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.
5. *insert new rules here for GM replay since a replay rule would make this a necessity*
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 think your idea is an interesting one and I will think on 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...
Ditto....
|
|
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.
Consider the breakdown of players based on Robins Laws or the WotC marketing data. Based on the marketing data, fully 44% of players do get enjoyment out of playing their own PCs (Thinkers) or seeing those characters develop over time (Storytellers). As a Storyteller myself, there's no way in heck I replay a scenario with a pregen. I'd rather be GMing (and usually am).
That said, I really like the idea of boons as a reward for replaying a scenario (with a pregen or an existing character) as opposed to xp or gold (restoring spent faction points would be one possible boon).
|
|
Since some people are restating their beliefs on replays, I'll update mine as well. It's changed a bit from when this thread first started.
.
I am in favor of replays IF the rules and reward system specifically limit replays in a way that:
- Promotes people filling tables.
- Rewards those who are using their time to fill said table.
- Does not allow character advancement with replays. (Discourages the DESIRE to replay if it's not NEEDED)
- Is simple and easy to communicate to players.
That said I'd like to develop the idea for PLAYER boons for replaying scenarios.
What about a universal coupon?
- That coupon could contain a half-dozen or so options per tier.
- Upon distribution it would require GM signatures (much like a chronicle sheet).
- The GM would identify which tier was played when the coupon was issued.
- The player could turn in ONE coupon per scenario.
- To turn in a coupon, the player must be playing a scenario for the first time, and the coupon tier must match the tier being played.
Replay Coupon Ideas:
- +X to attack rolls for the entire scenario (FTES).
- +X to AC (FTES).
- +X to one skill of players choice FTES.
- Restore X prestige points spent. (Thanks DPop!)
- +X to DCs of spells cast FTES.
- +X to one stat of players choice FTES.
- Gain the use of a wonderous item under X gp FTES.
- X rerolls during the scenario.
- +X to the duration of spells cast FTES.
X would be determined by tier and be similar to tier-appropriate magic items.
|
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.5. *insert new rules here for GM replay since a replay rule would make this a necessity*
yeah...but you don't say what those new rules are..:-p...
For all I know that could mean the new rules are there is no reward...
|
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.
Not sure if this was meant 100% as humor but I enjoyed it. Especially the part about David Christ. Laughed loud on that part.
Now thinking about it. Creating an Aspis Consortium campaign could be fun to play. Though not as competition based on unpopular rulings. I'm thinking it similar to RPGA's Eberron campaigns called Mark of Heroes and Xen'drik Expeditions.
LOL, session sheets on David....too funny.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
If replays are intended to be run out of necessity, how will a GM know if someone (especially at a convention where they don't know their players) has or hasn't played a scenario before with a different PC. When I go to play, I take the folder of the PC I'm playing, but not the other two. So if PC 1 has played PFS#22 and PC 2 has not, I would simply show up to play PFS#22 with PC 2's chronicles and nothing from PC 1. That is, if I wanted to play at this table and pretend I'd never played it before. I assume that the reporting software would have no way to know if I had played it to fill a table or not, and would have to be changed to allow reporting of replayed scenarios. Not that there would be any recourse from the swindled GM when he found out I'd played it before.
It's these logistical concerns and others that still make me wary of abuse.
|
|
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.Not sure if this was meant 100% as humor but I enjoyed it. Especially the part about David Christ. Laughed loud on that part.
Now thinking about it. Creating an Aspis Consortium campaign could be fun to play. Though not as competition based on unpopular rulings. I'm thinking it similar to RPGA's Eberron campaigns called Mark of Heroes and Xen'drik Expeditions.
LOL, session sheets on David....too funny.
The comments were supposed to be humorous. I don't know Dave personally but I GMed for him a GenCon or two. I have a lot of respect for him. I only meant that planting the tracking sheets on him would be a clever misdirection of blame and feed the perception (on the part on the half-cocked conspiracy theorists) of mistrust between WOTC & Paizo which would be a perfect mission for this "Aspis Consortium" OP campaign.
