|
Personally? So far, I haven't seen any argument that's convinced me that replays are a better option than playing iconics.
Playing iconics doesn't let anyone play a scenario they've played before. Not letting someone replay a scenario means turning people away from some games.
Short example (with a scenario pool intentionally limited for the example): Allen and Bert have played mods 1, 2, and 3. Carmen and Dennis have played 2, 3, and 4. Emily and Frieda have played mods 3, 4 and 5. Even with iconics, there isn't currently a way for all 6 people to play. Someone has to sit out, and that doesn't seem like a good answer to me. Or they just wait for scenario 6 to come out, and hope that precisely one of them plays it (or decides to eat it).
This isn't a completely artificial example; it comes up quite often in our local pool. Frequently, 2 or 3 of us play a scenario elsewhere, and that effectively "shuts it out" of play with the 5 or 6 other folks (unless all but one of the 2 or 3 stay home). Our group has managed to run out of playable scenarios quickly, and very few of us have played more than half of the scenarios out there. Replays will fix this for us.
Playing iconics doesn't provide any help in this case.
|
In your example, the few who have previously played can play iconics. This allows everyone to have fun sitting around the table and rolling dice, and provides enough players for the table to happen.
Even disregarding the debate on whether playing pre-gens for no credit is more or less satisfying than replaying with a different character, what you have said is incorrect. Those who played it previously cannot play iconics. They can't play the scenario at all.
Josh has stated in the 121st post of the FAQ thread and confirmed in this thread that a particular player can only play a scenario once.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
After someone has played a scenario, what makes them a player and not a GM standing in playing an iconic to fill a table? Because that's allowed.
And, regarding the argument you disregarded, I look at this as an organizer. My goal is always to get as many people playing PFS as possible. If that means I need to find GMs to run tables, ok. If that means I need to GM, then I'll do that. If it means I need to play a pregen so another table can go off, that's what I do. It's not about gratification for me, it's about seeing PFS grow and thrive. I think everyone who wants replays only so that they can level up more characters, or even just play THEIR character, instead of just playing a pregen and having fun with friends is being a little selfish.
|
|
After someone has played a scenario, what makes them a player and not a GM standing in playing an iconic to fill a table? Because that's allowed.
I'll answer this two ways. You can take your pick.
GMs are pure and kind. They would never intentionally or accidentally spoil a scenario. In fact, they each have the amazing ability to selectively edit their own memories to forget the details of the scenario. So, they can fully participate, rather than hanging back saying, "No, I'm sorry. I can't help brainstorm ideas for the solution to that riddle. And no, I can't give you advice on what buff spells to put on before we tackle the evil wizard."
How about it, Josh?
*innocent smile*
Edit:
I think everyone who wants replays only so that they can level up more characters, or even just play THEIR character, instead of just playing a pregen and having fun with friends is being a little selfish.
I applaud your PFS promotion efforts, but I don't agree with your "holier than thou" implication... wait, no, you came right out & said it. Your statement, then. In any case, I'll spare you the philosophy lecture wherein I reveal that all motives are selfish, even your desire to simply see PFS grow and thrive. I think you have raised an excellent question as to why one group of people is allowed to replay scenarios with pre-gens while another group is not. I would rather focus on that, particularly since a large number of individuals belong to both groups.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I think everyone who wants replays only so that they can level up more characters, or even just play THEIR character, instead of just playing a pregen and having fun with friends is being a little selfish.
Wow, harsh.
But unless you plan on paying someone to come and play so others can gain something for their character, you really shouldn't condemn someone for wanting to get something for their 4 hours. They don't work for you, it isn't their job to play a module for no gain just to help you out.
That is what you are asking them to do by demanding they gain no benefit from playing a module a second time.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I think everyone who wants replays only so that they can level up more characters, or even just play THEIR character, instead of just playing a pregen and having fun with friends is being a little selfish.Wow, harsh.
But unless you plan on paying someone to come and play so others can gain something for their character, you really shouldn't condemn someone for wanting to get something for their 4 hours. They don't work for you, it isn't their job to play a module for no gain just to help you out.
That is what you are asking them to do by demanding they gain no benefit from playing a module a second time.
Isn't the act of playing the game reward enough? Why must one get something for playing. You get to spend four hours with friends playing a game.
The argument keeps coming up that replays are necessary for PFS to grow. If that's really people's motivation to get replays instated, why are the same people not volunteering to play pregens in order to help PFS grow?
|
Do you have an idea of how many people decide not to come down to the Inn because they have already played the offered scenario for that slot?
