I have some issues with recent changes to Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 407 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well maybe if not the entire adventure path themselves how about some of the set pieces that were in the Second Darkness and Legacy of Fire Ap's

The Exchange

Kevin Mack wrote:
Well maybe if not the entire adventure path themselves how about some of the set pieces that were in the Second Darkness and Legacy of Fire Ap's

I'm not sure how you would implement this without a lot of work. APs are designed to have long term plot lines. Even the short term plot lines are more than one session long.

I'm currently running Kingmaker, and I can see the possibility of taking the Bandits plot line in the first chapter and try to condense it down to a single session, but it would still be a lot of work. And by the time your done, you may have put enough time into it that you could have just wrote another PFS scenario instead. I don't know. ?

Scarab Sages

Wolfthulhu wrote:
And I don't understand why your needs and desires should come before others, including the organizers of Society play.

And what would be my desires be? I can work with the rule either way.


The AP provides a rich set of materials to draw upon, and would be one option.

However, it seems like the LG (LK, LA) campaigns had so much more content because they had a larger distribution of power.

I never was involved in the writing/management side, so perhaps someone can correct me if I am wrong, but my impression of LG is that there were a number of people at several levels reviewing material. Material review and adoption operated under a much more peer based structure. Content, organization and promotion was left largely in the hands of the gamers, not the game manufacturers. Although it there was more centralization and standardization of material, there was much more of it and therefore a larger community. The RPGA in it's current incarnation seems to retain some elements of this in its adventure writing strategy.

Anyone involved on the writing/content side of previous campaigns care to chime in with their experiences?


Shieldknight wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:
Well maybe if not the entire adventure path themselves how about some of the set pieces that were in the Second Darkness and Legacy of Fire Ap's

I'm not sure how you would implement this without a lot of work. APs are designed to have long term plot lines. Even the short term plot lines are more than one session long.

I'm currently running Kingmaker, and I can see the possibility of taking the Bandits plot line in the first chapter and try to condense it down to a single session, but it would still be a lot of work. And by the time your done, you may have put enough time into it that you could have just wrote another PFS scenario instead. I don't know. ?

Here he's not referring to the full AP but smaller side-quests that were originally designed to fit into the AP's primary setting, but didn't necessarily need to be run as part of the AP (for example, in one case where the PCs are becoming a major power in a city the set-piece details a small adventure in a church they're unlikely to visit on their own to help flesh the place out.)

Liberty's Edge 4/5 Venture-Captain, Texas—San Antonio aka Dragnmoon

Benn Roe wrote:
It just winds up a giant mess. And true, that giant mess is partially inspired by the fact that replay was ever allowed, but the mess is made way larger by disallowing it now. The only thing I can think is to have people sign-up in advance for which nights they can make it, without knowing what mods are being played, and then we as a store will have to maintain a database of who has played what mods already and make the mod choices based on who can play what, but that will require so many devoted person-hours, I doubt very much we'll be able to keep the program free, which will still likely screw our attendance. And it still doesn't guarantee that a mod or two mods exist that everyone who've signed up will be able to play.

We sound like we have the same size player base, yours may be slightly bigger. Here in San Antonio we also only have 1 RPG store that can have in house games. The biggest difference is that We only play every other weekend and the PFS only started when I moved into town and started it back in June.

That said, I do exactly what you are saying would be to difficult to do. I keep a database of what all players (Including players out of town who only visit sometimes) have played and schedule my games accordingly. It really does not take that much work, the hardest part is getting the players to give you the info, some players it will be like pulling hair to get the info from them!

After I was able to get all the info I needed and got them all on the same site for organizing it was real easy to keep updated.

What I would suggest for you would be to step back from the coordinator roll and have one of your GMs or Players pick it up so it does not interfere with your Store Owner roll, then you won't have to feel you have to charge a fee.

You don't have to use this for how you guys are set up, But here is our page as an example of how we schedule Games (Forum), keep track of Characters (Character tab) and keep track of scenarios people have played (Wiki Tab).

Pathfinder Society San Antonio


bugleyman wrote:


Mods...yes please. I don't play enough to be in danger of running out of content, but I do play with some people in that boat. Plus, more options are always good.

I don't think Adventure Path Volumes would fare so well, at least not beyond the first.

I agree. I'm having a hard time picturing how well a whole AP would go that is "sanctioned," but individual adventures shouldn't be too difficult to create a set of rules for regarding Organized Play.

So I'm not really a fan of sanctioning APs, but certainly interested in sanctioned Pathfinder Modules.

Liberty's Edge

Lisa Stevens wrote:
Benn Roe wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:
One good thing though, Starting next month and every month after that they will always release at least one low level Scenario, though that won't fully help you it will at least give you one you can always run every month.
You're right! This is absolutely great planning on their part, and I was ecstatic when I read the blog about it. But the demand for how often we play at our store is just too great for this to be enough.

What if we sanctioned Pathfinder Modules and Pathfinder Adventure Paths? Would the addition of those longer adventures help to fill in the gap for those who are so committed that they blow through the new scenarios faster than I can blink?

-Lisa

This is what I was thinking when I started reading this. I have all these Pathfinder Modules that I subscribe to but not really plan on playing.

My group up here is still to small right now to be concerned about running out of material but was thinking a chronicle being made up for the Modules line might solve some of the issues.

Sean


Elyza wrote:
Lisa Stevens wrote:

What if we sanctioned Pathfinder Modules and Pathfinder Adventure Paths? Would the addition of those longer adventures help to fill in the gap for those who are so committed that they blow through the new scenarios faster than I can blink?

-Lisa

Yes! Please! In fact, I know of a coordinator and venture captain that was talking about that exact issue last month.

I hate that guy!

Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've posted on this topic before in this thread.

Those comments were from a player perspective. My opinion is pretty clear. The original poster in this thread has noted things from a store owner's perspective and a couple people have mentioned customers or have asked about bottom line at local game stores. I own a store and am willing to chime in on that perspective, as well, so here goes:

4th Edition D&D started out with a bang, drawing a ton of people into organized play. We filled tables faster than we could create space for them. Every one of those players was buying books, minis and accessories. They were customers, and life was good for all of us.

Slowly, insidiously, things changed to what they are now, two years later. Every Tuesday and Thursday I have the same group of 12 to 18 guys sitting in my store, playing the same mods they've already played, occupying the same space they've occupied for a year or more. There are never any new faces. They never buy books. They rarely buy accessories. They're no longer really customers.

Why? It's simple, really: they already own everything they need. And, due to the fact that they can replay any module we have on the schedule, they sign up for every game day we run. There are certain guys who have their emails set to receive notification the moment a schedule is posted and they jump on all the available spaces as soon as they get that notice. New players are never even given the chance to get a seat, because they usually go looking for a table for *tomorrow*. That table is full because we can't turn those other players away due to the fact that they're allowed to replay any scenario they want.

PFS is different. It thrives. It grows. I always have somewhere to send new players, because a spot will usually be available at one of the tables we run (I'm the store that Romulax plays at). It's available because all the hardcore players have either played the module and are patiently waiting for the next game day, when a mod they haven't played is being run, or they're GMing for this game day.