On the serious side, my friends and I have kicked around the idea of an alternative Golarion campaign for advanced players who feel that PFS is not "Living Barbie" (as Josh aptly put it) enough for our liking. Personally I liked having a stable of animals, property, titles, time units and upkeep, etc. It would also be fun to be on the other side of the scenario from the Pathfinders playing Aspis Consortium agents out to foil the Pathfinder Society. I can imagine there could be some wild interactives, like comic book crossovers. But I don't want to threadjack, nor do I want to give the impression that I don't appreciate the work that Josh & the contributors have put into PFS either.|
|
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.
Thank you for making this statement. I will not tell you why your attitude is wrong, but I would like to use it to make a point.
Ever since the beginning of this discussion, the anti-replayers have made the argument that the pro-replayers are being selfish and that they should just play a pregen, sit down and enjoy it. But I've held the opinion that there is just as much selfishness, if not more, on the anti-replayer side of the discussion. My opinion.
I've got a small group where we barely make a table most games. I've kinda been the self-designated GM for PFS. While I accept my role with honor, it is also very frustrating. Of the first 30 scenarios, I will have GM'd 26 and only played 4. That leaves me with a couple of characters at about 3rd and 7th levels with half the gold and fewer PA than their counterparts. Gaming at home, this isn't as much of a problem. But when I go to a convention, I feel left behind and under qualified to play in my appropriate tier. Am I being selfish because I want a chance to play those scenarios with my characters? What about the gamers that refuse to GM? Are they not being selfish as well?
Selfishness aside, most gamers are there to have fun and play a game/hobby that they enjoy. Would I play a pregen? Yes, but if I was at a convention where I paid money to play, I would more likely find something else to play rather than play a pregen. (Most cons in my area offer other types of games at the same time. Munchkin, Warhammer, Hero Clix, etc...) But if I could play a new character in a replay, I would play every time.
Cheaters are going to cheat no matter what decision is made. If replays are allowed, then you will have the cheater who levels up characters. If they are not allowed, you will have pets and children signed up for PFS who GM so the actual player can get full credit. Either way it's going to happen.
I think the bigger question is... "What's best for Pathfinder and Paizo?" This is their game, their society, their product. If the decision made brings in more players, and more profits (yes, there is a business behind all this), wouldn't it be the better decision? If Pathfinder and Paizo are doing well and growing, then so is PFS and our player base. Also, if it improves Pathfinder and Paizo, then won't we also benefit?
For the record, if you couldn't tell, I am for replays with full credit.
|
|
If replays are intended to be run out of necessity, how will a GM know if someone (especially at a convention where they don't know their players) has or hasn't played a scenario before with a different PC. When I go to play, I take the folder of the PC I'm playing, but not the other two. So if PC 1 has played PFS#22 and PC 2 has not, I would simply show up to play PFS#22 with PC 2's chronicles and nothing from PC 1. That is, if I wanted to play at this table and pretend I'd never played it before. I assume that the reporting software would have no way to know if I had played it to fill a table or not, and would have to be changed to allow reporting of replayed scenarios. Not that there would be any recourse from the swindled GM when he found out I'd played it before.
It's these logistical concerns and others that still make me wary of abuse.
But I think can imagine similar ways to abuse the current system though in a similar way. I do not imagine that those who wish to cheat will find a way to cheat the system this way, with replays allowed or not. But in the case of people abusing the replay system, I should be "reasonably" easy to set up something so that one can see certain players with an incredible amount of replays.
At the convention level, I'm not sure if the game is injured anymore than any other method a person takes to cheat the system. Overall, if they are being disruptive, I imagine the GM can take care of that, if they are not, everyone is likely still having just as much fun as they would if the extra person was not cheating. While cheating should be dealt with, I don't see replays presenting a new and fresh way to cheat.
|
|
After running LG and PFS the constant problem is finding enough players to fill in at tables of old scenarios. I am trying to entice new players into playing PFS and sometimes have problems filling the table because the veterans have all played the older games and only want to play their high level characters in the new games. Not sure what problems could be caused by such a change but it would have a benefit of having more players at games. Not sure if I'd want a whole table of replays though.
Personally, I don't WANT to run old designed-for-3.5 PFS games under the new Pathfinder rules.