I re-run scenarios periodically once I get enough new players to make a table. That would have eight players not replaying that scenario. And that is good and well. I do not see that as an opportunity to run two more tables of the same scenario for them for many reason. For these eight players I'd run a new game or they skip that particular game day. I do not see this as an issue.
I get the sense that you feel that if replaying were allowed, all these replayers would clamor for scenarios to be rerun so they could level up different characters. Are you worried they will want these reruns in addition to the two (presumably) new scenarios you run each month, thus burning
I'm worried about coordinator time and judging resources. I reserve enough of both to keep the game days running smooth. Increasing this effort to fit in replays will tax my resources to breaking. I strongly think once a person plays a scenario, they're done with it. Someone posted PFS scenarios are hack-and-slash. They're not. With replays, the scenarios will turn into just rolling for initiative and getting a chronicle. There is a roleplay and story in these scenarios. A good judge will bring that out. I can't see spending additional resources is worth the value of a replay that creates a play experience reduced to combat.
|
|
replaying doesn't adversely effect anyone. argue away, but what it comes down to is that this is all just a game and the only adverse effect that might come from it will be from individual players, not the option itself... and honestly, those kind of players are going to find a way to ruin your game one way or another. that kind of jerkery is no worse than the jerkery of saying that you won't play PFS anymore if replaying is allowed.
if you like PFS, a replaying option shouldn't ruin your view of it... and if you don't like the idea of replaying, don't replay. if you're a local event organizer and you don't like replaying, don't schedule scenarios that others have played.
i was really wary about LFR's allowing of replays at first. i still don't replay unless i absolutely have to, but there have been quite a few times when it was the only option for me at a given point.
also, if it wasn't for LFR's replay allowance, there very likely wouldn't be any organized play presence (LFR or PFS) in my area right now.
|
|
My apologies for not reading this entire thread, and perhaps repeating something someone has already said...
Is it possible that each 'tier' of scenario could have one or two 're-playable' scenarios that don't have encounters so much as selections of three to five 'plug-in' encounters that can be slotted into place, with three possible 'overarching plots' tying together those encounters?
This would allow one group to run through the adventure, and they'd get 'Arc 2 - Locate the Sarcophagus of Transmigration before the bad guy uses it to turn the kidnapped homeless into twisted minions to plague the city' and then end up with Encounter A3 in the first section (skeletal warriors riding phantom steeds), Encounter B5 in the next section (undead gibbering mouther made from the corpses of dead people) and Encounter C1 for the final 'boss fight' (the mad Protean-Warped Sorceress Ixchondria and her swarm of flying venomous eels).
The next group could have a completely different mission (find the Scroll of Nuri-ben-Gal, deciphers it's writings and use the secret lore therein to seal the portal to the Twisted Realm beneath the city), and encounter different monsters on the way to the final encounter, which could be with a completely different 'end-boss' (the Elder Mummy-Priest Kizbeni-Ali, wrapped in silk 'bandages' threaded with glowing runic inscriptions giving him magical protections and abilities).
While the *vast* majority of scenarios would be playable once only, this particular scenario would have a dozen possible configurations and be re-playable a limited number of times (three, perhaps?).
|
|
I think everyone who wants replays only so that they can level up more characters, or even just play THEIR character, instead of just playing a pregen and having fun with friends is being a little selfish.Wow, harsh.
But unless you plan on paying someone to come and play so others can gain something for their character, you really shouldn't condemn someone for wanting to get something for their 4 hours. They don't work for you, it isn't their job to play a module for no gain just to help you out.
That is what you are asking them to do by demanding they gain no benefit from playing a module a second time.
Isn't the act of playing the game reward enough? Why must one get something for playing. You get to spend four hours with friends playing a game.
The argument keeps coming up that replays are necessary for PFS to grow. If that's really people's motivation to get replays instated, why are the same people not volunteering to play pregens in order to help PFS grow?
I think I have to say that Yoda has a good point. The game in itself is its own reward for the most. The opportunity to be as brave or experamental as you want without loosing your own personal character. How bad is that?
Perhaps there could be a sub-reward for pitching in and filling in a table. Something like a free die re-roll like you get with the T-shirt, rather than getting the normal benefits?
IMO, PFS mods arn't "four hour camps" for a "boss drop" that you want for you alternate characters. And should never become that.
I'm impressed how polite this discussion has remained even though some of you have very strong feelings either way. I appreciate that we're all being civilized here and I think that reflects on the caliber of player and GMs we have in Pathfinder Society. So thanks. :-)
I'm going to propose a purely hypothetical rule and I want you to agree or disagree with it.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. I am thinking out loud, as it were, and have not made up my mind on such a rule. I have been reading this thread with great interest, though, and wonder if there's not a common ground replay rule that could make 95% you happy.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
The only thing I think is missing, Josh, is what sort of rewards one would receive for replaying. Full XP, wealth, prestige? Would there be any restrictions to faction or subtier played when compared to previous runnings of the game?