You know what happens when I get those new players all the time? They buy books.

At the LFR tables, when I have to tell new players that no space is available, invariably those players will delay their purchases, "...until I can get into a game." I try to guide those players into the idea of creating home games, and they all say they don't know enough people. I try to put them all together with each other to solve that problem, but it usually results in an awkward look of, "You expect me to play a home game with someone I don't know?" It's heartbreaking.

Meanwhile, PFS players are constantly rotating through new games with new players, meeting new people and coming up with new ideas all the time. I know of no less than 4 APs that have been launched or are about to launch in the last four weeks. All of those players started with PFS, bought their books from me, came back to buy their AP material, and come back regularly, still, to play PFS in games when they have not already played the modules we're offering. Better yet, they come back regularly to chat with me about the games they're playing. I love that part the most, because I usually have the chance to show them "the new hotness," which they often buy. (And, yes, I love the stories, too).

A thriving community is not a group of players who are ravenously consuming all that is offered to them FOR FREE after a single purchase at their local game store. A thriving community is one that continues to find new things to experience, continues to recruit new players to experience these new things with them, and continues to grow. In the last year, I estimate we have run somewhere around 200 tables' worth of games. Not once have we relied on replay to fill those seats. In almost every single case, new players purchased books.

Which business model do you want to be a part of?

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Drogon wrote:

I've posted on this topic before in this thread.

Those comments were from a player perspective. My opinion is pretty clear. The original poster in this thread has noted things from a store owner's perspective and a couple people have mentioned customers or have asked about bottom line at local game stores. I own a store and am willing to chime in on that perspective, as well, so here goes:

4th Edition D&D started out with a bang, drawing a ton of people into organized play. We filled tables faster than we could create space for them. Every one of those players was buying books, minis and accessories. They were customers, and life was good for all of us.

Slowly, insidiously, things changed to what they are now, two years later. Every Tuesday and Thursday I have the same group of 12 to 18 guys sitting in my store, playing the same mods they've already played, occupying the same space they've occupied for a year or more. There are never any new faces. They never buy books. They rarely buy accessories. They're no longer really customers.

Why? It's simple, really: they already own everything they need. And, due to the fact that they can replay any module we have on the schedule, they sign up for every game day we run. There are certain guys who have their emails set to receive notification the moment a schedule is posted and they jump on all the available spaces as soon as they get that notice. New players are never even given the chance to get a seat, because they usually go looking for a table for *tomorrow*. That table is full because we can't turn those other players away due to the fact that they're allowed to replay any scenario they want.

PFS is different. It thrives. It grows. I always have somewhere to send new players, because a spot will usually be available at one of the tables we run (I'm the store that Romulax plays at). It's available because...

+1 Said better than I could ever try.

Paizo Employee Director of Brand Strategy

Thanks for that perspective, Drogon. Your experience is the experience we want for all game stores that host PFS. What, if anything, did you do to foster the community you have playing there, and what would you suggest we do to encourage similar experiences in other places that may not have the same player/GM makeup as your store?


We should probably stop a moment to consider, from the game-store player's perspective, the positive benefits of the new replay rules:

-Play, Play, Play still applies, meaning a re-player cannot be turned away, even if the table minimum of three players has already been met.
-No more restrictions on having to play with a different PC working for a different faction; a re-player can use the PC that fits the table.
-A Chronicle-cookie if the re-player decides to step up and start GMing.
-Slower level advancement for the re-player's PC.

So, returning to the store owner's perspective, the new replay rules promote *more* tables, since every player can Just Play instead of dealing with You Can Play, With The Following Requirements That You May Or May Not Meet.

Sweet deal.

-Matt

Dark Archive 4/5

Wolfthulhu wrote:
Our players have never abused the PPP rules to begin with so your attempted jab is meaningless.

Our players haven't abused the PPP rules either. We select and prepare a few mods for every Monday (and we've run all of them at least once at this point, barring the twelfth-level mods and a few of the third or fourth chapters that have other mods as prerequisites), and when people show up, sometimes they've played all of them already. Because it has long been emphasized that it's never correct to turn away a player, and often in order to make a table or tables of legal sizes, it involves one or more players replaying mods. That's not abuse. We never set out or conspired to replay mods that had already been played. It's just the way things have worked out, and it's never been a problem for us.

And this comment wasn't meant as a jab at you, so I'm sorry if you interpreted it that way. You have a really soured perspective of replaying mods, which led me to believe you might've had some bad sports in your circles.

Wolfthulhu wrote:

But since a PFS rule change applies to everyone including Con players/GMs it's not as simple as looking at your or my microcosm. I do play and GM at Cons, so I couldn't 'close my eyes and make it go away' if I wanted to.

And I don't understand why your needs and desires should come before others, including the organizers of Society play.

I feel like I've been over this. I don't want my needs or desires to come before other people's. I feel like the policy as it existed until two weeks ago perfectly covered the different practical applications of the three major applications of the program: conventions, homes, and stores. At conventions, the vast quantity of tables meant PLAY, PLAY, PLAY rarely if ever needed to be used to justify replay. With more people, comes more tables, comes more options for who can play at which one. Conventions don't need replay, and the stipulations for replay pretty effectively barred replay from conventions. Home games are more regulated. There's normally a fairly standard group, and they have the ability to make policies of their own in addition to the official policies of Pathfinder Society. Normally speaking, home games don't need replay and again the stipulations of the replay policy meant they effectively didn't have it. Furthermore, if people at a particular home game felt passionately enough about it, they had the option of just barring replay altogether for their games. Problem solved. Many stores, on the other hand, suffer from the problems I've been describing: ie. small to medium, totally unpredictable turnouts. Those are exactly the circumstances that really need the replay rules as previously written.

How does that train of thought lead you to believe that I want some policy that only benefits myself and others in my situation? I want a policy that is fair to those in my situation, but which remains fair to those in other situations. And I really, really don't see how this opinion steps on the toes of the organizers of Pathfinder Society, as I haven't once asked for an increase in the output of written adventures. In fact, I've explicitly mentioned several times that I realize that isn't a possible outcome.

Chris Mortika wrote:
Kinda, sorta. But will it be just as fun for them when the next GM checks their sheets and either (a) docks them the prestige points they thought they had, or, worse, (b) rules that entire adventure illegal, and takes away the XP as well? Or are you assuming that nobody's going to check that the players have illegal characters now? How did you report the prestige?

The impression I've always gotten on these boards is that when a ruling like this is made on the fly because perfect information wasn't available that it stands. Several times I've asked, or seen it asked, if some players should be docked some gold because they may have accidentally had some over-granted, or some similar situation and the answer always seems to be "don't retroactively take things away from the players because of honest mistakes." I haven't run the mod since because I don't want to contradict my previous actions or set a precedent for doing what I did. Since it's a 1st-level only mod, it's not a huge loss, though I fully recognize the irony of my voluntarily retiring an available mod in light of my current complaints.

As for reporting it, I simply reported it. It allowed me to report the granted prestige.

