|
I can't seem to get players to come to PFS game nights. It makes it even more complicated when those that do play are getting higher level and don't want to start another character. Playing PFS with the same half dozen people makes it seem like a home campaign but without the continuity. I find myself wishing for metaorgs and ongoing effects of PCs actions.
|
|
Nah, but I was used to having dozens of players to invite to play and often having two or more tables. The problem with the core dozen PCs is they advance faster than the other PCs and you don't get to meet new people and enjoy a game with them. If it's the same dozen people then why play an organized event. Just run a home game. Get my players farther into Xin Shalast and closer to the climatic scene. The PFS scenarios seem to be missing that big oomph the APs have only penalties to the PCs. Limiting their abilities. Makes it hard to recruit when I am giving them the list of things you can't do in PFS during PC creation.
|
Playing PFS with the same half dozen people makes it seem like a home campaign but without the continuity. I find myself wishing for metaorgs and ongoing effects of PCs actions.
Disclaimer: I have not been involved with PFS either as a GM or player.
However, this has been part of the reason why. As both a player and as a GM I like seeing some sort of tangible effect of my actions, as opposed to strictly self-improvement. I was kind of disappointed with the suppression of the Season One results, because I thought that was exremely interesting. I understand why it was done, but I still coudn't help but feel let done.
If PC actions contributed to some larger story, the PFS concept would be more attactive to me.
|
If PC actions contributed to some larger story, the PFS concept would be more attactive to me.
I was just talking about this today! It seems like it would have been much cooler if the winning faction from season 0 was featured more prominently in the season 1 story lines, and so on each season. Maybe some other little perks for that faction for the 'next' season after they won the previous season (lower cost off chronicle sheet or something).
However the faction PA system and the rule 'no player combat' seem to be kind of at odds with each other. Understandable, but still just a little depressing.
|
|
I was starting to stress out over trying to balance the needs of the new against the needs of the many leveled, as I didn't want to shut anyone out, but I didn't want to loose any older players or ask them to start over.
I scaled back my PFS games to conventions, but thankfully, the local gaming group that scheduled Living Greyhawk, and still schedules Living Forgotten Realms has started to organize Pathfinder Society events as well, and an organization like that is much better suited to trying to come up with schedules that can accommodate new people and older players, so I'm happy they are getting involved.
|
I had initial success last year arranging local players into biweekly tables at two different homegame locations. We shared the GM's mantle so no one was always eating scenarios. But when I tried organizing monthly gamedays I wasn't having as much luck. I'd pick up a new player here & there but everyone was spread out geographically as well as with the scenarios they had played. I was getting fatigued trying to organize, find a good location and keep everyone involved. Just about when I threw in the towel another player (Uncle Den) picked it up and ran with it. The new players have been trickling in and we've got a pretty steady turnout now. I needed help and I didn't know how to ask for it. I kept trying to carry the load by myself. Maybe you're trying to do too much for your players Russell.
The thing is now we have two different sets of players. We have about 14 veterans that are happy with their biweekly homegames and mostly don't go to conventions or gamedays. We also have about 12-20 players new to OP who come to the gamedays but are all over the board in levels and scenarios they are eligible to play. They are mostly casual players and are a real mixed bag of experience and commitment. Frankly I'm feeling the burnout creeping back, and part of it is the campaign doesn't seem to have any direction. I try not to compare it to LG since that only makes me feel bitter and forlorn.
I think like most things in life the secret is persistance. As long as we keep running these gamedays and never turn away new faces, eventually we will hit a critical mass and will be able to step back as regular players begin to assume the leadership roles. Every time we run PFS at a con we pick up one or two players, and they always have a friend or two who are looking for a regular game. We just have to keep plugging away, else people will crawl back into their basements.
|
The group I play with picks up a new player every so often, so it is slow growth so far. This doesn't bother me. It allows for new players to ease into the scene with a bunch of people that are very familiar with the system.
The few local conventions during the year is where our group plans on promoting more to new players.
