction as previously mentioned 'B.' He now knows exactly what to do to get the 2 faction points.
This diminishes if not invalidates the 1 vs. 2 faction point system.
2) Why should a player be able to play several times and the 'eating' judge can not even play it once? After all a player playing a mod once or twice knows the mod almost as well as the judge.
If the judge can play the mod after he's ran it, what prevents him from giving the diminished judge rewards to his character #5, whom only purpose is to collect judge experience? He then plays the mod with his #1 or #2 character getting full rewards.
This diminishes if not invalidates the judge rewards system.
|
|
Out of curiosity, why would you allow only a second character to replay and then not give them any rewards for playing? Presumably they'd have to spend resources during the course of play (gold, potions, scrolls, etc) and then not get anything back for playing. Wouldn't that, inherently, kill such a system before it started?Not only is there no motivation, theres also a substantial risk involved. Every time I embark on a PFS game, there is a very real risk that my character could die. I would NEVER play a game where not only is there substantial risk involved, but there is 0 prospect for gain.
In regards to this, what if your other character became a "pregen" for the session? I.E. you wouldn't get a reward, however there wouldn't be a cost either. If your character died in the scenario, since you were replaying and playing "as a pregen" the character wouldn't die. You use no gold, gain no gold. Gain no exp, no risk of death. For all intents and purposes, you wouldn't even have a chronicles sheet assigned to you. While this wouldn't fully solve the issue of motivation to play a character correctly, the player already hopefully has an emotional attachment to the character. While there is no risk, the player at least has a background etc. to work with while playing instead of playing a blank slate where they will just run in and kill guns blazing.
As an aside, I don't really believe people should be able to replay scenarios, unless there is a really good need, hence the no reward. I would hate it as a player to go to a random LFGS and hope to get a game in and find out they're playing something I've already played (or better yet, only GMed). But that's why schedules and postings of what scenario is going to be run are there.
2) Why should a player be able to play several times and the 'eating' judge can not even play it once? After all a player playing a mod once or twice knows the mod almost as well as the judge.
In a replay environment, this restriction wouldn't be necessary.
So I've read a lot of good arguments about why allowing replay would help get more new players into the campaign.
I've read a lot of good arguments about why allowing replay might hurt the Society.
Now what I want to hear, from everyone, are ideas on how to get new players into the Society--especially ideas from those who are so opposed to replay that they've threatened to quit. I'll start another thread.
Edit: New thread is right here.
It'd be neat for most everyone to have some memories of that time Ezren got stuck in an entangle and desperately cast his magic missile to try to help, only for it to be absorbed by a brooch of shielding (hi Ross!).
I more remember when he finally got to kill that stupid snake with his cane at the brink of death. That was a triumph moment. Ah, memories.
In regards to this, what if your other character became a "pregen" for the session? I.E. you wouldn't get a reward, however there wouldn't be a cost either.
There's a backside to this too. If there is no cost, you can go crazy with all the scrolls, potions and wands your character has. In effect, you could spend all your money on single use items and become a powerhouse for the scenario that has no effect on your character. You can also act more suicidal if you want to without any fear of permanent death. This will reduce the danger others should face in the scenario.
While actual pregens face a bit of the same problem, they don't have the resources to pull this off as well as player made characters, because most of their wealth is spent on their permanent items.
|
|
1. You can only replay with a different character.
2. You cannot "spoil" the scenario for anyone who hasn't played it.
3. Replays should be rare and should only be used to insure a table (or a player) plays that wouldn't otherwise be able to play. For example, this would be like PFS's "soft" ceiling of 6 players and "hard" ceiling of 7.
1. Yes, different character and maybe different faction as well
2. Yes, and either DM has to be informed the character is a replay or there has to be special replay characters (ID = ####-##R)
3. Yes, never forget why we're doing replays, it's to allow people who haven't played the scenario to play. I'd say a MAXIMUM of 2 replays per table and a maximum of 5 players total at the table. If replays have to sit out of tables because there are too many people that want to do replays, TOO BAD.
Replays are there to complete gaming tables on a "needs-only" basis, not to grind XP for multiple high level characters.
As a DM, I also wouldn't like to DM to 4+ replays sitting at my table either.
|
|
And this is happening. I was judging an LFR adventure recently and discovered that 5 of the 6 players at the table were replaying the adventure - and not just for the first time. One had played the adventure with 5 other characters. The sense of mystery and adventure was lost. In short, they were grinding the adventure for XP and treasure. I'm being farmed as a judge. Add to this that they knew the adventure better than I did (my first time running it and they had been through it 5 times) and had no problems correcting my running of the event, it was a humiliating and unnerving experience.
Sorry, that's just funny. Lol. :)
This is exactly the reason we need to keep in mind why replays are being done. This is why it's important to limit replays to a maximum of 2 replays per table, and allow a table size with replays to be a maximum of 5 players.
The way LFG implemented it, by allowing 5 out of 6 players to replay a scenario, completely ignores why it's being done in the first place. As a DM, if this happenned to me it would make me want to quit DMing for the society. Galad was a good sport to DM the scenario to the end imo.
|
|
1. You can only replay with a different character.
2. You cannot "spoil" the scenario for anyone who hasn't played it.
3. Replays should be rare and should only be used to insure a table (or a player) plays that wouldn't otherwise be able to play. For example, this would be like PFS's "soft" ceiling of 6 players and "hard" ceiling of 7.
I'm new to Pathfinder as well and am actually the Event Organizer for the D&D events at our monthly Gameday. I've had a history of playing/judging/organizing Living Greyhawk, LFR and now Pathfinder. I've also played a lot of Living Arcanis, which was by far my favorite campaign (up until Pathfinder that is :P )
One of great things about Arcanis, Greyhawk and Pathfinder is that you don't know what happens next. You get more involved in the game. Everyone is involved and there is a lot of great energy moving around the table.
In LFR, you can play the same mods over and over and over again (which I've done with different characters) and you start to lose interest in the story. When one person loses interest, it can spread to the rest of the table just as quickly. People are leaving LFR in droves because its boring. You don't care about one mod, because you can always play it again.
I'm vehemently opposed to being able to play a mod a second time, even with a different character. No matter how much you keep silent or how nice you are, you will get frustrated, bored, disinterested eventually with the rest of your table. If you have more than one person that's played a mod, you will have multiple people that are afflicted by this, no matter how cool they are. It's called being human.
We've all had great stories like "I had no idea when we went through that halfling sized door that there would be a cavern with a giant red dragon inside. We about TPK'd" Allowing replays is going to allow metagaming, no matter how many people "promise" not to.
Filling a table with a pre-gen to get 4 people is one thing. Giving rewards, even half rewards for playing again is quite another.
Keep the intrigue, the fantasy, the sense of danger, and don't allow this please.
-Todd Morgan
Fellowship of the Blade