So new players coming into the game would likely end up playing DIFFERENT low-level games than those who started playing earlier (existing players who want to start a 2ndary character would likewise probably want to play NEW PRPG games, not re-play old scenarios).
Of the re-play 'rewards' mentioned,
I think the "free re-roll" (already available thru T-shirt) and "re-charge spent Prestige" are good because they don't really increase the maximal power your character can muster (vs. characters not benefitting from Replay Rewards) but they are certainly still "benefits" players can point to when choosing whether or not to help newbies by replaying with them.
Personally, I think encouraging the mentality of "everything needs a reward or it's not worth doing" will send PFS down the wrong road, but that's just my opinion. I think it's also a mis-appraisal of the current set-up: the Wealth, XP, and Prestige of current PFS modules are hardly 'rewards': They're NECESSARY to keep PCs up-to-spec with expected wealth by level - without them, PCs would be under-geared for proper CR challenges they are expected to be able to meet. Rewards above that would tend to screw with balance, in a format where DMs are not as empowered to make judgement calls to maintain PC:Group:Game balance.
Bob Hopp wrote
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: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.
As the events co-ordinator for GenCon Oz and the person who entered most of the events I feel I should provide some feedback. Not sure how this affects anyones conclusions drawn from this data but here I go anyway.
The Crypt of the everflame event registration was entered after the event ran and it had 4 players. In fact it was GM'd by Jason Bulmahn and about 20 players wanted in but each rolled d20's for the 4 spots.
All the pathfinder society events ran and in fact 3 sessions were added during the con. These almost all ran to capacity and some went to 7 players. Fantastic turnout for Pathfinder society downunder and indicative of the tireless efforts of PFS organiser Stephen (Darkwhite) and his fellow dm's.
Like I said not sure how this info affects anyones thinking on this subject but either way it gives amore complete picture of this recent event.
|
|
I myself am currently attempting (and succeeding by the look of things) to set up up a PFS night at my local gaming club, and this very issue has been raised.
At present there are 42 scenarios available for purchase, with 2 scenarios released at the end of each month save for two notable exceptions where 4 are promised.
Obviously this won't impact the members of our club for easily over a year or so, but my thought is that the great majority of store organised play will be based weekly. Surely this means that at some point you're going to run into a brick wall with a lack of content? Especially if replays aren't allowed.
My fellow gamers garner a huge sense of accomplishment from character advancement, and I really don't see them smiling benignly and accepting the idea of playing through a previous scenario for no reward. (No matter how fun it may be)
Frankly, I could be taking them through one of the excellent Pathfinder Modules instead to fill in the gap, but I feel that this would also be missing the point of organised play.
I am in favour of replays, but I can't provide much input yet on the format this should take as I'm still getting this thing off the ground.
Common sense suggests that a limited reward should be offered for a replay, along with the prerequisite 1xp.
But I am also leaning towards the idea that this may only be accomplished with a character of a differing faction, but that throws into question whether limiting treasure and PA is fair or whether or not it'll 'stunt' that particular PCs progression.
Not to mention that you could also liken this to GM rewards, where if the players can replay for advancement, why couldn't a GM rerun a scenario to give the benefit to another of his characters?
A GM who does little more than run games, but periodically wants to play a meaningful game is not only going to find himself somewhat spent for choice, but also realise that his character wealth and PA spending cap/perks are well below the average of most of the other players around his table.
Just my thoughts, of course.
I have slogged through all the previous posts.
I think that replays should be allowed.
I believe that it would be best if it was encouraged that a different character be used (perhaps this will help avoid grind playing and re-enforce rule #3).
Full rewards are called for. Playing for a boon or some other reward does not seem fair to someone risking their character and likely having to spend gold, perhaps PAs as well, which are not replaced.
GMs should also get full rewards each time they run a scenario. If they run the same scenario several times, the rewards (like players) would be encouraged to go to a different character.
GMs in stores or homebrew campaigns already spend money to get the scenarios, spend extra time readying the adventures and bring in/keep players in the game. If they do not get the same rewards as players, then when they finally get someone else to GM (or go to a con with a group of friends) they cannot play with their friends at the appropriate level.
|
I’m for allowing to repeat adventures, even after you game master them. I realize that after six or so months I totally forget an adventure I played. I also don’t like the idea of once you play an adventure your through with it besides game mastering it. Maybe, if you allow a six month period in between playing the same mod a player would be allowed to play it again, perhaps longer.