Does the current D&D organized play offer the 'character effecting the campaign' feel? I remember LG, but I am not familiar with what they do now. Just curious what options are out there for everyone.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Groups with TWO tables?!
Haven't seen that since the early 90's!
Mostly (in Australia) it tends to be smaller groups.
The NYC PFS group has occasionally had three tables going at once, though our numbers are down a little since we changed locations (again) and people's schedules keep changing. We still have two every week, usually of 6 players with additional people on standby.
|
The NYC PFS group has occasionally had three tables going at once, though our numbers are down a little since we changed locations (again) and people's schedules keep changing. We still have two every week, usually of 6 players with additional people on standby.
Man that is awesome... haven't seen numbers like that since playing Car Wars!
|
|
Wow, I'd imagine the bigger cities (like NYC) would have much bigger groups. Mine in Raleigh, NC is getting to the point of regularly having three tables, and the lower level table is usually packing as many people in as possible (6 is pretty much normal, I don't remember ever having 7 though). And unfortunately, we don't have but 4 or 5 people in the whole group that feel comfortable DMing (I,as a newbie, sure don't :P); so I guess our problem is that we're getting almost too MANY people, and not enough DMs.
But it's still super-fun :D
|
|
I agree with Doug Doug that you may want to get someone to help with the leadership role so you can have a little break and maybe get in more players. When others share this role, they can help bring in new players so you don't have to do it all. We have 3-4 people who do this for our group.
We just started running PFS games in September of 2009 and we are now filling two tables per event. We tend to have at least one or two new players each time. We run different scenario's at each table so now that we are in our 5th month, one table will be a higher tier (3-4) and the other table will be for tier 1-2.
I think the key to getting more players is outreach - So any flyers that you can post in the game shops, post the game on a few websites, and we even use a Yahoo group - RMPathfinder for the entire Front Range of Colorado to keep players and GM's connected so they know where the games are and are aware of opportunities to GM.
Last but not least, we always have a great time, so the other folks in the game shop can see what they are missing and a handful of people of joined in because of this. We also keep plenty of Pre-Gen characters and loaner dice on hand for a last minute addition.
I have always stayed away from the living games for the past 20 years but I am really enjoying PFS.
Russell - You are doing good work! Don't get discouraged! The network of PFS folks are always happy to help you out when you need it!
|
|
Wow, I'd imagine the bigger cities (like NYC) would have much bigger groups. Mine in Raleigh, NC is getting to the point of regularly having three tables, and the lower level table is usually packing as many people in as possible (6 is pretty much normal, I don't remember ever having 7 though). And unfortunately, we don't have but 4 or 5 people in the whole group that feel comfortable DMing (I,as a newbie, sure don't :P); so I guess our problem is that we're getting almost too MANY people, and not enough DMs.
But it's still super-fun :D
We lost our original gaming space (game store closed down)in December of 2008. Since then we have been a roving band of wanderers. Locations of current players dictate that the games be played in Manhattan NYC, a very expensive place. With this resriction we have been forced to try different places to play.
For the past few months we have been playing in deli/resturant seating area. The management has been cool and the players have been supporting the store. Hopefully this will remain a good relationship.
|
|
We lost our original gaming space (game store closed down)in December of 2008. Since then we have been a roving band of wanderers. Locations of current players dictate that the games be played in Manhattan NYC, a very expensive place. With this resriction we have been forced to try different places to play.
For the past few months we have been playing in deli/resturant seating area. The management has been cool and the players have been supporting the store. Hopefully this will remain a good relationship.
Ah, ok, that makes a whole lot more sense now :)
Best of luck finding a permanent new place!
|
The NYC PFS group has occasionally had three tables going at once, though our numbers are down a little since we changed locations (again) and people's schedules keep changing. We still have two every week, usually of 6 players with additional people on standby.
Our Connecticut monthly group is slowly growing... if everyone shows up we would have to split to 3 tables of 4-5 I think right now levels 1-7 or 8
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I highly, highly suggest PFS players seeking more metaplot check out my forthcoming "two-round" Pathfinder Society scenario, "Requiem for the Red Raven", the first in the 5-part EYES OF THE TEN high-level campaign.