MisterSlanky wrote:

Are you upset with the replay rule because your players are honestly upset and can't find an alternative, want to play PFS specifically/aren't willing to GM/<fill in the blank with a reason your players may be unhappy>, or are you unhappy with the ruling because you specifically are a game store owner and have a differing vested interest in Pathfinder Society play and how it affects your bottom line?

This isn't meant to be snarky or trollish, I'm honestly wondering how much of what you're saying can honestly be attributed to your players, and how much is you projecting your own fiscal desires upon the replay rule. It may be a difficult question to step back and answer honestly, but I think it's a fair question to ask.

That's absolutely a fair question. To be honest, the option of having replay doesn't make us any money, at least not on the surface. As Drogon, the other store owner with the long retort noted, it's actually the process of keeping people moving on from one activity to the next that makes the store money, not the process of keeping them fat and happy. I understand your need to ask such a question, and though its implications are kind of a bummer, I assure you my motivations are less to do with my fiscal bottom line and more to do with the happiness and well-being of the customers who enjoy this program (myself included, lest I sound too altruistic). Is this a profitable program? Nope. It's a fun one, though, and as a game store owner I'm charged with the dual nature (not always harmonious) of maintaining a certain bottom line and also providing the most fun I can possibly provide. The only financial profit PFS typically provides is five or ten dollars in soda sales and a couple of bucks worth of snacks.

Dragnmoon wrote:
What I would suggest for you would be to step back from the coordinator roll and have one of your GMs or Players pick it up so it does not interfere with your Store Owner roll, then you won't have to feel you have to charge a fee.

I'm familiar with Obsidian Portal, and it's a tool we may be able to take advantage of ourselves. Thanks for pointing me in the direction of yours, and I'll happily peruse it to see what ideas we can borrow from you. Part of the issue probably is that I'm player, GM, coordinator, and store owner, sure (although not always all at once). And I've admitted quite a few times now that it's clear our organizational system could stand to improve. I just worry that the improved organization will decrease turn-outs. That may prove to be a wrong assumption, but that's my fear. And I'll be happy to institute it and report back with my findings. Again, my biggest concern is that people who want to be playing Pathfinder Society are able to play as often as they'd like. For many, Monday nights have become somewhat of a social event, and they show up each week to hang out with friends and play Pathfinder Society. It just feels so wrong to me to ask them to sit it out.

Drogon wrote:

A thriving community is not a group of players who are ravenously consuming all that is offered to them FOR FREE after a single purchase at their local game store. A thriving community is one that continues to find new things to experience, continues to recruit new players to experience these new things with them, and continues to grow. In the last year, I estimate we have run somewhere around 200 tables' worth of games. Not once have we relied on replay to fill those seats. In almost every single case, new players purchased books.

Which business model do you want to be a part of?

I don't mean to sound rude, but it sounds like what you're describing is a thriving sales atmosphere, not necessarily a thriving community. I don't believe the two have to be mutually exclusive, and I 100% agree with the sentiment that there's more profit to be made if people keep hopping around from one focus to another, but I'm not really much of a business man. Don't get me wrong: I understand business, I just don't much like it. I have every intention of keeping my store afloat, but for me there is such a thing as enough money and I'm not in the market to exploit people for the sake of business.

Beyond that, it sounds like we have different situations, which is fine, and it doesn't mean we can't grow from one another, but I don't have the same space constraints it sounds like you have, and would never willingly turn down players for a program like this. The only events we ever "sell out" and turn people away from are Magic prereleases, and that's because we literally aren't able to receive more product than it takes to seat 72 people for each event. You clearly have a better system for keeping people organized and if my turnouts for Pathfinder were big and consistent enough that I could pick mods in advance and still had to turn people away, I'd absolutely adopt it, and of course nobody would have to replay anything. As it stands, I don't know if I'm getting six people or sixteen, and with everyone who shows up having all played different mods in the past, I sometimes can't find available mods that none of them have played.

Again, the quantity of mods issue is a concern and I can't for the life of me understand why mods are being retired so early, but that's all really secondary to the fact that when two people (and this is a simplification) have each played 30 mods and only five of those are in common with one another, there aren't a whole lot of mods they can both play together. This issue becomes easier the more people show up, but when there are only enough people for a single table, it can cause some serious problems. I don't want to turn people away when they've come out for Pathfinder, and I've always believed that Paizo is on board with that position. I feel this way not as a store owner, but as a program coordinator.

Also, for the record, though many of my Pathfinder and D&D players alike show up for the games and do very little in the way of spending, we also have many individuals in both boats who buy new books as they come out, and we do quite a lot of business selling minis to our players for each new character as they come up with them. I do think it's possible for people to be both happy with the state of things and also meaningfully contributive. We don't do a lot of adventure selling, but we sell a lot of the rulebooks and minis, as well as some of the fluffier supplements.


"edited since benn just covered almost everything i wanted to say"

Instead of replay why don't we have a system akin to the living forgotten realms "myrealms" for making up our own adventures? Our 4e players hate the idea of replaying mods and we run myrealms A LOT. As long as we keep adventure records free of special items I don't see why it can't be used. I hate the idea of replaying a mod but I hate the idea of telling a player they can't have fun with us more.

Dark Archive 4/5

wepv is one of my business partners, just so it's clear that he's talking about the same store as I am (Redcap's Corner).

Shadow Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Southwest

I have to call out the elephant I see in the room.

It seems that some people are only equating fun with receiving a chronicle.

Players can still replay for the fun of the module, for the fun of the challenge, for the fun if the other people across the table.

The change to the replay rules effects none of these. It only states that you can only ever get 1 chronicle for playing.

(This post is not directed at any one in specific but rather is a response to an underlying belief latent in many posts)

The Exchange

I game because it's fun plain and simple. I started GMing for my fellowhip because my home society group out-paced the monthly fellowship, so the logical step for me was to start GMing for more than just my home society group.

Replay is an option in my opinion only if you need to make a legal table, not to get more loots for a new character. I've re-played mods just for the fun of playing them because they were kick-a** mods and I enjoy the socialization of gaming as opposed to spending another Saturday cooped up with my Spanish homework.

I don't want to discount what the gamestore owners are saying, however, I really do think that the players would still show up if mods were advertised ahead of time -- perhaps a store policy of seating those who haven't played it first and then up front stating those who have can play it but won't be getting a chronicle.If they want another chronicle they can judge it instead.

All that said, +1 for the new replay rules

Liberty's Edge 4/5 Venture-Captain, Texas—San Antonio aka Dragnmoon

Eric Brittain wrote:


It seems that some people are only equating fun with receiving a chronicle.

For some people it is. I know I have a few players that would not play if they did not get a chronicle out of it, Though I am far from having to worry about that.

Grand Lodge

I've been taking a few months off of PFS simply because I had run through so many adventures it was getting difficult to play in games I had not already played.

I know that at the monthly PFS game in our town it seemed like we were having trouble running scenarios for several people without repeating.