There are not that many players that you are going to find to fill many tables over and over again. Those players that haven’t played an adventure can’t because most players have played it. It happened with me in LG and Arcanis, and I wanted to play those mods, but couldn’t. Just a thought, I can’t sit there and read what others are saying, but this is my two coppers.
|
|
This may have been discussed already but I am for replay in a situation of a character death. We had a guy die(being level 1 with low money and not enough PA to get a rezz) in our Octoberfest game day and he is way behind us now. If on the next game day we have others that have not played the round he died in and we can fill the table, I think that is fair. Other than that I think replay should not be allowed.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I would let him play it again. Technically he did not finish it, so therefore he did not get credit for it. Unless they walk away with the piece of paper from the adventure, I would say that he didn't play it.
If you die during a scenario, you have played it. The organizer of the game should report your PC as having been at the table and check the "Character died" box. Dying and getting a "do-over" because a GM doesn't report it or because you "lose" your Chronicle constitutes cheating.
|
|
I would let him play it again. Technically he did not finish it, so therefore he did not get credit for it. Unless they walk away with the piece of paper from the adventure, I would say that he didn't play it.If you die during a scenario, you have played it. The organizer of the game should report your PC as having been at the table and check the "Character died" box. Dying and getting a "do-over" because a GM doesn't report it or because you "lose" your Chronicle constitutes cheating.
I agree with Yoda, but I don't think Dave thought of it as cheating as much as giving a hard-luck player a break. However, Dave needs to think about the abuses such a loose rules interpretation could lead to. Let's say a player gets stuck on a demi-plane or his PC is trapped in a losing fight that leads to a TPK. If he walks away from the table before the end of the game and doesn't get a Chronicle sheet then he's free to do it over with foreknowledge of the plot and opponents. He could keep doing this whenever things don't go his way. I'm sure this is not the spirit of what Dave suggested but that's how a pessamist GM like myself looks at adding such a loophole :)
|
|
I guess I can see that too. I agree that a re-do because you lost the sheet should not occur. I don't think that re-playing it because you croaked is a big deal. Some may think it is cheating, but is it really that big of a deal? It is not like there is a big cash prize for the winner of the Pathfinder Society.
This is the first time I have tried this type of "Living" campaign so I will trust your judgement and not allow it in the games I GM. In most cases we are running so many different scenario's, a person can try a new scenario instead.
|
|
I'd say yes. Simply because I'm in the same situation. I ran the first two adventures of Rise of the Runelords as a DM with my old gaming group. Now my new DM wants to use the adventure path, and I still want to participate as a player. We worked out an agreement that I could play as long as I roleplay convincingly and "forget" events I'm familiar with.
I think I'm up to the challenge. I haven't read a page of the last two adventures. I only skimmed HMM and FotSG. As for the first two adventures, I'm actually looking forward to looking without leaping. As to the argument that I have metagame knowledge that I can't simply "forget", I say that it's a bit like retrying a level on a videogame. My character is subject to the whims of dice and DM just like all the rest.
|
|
Darkeyes, As far as an Adventure Path is concerned, that is completely up to you and I think you have the right approach.
This concern is for the Pathfinder Society games which operate under a tighter set of rules. In this case, I would not let a player re-play a scenario just because they lost the sheet OR if they walked away from the table.
This type of game allows a player to enjoy a scenario run by a variety of GM's so consistancy is a little more important. Cheating seems to be a big concern, even though I don't think it happens often.
|
|
I guess I can see that too. I agree that a re-do because you lost the sheet should not occur. I don't think that re-playing it because you croaked is a big deal. Some may think it is cheating, but is it really that big of a deal? It is not like there is a big cash prize for the winner of the Pathfinder Society.
This is the first time I have tried this type of "Living" campaign so I will trust your judgement and not allow it in the games I GM. In most cases we are running so many different scenario's, a person can try a new scenario instead.