I have been buried in PFS scenarios and I'm cooking up a doozy that will tie together some threads in a way those who have been paying attention will surely appreciate.
I have been cooking it up for about a month and will playtest it at Paizo in three weeks.
I am very, very excited.
I launched the Living Greyhawk campaign at WotC and wrote more than 12 rounds of Living City adventures. I really enjoy the organized play environment and am having a blast working on this project.
It feels like a return to roots, in a way.
And I am going crazy with Flip-Mats to make it a visually interesting game as well as a cool story with some awesome fights.
I think you will like it a lot.
I highly, highly suggest PFS players seeking more metaplot check out my forthcoming "two-round" Pathfinder Society scenario, "Requiem for the Red Raven", the first in the 5-part EYES OF THE TEN high-level campaign.
I have been buried in PFS scenarios and I'm cooking up a doozy that will tie together some threads in a way those who have been paying attention will surely appreciate.
I have been cooking it up for about a month and will playtest it at Paizo in three weeks.
I am very, very excited.
I launched the Living Greyhawk campaign at WotC and wrote more than 12 rounds of Living City adventures. I really enjoy the organized play environment and am having a blast working on this project.
It feels like a return to roots, in a way.
And I am going crazy with Flip-Mats to make it a visually interesting game as well as a cool story with some awesome fights.
I think you will like it a lot.
I can't wait to play it. I always enjoyed your modules. I consider Living Greyhawk the finest living campaign WotC did. I have been hoping more authors from living greyhawk would jump on board for pathfinder.
I have been hoping more authors from living greyhawk would jump on board for pathfinder.
You and me both. *stares longingly at the nearly empty open call submission queue*
|
Our Connecticut monthly group is slowly growing... if everyone shows up we would have to split to 3 tables of 4-5 I think right now levels 1-7 or 8
The NYC PFS group has occasionally had three tables going at once, though our numbers are down a little since we changed locations (again) and people's schedules keep changing. We still have two every week, usually of 6 players with additional people on standby.
Thus why I am looking for a place to play other than my home as there is just not enough room. Then again the numbers are misleading as we also pull some players from RI. And the highest, kristov, would be Tiberius at the high end of 8, followed by myself and and my wife on the low end of 8 with a few in the 6-7 range. Now If I would just get my levels from playing instead of running =(.
Greyhawk ended just as I was about to put forth a couple of mod ideas so hopefully I have something to submit here soon.
Looking forward to it.
|
|
I have been hoping more authors from living greyhawk would jump on board for pathfinder.You and me both. *stares longingly at the nearly empty open call submission queue*
I can speak to this for myself and some of the stable of writers I know here in Chicago. I wrote dozens of Living Greyhawk adventures across multiple regions, including several Core adventures. I have good friends that also wrote a lot for Living Greyhawk. As yet, none of us have stepped up to the Pathfinder authorship plate. Why?
1) Quality. Generally, the quality of PS writing and adventure layout is much better than in LG (the adventures are in color, for one thing!), and it's intimidating to try to ramp up to that level. Personally, I think I'm a great adventure writer, but I've never had to write for the level of professionalism you demand.
2) Lack of familiarity with the world. There has been emphasis on the boards that if you don't know the canon, you might as well not submit. Golarion is a new world for all of us, and we're still trying to learn it (out with the Tharizdun, in with the Zon-Kuthon). It's hard to know what NPCs can be used and how to use them until you get a lot of familiarity with them.
3) Lack of familiarity with the rules. The Pathfinder Core Rules are still fairly new, and digesting them takes some time. I play a couple of times each week, and DM as well, but I still couldn't tell you, for example, the CR of a War3/Rog1 in the new system, or what the EL of three of those guys plus a worg would be. That's the kind of stuff writers need to internalize, and that takes time and effort to master.