Ultimately though I suppose someone somewhere needs to define exactly what is the goal/purpose of PFS. In this topic alone I have seen at least two "purposes." Is it in fact a last resort effort to get people playing Pathfinder, and if so, as a last resort, really should anyone care that much about what happens? Is it simply a tool to drive players to APs where the real money is, and again, if that is the case, why should anyone really care about PFS?

I know that I would be VERY interested in having all of the modules become open for play. The APs would be more difficult in an "organized" setting, but ideal for home settings. And to be honest, I have no problem at all allowing APs be open to PFS, because if the real goal of PFS is to get people playing and having fun, then it is great to open up the PREMIER games to PFS.


Krome wrote:

I've been taking a few months off of PFS simply because I had run through so many adventures it was getting difficult to play in games I had not already played.

I know that at the monthly PFS game in our town it seemed like we were having trouble running scenarios for several people without repeating.

Ultimately though I suppose someone somewhere needs to define exactly what is the goal/purpose of PFS. In this topic alone I have seen at least two "purposes." Is it in fact a last resort effort to get people playing Pathfinder, and if so, as a last resort, really should anyone care that much about what happens? Is it simply a tool to drive players to APs where the real money is, and again, if that is the case, why should anyone really care about PFS?

I know that I would be VERY interested in having all of the modules become open for play. The APs would be more difficult in an "organized" setting, but ideal for home settings. And to be honest, I have no problem at all allowing APs be open to PFS, because if the real goal of PFS is to get people playing and having fun, then it is great to open up the PREMIER games to PFS.

One of the headaches that comes to mind with having APs as "legal" would be having the odd player or two that go to RandomCon and pick up a couple of levels on the rest of the regular campaign players, for example.

Then again, when I'm running a full blown campaign I'm probably too anal to give up my own houserules and control to use OP rules.


Eric Brittain wrote:

I have to call out the elephant I see in the room.

It seems that some people are only equating fun with receiving a chronicle.

Players can still replay for the fun of the module, for the fun of the challenge, for the fun if the other people across the table.

The change to the replay rules effects none of these. It only states that you can only ever get 1 chronicle for playing.

(This post is not directed at any one in specific but rather is a response to an underlying belief latent in many posts)

Actually, this isn't right under the current ruling. The proper way to do it is, in fact, to issue the Chronicle sheet. The GM should cross off the XP, Gold, and Prestige lines and note that it's a replay, along with writing down any expenditures and, of course, whether the PC died.

While I'd be happy to replay for no extra reward, the fact that I'm forced to weaken my character to do so is enough disincentive that I'll walk from a table first.


Chris Kenney wrote:


While I'd be happy to replay for no extra reward, the fact that I'm forced to weaken my character to do so is enough disincentive that I'll walk from a table first.

One can always play a pre-gen though.

Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

Mark Moreland wrote:
What, if anything, did you do to foster the community you have playing there?

Honestly? Treated it as a business rather than a hobby.

Like most businesses, it started small and grew to where it is now. We made the experience the best experience you could find in the metro area, and made sure to get feedback and find out what we could improve, even though we felt we offered the best.

When people come in to look at Pathfinder, we are right there talking to them about what the product is like. We make sure they fully understand what each part is (Chronicle, Companion, Adventure Path, RPG books, and how the accessories like flip-mats and Gamemastery Cards link into those lines). We make sure they know they can sit in at a PFS game to get a feel for what Golarion is.

We do sign-up tables, only, and regularly update where we stand in terms of seats that are filled and/or available. This accomplishes two things: it makes a player fully aware of the fact that they have a spot, and it allows us to be generally aware of who has played what module. Spots are coveted, and we always have a list of players waiting to step in and take a spot if someone was unable to show up.

We never overfill the tables, nor do we try to run more tables than what we put on the schedule. This is not because we're trying to be "elitist." It's because we have other games and events that are run in the store that get the same treatment. When my organizer (Dave) last asked me to add another table I had to tell him, "No. We don't have the space." And that's a good thing. If we did have the space, I'd still have said no, because *eventually* I will want to fill it with something else. If I don't those other games' sales will die, too. It's a business; I can't have that happen.

We charge $2 per player for a table. We use that money to buy the GM a gift certificate. This accomplishes a couple things: 1 - It is revenue for the store (I'll just get the obvious one out of the way). However, 2 - It rewards the GM for taking the time to run a good game. He can use the gift certificate to buy more books, accessories, or just pay for his food (we're a coffee shop and cafe, as well). It makes people *want* to be a GM. Getting credit for the module they run is just gravy for our GMs.

We have a "learn to play Pathfinder" night. We run Master of the Fallen Fortress on the third Thursday every month, specifically for new players. There is no sign up for this one, and it only goes off about every other month. But we NEVER take it off the schedule, and the entire staff knows to push new players toward that date. (It's also Learn to Play D&D day, just so you know that we don't discriminate).

We mentor GMs. We have set up sessions that "teach" the art of GMing. We want our customers' experience to be the best, so we make sure that our GMs are the best they can be. For that brief period of time, they're our employees. After all, they represent us at that table, and at *any* table, it is the GM that will make or break a game.

I make a concerted effort to work with other stores. My coordinator tries to coordinate our schedules with other stores so that we're not all flooding the players with one particular module. I have gone to other stores to run and play games in their store, making sure that players know we're not just in this for our own good.

Last, I have a list of "go-to" players. These are the guys I know I can get to join a game on a moment's notice in order to get an impromptu table to fire. These are also the guys I can go to on a game night and say, "Hey, I have a brand-new player who just walked in, and I don't have a spot for him. Do you mind giving yours up?" I can't stress how important this is. I make sure to treat those guys particularly well.

I think if I merely treated it like a hobby, none of that would happen, and I wouldn't have the store that I have.

I'm sure Dave will chime in with things that I missed, if he thinks of them. And, now that I think of it, that's one more thing: I have a coordinator who is *not* me (the store operator), and I have a very open communication with him. I need to know what his problems are, and vice versa, and we both make sure to keep it that way.

Denver is not nearly the size of some of the other cities that have been listed. It also has five stores actively offering PFS game days, meaning I have active competition. So, I know that this can be done in other cities. It just requires work.

Mark Moreland wrote:
What would you suggest we do to encourage similar experiences in other places that may not have the same player/GM makeup as your store?

Treat it like the business it is. Someone suggested that you pick a model and stick with it. They're right. When you do, work up a plan for stores to grow their community, and give them that plan to enact. If they want to be successful, they'll do it.

Do you need more low level modules? Yes. Could you ease off on the retirements and ramp up the releases/rewrites, instead? Yes. I understand that you have limited resources and manpower, so I understand why you don't, right now. But you probably ought to have a plan to do so in the near future, because your player base is growing swiftly. But that was the plan, right?

The MyRealms idea suggested by wepv, by the way, is intriguing.

Benn Roe wrote:
I don't mean to sound rude, but it sounds like what you're describing is a thriving sales atmosphere, not necessarily a thriving community. I don't believe the two have to be mutually exclusive, and I 100% agree with the sentiment that there's more profit to be made if people keep hopping around from one focus to another, but I'm not really much of a business man. Don't get me wrong: I understand business, I just don't much like it. I have every intention of keeping my store afloat, but for me there is such a thing as enough money and I'm not in the market to exploit people for the sake of business.

