|
Last Monday, we again had a turnout of zero. This replay rule has ended our ability to participate in Pathfinder Society. Today is our last shot, but I'm afraid we're going to have to cancel the program.
Sadness.
While I'm sorry to hear that, I really think there are other, better solutions to your problem than the replay rule. It is the holidays and gaming does drop off a bit.
The replay rule is as perfect as it can be IMHO and I've already stated my reasons for that in this thread.
However, if people aren't coming out for lack of PFS modules to play, then maybe it's time to switch to an AP for while? Like Kingmaker or RotR?
If you can't get a regular table for (or two) a regularly run AP, then your problem lies somewhere else.
In theory, you could run new PFS mods when you take a break from the AP or vice versa.
My group might take a break to run From Shore to Sea over the month of March just as a break. They'll have the ability to roll up and test new characters or bring their current PFS character in (for no PFS credit).
Good luck tonight.
-Pain
|
|
Hey guys! OP here! I just thought I'd check in with this thread and report how Pathfinder Society has gone at our store since I instituted the recent changes. I should note the following things:
1) We have not switched over to any system of announcing the mods in advance or pre-registering, as our November calendar was already published before I knew about these changes. Thus, things could go differently next month, and I will happily make my report then too...
Benn: Just read your "DOOOOOM" post (at least that's how it reads to me.) Then, I went back to your prior post about the subject and found it much more positive...Above, I've quoted a bit you wrote last week that leads me to an idea we are using here that I think you should seriously look into: WarHorn. Go to <<warhorn dot net>> and "request a site".
All three of the games that are running near me in the SF Bay Area are using it with what seems to be good success. I think games are planned approximately 3 months at a time (i.e. Dec-Feb are posted in ~late Oct, etc.) and all players are expected to sign up in advance so that there are enough tables, GMs, etc.
I'm not one of our organizers, but if you want to chat with them, look 'em up on <<bayareapathfinder dot com>>. Our VC is Mike Azzolino, whom you'll see on here as Azmyth and I figure you've read some of Painlord's posts over the past few months (he's one of our long-time organizers). Either of them can likely give you some ideas as well. Mind you, there are some quirks to the Warhorn system, but it's mostly effective from my perspective. Mike or Pain can likely explain these quirks, too.
Point is, posting in advance what games will be run, and being thoughtful about which games to run, seems crucial to success. Free-balling it every week just sounds like a recipe for disaster if you keep running up against the 1 hr+ time-suck of figuring out which mod to run. It's just going to devour the fun for folks and they'll stop coming regardless of which mod is run or if they get a chronicle sheet. Add to this that the GM (assuming they rotate) always has to wing it on any mods they've never played or judged before, sacrificing the immense roleplay (= FUN) value of planning the mods in advance.
Hope you find a solution that keeps your game running!
Cheers, Eelario
P.S. Az and Pain, forgive me if I've offered your services without prior consent...just gotta help a man when he's down.
P.P.S Holy ****!! looks like Painlord beat me to, it...
|
Last Monday, we again had a turnout of zero. This replay rule has ended our ability to participate in Pathfinder Society. Today is our last shot, but I'm afraid we're going to have to cancel the program.
Do you have email addresses of the players? Email/poll them on if it is the replay rule or something else, and Offer solutions such as a weekly email blast stating what modules will be run once or twice a week. See if that helps.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Awesome suggestions...
Benn has stated that he does not want to run his events like a business. His arguments all boil down to the fact that he merely wants to be able to run ad hoc gaming sessions, without concern for replay issues. While your suggestions are stellar, Benn is worried that he'd be taking advantage of his customers were he to do those things.
It is sad to see a gaming community die, but effort is required to keep them truly thriving.
|
I have to agree - seeing a gaming community die is sad to watch.
The only bit I don't understand is:
If there wasn't a single new player for two sessions running, then replay shouldn't have been an issue for the old players - unless you wanted to replay a whole table.
Also if there wasn't a single old player for two sessions running, then replay shouldn't have been an issue either - as it doesn't impact new players.
So if it is the pure announcement that replay exists, then it seems it can't have been communicated in the best way. Don't get this wrong - I don't want to criticize. I thought I just point this out - as if this is the case, then other solutions are needed as Paizo altering the rules.