4) Lack of familiarity with the writing product. LG produced several different versions of writer's guidelines and adventure templates, all of which made it fairly easy to jump right in to writing. PS, on the other hand, has provided some very specific advice, but it's been much more "don't do" advice (don't use child endangerment, don't send us anything but your best work) and not a lot of "do this" advice (such as, adventure outlines/templates or faction mission guidelines). I understand that as a publisher, you're restricted in what you can release, but a Word document with open spaces for introduction-Encounter 1-Combat Format-Encounter 2 and Up-Conclusion-Faction Missions would be quite helpful, I think.
5) More restrictive adventure style. Living Greyhawk has included a lot of "gonzo" ideas, particularly in regional adventures (such as, events that turned you into an orc, or were played out entirely in flashbacks, time travel, or adventures across alternate planes). PS has the occasional flashy idea (mine-cart chases, an encounter a dreamscape), but they seem well-grounded in a fairly staid narrative. Adhering to this narrative without producing an adventure that is trite or shallow is pretty difficult. As a specific example, I have one friend--who wrote a half-dozen LG adventures--who outlined a pretty neat adventure set in Nidal. But you aren't looking for adventures in Nidal (only Absalom and Qadira), so he's shelving it.
I think as the campaign rolls on, you'll find more people willing to jump in as these hurdles shrink (and, mostly, as familiarity rises). For example, I've now got more than 30 adventures under my belt. I've DMed 10 or 12 adventures and read twice that many. I've only recently begun to feel like I can participate in the writing process. But I plan to contribute, and soon!
|
If you are free the weekend of the 30th Callous... you have my email.Our Connecticut monthly group is slowly growing... if everyone shows up we would have to split to 3 tables of 4-5 I think right now levels 1-7 or 8I'm going to make it to that gathering at some point.
I have a buddy from NY visiting that day... but he loves Pathfinder!
Hm... I'm going to have to make a phone call.
I have been hoping more authors from living greyhawk would jump on board for pathfinder.You and me both. *stares longingly at the nearly empty open call submission queue*I can speak to this for myself and some of the stable of writers I know here in Chicago. I wrote dozens of Living Greyhawk adventures across multiple regions, including several Core adventures. I have good friends that also wrote a lot for Living Greyhawk. As yet, none of us have stepped up to the Pathfinder authorship plate. Why?
1) Quality. Generally, the quality of PS writing and adventure layout is much better than in LG (the adventures are in color, for one thing!), and it's intimidating to try to ramp up to that level. Personally, I think I'm a great adventure writer, but I've never had to write for the level of professionalism you demand.
2) Lack of familiarity with the world. There has been emphasis on the boards that if you don't know the canon, you might as well not submit. Golarion is a new world for all of us, and we're still trying to learn it (out with the Tharizdun, in with the Zon-Kuthon). It's hard to know what NPCs can be used and how to use them until you get a lot of familiarity with them.
3) Lack of familiarity with the rules. The Pathfinder Core Rules are still fairly new, and digesting them takes some time. I play a couple of times each week, and DM as well, but I still couldn't tell you, for example, the CR of a War3/Rog1 in the new system, or what the EL of three of those guys plus a worg would be. That's the kind of stuff writers need to internalize, and that takes time and effort to master.
4) Lack of familiarity with the writing product. LG produced several different versions of writer's guidelines and adventure templates, all of which made it fairly easy to jump right in to writing. PS, on the other hand, has provided some very specific advice, but it's been much more "don't do" advice (don't use child endangerment, don't send us...
i just want add there is a couple good writters that did regional mods for Lg in my area. It seems their biggest hurdle is making an adventure that works in 12k word limit and how to advance monsters.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I have one friend--who wrote a half-dozen LG adventures--who outlined a pretty neat adventure set in Nidal. But you aren't looking for adventures in Nidal (only Absalom and Qadira), so he's shelving it.
Really? I think Josh would jump at a good adventure regardless of where it's set, but I could be wrong.
i just want add there is a couple good writters that did regional mods for Lg in my area. It seems their biggest hurdle is making an adventure that works in 12k word limit and how to advance monsters.