Multiple things leap to mind.

First, no, they're not mutually exclusive, and my store is proof of that, with multiple games. I enjoy them all, I have a good relationship with my customers (I think) and I will never pressure them to buy. Nor will I exploit them. Never. The only point where you were rude was when you implied that I do, merely because I sell things.

Second: you don't like business? Then why did you open a store? I hope it's not just so you could get a discount on your hobby, or partake in your those hobbies to the detriment of your store. Because by building a thriving store, you're providing a place for the community you build. Yes, you should get to take advantage of that community's existence and play every now and then, but if your store only exists for yourself, then the exploitation is yours.

Krome wrote:
Ultimately though I suppose someone somewhere needs to define exactly what is the goal/purpose of PFS.

I really do hope that everyone knows that any company who makes games does organized events to sell their product. Multiple Paizo employees have said many times that PFS exists to drive sales for their product. If Paizo were a charity, we wouldn't have the game we love so much.

Last:

Mattastrophic wrote:

We should probably stop a moment to consider, from the game-store player's perspective, the positive benefits of the new replay rules:

-Play, Play, Play still applies, meaning a re-player cannot be turned away, even if the table minimum of three players has already been met.
-No more restrictions on having to play with a different PC working for a different faction; a re-player can use the PC that fits the table.
-A Chronicle-cookie if the re-player decides to step up and start GMing.
-Slower level advancement for the re-player's PC.

So, returning to the store owner's perspective, the new replay rules promote *more* tables, since every player can Just Play instead of dealing with You Can Play, With The Following Requirements That You May Or May Not Meet.

Sweet deal.

and

Thea Peters wrote:
I game because it's fun plain and simple.

I 100% agree. And still, neither of these is mutually exclusive.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau aka Arnim Thayer

Since I feel kind of responsible for the changes made, I couldn't stay clear of this thread.

I think the OP has a valid point, no more or less than those who dislike the idea of replay. A balance point has to be reached between "Play X3" and "Replay" as well as the GM Rewards system.

I organize PFS play for my FLGS and already we are seeing a slow down in PFS participation. This is not from a lack of enthusiasm, but from a lack of available scenarios that a player hasn't been through. As more product becomes available (APG, I'm looking at you!), players are abandoning characters they have played previously for new concepts and available resources. This has led to a need for more low-level scenarios... that they haven't played before, since they can only get credit as a player once under the new rules. Even before the change, most players had a favorite faction that they didn't want to abandon, so the problem was the same. Under the "Replay Rules", they were able to play again, with a different faction, but most players would wait for a scenario they hadn't been through before despite this.

At my FLGS, we have Season 0 scenarios that have NEVER BEEN RUN, because players don't have a character high enough to play them; they have multiple characters that can play through the available ones and are having fun doing it... without a lot of replay unless they are helping out a newbie get started. For example, last weekend we had scheduled a Tier 5-9 scenario but only two players showed up, with a third having only a level 4 character. A newbie came in with a 1st level character that hadn't seen play before, so we pulled a scenario from the files that he could go through and we (all having a secondary low-tier character) could play without worrying about it being a replay. This resulted in a 15 minute search for one that ALL of us experienced players did not have. Finally, we tracked one down that we could all play, but all of that could have been avoided if we could have just grabbed one and replayed it without consequence.

I understand that those of you reading this wonder why it is so important for us players to receive a Chronicle credit... it is not out of greed for credit, but because WE PAY FOR THE ROOM that PFS is played in ($3 per person to be exact) and would like to have some reward for our money; a reward covered under the old system by a Chronicle. This cost pays for the scenarios (that the store purchases), and the printing (Again, the store pays for) as well as handouts, faction mission sheets, and the printing of the Chronicles themselves. I know not every store uses this model for PFS play, but that is how it is done at our store... and without complaint for going on three years.

I agree that there are those that will milk the system to get the best for each of their characters, but they are rare. The current system promotes players to become GMs and that is fine, the old system brought the same players back again, but allowed them to mix with newer players to bring both experience (with both Pathfinder rules and PFS) to those new to the game without making them feel like they were "behind the curve" in the game. A balance between the two needs to be found... and retiring so many scenarios is NOT the answer!


Drogon wrote:

We do sign-up tables, only, and regularly update where we stand in terms of seats that are filled and/or available. This accomplishes two things: it makes a player fully aware of the fact that they have a spot, and it allows us to be generally aware of who has played what module. Spots are coveted, and we always have a list of players waiting to step in and take a spot if someone was unable to show up.

We never overfill the tables, nor do we try to run more tables than what we put on the schedule. This is not because we're trying to be "elitist." It's because we have other games and events that are run in the store that get the same treatment. When my organizer (Dave) last asked me to add another table I had to tell him, "No. We don't have the space." And that's a good thing. If we did have the space, I'd still have said no, because *eventually* I will want to fill it with something else. If I don't those other games' sales will die, too. It's a business; I can't have that happen.

Thank you for bringing some of these points up. Its kind of a concern I have over the comments I have heard about "Play, Play, Play." I understand the intent, but honestly, if you end up "bending" the rules and going past the "hard ceiling" of 7, the session can bog down, the GM may not be at his best, so it seems to be sacrificing a quality session for the sake of just saying you seated someone.

Also, whenever I saw someone say "just form another table if you have enough," I was thinking, "that's fine, but I run these at my friend's game shop . . . he's got to approve a second table, its not up to me to just create a new table."

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau aka Arnim Thayer

The post by Drogon has a lot of good points. I will have to point my FLGS owner to this thread for consideration. Thanks!

And yes, the owner of my FLGS does reward his GMs in a similar manner... a discount on PF and Gamemastery products that make it worth our while as well as keeps us supplied with what we need to run a good PFS session.


Just to speak to the point of scenario retirements, and not making a statement as to which is right and which is wrong, I've reached the point of being extremely reluctant to play any Season 0 modules at all unless I know the GM has prepped extensively. I also won't run them, period.

Why? Because the 'field conversion' guidelines are so inconsistent that I literally have no clue what I'm sitting down for. There are modules where a monster was tweaked in PFRPG, but the module assumes the PCs can exploit a weakness that no longer exists. There is at least one case where the module uses Spiked Chains to put PCs in a terrible situation where absolutely nothing about the encounter works the same way between the two games. I could go on.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau aka Arnim Thayer

Chris Kenney wrote:
There is at least one case where the module uses Spiked Chains to put PCs in a terrible situation where absolutely nothing about the encounter works the same way between the two games. I could go on.

I changed it to a Guisarme when I ran it... same damage, same effect (Reach and Trip) and same feel as the original intent with the spiked chain. No other changes needed. Hope that helps!


Arnim Thayer wrote:
Chris Kenney wrote:
There is at least one case where the module uses Spiked Chains to put PCs in a terrible situation where absolutely nothing about the encounter works the same way between the two games. I could go on.
I changed it to a Guisarme when I ran it... same damage, same effect (Reach and Trip) and same feel as the original intent with the spiked chain. No other changes needed. Hope that helps!