Dave, you are right that it should not be a big deal. However, in organized play it is important that everyone who participates operate under the same rules, interpreted the same way. If Josh comes on this thread on Monday and says replaying is OK if you die as a 1st level character, then everyone will abide by that decision. But we can't have every local organizer deciding on their own house rules and still call it organized play. Most of us come from a background of previous Living Campaigns and have grown comfortable with the restrictions, so I apologize if we seem like killjoys on the topic of easing the rules. I'll also admit I'm a bit of a hypocrit here because I have bent the rules a time or two myself. Kind of a "Do as I say, not as I do" message :/
The one out that I'll mention is a few scattered groups have decided to play the PFS scenarios as a homegame. They have agreed not to travel outside of their private homegame table, but still operate under the PFS Organized Play rules--with some exceptions like what you have suggested. Because their characters will never mix with 'legitimate' PFS characters at conventions or elsewhere, they can decide what Organized Play rules they will keep and what they'll discard. That's about the only acceptable way for your hard-luck player to replay a scenario he died in--until Josh says otherwise :)
3 is the area where I can see the strongest argument for replay, but the thing that I find odd is that replay is being considered before just having a system set up for starting the campaign at a higher character level.
I can't ever see a time where we'd allow players to make characters at a level above 1.
I am okay with replays, though I never quite enjoy a mod (talking LFR here) as much the second time I play it. That said, not being able to replay scenarios has kept me from driving to Knoxville to play a couple of times in the past. I am hopeful that they will soon run mods that I have not played.
I don't really like the idea of starting characters at levels higher than first.
Everybody draws the proverbial "line" somewhere I guess.
Chad
I should add that I feel like any replays should be for full credit, but should be done with a different character. I don't like the idea of replaying a mod with the same character.
Chad
|
I didn't read all 300+ posts so I apologize if this was already said but here's my 2 cents worth.
I personally would like replay to be an option. There were many times in the RPGA where I'd run an event, get to the end of it and the rewards would be a perfect fit... for my other character. Yes, this is a greed thing but if a reward is out there that would best suit another character of mine, why shouldn't I be allowed to go get it to increase my enjoyment of the game? If people are strongly set against allowing others to replay a module, my suggestion would be to have either 'replay only' events or at the very least let people know ahead of time if a player has played it before.
Now, replaying with the same character? That is just plain silly.
|
|
I didn't read all 300+ posts so I apologize if this was already said but here's my 2 cents worth.
I personally would like replay to be an option. There were many times in the RPGA where I'd run an event, get to the end of it and the rewards would be a perfect fit... for my other character. Yes, this is a greed thing but if a reward is out there that would best suit another character of mine, why shouldn't I be allowed to go get it to increase my enjoyment of the game? If people are strongly set against allowing others to replay a module, my suggestion would be to have either 'replay only' events or at the very least let people know ahead of time if a player has played it before.
Now, replaying with the same character? That is just plain silly.
This is one of the big factors that makes us different from 4E, if you are in it for the loot then stick with 4E. In LG or any older Living Campaign you don't get a do over.
That's an unfair comparison, AZ. My reasons for thinking about re-play have everything to do with making more tables happen and nothing at all to do with phat loots. Despite what the poster above you said, our system actually avoids the problem of loot tables or loot packages by offering everything based on PA. And if I were to every allow a replay system, it would be specifically only allowed to make a legal table and only allowed on a separate character with a bunch of "revealing plot points to the other players is cheating"-type rules.
|
|
That's an unfair comparison, AZ. My reasons for thinking about re-play have everything to do with making more tables happen and nothing at all to do with phat loots. Despite what the poster above you said, our system actually avoids the problem of loot tables or loot packages by offering everything based on PA. And if I were to every allow a replay system, it would be specifically only allowed to make a legal table and only allowed on a separate character with a bunch of "revealing plot points to the other players is cheating"-type rules.
Excellent points, sorry if my previous sound like an attack or unfair comparison.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I am in favor of allowing players to re-play scenarios, but only with DIFFERENT characters. I say this because, as a player, I like having multiple characters available to me and would like to be able to play them all up to higher levels. However, if playing a scenario with one character invalidates my ability to re-play it with other characters, then I'm going to run out of available scenarios very quickly as my characters gain levels. (In fact, I only have 3 characters currently and am already starting to notice this fact.)