A 32-page Pathfinder Module, designed to be played over the course of 2-to-4 8-hour sessions, is only 19k words. A Pathfinder Society scenario, designed to be played in 5 hours, is 12k. It seems like our word counts for a quality scenario is awfully high and, though you may disagree, we've received many high-quality scenarios within the word count.
Extra word count, in my experience, leads to a bunch of unnecessary exposition that the players never see--and if the players never see it, what's the point in writing it for player-focused org play?
As for advancing monsters, the Bestiary does a pretty good job of spelling that out step-by-step. Personally, when I advanced a monster, I say, "ok, I want a 5 HD ghoul" and then re-design the ghoul to 5 HD following the rules for making a 5 HD undead and then add the ghoul abilities back in, check the whole thing against table 1-1 (the most important table in the Bestiary IMNSHO) and insure that I'm balancing the new advanced ghoul appropriately for its CR and make adjustments up or down where necessary. Advancement is 1/2 science and 1/2 magic and 1/2 art (see what I did there?).
I have one friend--who wrote a half-dozen LG adventures--who outlined a pretty neat adventure set in Nidal. But you aren't looking for adventures in Nidal (only Absalom and Qadira), so he's shelving it.Really? I think Josh would jump at a good adventure regardless of where it's set, but I could be wrong.
Yeah, I need to change that page. I'll take a good scenario. Period.
|
|
Hi all -
2) Lack of familiarity with the world. There has been emphasis on the boards that if you don't know the canon, you might as well not submit. Golarion is a new world for all of us, and we're still trying to learn it (out with the Tharizdun, in with the Zon-Kuthon). It's hard to know what NPCs can be used and how to use them until you get a lot of familiarity with them.
I'm surprised that a lack of familiarity with Golarion halts writers especially with such a new world. With Greyhawk, and I'm a Greyhawk guy (named Theocrat by Gary Holian for Pholtus's sake) I was massively disappointed in the LG. I was super-duper excited to live in Vegas and have The Pale as my region. But because our early triad was more involved with Living Forgotten Realms and knew little about Greyhawk - they took the Valorous League and made them Palish (they're Nyrondesee, operating in Nyrond) and fought me each attempt to keep them within established and blatant cannon. Thus, I hated LG with a passion and quickly left, feeling that I did not want to see what was next (the most conservative bishop becoming a Hug-Your-Heathen [tm] Theocrat). But don't think this lack of familiarity with canon is only related to fans of a setting and an Open Play system- SKR made some terrible Greyhawk mistakes with his modules in the 90's under TSR/WotC, heck even Lisa "Greyhawk MegaBabe" Stevens was Greyhawk brand manager at the time.
So when it comes to this Brave new world, I think that it might be even easier, as there isn't 30 years of cannon to research (and as owner and publisher behind the Oerth Journal, we make sure submissions are researched and referenced for their cannon - and an article in the new Oerth Journal #25 regarding the Tuerny article with Tensor's restoration being called on for a mistake in dates from 585 and 586). Here you have one small source book of actual canon references and 32 page PF Companions on a few of the major regions and 60 page PF Chronicles on minor cities (strikes me as odd that Korvosa and Darkmoon Vale get more than the mighty TALDOR [yes, I do actually yell that each time]).
Also, with Golarion, you have the people that are building the world to be able to support you in making sure that a god is listed correctly (but Andoran (nation) and Andoren (deity) when verbally stated do sound the same and really confused me on one PFS mission revolving a Taldoran artifact that goes back to the Andoren antiquity). So making minor or even major canonical aspects wrong is much better here with Josh behind the mantle than relying upon a triad that doesn't know Castle Hart from the box set with Forgotten Realms and DragonLance (iirc) castles is indeed considered cannon.