Well, no. Because that's exactly what you must not do. You can't actually change anything about any encounter, and must run AW rather than AI. Except to make the encounter PF rules-compliant. Although in the case of creature stat blocks you're supposed to use the SRD monster. But sometimes you're supposed to use the Bestiary. And no, they won't tell you which is which, you have to use your best judgment.

(And I don't have access to a 3.5 MM, which has quite a lot to do with why I won't run, admittedly.)

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau aka Arnim Thayer

Chris Kenney wrote:

Well, no. Because that's exactly what you must not do. You can't actually change anything about any encounter, and must run AW rather than AI. Except to make the encounter PF rules-compliant. Although in the case of creature stat blocks you're supposed to use the SRD monster. But sometimes you're supposed to use the Bestiary. And no, they won't tell you which is which, you have to use your best judgment.

(And I don't have access to a 3.5 MM, which has quite a lot to do with why I won't run, admittedly.)

I understand what you are saying... about the inconsistency in conversion from GM to GM. Truly, the only things that are needed to be changed "allegedly' are the addition of CMB and CMD, but this alone won't always work. This is probably a discussion for another thread though. If you start it, I will gladly and constructively participate.


Arnim Thayer wrote:
Chris Kenney wrote:

Well, no. Because that's exactly what you must not do. You can't actually change anything about any encounter, and must run AW rather than AI. Except to make the encounter PF rules-compliant. Although in the case of creature stat blocks you're supposed to use the SRD monster. But sometimes you're supposed to use the Bestiary. And no, they won't tell you which is which, you have to use your best judgment.

(And I don't have access to a 3.5 MM, which has quite a lot to do with why I won't run, admittedly.)

I understand what you are saying... about the inconsistency in conversion from GM to GM. Truly, the only things that are needed to be changed "allegedly' are the addition of CMB and CMD, but this alone won't always work. This is probably a discussion for another thread though. If you start it, I will gladly and constructively participate.

Honestly, for purposes of this thread I think I've made the point. The reasoning behind the whole process has little to do with scenario availability. It really has more to do with how, at this time many of the S0 modules can be percieved as poor products. And with inconsistent field conversions not yielding the results they wanted, the decision was made to do it themselves.

Which left the Paizo guys with another issue - they didn't have the manpower to do those conversions in anything resembling a timely fashion. So, using whatever criteria they've chosen (honestly, as far as I can tell they're getting James Jacobs drunk and having him toss darts at a wall) they pick which ones will go under the editor's pen. Those that don't make the cut are retired.

Paizo Employee Director of Brand Strategy

Chris Kenney wrote:
Arnim Thayer wrote:
Chris Kenney wrote:
There is at least one case where the module uses Spiked Chains to put PCs in a terrible situation where absolutely nothing about the encounter works the same way between the two games. I could go on.
I changed it to a Guisarme when I ran it... same damage, same effect (Reach and Trip) and same feel as the original intent with the spiked chain. No other changes needed. Hope that helps!

Well, no. Because that's exactly what you must not do. You can't actually change anything about any encounter, and must run AW rather than AI. Except to make the encounter PF rules-compliant. Although in the case of creature stat blocks you're supposed to use the SRD monster. But sometimes you're supposed to use the Bestiary. And no, they won't tell you which is which, you have to use your best judgment.

(And I don't have access to a 3.5 MM, which has quite a lot to do with why I won't run, admittedly.)

This is exactly why we're in the process of converting season 0 scenarios now and will release them as soon as possible. And why we're retiring season 0 scenarios that will not be converted for whatever reason. We would prefer people playing Pathfinder (possibly for the first time) play with scenarios native to the Pathfinder rules system, and which were developed by Paizo and not converted on the fly.


Chris Kenney wrote:
Arnim Thayer wrote:
Chris Kenney wrote:

Well, no. Because that's exactly what you must not do. You can't actually change anything about any encounter, and must run AW rather than AI. Except to make the encounter PF rules-compliant. Although in the case of creature stat blocks you're supposed to use the SRD monster. But sometimes you're supposed to use the Bestiary. And no, they won't tell you which is which, you have to use your best judgment.

(And I don't have access to a 3.5 MM, which has quite a lot to do with why I won't run, admittedly.)

I understand what you are saying... about the inconsistency in conversion from GM to GM. Truly, the only things that are needed to be changed "allegedly' are the addition of CMB and CMD, but this alone won't always work. This is probably a discussion for another thread though. If you start it, I will gladly and constructively participate.

Honestly, for purposes of this thread I think I've made the point. The reasoning behind the whole process has little to do with scenario availability. It really has more to do with how, at this time many of the S0 modules can be percieved as poor products. And with inconsistent field conversions not yielding the results they wanted, the decision was made to do it themselves.

Which left the Paizo guys with another issue - they didn't have the manpower to do those conversions in anything resembling a timely fashion. So, using whatever criteria they've chosen (honestly, as far as I can tell they're getting James Jacobs drunk and having him toss darts at a wall) they pick which ones will go under the editor's pen. Those that don't make the cut are retired.

This is only sort of related to the topic, but I feel they should have waited til all of the Season 2 scenarios were out and then retired all of Season 0 at one time, and then taken the time to properly convert the ones worth converting to PRPG rules and re-release them. This way you would still have had two full seasons of scenarios available for play.

Scarab Sages

Lisa Stevens wrote:
Benn Roe wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:
One good thing though, Starting next month and every month after that they will always release at least one low level Scenario, though that won't fully help you it will at least give you one you can always run every month.
You're right! This is absolutely great planning on their part, and I was ecstatic when I read the blog about it. But the demand for how often we play at our store is just too great for this to be enough.

What if we sanctioned Pathfinder Modules and Pathfinder Adventure Paths? Would the addition of those longer adventures help to fill in the gap for those who are so committed that they blow through the new scenarios faster than I can blink?

-Lisa

I would absolutely support something like this. I suspect that conversion of the APs would be a difficult proposition, but that'd be up to the Paizo staff to determine.

Also, this would finally inspire me to buy Pathfinder modules. At this time, I'm a subscriber to the APs and purchase Society scenarios, but the individual modules have little appeal when making choices about my gaming budget. If they were to have immediate applicability, I would jump on them.

Liberty's Edge

I coordinate PFS at a store in the Denver area. With anywhere from 12 to 20 scenario's a month, scheduling can be a little tricky.

First of all - I am not in support of open replay. I believe it would take the fun and the mystery out of the game. We only used replay with a couple of folks to make a legal table. Most of them didn't want a chronicle sheet for it anyway. The new play/GM for credit doesn't have much impact on us.

Now that some of the crowd has been playing for a while, I try to schedule higher Tier scenario's. In December - We will run one lower Tier (1-5 or 1-7), a 5-9 and a 7-11 for each game day.

The lack of lower level scenario's is a bummer, but we can work around it for now.