Also, maybe a section stating that in the future the ability to replay may be removed at your discretion. This way, if you ever do remove it (and I'm not saying you intend to or should), no one can complain that you took something from them that they were promised to have in perpetuity.
|
|
The hypothetical rules sound pretty good. They take away the LFR-style "farming" mentality, which the posters against replaying don't like, yet promotes the positive "no player left behind" and "eating a module is not a permanent penalty" mentalities.
I'd suggest straying away from specific numbers in the replaying rules, like with Hypothetical Rule #6, which I assume would prevent a table of veterans who've played everything from inducting a brand-new player. Same with adding stipulations about replayers' factions or replayers' tiers; those are just artificial hurdles that hinder the concept.
Sticking with the "replays should only be used to make tables" rule gets the job done, and covers all the corner cases.
Let's do it.
-Matt
|
|
Also, maybe a section stating that in the future the ability to replay may be removed at your discretion. This way, if you ever do remove it (and I'm not saying you intend to or should), no one can complain that you took something from them that they were promised to have in perpetuity.
I think that the understanding of any player is that any of the rules may be revised or removed by the campaign administration. I don't think calling it out specifically for this is necessary.
Josh, thanks for taking into account our input here, and particularly in "beta testing" potential rules for this.
|
Minor wording item: in point 1 you mention two or less tables. in point 2 you mention 'more than 3 tables'. Lost in the mix is exactly 3 tables and I assume it is just a matter of changing the wording of point 2 to read 'three or more tables'.
I'm already on record as to not wanting replays, but if you end up allowing them I would guess it would come along with full access and credit - otherwise there will just be more complaints that it does not go far enough.
The whole concept of a 'silent partner' changes the table. Knowing that someone is playing through for a second or third time takes a lot away from running the adventure the first time through.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I'm going to propose a purely hypothetical rule and I want you to agree or disagree with it.
I agree with the restrictive rules.
I believe the framework as written, the implementation of rule #3 prevents the execution of rule #2.
Say you have 3 modules available:
1) level 1-4 with 1 player who has not played anything.
2) level 7-9 with 3 players wanting to play who have played #3
3) level 7-9 with 3 players wanting to play who have played #2
Does the #1 guy go home? Or if the people from #2 or #3 that can play #1 with a second character join to make a table for the lone guy?
Note: I support more open view on rule #3, while I don't like the thought of someone having 15 characters all 12th level I do like the though that someone can have two characters able to play with the top end games and not be restricted from higher level games because he wanted two characters so he can switch out between "DPS" and "Healer" or some dual mode. Especially when you end up with 4 clerics at a table or 4 rogues.
I'm wondering how the current solution (using Pre Gens) ISN'T a satisfactory solution to the problem (not always enough eligible players to run a legal table of a module)???
That solution allows games to go forward and seems to introduce the absolute least # of problems (the only issue is abusing fore-knowledge to OTHER players' advantage, but cheaters can warn their friends out-of-game anyways).
As the Pre-Gen wasn't designed from scratch by the player in question, they probably are MORE likely to abandon 'attachment' to their character and just play 'in character', ignoring knowledge they shouldn't have. Likewise, as there is no wealth/XP/Prestige benefits to motivate you, such a player is going to be playing "just for the sake of playing". If I had showed up at an event hoping to play with my own character, but it wasn't possible for whatever reason, playing a module I've already done with a Pre-Gen seems much more entertaining than giving up my plans for the afternoon and going home to do the dishes. That said, the Pre Gens themselves could probably be 'sexed up' a bit more to make more interesting plays, crunch-wise and with given RP personality fixations, etc.
I just think that adding avenues for wealth/XP/Prestige gain (on replays) introduces opportunities and motivation for abusing this mechanism. For all the sub-rules and caveats, I *DON'T* think those rules would really do much to avoid cheating... If Replays are supposed to be a rare event (certainly for individual players), why is it necessary to add this complicated system to enable "Rewards" for them, rather than just going with the rules-lite option already offered by Pre-Gens?
I'm actually interested in why people might think Pre-Gens don't already solve the problem...
But in general, I would "disagree" with the proposed Replay rule, and prefer the status quo.
|
|
An example to further develop a ruleset:
Big convention. Let's say GenCon! 36 people are allowed to sign up for #23 Tide of Morning in a given slot. Presumably that means 6 tables of 6 players.