Maybe I got some issues wrong here - but I thought the main issue seen with the new replay ruling was the inability to mix old and new players.
Thod
|
|
Awesome suggestions...Benn has stated that he does not want to run his events like a business. His arguments all boil down to the fact that he merely wants to be able to run ad hoc gaming sessions, without concern for replay issues. While your suggestions are stellar, Benn is worried that he'd be taking advantage of his customers were he to do those things.
It is sad to see a gaming community die, but effort is required to keep them truly thriving.
Well said, Drogon. You boiled the whole situation down quite nicely.
|
I have to agree - seeing a gaming community die is sad to watch.
The only bit I don't understand is:
If there wasn't a single new player for two sessions running, then replay shouldn't have been an issue for the old players - unless you wanted to replay a whole table.
Also if there wasn't a single old player for two sessions running, then replay shouldn't have been an issue either - as it doesn't impact new players.
So if it is the pure announcement that replay exists, then it seems it can't have been communicated in the best way. Don't get this wrong - I don't want to criticize. I thought I just point this out - as if this is the case, then other solutions are needed as Paizo altering the rules.
Maybe I got some issues wrong here - but I thought the main issue seen with the new replay ruling was the inability to mix old and new players.
Thod
You will hard pressed to find a handful of gamers that would be willing to regularly replay PFS scenarios for zero credit on any sort of regular basis.
That said, I'm sure your players will be sad to see PFS go from the store schedule but you really should consider an AP. We started Kingmaker this last weekend and it's awesome!
|
|
Benn has stated that he does not want to run his events like a business. His arguments all boil down to the fact that he merely wants to be able to run ad hoc gaming sessions, without concern for replay issues. While your suggestions are stellar, Benn is worried that he'd be taking advantage of his customers were he to do those things.
It is sad to see a gaming community die, but effort is required to keep them truly thriving.
Uhm...what?!
Somehow I missed that point in this thread. Wow. Okay...new advice:
1) If you want to succeed, you need to move beyond the "don't want to run events like a business" thing (if that's true). This isn't a business at all, just planning and accountability. I'm sure you have other players who can help you do this if you're reluctant. If you're really really worried about it, have another customer do this for you. It's a VERY common practice to have customers help organize events at FLGS where I come from.
2) Get your store registered on warhorn.net. My FLGS sample.
3) Start a local Yahoo group for messaging and announcements. Sample: Bay Area Pathfinder. Use this site to promote games, run polls for mods to run, and organize.
4) Start actively encouraging your players to sign up for the Yahoo Group and help them sign into Warhorn.
5) Start marketing the games locally.
-Pain
|
|
If you think that you can get my ...insert joke here...
He's had those suggestions before and he's giving feedback and then he gets the same suggestions again. It's flogging a dead horse.
Oooh....I was confuzzled too. I guess I was just unsure why he doesn't take/use some of the advice given and stop harping on the replay rule.
I'll let this thread alone and go back to crying in the corner.
-Pain
My guess that the former PFS players for Benn's store were the kind that opted for a more casual sort of PFS setup and would not respond well to the new PFS rulings- if at all, even if Benn does try to implement some of those suggested changes.
Personally, I'm not all that convinced that this new ruling will help PFS expand, save to keep some prospective PFS players (the ones who want those PA bells and whistles) at two characters maximum (unless PFS has a way of removing PA from "retired" characters that I'm not aware of).
However, this move might make it easier for the higher-ups at PFS to determine which of the five secret factions ends up scoring the most "points" in during a given season (less replay and less characters for a faction will see to that).
|
|
However, this move might make it easier for the higher-ups at PFS to determine which of the five secret factions ends up scoring the most "points" in during a given season (less replay and less characters for a faction will see to that).
They no longer are using such a system for Pathfinder Society. The PA points are not tracked for the purpose of scoring as of the beginning of Season One.
|
In reading the thread above I can see both sides of the issue. Yes, re-play could be needed in some markets. Yes, re-play can be greatly abused. I would like to offer my opinion on an additional compromise rule that I believe could work without too much difficulty.
Re-play can be used, but only to meet PPP and only with the following restrictions.