Re-playing with the same character, though, is just silly and should not be allowed. Otherwise, a GM could buy a single scenario and just re-run it over and over and over again to build up all his buddies' characters.
|
|
I am in favor of replays, though with the "only to fill a table" and "with a different character of a different faction" as well as with the strict "reveal plot points and I punt you from the table" rules.
I'd also like to see rules for GMs who re-run a scenario multiple times. Guys who run two or more regular groups need to be rewarded, even if they're re-running the same module. I know four bucks isn't a lot of money, but it does add up. GMs shouldn't have to break the bank to run two groups, but also shouldn't be penalized for using the same mods for more than one group.
I also think GMs should be able to play a scenario they've already run, especially if they're helping muster a table. It'd be a major drag for me to go to Dragon*Con and not be able to play because all of the events are scenarios I've already played.
Players who help fill a table also shouldn't be punished, especially for helping out.
You only have to pay for a scenario once. After that, you can run it as many times as you want.
|
|
I've only recently created my first PFS Character, only played one scenario, and will be GMing the same scenario for a home game in the near future, so this particular topic will probably not affect me for a long time. However, I'd like to weigh in my humble oppinion as this discussion is evolving.
I think that at least a different character, and probably a different faction (which would probably happen naturally), would have to be a neccesity for a player to replay for full-credit.
On the other hand I really like the idea of boons and "coupons", but think this may be best used when pre-gen characters are used to replay or fill a table.
And giving GM's further bonuses for re-running scenarios will be a great incentive for reluctant players to take a leadership role, which will mostly likely only be a good thing. At the very least it would give players a chance to "experiment" with running scenarios, and may reveal hidden talent and allow them to begin GMing scenarios for a new group of players.
I personally intend to GM scenarios that I've been able to play myself at an event or other group play. Not only do I get full credit, but also both player and GM perspectives. I realize not everyone is in a situation where they can do this though so I only mention it for completeness sake.
|
|
Replay... a staple of LFR, and another reason I do not DM that game anymore...
The first point that is brought up is spoilers. That is a valid concern and everyone knows idiots who cannot keep their traps shut about anything they play or do. In fairness, most players are good with that and keep to the occasional slip.
My biggest issue with replay is quality of game. What I have thoroughly enjoyed about PFS is that because everyone plays the mod "a-fresh", everyone is interested in what the module is about: its story, its opponents and situations. Puzzles and role-playing challenges are fun to play. PFS scenarios are notoriously challenging (another thing I like) and require teamwork, tactics and decent characters (someone who is useless will always be useless), replay would force adventures to be dumbed down and super-streamlined.
When half the table does not interact or take part because "they know what to say/do" the rest of the table is severely handicapped. Too often have I seen LFR players sitting at a table with the ideal skill/ability combo just sit back and do nothing until the fight because "they did not want to spoil". Its just like playing with cardboard cutouts.
You want to play it again? DM! You get to experience everything over and over and allow the campaign to grow! PFS is gaining popularity in the Denver/Colorado Springs area because of the rules as they are now.
Please don't change the way the campaign plays, it's great and miles above the competition!
JP
You want to play it again? DM!
To be clear, I'm not interested in the idea that some people just might want to play it again, but am more interested in the idea of replay as a tool to insure legal tables happen. If a group of six players at a game store are all level 8 and a new player shows up with a level 1 ... either the level 1 has to leave (bad) or the level 8s all have to play pre-gens for the next 24+ scenarios to get the level up to their level (so-so). I'd like to find a way that those level 8s could all make level 1s and play up with their new arrival, even if that means playing through scenarios again. If, in the end, they're playing and having fun *and* gained a new player while doing so, where's the harm?
|
|
You want to play it again? DM!To be clear, I'm not interested in the idea that some people just might want to play it again, but am more interested in the idea of replay as a tool to insure legal tables happen. If a group of six players at a game store are all level 8 and a new player shows up with a level 1 ... either the level 1 has to leave (bad) or the level 8s all have to play pre-gens for the next 24+ scenarios to get the level up to their level (so-so). I'd like to find a way that those level 8s could all make level 1s and play up with their new arrival, even if that means playing through scenarios again. If, in the end, they're playing and having fun *and* gained a new player while doing so, where's the harm?