I've already played #23, so I try to sign up for one that I haven't played, let's call it "PFS#33: AotKotI"
When I try to register, #33 is full! DRAT! But I love Pathfinder Society soooo much, I'm not going to pass up the opportunity to play, even if I've already played the scenario being offered. There are a dozen or so slots available for #23, so I preregister! Yay!
Over the next few days/weeks/months, more people sign up and #23 fills up before the Con.
- So now what? This situation makes #2 and #3 scream out in agony.
- I show up and get to play, because I have a ticket, right?
- What happens if 12 other people did the same thing I did?
- What about all the people (non-replayers) who would have signed up for #23 but couldn't because it filled up?
- How would you prevent me from buying the ticket for #23 in the first place?
- What if the only character I brought is not the same one as the one who originally played in the scenario? (not addressed in the current proposal)
edit: I think your unspoken rule needs to be written and spoken.
|
I'm actually interested in why people might think Pre-Gens don't already solve the problem...
Because, to me, that tends to penalize people who are nice. This system assumes that there are people, standing around, who have nothing better to do than be a silent character for the next three to four hours. Otherwise, you are trying to grab someone who would rather be doing something else, and push them so that they help out this group and then refuse to reward them in any way for it.
To me, it is a system that feeds off the generosity of others, and because of that, it encourages people to not have good-will and instead just care about themselves.
It is nice for people to be nice, but a No reward system, to me, punishes people who are nice.
|
|
Regarding credit for replays:
If replays are intended only as a last resort to fill a table, then why give the players' characters real credit for the reply?
Because, if they are really doing it ONLY to "help out" and make a table happen, then they should be rewarded, right?
But what if the reward is strong enough to attract the vile players who seek only to grind their characters?
Well, if the reward isn't good enough, no one who's not totally altruistic will step up and fill a table!
So after a long discussion with myself (happens all the time), I've got an idea. What about allowing replays in any form, but the only reward (beyond actually playing the game!) is a boon or other temporary widget?
No XP, PA, Gold for the character run.
If you're playing a non-pregen character as a replay, and it dies, no penalty, but also no reward (see below).
If you complete the adventure, you get a boon!
Ideas for boons:
- Vary between scenarios vs. Constant world wide boon: Simple vs. Creative
- Boon would need to be tiered
- Boon could have it's own "Chronicle" sheet or coupon.
- Boons would only be good toward your next (or one) non-replay scenario.
- For odd cases, only one Replay Boon could be used per non-replayed scenario
- Boons could range from "+1 to all attack rolls." to "+5 to one skill of your choice for the entire scenario" to "A "lender" item taht can be used for only one scenario." They should be something meaty, but not game breaking.
Thoughts?
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I'm actually interested in why people might think Pre-Gens don't already solve the problem...Because, to me, that tends to penalize people who are nice. This system assumes that there are people, standing around, who have nothing better to do than be a silent character for the next three to four hours. Otherwise, you are trying to grab someone who would rather be doing something else, and push them so that they help out this group and then refuse to reward them in any way for it.
To me, it is a system that feeds off the generosity of others, and because of that, it encourages people to not have good-will and instead just care about themselves.
It is nice for people to be nice, but a No reward system, to me, punishes people who are nice.
How is getting to play Pathfinder instead of sitting at home and paying bills or going grocery shopping punishment? It's only punishment to those people who only get enjoyment out of playing their PC that they wrote and that they get to level up and add wealth to. It's not a punishment to people who just want to have fun and don't care what PC they play or if it helps them get to a higher level. Someone who is nice is rewarded by being nice, not to mention being rewarded by getting to play a game with some friends or friendly strangers.
Sensing replay is a foregone conclusion and in the best interest of PFS growth, I am 95% able to live with this hypothetical. I like #3.
It absolutely is not. I'm asking the community (especially those adamantly opposed to the idea of replay) if a plan similar to that could be lived with and not vehemently opposed. While I think there's a compromise in here somewhere between the pro-replay and anti-replay crowds I'm not going to make any such decision unless I think the community is genuinely behind. "I've resolved myself to it happening" isn't genuinely behind it. :-)
How is getting to play Pathfinder instead of sitting at home and paying bills or going grocery shopping punishment? It's only punishment to those people who only get enjoyment out of playing their PC that they wrote and that they get to level up and add wealth to.
But don't most people prefer playing their own character? Otherwise we could save a lot of time and effort and only allow people to play pre-gens in Pathfinder Society play.
The only thing I think is missing, Josh, is what sort of rewards one would receive for replaying. Full XP, wealth, prestige? Would there be any restrictions to faction or subtier played when compared to previous runnings of the game?