Here is why we have been successful:

We don't try to accomidate every player, every week. Some weeks certain players have to sit out, or they can GM. Our players understand this and it is not a big deal (although I do try to make sure that they don't have to sit out more than once a month).

We schedule games ahead of time (2-4 weeks) and people can sign up then. We schedule six players per table. I do try to provide new players an opportunity at the 1-2 sub tier table. We usually have a drop or two and the walk ins can take spots as they are available. We have had to turn players away. We did not have enough room for another table and we try to avoid seven player tables. For those turned away, I give them a sneak peek at the upcoming schedule (planned out for two months) and let them sign up early.

So to answer the questions of the original poster:
I hear you and I feel some of your pain, but I suggest the following.

1) Try to rotate the GMs so more people can get additional credit if that is what they seek. If they are not very comfortable or good at GMing, then help them out a bit. They may be a great GM someday if we give them a chance.

2) Use a schedule for sign ups. Either hang one in your store or use a Yahoo group or Warhorn.

3) Try to schedule one higher level scenario and one lower level once your player base is up to 5th.

4) Encourage new players to try it out. Maybe some kind of promotion to get new players in the door. We average 1 to 4 new players a month. We had 5 in October. Your community needs to keep recruiting. Once the player base grows, some of the issues go away (although they will be replaced by fresh new issues)!

5. Consider having a GM run a Paizo Module for newbies to try the game out. Hallows Last Hope or something.

Enjoy and know that things can be worked out without replay (for credit). Thanks!

Dave

Dark Archive 4/5

Eric Brittain wrote:

It seems that some people are only equating fun with receiving a chronicle.

Players can still replay for the fun of the module, for the fun of the challenge, for the fun if the other people across the table.

I don't think anybody believes that the fun of playing comes from receiving a chronicle. But what I personally believe is that any damage born of replay is done whether or not a chronicle is issued, so allowing replay without allowing for any of the benefits of having played is just a slap in the face. It just feels weird and punitive, even though it's fun for the player to play either way.

KnightErrantJR wrote:
Also, whenever I saw someone say "just form another table if you have enough," I was thinking, "that's fine, but I run these at my friend's game shop . . . he's got to approve a second table, its not up to me to just create a new table."

If it was me you saw say that, I either misspoke or you misinterpreted. What I believe I said, and certainly what I intended to say, was that that's the way I solve issues at my store because I have the space to do so. I fully realize that not every store has the space. We're lucky enough to have a remarkably large play area, we don't overstuff our calendar with too many events on the same days, and we always give table priority to scheduled events.

Drogon wrote:
First, no, they're not mutually exclusive, and my store is proof of that, with multiple games. I enjoy them all, I have a good relationship with my customers (I think) and I will never pressure them to buy. Nor will I exploit them. Never. The only point where you were rude was when you implied that I do, merely because I sell things.

My apologies. I didn't mean to imply that you were responsible for those practices, only that what you had described up until that point still allowed for those practices and that they certainly weren't anything I was interested in pursuing. Again, I'm sorry if I sounded accusatory. I knew it was going to be difficult to word what I wanted to say, which is why I prefaced it with the rudeness warning.

Your store sounds really well managed, and I hope I can make it out to Denver to check it out some time. I disagree with the way you handle a lot of things, and part of that might be my inexperience, but I have a huge respect for the people in this business that treat their customers well and provide the community space so important to keep gaming thriving. Kudos!

One question, though: Is your D&D still operating the way you described? Are there no steps you can take to prevent that from happening? Change the way you do sign-ups, for instance, or just explain to the people who are hogging the spots that they need to let others have a turn, and if they continue to sign up every week, manually drop them from the spots?

Drogon wrote:
Second: you don't like business? Then why did you open a store? I hope it's not just so you could get a discount on your hobby, or partake in your those hobbies to the detriment of your store. Because by building a thriving store, you're providing a place for the community you build. Yes, you should get to take advantage of that community's existence and play every now and then, but if your store only exists for yourself, then the exploitation is yours.

I opened a store because I wanted to foster a community for gamers, and opening a store was the only way I reasoned I could make a living doing so. That doesn't mean I don't also treat it like a business, but it does mean that I carefully and frequently check myself to make sure I'm not embracing the dark side of business. Nothing worse than a business sith-lord, after all. And yes, part of my motivation for wanting to grow a community is so I would have that community to personally be a part of, but I know as well as you do, that the longevity of the plan has to come before my own gaming wants and desires in many instances. I rarely get to play Magic anymore, for instance.

Dark Archive 4/5 Venture-Captain, Special Projects—Discord

Chris Kenney wrote:
Eric Brittain wrote:

I have to call out the elephant I see in the room.

It seems that some people are only equating fun with receiving a chronicle.

Players can still replay for the fun of the module, for the fun of the challenge, for the fun if the other people across the table.

The change to the replay rules effects none of these. It only states that you can only ever get 1 chronicle for playing.

(This post is not directed at any one in specific but rather is a response to an underlying belief latent in many posts)

Actually, this isn't right under the current ruling. The proper way to do it is, in fact, to issue the Chronicle sheet. The GM should cross off the XP, Gold, and Prestige lines and note that it's a replay, along with writing down any expenditures and, of course, whether the PC died.

While I'd be happy to replay for no extra reward, the fact that I'm forced to weaken my character to do so is enough disincentive that I'll walk from a table first.

From my understanding, no chronicle sheet for replaying means no chronicle sheet at all, so you can replay without risk of death or expenditure.

Dark Archive 4/5

Nah, I'm pretty positive I noticed Hyrum or Mark mention that you still risked character death and/or loss of property by sitting down to play at a table where you would receive no credit.

1/5

Todd Morgan wrote:
From my understanding, no chronicle sheet for replaying means no chronicle sheet at all, so you can replay without risk of death or expenditure.

That seems like a good idea at first, but upon reflection seems problematic (at least to me).


Todd Morgan wrote:
Chris Kenney wrote:
Eric Brittain wrote:

I have to call out the elephant I see in the room.

It seems that some people are only equating fun with receiving a chronicle.

Players can still replay for the fun of the module, for the fun of the challenge, for the fun if the other people across the table.

The change to the replay rules effects none of these. It only states that you can only ever get 1 chronicle for playing.

(This post is not directed at any one in specific but rather is a response to an underlying belief latent in many posts)

Actually, this isn't right under the current ruling. The proper way to do it is, in fact, to issue the Chronicle sheet. The GM should cross off the XP, Gold, and Prestige lines and note that it's a replay, along with writing down any expenditures and, of course, whether the PC died.

While I'd be happy to replay for no extra reward, the fact that I'm forced to weaken my character to do so is enough disincentive that I'll walk from a table first.

From my understanding, no chronicle sheet for replaying means no chronicle sheet at all, so you can replay without risk of death or expenditure.

The Campaign Coordinator says otherwise. Issuing a no-credit chronicle sheet would be the only way to track that.

5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson aka Sir_Wulf

I've seen some mild replay abuse at Society events, a player who showed up at every game, despite knowing the scheduled scenarios were ones she had played. Her behavior was not very problematic, as she was careful not to abuse her knowledge and kept her prior knowledge to herself.