(1) No XP awarded to re-playing character.
(2) No PA awarded to re-playing character.
(3) Gold will be awarded, however the amount will be lessor of the cost of expendables/clearing conditions gained that occured within the scenario or the amount the character would normally be awarded.
(4) No purchasing of items allowed before or during the scenario with the exception of clearing conditions gained during the scanario. (this prevents wild spending on expendables possibly throwing the scenario out of balance)No, your character is not gaining anything by being used, but barring very bad luck (which could happen at any time) your character wouldn't be getting weaker for helping to make a table. You as a player get the fun of playing without your character being penalized for helping to make a table. Of course, this is just my opinion and may be considered or ignored at the discretion of the reader. Enjoy your gaming everyone!!!
Nothing personal, JJ, but yeah, no way I'd agree to this. I mean... "Hey, you gain virtually nothing, but can loose EVERYTHING."
The PPP rules were great as they were.
People will cheat.
Let me say that again.
People will cheat.
One more time.
People.
Will.
Cheat.
If we are changing the PPP rules to prevent cheating, I think Paizo and the PFS at large is fooling itself.
So, do we punish the cheaters, or do we punish everyone? I, for one, think the recinding of the current PPP rules is a HUUUUGGEE mistake. All it will do is make the DM's job harder, and drive players away from the game. Our group is constantly in flux. I get new players almost every week, so I can replay the old games with them and get them up to snuff, so I can actually play the new games. If I follow the new PPP rules, I'll be turning SOMEONE away from the table.
How is that fair?
|
It seems lot of people are getting upset, for something that was meant to be very very rare occurrence.
I think the larger problem is the society is a victim of it's success. People are playing faster than they are able to produce enough new material. Our group only plays every other week and we have running into issues where players are forced to replay without credit, mostly players who go to cons or other events but it's enough where it's an issue.
IMO the solution isn't so much better replay rules as it is just the pace of releases. Combined with the retiring scenarios it makes it very tough to keep active players in the game and getting credit.
For our group the pressure is going to be relieved soon as folks start getting into the next tier, but we can't play the tier 5-9 stuff until everyone is 5th level.
|
It seems lot of people are getting upset, for something that was meant to be very very rare occurrence.
In home games this would be VERY rare if ever occurring. In store play it happens. Especially if your trying to get season 0 games done.
Replay depends on your players to be honest. Some don't mind taking a NPC and sitting in once and a while. Some flat refuse. I sit players where they haven't played. Players who been around longer is where it can get choked up as they have played most of the level games.
Most of the veteran players I have a spare low level PC for replay's when needed. Most of them are level 1 or 2 and are classes / builds that are experimental to the player. NPC's are nice but don't allow for experimentation.
|
|
It seems lot of people are getting upset, for something that was meant to be very very rare occurrence.When a player was telling me about his 2nd character concept and how it was totally based around abusing replay...yeah. Check please.
That is the guy I don't assign for replay and hand him a NPC. Which mean yes I regulated the replay tightly.
|
|
It seems lot of people are getting upset, for something that was meant to be very very rare occurrence.I think the larger problem is the society is a victim of it's success. People are playing faster than they are able to produce enough new material. Our group only plays every other week and we have running into issues where players are forced to replay without credit, mostly players who go to cons or other events but it's enough where it's an issue.
IMO the solution isn't so much better replay rules as it is just the pace of releases. Combined with the retiring scenarios it makes it very tough to keep active players in the game and getting credit.
For our group the pressure is going to be relieved soon as folks start getting into the next tier, but we can't play the tier 5-9 stuff until everyone is 5th level.
The speed of module release has been discussed and I agree with you and most of the forum will I think. This is one of the reason I thought replay is could be useful if controlled.
|
|
Here is the thing.
The original philosophy of the replay rule was to help those new players get into veteran groups, it was not made to help fast burners keep playing, and most of the reasons I am seeing here is because the fast burners need to keep playing and not helping those new players catch up.
The only thing that is going to help Fast Burners is for Paizo to put out more scenarios a month, not replay. I would suggest trying to convince Paizo to do that, because That would be more useful for the society, not replay rules.
|
|
Here is the thing.