Also, maybe a section stating that in the future the ability to replay may be removed at your discretion. This way, if you ever do remove it (and I'm not saying you intend to or should), no one can complain that you took something from them that they were promised to have in perpetuity.
I can't see a replay system that didn't award full credit. In my mind, you either allow replay or you don't when it comes to getting rewards for the scenario--you can't half-measure it.
Your second idea is a good one and one to think about.
Minor wording item: in point 1 you mention two or less tables. in point 2 you mention 'more than 3 tables'.
Should say three or more. But these are rough. :-)
edit: I think your unspoken rule needs to be written and spoken.
Which is?
How is getting to play Pathfinder instead of sitting at home and paying bills or going grocery shopping punishment? It's only punishment to those people who only get enjoyment out of playing their PC that they wrote and that they get to level up and add wealth to. It's not a punishment to people who just want to have fun and don't care what PC they play or if it helps them get to a higher level. Someone who is nice is rewarded by being nice, not to mention being rewarded by getting to play a game with some friends or friendly strangers.I'm actually interested in why people might think Pre-Gens don't already solve the problem...Because, to me, that tends to penalize people who are nice. This system assumes that there are people, standing around, who have nothing better to do than be a silent character for the next three to four hours. Otherwise, you are trying to grab someone who would rather be doing something else, and push them so that they help out this group and then refuse to reward them in any way for it.
To me, it is a system that feeds off the generosity of others, and because of that, it encourages people to not have good-will and instead just care about themselves.
It is nice for people to be nice, but a No reward system, to me, punishes people who are nice.
I think pregens are a great solution for people who want to try the game out but don't want to make a character to do it. I also think pregens are a good tool for GMs to help make legal tables if they're purely Society GMs and not players. What's potentially missing are solutions to the problem I see again and again where small local groups can't make tables just because one person who would replay quietly to help the group go off can't because he's not allowed to replay.
So I can either say "replays are allowed with pregens only" which results in no rewards for the player taking the time to replay or I can say "replays are allowed to a limited extend" (as noted above) or I can say "status quo" and nothing changes.
I think something needs to change. I don't know what yet. Hopefully you guys will help me figure that out.
|
|
How is getting to play Pathfinder instead of sitting at home and paying bills or going grocery shopping punishment? It's only punishment to those people who only get enjoyment out of playing their PC that they wrote and that they get to level up and add wealth to. It's not a punishment to people who just want to have fun and don't care what PC they play or if it helps them get to a higher level. Someone who is nice is rewarded by being nice, not to mention being rewarded by getting to play a game with some friends or friendly strangers.
Because those helpful people likely could be playing in other PFS scenarios that they haven't seen where they could be getting credit. They could also just find a different game to play that they might be interested in. PFS is not the only place to find enjoyment in the world, and there are other things people can do that are more fun than watch another party go through a scenario that you have already seen.
It is punishment to be rewarded less for making a choice. And, again to me, the "No Reward for Replay" system seems to purposefully give less reward those who choose to be helpful than those who are not generous with their time.
I'm not saying there is no reward to be found in playing a at a table for no credit (That is even how one-shot games tend to work even), but to block rewards from people who are helpful seems to be a punishment to me. There are reasons to still be helpful, but the "No Reward" seems to try to take as much reward as it can away from those helpful people.
For those people who don't care about leveling characters, why should they build characters in the first place? It is just a hassle to make them and they can just use pre-generated characters in every game with a lot less fuss.
Edit Note: I don't really care about what form rewards take for people who spend time replaying to get another group up and running. It could be credit for one of their characters, it could be a small credit that can go towards purchasing PFS scenarios, it could be that after enough GMed/replayed scenarios that Paizo sends me a fancy PFS member card, or it could be something completely different. The only thing that I'm really for is that when people do good things, they are rewarded as much (if not more than) the people who choose not to do "good things."
How is getting to play Pathfinder instead of sitting at home and paying bills or going grocery shopping punishment? It's only punishment to those people who only get enjoyment out of playing their PC that they wrote and that they get to level up and add wealth to.But don't most people prefer playing their own character? Otherwise we could save a lot of time and effort and only allow people to play pre-gens in Pathfinder Society play.
Is the aim enabling a game with people who've already played it, but who'd otherwise not be in a game in that slot?
Or is it drawing in players who HAVE the option of playing in another game?The first aim clearly seems to be the desire of pretty much EVERYBODY posting here,
as it could remedy situations where groups can't assemble a large enough table to be legal.
Generally speaking, I think RP gamers would prefer gaming with a Pre-Gen character to doing NOTHING,
certainly if they've planned their time around gaming for a specific afternoon (or whatever).
Own-character vs. Pre-Gen preferences don't really seem an issue there.