So if major authors / managers could not find the nit-pick areas of Greyhawk canon that the people of CanonFire / Oerth Journal / Greyhawk Online and many others do because of the history of the world, then having such a young (in literary terms) world at your disposable should not be any hindrance. And unfortunately, the areas that would have the most influence regarding canon is usually the half to one page GM section that declares the background of what is going on - The 2nd Taldoran Army of Exploration visited the Mwangi and now you have to find the stone disk that now sits in Augustana because a former Captain gave it to his wife for a anniversary gift - and now as Pathfinders, you need to find it because TALDOR [yes, again, out loud] needs to find that same location that they found 1,000 years ago doesn't usually get passed on to the players in much detail except that they have to go to Augustana and research Captains who lived in the area (since it was still a Taldoran vassal). That kind of cannon will surely be made up by you, just by having it in a printed PFS. It would then be Josh's responsibility to make sure that if someone later went to use that same stone disk, that it was first found in the Mwangi.
Be Well. Be Well Cannonical.
Theocrat Issak
|
|
Also, with Golarion, you have the people that are building the world to be able to support you in making sure that a god is listed correctly (but Andoran (nation) and Andoren (deity) when verbally stated do sound the same and really confused me on one PFS mission revolving a Taldoran artifact that goes back to the Andoren antiquity). So making minor or even major canonical aspects wrong is much better here with Josh behind the mantle than relying upon a triad that doesn't know Castle Hart from the box set with Forgotten Realms and DragonLance (iirc) castles is indeed considered cannon.
From Josh's posts, I get the impression that minor (or, gods help you, major) canonical errors won't be gently corrected (unless, I assume, they are very minor). They'll get your submission flatly rejected.
You mention the minor spelling error, which right on point: Josh mentioned in one of his posts that misspelling the name of the city would turn him off of an entire submission.
Hence the heightened concern.
Yes, I want you to know a little something about our world. You can buy the Gazetteer PDF for cheap or, heck, read the Pathfinder Wiki.
But first and foremost, I want a good story that's well-written and shows that the author knows something about PRPG design.
I can't seem to get players to come to PFS game nights. It makes it even more complicated when those that do play are getting higher level and don't want to start another character. Playing PFS with the same half dozen people makes it seem like a home campaign but without the continuity. I find myself wishing for metaorgs and ongoing effects of PCs actions.
Note that this isn't specific to Pathfinder. We run an alternate living campaign to LFR (though our living campaign is 4E) and we also have trouble getting tables together. We ran a game day this past weekend, and it was the first time I've seen three tables go off since we switched to 4e from 3.5e.
Even more important, we have the same issue Joshua does - too few authors, making the ones we have get burned out pretty fast.
Though, a note for scenario writers: I've found that a good idea can be located anywhere - it doesn't take much to add a few world-specific details that make it fit the campaign.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, United Kingdom—England—Kent
|
I LOVE PFS adventures.
They are amongst the best I've played and I much prefer them to my experience of Living games, where the shared history and over arching metaplot can become intimidating.
I know enough now after having played for a while to find my way around the factions (and having faction goals but outlawing pvp is just one way to add a bit of conflict without mass murder ensuing - and can lead to some creative role-playing. Everything else I can learn as I go along without having to wade through masses of campaign material.
The restrictions on characters keeps things simple, which I'm all for. Be creative with your character not the rules.
It can be frustrating putting a higher level character on hold because the group you're with can't match them but variety is the spice of life. I often end up gaming with the same Pathfinders but sometimes it's a new crowd and that's all good. There is a nearby 'Lodge' and I also get to play at antional conventions here in the UK.
Everyone has their stories from the different adventures (although a quick check to avoid spoilers is always appreciated).
When I hear other players talking about Pathfinder they're talking like adventurers sharing stories, not like game geeks planning their next upgrade.
YES, I do appreciate continuity and sahred character progression (I've been runnign the same campaign for twenty-plus years) but I also like the bite-sized chunks of adventure PFS play hands down.
I'm sure mroe and more writers will come on board as time goes by, even if the bar has been set pretty high already.
My one worry is that the extended adventures now appearing won't fit comfortably into the typical 4-hour convention slot without unseemly trimming, although some encounters are optional.