The original philosophy of the replay rule was to help those new players get into veteran groups, it was not made to help fast burners keep playing, and most of the reasons I am seeing here is because the fast burners need to keep playing and not helping those new players catch up.
The only thing that is going to help Fast Burners is for Paizo to put out more scenarios a month, not replay. I would suggest trying to convince Paizo to do that, because That would be more useful for the society, not replay rules.
Ok Dragnmoon I am not a fast burner. I am the GM/Coordinator at the local hobby store. Most of my players do not play every week hell it would be more accurate to state that 3/4 of my players play 3/4 of the time.
Juggle that math some.
Think about it.
Doesn't take long to see how the conflicts in games can happen.
|
|
Kyle, you guys play a lot. I am curios how many times did replays happen?I think the larger problem is the society is a victim of it's success. People are playing faster than they are able to produce enough new material.Exactly.
You think Doug running 250+ scenarios is a lot? ;-)
Honestly, it literally never happened until the past couple of months which is mostly due to the product schedule. We had another huge bump of players due to Gen Con and at the same time we had a drop off in new low-tier mods. It's still quite rare, really. Doug and others go out of there way to advertise what's being played. We ask our players to use our Yahoo database to keep track of what they've played so we can offer scenarios that appeal to the widest player base. We also have a big GM pool to draw from, including long-time players who are now stepping up to GM because they've played everything. This pool helps us shuffle our offerings on the spot and avoid replays.
Dragon*Con this year was the first time and only time I have ever replayed a scenario. I did it because Doug was running the table, and the party really needed my low-level cleric (and I had been released). I had fun because I was playing a support character, and because I like to screw with Doug. (think summoned Octopus in the water tank in Bloodcove)
8 days ago was the first time I'd ever run a scenario with a replayer. There were 3 of them out of 5. They showed up unprepared, and couldn't play anything. Had they not played, our table wouldn't have gone off. So I am thankful they were willing to play for no credit.
What I don't think most people realize is that having just one replayer at a table isn't much of a problem, it's when the majority is replaying. If the replayers behave and don't give the plot away, a huge burden is placed on those who are playing for the first time.
Take a scenario like Rebel's Ransom which is puzzle heavy. Imagine a party of 3 replayers and one first timer. That first timer will end up having to figure out the entire scenario on their own.
The limit to replay is about the culture of the campaign. We want new players to feel welcome at a table without having to sit by the person who's played it 8 times already.
|
|
I am shocked, absolutely flummoxed, that people that started playing in Season 0 haven't gotten the message that they should be sitting out of sessions if they aren't needed. I mean, the rules keep saying it should be rare . . . why aren't they making it rare? Its like they want to participate in PFS or something.
In fact, I'm not sure why we don't just tell everyone they don't get to advance, and they don't even get their own character. Pick a pre-gen and play that for a year or so, and then maybe we can designate someone to determine if they have done enough penance to be allowed to play their character again.
Sometimes I think people have more of an agenda than to just help Paizo get more customers. Once they are "on the hook" for Paizo, they need to subvert their own enjoyment to get more people hooked. I mean, they can always just sit back and read new products. What, they want to buy new stuff, and use it as well?
Greedy.
Personally, I would rather have the issue of the flaws of the replay system than the old Living Greyhawk rules where travel time and such had to be accounted for and your character could only get in a certain number of games a year no matter how often the player was able to play.
And yes, I think in an organization where players are supposed to get as equal an experience and as equal an opportunity to play, that there needs to be some limitations on the greedy and those with too much time on their hands. I have seen too many posts on these forums by those who rarely get to play becoming discouraged with the PFS because of others who seem to play non-stop and then whine when they can't get any more credit. I am just relieved that there is not some actual competition with prizes involved with PFS play or we would see the cheating and greed skyrocket.
And Darius, what part of Virginia are you in? I am helping out with a convention that is going to be in Roanoke in February that will need people to run some games. I am hoping to see Pathfinder and the PFS represented there.
|
|
I think the new rules are fine, only thing I would change is to let people replay with their characters without worrying about getting all the negatives for it when they are not getting any of the positives. In other words no fear of death or using your resources up, I think that will fix some of the complaints we are seeing.