The second, I'm not so sure if that aim really needs to be catered to.
I'd say the first option should first have to be judged insufficient at addressing the problem before it's necessary.
Re: "the status quo",
I'd gotten the impression from another poster that given that players can "always" show up and play a game with a Pre-Gen, that Pre-Gen "replays" WERE in fact currently allowed. If that's not the case, that would be what I advocate :-)
|
Hm, as long as it's still up to the GM, I'm all good. Also, Josh's fourth point is good. Having a chat with the GM before the scenario would be excellent.
What's amazing is this has happened to me before. A player wanted to talk with me, and after the initial introduction and all that told me he had played this before, but didn't remember it. He had played it with another character and didn't have the papers of that with him, so he had no proof of the scenario. Regardless of some minor faults done in this by both sides, I could have let him replay it (maybe without rewards, but returning the character to status quo in the event of death or so). That's simply because I know him and trust him.
But how do you know whether someone is coming to replay or not? This holds a problem in conventions where you might encounter jerks, who know about replaying and just keep kinda quiet, yet are suspiciously knowing about what happens next... but don't say that outright.
|
|
But how do you know whether someone is coming to replay or not? This holds a problem in conventions where you might encounter jerks, who know about replaying and just keep kinda quiet, yet are suspiciously knowing about what happens next... but don't say that outright.
Should be easy enough to check his pile of chronicles and compare the total number to his Xp. I find it hard to believe someone would go through the trouble of counterfeiting duplicates of other scenario's than the one he's going to replay without telling the GM. You do check all the chronicles of players who're playing at your table, right? ;)
Actually, I'm just pulling your strings here. My real point is that if people are going to cheat, they'll find a way no matter which rules are used.
|
|
I can't see a replay system that didn't award full credit. In my mind, you either allow replay or you don't when it comes to getting rewards for the scenario--you can't half-measure it.
Your second idea is a good one and one to think about.
While I am trying to articulate my feelings on replay *Which I have been doing for days ;)* I feel I need to respond to this.
If you are going to allow full credit for replays, You should also be allowing full credit for GMing a game for the first time that you have not played.
|
|
If you are going to allow full credit for replays, You should also be allowing full credit for GMing a game for the first time that you have not played.
It would seem to me that if replays were allowed in this case the GM option would actually get cut out as the GM would be allowed to play it. The replay option would eliminate two problems in this case, short on players for a working table and allowing GMs to play if they so choose. Since the GM would count as a player who's already played the module, for them to play it they would have to find the required percentage of players who haven't played it in order to get a table.
My gaming group is comprised of a decent percentage of players who attend conventions (about 25%) and about the same also played the majority of year zero, the rest waited until the core book was released to start. Now we are faced with the problem of seating certain tables because of those same reasons. However being able to have a player or even better a GM sit in makes it easier to fill the table.
I would prefer that repeating players play with pregens while a GM if it will be her/his first time since judging be allowed to play normally. Basically the rules should reflect that each player may play a module once with a PC character, but any repeating plays should be done with pregens. That's my opinion.
|
|
If you are going to allow full credit for replays, You should also be allowing full credit for GMing a game for the first time that you have not played.It would seem to me that if replays were allowed in this case the GM option would actually get cut out as the GM would be allowed to play it. The replay option would eliminate two problems in this case, short on players for a working table and allowing GMs to play if they so choose. Since the GM would count as a player who's already played the module, for them to play it they would have to find the required percentage of players who haven't played it in order to get a table.
Putting aside my feelings about replay, since I have not articulated them yet, all I will say is that even if I had the option I would not Replay, Knowing what is coming up would reduce the enjoyment of the scenario.
I am sure there are GMs out there, especially home games that will never/rarely get the chance to play the adventure they run, because they are the only GM. Taking the GM award away would be a terrible idea.
If there is a full credit for replays, GM credit should be full also.
|
|
I can't see a replay system that didn't award full credit. In my mind, you either allow replay or you don't when it comes to getting rewards for the scenario--you can't half-measure it.
And why can't you do something like what I said just above this response?
|
|
I can't see a replay system that didn't award full credit. In my mind, you either allow replay or you don't when it comes to getting rewards for the scenario--you can't half-measure it.And why can't you do something like what I said just above this response?
I actually like the replay for boon more than I like replay for full credit too.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Basically the rules should reflect that each player may play a module once with a PC character, but any repeating plays should be done with pregens. That's my opinion.
Which brings it back to "there is no benefit from replay so people won't bother spending the time to help make tables." Basically making replays in any form useless.
|
|
I'm impressed how polite this discussion has remained even though some of you have very strong feelings either way. I appreciate that we're all being civilized here and I think that reflects on the caliber of player and GMs we have in Pathfinder Society. So thanks. :-)
I'm going to propose a purely hypothetical rule and I want you to agree or disagree with it.