I've seen more severe replay abuse by a teenaged Living Forgotten Realms enthusiast, who told other players which characters to bring to games, complained about roleplaying scenes that kept him from getting to fight right away, and generally used his familiarity with the scenario to throw his weight around. He ruined any wonder or mystery the scenario held for other players. I don't feel that this irritating munchkin's antisocial behavior is necessarily a mark against the LFR campaign itself: His GM and the event coordinators should have ordered him to stand down instead of ignoring his bad behavior.

To provide flexibility without facilitating abuse, perhaps players could be permitted credit for a limited number of replays, such as eight or ten per year, or once each month. This would accommodate the occasional need to build a table without encouraging abuse of the system.

The Exchange

In reading this thread (And I'll be honest, I've not played PFS as much as I'd have liked), I found Awesome CEO Lisa's reply interesting.

Reading thru, you have arguments about fun, arguments about how one rule or another being changed will cause problems for a store, or people, and some arguments about play style.

But what made Lisa's reply interesting to me was that it wasn't about the Replay Rule, but the reason the Replay Rule exists: There are places where there is enough of an active PFS crowd to support more scenarios.

It seems to me the Replay Rule was instituted to ensure that enough people like ME, who DON'T get to play regularly, can walk into a FLGS on game night, and there should be a scenario I can play in AND that the night wasn't cancelled because there was nothing the regulars are allowed to play (Though I would personally complain at ANY player who was doing a replay and told us what was coming up next. Bad form.)

Adding the Pathfinder Modules? probably quite a good plan. Maybe there could even be a $1 PDF that the GM could download before the game that has faction tasks in it, seeing as those aren't part of the base product.

Maybe RPG Superstar should have a new task in it: Draft up a PFS Scenario

So Lisa is trying to find the solutions to the problem, not the secondary symptom of the problem.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ash_Gazn wrote:
Maybe RPG Superstar should have a new task in it: Draft up a PFS Scenario

That is a damn good idea and I'd love to see it happen.

Scarab Sages

So if a player gets a scenario sheet for second replay, with no credit this opens some questions.

It would seem to be that since the character expends consumables and has the risk of dying that they should get a scenario sheet, but no prestige point(s), no experience point, no gold, (jumping to a conclusion here) no boons, and drawbacks are cloudy.

Another thing that would be unclear is if the character could buy anything off the sheet.

I present this as questions not as assumption of procedure.

(Some might question why a person would need to get a sheet if thier character was dead, death in many ways is just a condition that is waiting to be cleared in PFS :P)

Sovereign Court

It's unfortunate to hear that this rule has changed. I really liked the rule as it gave the flexibility needed to have everyone play at a session without a lot of fuss. From what I saw I wasn't seeing any abuse of the replay rules, instead it allowed for regulars and new players to easily mix things up and play together, rather than have two balkanized groups, one the vets who were too high level to play down and the newbs who would forever be behind the vets in level.

I could see there being no need for replays if there was an abundance of modules available at all levels, but right now there aren't enough to go around, so cutting this approach short until there is a healthy supply seems a bit hasty.

In my own particular situation, I'd be driving a hour, one way, to get to a bi-weekly game of PFS, and if I showed up and was stuck replaying without any credit or having to play a pre-gen then I'd have to limit my participation to GMing.

I know there is this sentiment that you're supposed to unconditionally devoted to playing for the sake of playing, but I'll happily say that for living campaigns getting a chronicle sheet is a major incentive to be playing. I'm no ravenous munchkin bent on sucking the life out of the game, but the point of D&D going back to the elder days was to kill things and take their stuff. It's about power accumulation. I don't know any gamers who would play regular homebrew Pathfinder sessions who would go for several sessions without getting stuff for their character, or at least not without the expectation that the payoff will be bigger during the lull in loot and xp accumulation.

Cons I see as a different environment. People shell out a lot of money for these weekends and so they'll dive into as much gaming as possible, be they one shots, replays, etc. But for store based gaming you really need a lot of flexibility, particularly if you have people traveling from far away to participate.

I don't see replays as the ultimate solution, but until we have bucket loads of modules to run fresh games every time it seems like it was functioning as a good lubricant to make sure the PFS community continues to grow and thrive as new and old players play and connect with each other.

I'd love to see APs get a PFS patch applied to them. I've never played one, and I suspect I'd never get around to playing any unless I was getting living campaign credit. I'm just too much of a homebrewer to want to invest the time in prepackaged material UNLESS it allows me to take that character and use it in a modular fashion, playing anywhere in the world in a shared campaign.

The Exchange

Perhaps I'm missing something, but when did they change the replay rule and where can I read about it?
My 3.0.2 copy of the GtPFSOP seems to still say a different character of a different faction can still get credit but this should only happen to fulfill minimum table requirements.
I'm also not saying I have a problem with the new ruling, just that I wasn't aware it had changed. I'm fine with it really, although I can understand both sides. Seems like a delicate issue where Paizo will do whatever they feel is best for the society and their business as a whole.

As to Lisa's idea of making module's legal with some sort of update sheet. I like it alot.

The Exchange

Tilquinith wrote:

Perhaps I'm missing something, but when did they change the replay rule and where can I read about it?

My 3.0.2 copy of the GtPFSOP seems to still say a different character of a different faction can still get credit but this should only happen to fulfill minimum table requirements.
I'm also not saying I have a problem with the new ruling, just that I wasn't aware it had changed. I'm fine with it really, although I can understand both sides. Seems like a delicate issue where Paizo will do whatever they feel is best for the society and their business as a whole.

As to Lisa's idea of making module's legal with some sort of update sheet. I like it alot.

Try this thread and this thread


Shieldknight wrote:
Tilquinith wrote:

Perhaps I'm missing something, but when did they change the replay rule and where can I read about it?

My 3.0.2 copy of the GtPFSOP seems to still say a different character of a different faction can still get credit but this should only happen to fulfill minimum table requirements.
I'm also not saying I have a problem with the new ruling, just that I wasn't aware it had changed. I'm fine with it really, although I can understand both sides. Seems like a delicate issue where Paizo will do whatever they feel is best for the society and their business as a whole.

As to Lisa's idea of making module's legal with some sort of update sheet. I like it alot.

Try this thread and this thread

Right. It has been officially changed here on the Boards, but not in the Guide yet. So for the (probable) majority of players and GMs, the new rules are not known or being followed yet.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lisa Stevens wrote:
Benn Roe wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:
One good thing though, Starting next month and every month after that they will always release at least one low level Scenario, though that won't fully help you it will at least give you one you can always run every month.
You're right! This is absolutely great planning on their part, and I was ecstatic when I read the blog about it. But the demand for how often we play at our store is just too great for this to be enough.

What if we sanctioned Pathfinder Modules and Pathfinder Adventure Paths? Would the addition of those longer adventures help to fill in the gap for those who are so committed that they blow through the new scenarios faster than I can blink?

-Lisa

I like this idea. This would help out a lot of us.

51 to 100 of 407 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / I have some issues with recent changes to Pathfinder Society All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.