And I fully believe the best way to combat problems with running into situations of conflict is good organization of games, with prior scheduling an important part of that. It won't cut down all the conflicts *as seen by comments by Kyle* but it will go a long way to helping, and cause less times people are asked to replay without credit. And contrary to what people have said here, it really is not that difficult, and if the organizer is not willing to put the effort in or does not have the time to put the effort in, they should see if some other player is willing to, and if no one is willing to, they need to except the fact they are going to run into a lot of conflicts due to lack of organization.
Better use of the effort some people are putting into asking Paizo to reinstate the Replay rule would be to convince them to put out more Scenarios a month, since it starting to seem that it has grown to the point it needs that, though Mark and Hyrum would know better since they see the actual numbers.
|
|
I think the new rules are fine, only thing I would change is to let people replay with their characters without worrying about getting all the negatives for it when they are not getting any of the positives. In other words no fear of death or using your resources up, I think that will fix some of the complaints we are seeing.
And I fully believe the best way to combat problems with running into situations of conflict is good organization of games, with prior scheduling an important part of that. It won't cut down all the conflicts *as seen by comments by Kyle* but it will go a long way to helping, and cause less times people are asked to replay without credit. And contrary to what people have said here, it really is not that difficult, and if the organizer is not willing to put the effort in or does not have the time to put the effort in, they should see if some other player is willing to, and if no one is willing to, they need to except the fact they are going to run into a lot of conflicts due to lack of organization.
Better use of the effort some people are putting into asking Paizo to reinstate the Replay rule would be to convince them to put out more Scenarios a month, since it starting to seem that it has grown to the point it needs that, though Mark and Hyrum would know better since they see the actual numbers.
Dragnmoon... for once I actually agree with you for the most part.
Hey everyone,
Let's remember to keep things civil here. We're all passionate about PFS, regardless of how often we play or whether or not we organize events. Just try to keep that in mind please. :)
Hyrum.
|
|
I truly don't understand the elitist attitude of people who think replay is the end of all gaming. Or think that allowing people to play without the risk of dying is fun or challenging. Anyone who think it is a simple matter maintaining the entertainment of 30+ players every week take little effort doesn't coordinate games very often or has loads of spare time. Replaying is not as fun as playing for the first time but can be a needed tool to get butts into chairs.
What does it take to organize. Let see here if I can put it all in a post real fast.
Each module cost 3.99 each and each season has 28 modules. That is $263.34 assuming no pathfinder discount for all the modules ever printed. Then the cost of the materials to run games like a flip map, books, miniatures , etc. IF the GM doesn't own the module the coordinator has to provide it in print which adds more cost on top of things and the extra steps of getting the module in the GM hands prior to the event.
New GM's that wish to step up have a purchase a module to run or hope the coordinator gets a copy in their hands.
GM's can only run modules they own the PDF or get a printed Copy from someone else without violating any of Paizo copyright rules. This can lead to a GM to run games certain games.
The Doug / Kyle game in Michigan is one of the best organized games that I have read about. There is a reason for that. One Doug is the only and only 5 Star GM which mean he has had the large amount time to give to his group and the RPG community and has a good core group of GM's to maintain the game. My hat is off to their group and I strive to obtain that level of play but not every group can maintain this level of commitment.
I am a civilian radar tech that supports the US Navy and this forces me to travel all over the place at a moments notice. So when I am out of town (about 4-6 months out of the year) the local GM's must own their modules because as it stand I am the only one who owns them all. Is this ideal? Nope. Right now we don't charge a fee to play but this is changing soon as we must get modules printed to allow others to GM as I am the single point of failure for the group and that isn't good.
So what modules GM's own they will run and replay sometimes happens. We have never had players make PC's with replay in mind other than they can experiment with newer material such as the the APG stuff or what ever is newly released.
Edited because my post was written at 1:20 AM and engrish is hard this early in the morning.
|
Benn has stated that he does not want to run his events like a business. His arguments all boil down to the fact that he merely wants to be able to run ad hoc gaming sessions, without concern for replay issues. While your suggestions are stellar, Benn is worried that he'd be taking advantage of his customers were he to do those things.
It is sad to see a gaming community die, but effort is required to keep them truly thriving.