...
I agree,
this is well thought out & I am glad to be a part of a community of individuals who are commited to keeping the intengrity of the Pathfinder Society intact while making it as "new sheep friendly" as possible.|
|
Basically the rules should reflect that each player may play a module once with a PC character, but any repeating plays should be done with pregens. That's my opinion.Which brings it back to "there is no benefit from replay so people won't bother spending the time to help make tables." Basically making replays in any form useless.
+1 to James. Since I'd really like to see this issue laid to rest, I'll try to back this up. Playing PFS with pre-gens for no credit is very much like playing one-shot, stand-alone modules at conventions. You can roleplay the character you are handed however you want, you play recklessly or conservatively, etc. You cannot, however, take that character to the next table with the scars and spoils from their previous adventures. In PFS, you could play the character with the same name, but they would be "reset" each time.
So, let's look at events offered at conventions. I looked at other cons, but Gen Con Australia 2009 shows the individual event registration. Here's what I found:
This data is just looking at registration shown online. I acknowledge that more or fewer people may have shown up at the event itself.
Crypt of the Everflame - No one signed up.
#1 Silent Tide - 5 of 6 seats filled.
#3 Murder on the Silken Caravan - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#9 Eye of the Croc King - 3 of 6 seats filled.
#19 Skeleton Moon - No one signed up.
#5 Mists - 5 of 6 seats filled.
#7 Among the Living - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#9 Eye - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#13 Prince - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#17 Perils - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#19 Skeleton Moon - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#3 Murder - 5 of 6 seats filled.
#11 3rd Riddle - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#12 Stay - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#23 Tide - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#29 Shipyard Rats - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#8 Slave Pits - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#23 Tide - 1 of 6 seats filled.
#24 Decline - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#30 Cassomir's Locker - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#14 Many Fortunes - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#17 Perils - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#2 Hydra's Fang - 2 of 6 seats filled.
#6 Black Waters - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#23 Tide - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#29 Rats - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#4 Frozen Fingers - 4 of 6 seats filled.
#10 Blood - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#15 Asmodeus - 6 of 6 seats filled.
#30 Locker - 6 of 6 seats filled.
So, some generous GM offered to run the well-reviewed "Crypt of the Everflame" adventure as a one-shot. There was a golden opportunity for enjoying the company of friends, roleplaying pregenerated characters, and having a frolicsome romp through a great module. No one even bothered to sign up.
On the other hand, 29 tables of PFS adventures were offered, and 151 of those 174 seats were filled via online registration. Many of those scenarios are not as good as (less well-reviewed than) "Crypt". The only extra thing these tables offered is the advancement of the personal character of the players.
It seems clear to me that, however trivial it might seem to some folks, the chance to advance one's personal character is a real benefit to many players. It puts players in the seats, which is the whole point of PFS. Suggesting that people just forgo that benefit is kind of like asking teachers to sub for free. It's for the greater good and can still be fun, but you've removed a tangible positive reinforcement for the desired behavior and the opportunity for continuity & growth over time.
|
|
Basically the rules should reflect that each player may play a module once with a PC character, but any repeating plays should be done with pregens. That's my opinion.Which brings it back to "there is no benefit from replay so people won't bother spending the time to help make tables." Basically making replays in any form useless.
I really think that is a bit of a stretch. There will be people who play for the fun of it.
|
|
It seems clear to me that, however trivial it might seem to some folks, the chance to advance one's personal character is a real benefit to many players. It puts players in the seats, which is the whole point of PFS. Suggesting that people just forgo that benefit is kind of like asking teachers to sub for free. It's for the greater good and can still be fun, but you've removed a tangible positive reinforcement for the desired behavior and the opportunity for continuity & growth over time.
Coming from someone who's wife is a teacher. That's a big stretch. People come to cons to play. It's not always going to be advancement. I don't think that many players will just walk away if they can't get credit for the game.
If you give them as much credit for playing the game the second time, then players will just grind. It's a loophole that will eventually drive people from the game.
|
|
I'm impressed how polite this discussion has remained even though some of you have very strong feelings either way. I appreciate that we're all being civilized here and I think that reflects on the caliber of player and GMs we have in Pathfinder Society. So thanks. :-)
I'm going to propose a purely hypothetical rule and I want you to agree or disagree with it.
I could live with this.