When you say, "extended adventures" to what are you referring exactly? I don't quote get this assertion.
Also, it's important to note that PFS shifted to 5-hour slots in v2.1 of the Guide for two reasons: (1) in my experience, most conventions run 5-hour slots, and (2) the folks playing Tier 7-11 scenarios were very commonly complaining that they couldn't finish in 4 hours and I was worried that the Tier 12s would have an even harder time.
|
|
(1) in my experience, most conventions run 5-hour slots,Gotta be honest here: I have never seen this. Usually it's four hours with an hour break for lunch, two hours for dinner, and midnight sessions beginning immediately after the evening session.
This is more in line with what i have seen.
5 hour slots are a rarity.
(1) in my experience, most conventions run 5-hour slots,
Gotta be honest here: I have never seen this. Usually it's four hours with an hour break for lunch, two hours for dinner, and midnight sessions beginning immediately after the evening session.
This is more in line with what i have seen.
5 hour slots are a rarity.
Yeah, gotta chime in here.
Never seen a con with 5-hour slots.
I've seen one that tried not to have slots. That con chose ... poorly.
But 5-hour slots? Been to Origins, and FALCON, and ConnCon, and ConnectiCon, and R-Con, and AnonyCon, and I've always seen 4-hour slots. Typically 8-12/1-5/7-11 or 9-1/2-6/8-12.
I can understand the frustration, but that's just part of the con scene ... 4 hours is not as long as it may sound.
I agree, 4 hours can fly by really fast if you're not careful--especially as a GM.
I switched to 5 hours because I saw a number of other events trying it at several cons I attended last year and it just seemed to take the pressure off at the beginning and end of the slot. I also had a lot of people push for it over the last year.
*shrug*
The rule is 5-hour slots, but as I say in the Guide, it's likely people will find 4- or 5-hour slots at their local convention or game day. We're going to try 5-hour slots at Gen Con this year.
|
|
I agree, 4 hours can fly by really fast if you're not careful--especially as a GM.
I switched to 5 hours because I saw a number of other events trying it at several cons I attended last year and it just seemed to take the pressure off at the beginning and end of the slot. I also had a lot of people push for it over the last year.
*shrug*
The rule is 5-hour slots, but as I say in the Guide, it's likely people will find 4- or 5-hour slots at their local convention or game day. We're going to try 5-hour slots at Gen Con this year.
Thing is like it or not it is not a unilateral decision. If PFS is to coexist with other organized play events it really needs to be able fit in the same slot sizes as what is already there. It removes the options of some players to play a little bit of this and a little bit of that. That in the long run will prevent people from even trying to play PFS.
As for lengthening the slots so that people have a better chance to get done during the slot. That is an arms race issue. Mods will eventually require the whole 5 hour slot and then some people will still not finish.All of this being said, we haven't had too much trouble with stuff going long at our game day, and all that has been allocated is 4 hour slots. As a rule the higher tier mods are more challenging to finish.
Like I said, the rules say to expect 4- or 5-hour slots at conventions. I'm simply codifying that 5-hour slots are now allowed. I am *not* telling conventions how to run their convention. If four is what they can do, then great. If they can do five, then also great.
As for scenarios necessarily being written for 4 hours of play suddenly being written for 5--it's just not the case. I won't make any changes to adventure length or development style based solely on length of play. All of the tiers between 1 and 7 rarely have an issue with 4 hours. It's the Tier 7-11 and Tier 12 scenarios I'm worried about. The Tier 7-11 scenarios have a common, recurring complaint about not having enough time when they're written to the same style and word count as the lower level scenarios. As you know, it's likely this is because higher level combats often take longer. I want to accommodate groups/game days/conventions who want to avoid cutting people off by running longer slots. And I've done that.
As for this being "unilateral" ... come on, man. :-) I have a rule in the guide that let's home play basically take however long it wants (not too mention online play, or play-by-post). If this was "unilateral," I wouldn't have that rule.