I really resent this implication. I've actually said repeatedly throughout the course of this thread that I'm more than willing to attempt to schedule games ahead of time, it just isn't the way we had been running things up until this point. I'm also more than willing to admit that I probably wouldn't be in the situation I'm in now had I scheduled particular mods from day one. Unfortunately, I've never been involved with running organized play for an RPG before this program, and at the time I began running it I didn't realize that it would make life easier in the long-run to schedule ahead of time.
I do run these games like a business, because I am in fact running a business. And believe it or not, despite not having all the answers and being reasonably new at all this, I'm pretty g@%$+%n good at it too. The issue I have is this: if customer A has shown up 3 out of every 4 weeks for a year, and played at one of usually two tables (usually running different mods), and customer B has show up a different 3 out of every 4 weeks for a year, and played at the other of the usually two tables, then customers A and B could literally have no possible overlap in remaining mods. Now add in customers C, D, E, F, G, etc., who have been running similar schedules and what you have is a core group of people who have each played with each other a number of different times but never in the exact same configuration, which means that if I get 10 people showing up, then we have enough people to play exactly two mods and we may have no two mods that any possible configuration of those 10 people will be able to play. Previously, this was not an issue because we would prepare two mods and when everyone showed up there was always some configuration that could be made that may have involved one or two people replaying a mod with different characters so we could seat legal tables, but we never had to turn anybody away. This system made everybody happy and we never had people ruining everybody else's fun or spoiling endings.
Again, I grant that in hindsight this was not the best system. I also grant that it's 100% necessary to convert to a system of advance announcements in order to have any chance at salvaging this program. What I do not grant, however, is that it's absolutely definitely possible to save this program that way. It seems to me that if we're getting regularly about enough people showing up to seat two tables, and that's with a significant percentage of those people showing up nearly every week--and given the situation above with the incredible variance in overlap between what each of those customers is still able to play--that it's more than likely that we just won't have enough people signing up for a mod any given week to even fill one table. Again, I'm not saying we won't try, I'm just not optimistic.
I also don't believe it's good for the health of any program like this to encourage un-routine play. Many of our players would show up every Monday night because of the social aspect of the game. It was a ritual, and for some of those players the notion of having to check in advance if it's a mod they can play or not, and then to find out two weeks out of three that they can't play is just going to cause them to stop checking before too long. Haven't you ever noticed that if you turn down someone's invitations long enough, you stop getting invited? It's no different here. If I decided, for whatever reason, that I was only going to run Friday Night Magic on the Fridays I felt like running it, and at the beginning of each week I just put up a notice on the website about whether or not it was happening this week, my Magic players would seek regularity elsewhere. And that's what I foresee happening with Pathfinder too. I swear to all of you I'm not making excuses out of laziness. I sit down with my customers and run Pathfinder games for them every Monday, or play in those games myself, and I know the people who are coming to these games and what will and won't motivate them to come. Hell, just in general, the less regular a program is (special events notwithstanding), the less well attended it is. It may fly in the face of some sorts of wisdom, but the programs that get run every week are always fresh in people's minds. The monthly and bi-weekly programs are often just forgotten.
Honest to god, I realize why this program is in the situation it's in for me at my store, and I'm not begging Paizo to bail me out. I'm just letting them know that situations like mine exist (and I expect these situations to be unique to the store-run, small to medium average turn-outs crowd) and trying to explain to the best of my ability why they exist, because I believe Paizo cares about the effects of their policies. If I had a pool of 45 people banging down my door every week for a coveted seat at the table of limited spots, I'd have no problem, with or without replay. I don't (and if I did, I'd still try to seat them all). I have good, but modest turn-outs, which will be (and have been) reduced to small or non-existent turn-outs by the very real current need for scheduling in the face of no replay. I'm willing to put in the work, but I want Paizo to know how disappointed my handful of customers and I are with the current state of things.
Hyrum, thank you for all your hard work on PFS, and thanks for helping keep the peace. I understand why people feel the need to take jabs, as feelings on this matter are pretty polarized, but I'm trying my best to stay civil, and implications that I'm somehow too lazy or not dedicated enough to run the program properly--or that my opinions don't matter as much because some of my customers like to play more than once a month--really, really don't help.
|
|
I have to agree with you Benn Roe as I also think a game that isn't weekly at a hobby store will fade over time. We post our games on Mondays and play on Wed night. I spend Thursday - Sunday trying to find the GM's to play.