I think GM rewards should stay, though. I think there are many people who are "mostly GMs" out there who just can't get other folks in their group to GM. When they do get someone else to GM, I think it's better that they have a character that is near the same level as their players, rather than forcing the others to replay lower tier scenarios whenever the GM wants to play. Actually, when the session reports come in, that's going to look a lot like a violation of #3.
If you did put the hypothetical rule into effect, you may want to consider if #3 if valuable enough as a position statement to leave in, or if it would be better left out for lack of enforcement. It's kind of like saying, "Don't cheat in your home games." If it works smoothly, #3 might result in a GM alerting you via email about a potential violator(s), and you would scour the session reports, warning or sanctioning the player if there has been abuse. Worst case enforcement would be if Zealous Replay Watchdog is GMing at a con when Flagrant Replay Gamer brings his stable of characters to his table. Zealous points out that his fighter is fine, but his cleric, rogue, and wizard, are leveled entirely through replays. Flagrant says that all those replays were necessary to fill tables. Zealous firmly bars Flagrant from playing at her table, and Flagrant gets upset. No good can come from this.
#6 would also amount to, "Don't cheat at your home games," while further locking those "mostly GMs" into their role. I also agree with Mattastrophic that it works against a group of veterans bringing a new player into the fold. Is it really better for the GM/new player to have to play up to the veterans' tier, in order to avoid replays?
I also think Kyle's "boon instead of xp/gold/PA" idea would be viable, although I would prefer replays for full risk & full reward.
I'll reiterate, though - if enacted as written, I could live with it.
|
|
You might be able to limit it to replay for the player, but not the character. It would allow people to start up new characters with their newbie friends for home games. If the group isn't that big it shouldn't be that big a deal to level up a new char with the new guy. This way there isn't a power difference between the characters and the same character isn't getting credit for killing the same kobold chief 10 times.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
A note to the discussion:
If Josh were to apply his formula, then there would be, at a medium-to-large convention, at most three people replaying a scenario per tier, because the only reason to allow replay would be to fill a table.
So, Hypthetical Hank comes to a convention with his 4th level PFS character, and he's the only person playing in that tier, who hasn't already played the scenario the GM has prepared. To have a legal table for Hank, three other players would have to play with him. If they all had an appropriately-leveled PC, they could all choose to replay the scenario.
Replays don't solve all the problems. If nobody else had an appropriately-leveled PC, then other players would have to volunteer to run iconics, or else Hank would be out of luck.
So replaying would be pretty rare, and other players couldn't count on being able to replay a scenario. (There may be another four-to-six people playing a table at Hank's tier, willing to squeeze in another player at their table.)
In conclusion, whatever other aspects there would be with replays under Josh's proposal, there won't be very much "grinding" and replay-after-replay.
|
|
Sensing replay is a foregone conclusion and in the best interest of PFS growth, I am 95% able to live with this hypothetical. I like #3.It absolutely is not. I'm asking the community (especially those adamantly opposed to the idea of replay) if a plan similar to that could be lived with and not vehemently opposed. While I think there's a compromise in here somewhere between the pro-replay and anti-replay crowds I'm not going to make any such decision unless I think the community is genuinely behind. "I've resolved myself to it happening" isn't genuinely behind it. :-)
I am not genuinely behind replays then. Whatever the decision is we all have choices. I expect Josh to make a decision on replays. My attitude is biased by my past experiences in Living Campaigns and a preference towards exclusivity and privilege. I got in on the ground floor, I put in a lot of hours and I want to stay ahead, it’s selfish but natural. I think that replays diminish that accomplishment. Please don’t try to tell me why my attitude is wrong, that’s really annoying. Anyway, Josh is going to make a decision. We have choices if we don’t like that decision. We can vote with our feet. That’s a tough choice but each to their own. Although I sympathize with those who have stated they would quit if replays are allowed (and I have alluded the same), am I really going to walk away? No. I think many feel this way, but their loyalty to Josh and to Paizo is too much for them to turn their backs on the campaign. We know that Josh works very hard for us and that we are impossible to please. 95% is the best you are going to get from me. Relatively speaking I have a lot invested in PFS and I'm not going to throw it away over something that isn't going to impact my local scene. Make the decision and I will support it. I am not going to punish Paizo for trying to grow the membership, even if it knocks over my sense of exclusivity. Sorry for the drama!
Besides, if enough people are disappointed with Josh’s decision the dissidents can band together to form a NEW organized play campaign called “Aspis Consortium” where they get to thwart the Pathfinder Society, swipe their McGuffins and have a meta-campaign that impacts Golarion. At GenCon they can try to steal PFS session tracking sheets and plant them on Dave Christ.
Perhaps if Pathfinder Society grows enough this idea could become a real campaign for the advanced players (and no replays allowed).