This right here is something we are running into at my PFS store game. I support the ability to replay for this reason alone. I see no harm in granting a player credit if they are using a different character to re-play the scenario.
|
|
I'd like to find a way that those level 8s could all make level 1s and play up with their new arrival, even if that means playing through scenarios again. If, in the end, they're playing and having fun *and* gained a new player while doing so, where's the harm?
Unfortunately that is not what's gonna happen. What's gonna happen is that it will create players who only play all the time. The idea is good, but it will lead to other issues. I am a big fan of rules that apply to all, this makes interpretation simple and common to all.
If you REALLY want this, I would only allow replays with 1st level characters. But I would recommend against it. I would rather increase the number of scenarios (I'd write PFS mods for free).
I would propose, as a proposal that PFS come out with a format similar to the MyRealms/DM's mark that can only be run for 1st level characters. This would allow for a replay-style thing and get DMs writing for the campaign.
What you run into is that many of the players with the 8th level characters won't want to play down any ways, so someone will be out anyways...
Sucks? yes, but that's what's is likely to happen.
JP
Unfortunately that is not what's gonna happen. What's gonna happen is that it will create players who only play all the time.
I'm not sure I understand you're meaning here. Don't I want players who want to play all the time? Or are you suggesting replay discourages GMing?
The idea is good, but it will lead to other issues.
Such as?
If you REALLY want this, I would only allow replays with 1st level characters. But I would recommend against it. I would rather increase the number of scenarios (I'd write PFS mods for free).
It seems to me that only allowing replays with 1st level characters doesn't in any way whatsoever solve the problem of the 1st-level player who shows up and can't play because everyone is 8th level at the game store they want to play. As for increasing the number of scenarios, that's not likely to happen any time soon. Sure, some people out there might write them for free, but I'm not going to also then farm out development, editing, layout, and support to people willing to do it for free. Writing the scenario is maybe 5% of the work in getting a scenario released.
I would propose, as a proposal that PFS come out with a format similar to the MyRealms/DM's mark that can only be run for 1st level characters. This would allow for a replay-style thing and get DMs writing for the campaign.
If GMs wanted to write for the campaign, they'd be sending in proposals to the open call and then get paid to write for the campaign. As it stands, the open call submissions are rarely submitted by GMs.
What you run into is that many of the players with the 8th level characters won't want to play down any ways, so someone will be out anyways...
I respectfully disagree. Every store coordinator who has contacted me has indicated that their players would love to play down to help a new player--but only for credit. Pathfinder Society has a cap at level 12 which means in order to play every released scenario, you have to create a new character every 18 months or so anyway.
Sucks? yes, but that's what's is likely to happen.
I'm convinced there's a way to do this that satisfies the folks who need replay to get new players and the folks who are generally opposed to the idea of replay. It needs a great deal more thought, but I can't help but think that every month that goes by wherein I don't solve the problem of high-level store groups being open to low-level players, we miss adding new players.
|
|
I'm not sure I understand you're meaning here. Don't I want players who want to play all the time? Or are you suggesting replay discourages GMing?
Yes, it does... When you keep running a module for the same people over and over, it burns you out (I do not DM LFR anymore specifically for that reason, and I know other DMs who feel the same)
I'm convinced there's a way to do this that satisfies the folks who need replay to get new players and the folks who are generally opposed to the idea of replay. It needs a great deal more thought, but I can't help but think that every month that goes by wherein I don't solve the problem of high-level store groups being open to low-level players, we miss adding new players.
It is important not to alienate the old-timers just to get new players. Many have chosen PFS as their alternative to 4e/LFR. For the campaign to be successful long-term you need a mix of both. I want to keep playing PFS when my young kids finally become of an age where they can play the game...
Here are a few ideas (some of which have already been mentioned on this thread
- Add an iconic character with different levels (say 4, 8 and 12 (or whatever)) to the fast play list.
- Replay for half-credit, not full. This would give some people the incentive of burning another adventure (I was scheduled to play, but for the same XP, I'll run you guys through this other mod so everyone can play).