No wonder you are running out of scenarios!
The output of scenarios never was able to handle a weekly game. They only release 2 to 4 scenarios a month, most months just 2.
Until Paizo starts release more per month, a Bi-weekly schedule is much better, or if you have enough players you can split the groups up and run every week, just have it that players don't come more then twice a month, that is what I did at first, but I was doing that for other reasons. I had to many players and only One GM, ME! so I had to split the group up, run one group one week the other group the next. But it would work for your situation to. The store will still have a game every week, you just control who comes which week. Everyone still gets to play and they don't run out of scenarios.
Edit: And I think Doug has way too much time on his hands to, but that is why he has so many Games GMed, not why they are scheduled well, does not require a 5 star GM to be able to have a well organized local PFS, though it would not hurt ;).
|
|
I would kill for more players willing to GM. It is my biggest weak point and I am working on it. It is a shame that Virginia isn't next door to you fellas.
Darius--
If PFS is anything like LFR, one of the first things that replay changes will hurt is the willingness of people to judge. I think the current rule is a perfect incentive for judges and a benefit that I refuse to undervalue.
I have already agreed (from the experience of running my own weekly PFS game night and in previous post) that the slow release of mods is a problem, HOWEVER, a change in the replay rules is *not* a good solution. There are many others that will address the problem.
I truly don't understand the elitist attitude of people who think replay is the end of all gaming.
I don't think my attitude is elitist. I just think I have the perspective of lots and lots of first hand experience in how replaying ruined the LFR campaign.
I wish there were words enough for me to describe to you the damage replaying will cause to the campaign, your judging pool, and the beautiful experience of playing a mod for the first time with other first timers. I just don't have the words for contempt that I have for the concept.
I have the experience and I have lots of former LFR players and judges who feel the same.
I don't suppose you're just going to trust me and believe me, but I wish you would.
But what I do hope is that you'll work with the community, the VCs, and Paizo to find a better solution. We can agree that the number of mods coming out is a potential problem, can we also agree that there are other solutions outside of replaying?
-Pain
|
|
But what I do hope is that you'll work with the community, the VCs, and Paizo to find a better solution. We can agree that the number of mods coming out is a potential problem, can we also agree that there are other solutions outside of replaying?
-Pain
Ok I will bite. How did replay kill LFR in detail? I tried to find the rules to LFR real quick and they don't seem to have a simple PDF ruleset like we do.
Edit: I found there ruleset version 1.99 and saw the replay rule it self but the rest of it might as well be written in German this late at night. Post your reasoning I need sleep to think ;-). I read the WOTC community forums some and replay didn't seem to be an issue but writing quality for the modules was a big issue that I read and power creep from XXX books. I don't understand their system of loot from my quick reading. The other thing I see that as a main complain is no one wants to run games in hobby stores. Seem like everyone is playing home games for some reason.
|
|
All
I gave the whole issue some more thoughts - and it seems to me it isn't necessarily the replay rule (alone) that hurts small game shops.
If my count is right, then you have currently the following distribution of scenarios (in brackets including retired ones):
Tier 1-5 = 15 (17)
Tier 1-7 = 15 (19)
Tier 5-9 = 9 (11)
Tier 7-11 = 15 (15)
Tier 12 = 3 (3)
This looks like a pretty even distribution across tiers. So what does this mean?
The distribution is great for hard core gamers - gamers who want to play a character from the start to the end - similar to an AP. For these style of players you will need an even distribution.
Now take a game shop. Most casual gamers will only ever play in a low tier. For this environment the distribution doesn't suit you. You rather have a pyramidal distribution of gamers. You probably would want twice as many low level scenarios.
On the other hand - long term casual gamers will either move on or move up in level - so long term an even distribution seems right - even if it hurts short term.
But could this help for the current situation?
Well - we had the discussion with play for no credit. Looking at the distribution of scenarios there is another alternative of legal play. You can have a new gamer pick up a pre-gen level 7 and have try out the system on a higher tier. This will help the old gamers to fill a table, allow a mixing and shares the play for no credit more evenly.
What are the draw backs of having a new player pick up a pre-gen level 7 instead of a pre-gen level 1? Let me know your opinions or experience. I'm not offended if you say that idea is just plain wrong - but please let me know why?
Thod
|
|
Darius,
If you asked me 3 months ago before Dragon*Con happened, I probably would agree with you on the replay rule. I've always been a big supporter of PFS, although I do tend to DM more than play. Personally, I like getting credit, but I've definitely run things in Season 0 without credit and even played one this year without credit to help out a table. Prior to the Con I would've agreed that replay helps to create tables, keep the game going, and to facilitate new players.
What I saw at Dragon*Con was a large part of the gamers running through the game grinding to get higher level. Exactly as one would do in an RPG game to get higher level. The kicker for me was when one of the LFR judges told me that he didn't enjoy judging the game at all because he was reading some of the boxed text and one of the players said "Hey, it's ok you don't need to read that for us. We've heard it all before. Hey guys, remember that we need to bring X and X to this so we can defeat the encounters easily." At that point, I realized that replay might actually cause the game to die. Once you get enough people replaying new people won't want to join. That group ended up having one new person to LFR. If I remember correctly, my friend told me he never wanted to play LFR again because of his experience. I don't want that to happen to Pathfinder Society.
|
|
Darius,
If you asked me 3 months ago before Dragon*Con happened, I probably would agree with you on the replay rule. I've always been a big supporter of PFS, although I do tend to DM more than play. Personally, I like getting credit, but I've definitely run things in Season 0 without credit and even played one this year without credit to help out a table. Prior to the Con I would've agreed that replay helps to create tables, keep the game going, and to facilitate new players.
What I saw at Dragon*Con was a large part of the gamers running through the game grinding to get higher level. Exactly as one would do in an RPG game to get higher level. The kicker for me was when one of the LFR judges told me that he didn't enjoy judging the game at all because he was reading some of the boxed text and one of the players said "Hey, it's ok you don't need to read that for us. We've heard it all before. Hey guys, remember that we need to bring X and X to this so we can defeat the encounters easily." At that point, I realized that replay might actually cause the game to die. Once you get enough people replaying new people won't want to join. That group ended up having one new person to LFR. If I remember correctly, my friend told me he never wanted to play LFR again because of his experience. I don't want that to happen to Pathfinder Society.
If you read my posts you would know I would never want total unrestricted replay. players like you listed above are cheating plain and simple.
|
|
If you read my posts you would know I would never want total unrestricted replay. players like you listed above are cheating plain and simple.
While I appreciate the reply, I think it's a little much to assume I didn't read your posts. Earlier you asked how it killed LFR and I gave a second-hand account for it. Mitigated or not, I think it's been shown that replay can be abused, and can destroy an Organized Play system.
|
|
Now take a game shop. Most casual gamers will only ever play in a low tier. For this environment the distribution doesn't suit you. You rather have a pyramidal distribution of gamers. You probably would want twice as many low level scenarios.Thod
I think your observation of store gaming is accurate. My current incarnation of players has been mostly steady for 3 months playing once a week. I can only get them to tier about level 3-4. my casual gamer does tend to leave the group around level 5-6 ish. I only have one table worth of players with level 7+ PC's after 3 season of play with my turn over rate. I live in a Military town and people transfer away fast here or get deployed for 6-8 months at a time.
I dying to push them to the level 4-5 tier games to burn more of the season 0 mods as I expect more and more to go away but running tier 3-4 is eating the majority of the tier 1-7 mods.
I have been thinking of allowing players to make NPC on herolab at the store and play for no credit and experiment on game they have already played as the NPC's are drab and are just the basic classes. The new classes in the APG are NOT really good for brand new players as these classes require more familiarity of the rules to play well. This isn't exactly legal but people don't mind the zero credit as much with this and they all know these NPC's builds are one time shots.
I have tried but new players with level 7 pregens but it can be shaky. A brand new who has never played 3.5/PF player needs A LOT of help and can be a detriment to play when time limits are enforced but if the player is somewhat familiar it isn't a problem.