What I like most in PFS (same in LG/LA/LDragonstar) is that every time I sit at a table, the people next to me are excited about discovering something new and experiencing the adventure together. Since there is this uniqueness about the experience, players "bring it" and want to role-play through. Thus far in PFS, I have seen so many interesting characters with colorful personalities, goals, backgrounds and stories. Most of it completely unrelated to the scenario, but that add SO MUCH to it.
I see none of that in LFR, it is an endless series of mindless dice rolls and thug fights without any meaning. Where players come to the table week-in, week-out with vanilla-flavored characters whose entire characters fits in "I am a dwarf fighter". All they do is play with their dwarf, then monk, then cleric, then assassin, then whatever-flavor-of-the-month...
JP
PS: I want to commend you and all of Paizo for posting such threads and responding to our rants. That's why I like PFS so much (also).
What you run into is that many of the players with the 8th level characters won't want to play down any ways, so someone will be out anyways...
I respectfully disagree. Every store coordinator who has contacted me has indicated that their players would love to play down to help a new player--but only for credit.
Yup - I've done once or twice, for no credit and with a pre-gen. It was fun. I kept my mouth shut with any "pre-knowledge" I had (It's funny/fun when you suspect your group is going to set off the damned trap you already know about/don't know about). It helps avoid closing down a table for someone (which sucks, especially for a gay/gal who traveled a long way for a local con and really wants to play a particular mod). For the level 12 mod that is due to arrive in March (I think) - I'll use a pre-gen. I really want to play and the highest chracter I have is level eight. I see no need to grind and try to rush to make the 'right' level. I just want to play!
The goal for me is to have fun and try not to get killed! I do like to level up and get some great loot - but that is a distant second to just having fun. I would support a re-play option that gave less loot, don't really feel strongly about it.
Ed
I have no plans to alienate anyone. You cannot, however, please everyone all of the time and I'd ask the "old-timers" to be flexible and to acknowledge that I'm not only listening to their feedback, but very often using it.
That said, if I make a decision that causes me to lose 10% of the so-called "old-timers" and in turn gain 20% more new players, would that be a bad decision? Pathfinder Society is, first and foremost, a vehicle for introducing our rules and campaign setting to as broad of an audience as possible. If I spend all of my time thinking, "oh man, I can't upset the old-timers!" I'm never going to get a system that's fully geared toward both bringing in new players and keeping the current player-base happy.
I have to consider everything. And in considering everything, I cannot guarantee that everyone will always be happy.
I have no plans to alienate anyone. You cannot, however, please everyone all of the time and I'd ask the "old-timers" to be flexible and to acknowledge that I'm not only listening to their feedback, but very often using it.
That said, if I make a decision that causes me to lose 10% of the so-called "old-timers" and in turn gain 20% more new players, would that be a bad decision? Pathfinder Society is, first and foremost, a vehicle for introducing our rules and campaign setting to as broad of an audience as possible. If I spend all of my time thinking, "oh man, I can't upset the old-timers!" I'm never going to get a system that's fully geared toward both bringing in new players and keeping the current player-base happy.
I have to consider everything. And in considering everything, I cannot guarantee that everyone will always be happy.
Yeah, but on the losses versus gains, it is a fine line how you handle it. I don't remember the details on how this goes, but in general you need 10 people saying good things about someone to counter the bad things a single person is saying just to avoid losing more support. It will be difficult to lose these "old-timers" in a way that they do not go about bad-mouthing Paizo and Pathfinder and doing more harm.
I still like the idea of repeating for credit only with a different character or perhaps with a minimum amount of time required to pass in between play-throughs of a scenario regardless of character. Say, if the only time you can play a PFS scenario is at conventions and you only make it to two or three a year and you have the bad luck that the same scenarios are being played at every one you go to, then you are screwed after the first one. I know this is unlikely but it can happen.
What if I opened previous seasons to replay with a different character? So, for example, I opened all of Season 0 to replay for full credit with a different character, but kept Season 1 closed? Then, in Season 2, I could open all of the Season 1 scenarios along with the Season 0 scenarios for replay? That would keep the current, "fresh" scenarios "sacred" in the minds of the anti-replayers, but open older content to be used to bring in new players for those who need replay to do so.