Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
There would only be a plateau if Paizo stopped releasing scenarios, but in your 12-18 months there would be another 28-42 scenarios released, and the low-level ones are being increased to one every month starting very soon if not already.
Which pretty much means I get to stop playing for 2 or 3 years.
I'm down to less than 5 available 7-11th level modules I can play for credit.
I'm down to exactly 2 available 5-9 modules I can play for credit.
Effective #2-04 I was down to exactly zero level 1-7 modules I can play for credit.
I've been working hard since the beginning of 2010 to play, and to get to 12th level. I lost one character to a negative boon (6th level) so I had to start all over at 1st at Origins 2010. I got to 11th level at NeonCon 2010, but I can only play at the biggest cons. I have basically 3 cons a year I can play games (Origins, GenCon, NeonCon). Paizocon I've had trouble getting 7th level+ modules ran. All other cons seem to run something I've played already and seem to have hardly any 7+ level players.
I blame "not enough high level players" but I don't know if replay would solve my main problem (not enough high level games to play) but it would solve the "I can't play at this con" problem that I see almost exclusively.
I'm torn. I actually don't like the reply concept. But I also don't like not being able to go anywhere to play (like this weekend. Two cons, one in atlanta and one in detroit. Neither have any of the 15+ games they are running I can play.)
I will say this that the concept of "make more low level mods" is exactly the opposite of what I want. More low level mods means less high level and less chance the high level PC's get played.
Sorry if I was singling you out, I wasn't trying to.
No worries, I wasn't even sure if you were or not!
But I've seen the AP arguement before, it just doesn't hold true with the players I get. For every 1 player get who likes long form, I get 4 who like short form.But ask them to think about a adventure path and you would think that I just asked them to buy life insurance. They just don't like trying to keep up with a story line from week to week.
Yeah, players can vary a lot as to what interests them the most. Even though I've been fortunate enough to have the long term campaign work for me, there are certainly other times that the shorter, bite-sized style of PFS would work best for me as well.
|
|
I'm torn. I actually don't like the reply concept. But I also don't like not being able to go anywhere to play (like this weekend. Two cons, one in atlanta and one in detroit. Neither have any of the 15+ games they are running I can play.)
You should have went to Stuffed COWS last weekend. I ran the entire Everwar series back-to-back and the Heresy of Man (Parts 1 & 2)
Of course I was the GM at Origins who gave you the negative boon after your party decided to use lethal force on Parke. :-)
|
I will say this that the concept of "make more low level mods" is exactly the opposite of what I want. More low level mods means less high level and less chance the high level PC's get played.
This tends to be the way of most Organized Play campaigns. You wind up with very few high level characters due to death, lack of focus in one character, or whatever reason. All of that leads to more low levels than high levels. That means to keep the majority of players happy with the output of a campaign there must be more lower level mods than higher ones. Locally, we have literally only had one or two groups of folks that could play in high level games in any Organized Play system.
The way we handle it is we play more than just PFS. This doesn't appeal to everyone, but it does keep people coming back for more. In the local Omaha club we run PFS, Heroes of Rokugan, Chronicles of the Shattered Empires, and Witch Hunter. It keeps things interesting on our bi monthly 2-slot game days. There is a fairly large interest in LFR locally as well, the game club just can't find anyone willing to provide it so we leave it to the local stores/other groups.
|
Y'all sit there and say, "If you can't play, DM", like it's magic. I understand where you are trying to go with this, and apparently, everywhere else, there's this massive plethora of DM's with lots of money to spend on the game. Where I am in VA, not true. There are two of us, me, and Darius. We used to have a third, but he moved. We have the occasional moonlighter DM, but that's it. I mean... that's it. We have one who tried to step behind the shield, and then life got in the way, so it's back to me and Darius.
Two DMs
An average of ten-fifteen players per game, about 1/3 old, 1/3 recently new, and 1/3 recently new/brand new.
We get an average of at least one new player each week, which is GREAT!
Two DMs.
1. We don't have enough time to prepare due to our jobs.
2. We don't have enough support from our players, who are willing to step up and put up the money to GM.
3. We each prep, on average, three adventures each week, so try and cover our bases. Since most of our players seem incapable of e-mailing as to whether or not they will be there, it's a shot in the dark as to whether or not we pick our scenarios correctly.
Removing the PPP rules is a terrible mistake, IMHO. If Paizo does this, it will drive away more players than it will bring in. The PPP rules, as they were, gave the GMs flexability on what to run, without having to turn players away. It's a tool in my bag that I'm very sad to see go. I fear I will loose a lot of my old, loyal players because of it.
|
|
Y'all sit there and say, "If you can't play, DM", like it's magic. I understand where you are trying to go with this, and apparently, everywhere else, there's this massive plethora of DM's with lots of money to spend on the game. Where I am in VA, not true.
We've had the same problem in the past and it has led to GM burnout. Eventually the GMs wanted nothing to do with th egame anymore (in this case, LFR). We stopped running it and moved on to PFS only to be accused by one of our players of sabotaging the other game so that it would fail. The reality is that some players need to cycle into judge positions to keep things fresh and people interested. It isn't easy and gettig there isn't fun, but the benefits to bothe the players and the judge pool will make it worth it.
Game days without fresh blood eventually fail for this reason, regardless of how much the campaign is putting out.
|
|
Removing the PPP rules is a terrible mistake, IMHO. If Paizo does this, it will drive away more players than it will bring in. The PPP rules, as they were, gave the GMs flexability on what to run, without having to turn players away. It's a tool in my bag that I'm very sad to see go. I fear I will loose a lot of my old, loyal players because of it.
I understand how you feel, in my area we have a small GM pool -- granted larger than 2, but still relatively small; with 2 of us stepping up to GM it's given the ones that GM'd on a monthly basis a break.
However, you make it sound like they'be taken replay out of the equation completely which they haven't. PPP still is there it's just been put back in the position it was original meant to be in with some caveats so that the ones that were abusing it no longer can. People can replay to their hearts content -- no they are not going to get more than one chronicle; if they want a second that is part of the "reward" for Gming (I'm using the term reward loosely so please don't harp on that).
Yes, it's prebably very easy for the majority of us to sit in our chairs at home and say if you can't play Gm.. no we probably don't understand the exactness of your plight (tho your explanation I think has summed up your area's issue more succinctly than other posts have to be honest). We as the online version of the community don't have the answers that you either want or are looking for. Personally I think expecting the replay ruling to be put back to what is was is a long shot. I don't think it's going to happen -- Paizo made a ruling and we'll have to learn how to live w/in that ruling.
If you are prepping mods each week then you are out-playing the production cycle which is at it's current max and there are adjustments that need to be make. I'm fairly certain that if your players are reasonable people that with a max email explaining the situation they would understand -- personally I think it would do more good for your area to involve the players and see what options they have to offer. After the numerous postings on this we, as the online community, obviously don't have the answer you're looking for or the correct level of sympathy for your situation .
|
Here is one example that could have been exploited massivly - it's retired now and I guess this was one of the reasons
Hands of the muted God
** spoiler omitted **
Thod
OH! OH! Can I play?!
** spoiler omitted **
Yes, I would never allow this at my table but it's fun to find holes in the rules :)
Our monk was also quite happy when he was affected.
Yes - this could lead to interesting issues. Never thought about it this way - but I'm just to naive and don't go enough to the optimization threads here.
Thod
|
Y'all sit there and say, "If you can't play, DM", like it's magic. I understand where you are trying to go with this, and apparently, everywhere else, there's this massive plethora of DM's with lots of money to spend on the game. Where I am in VA, not true. There are two of us, me, and Darius. We used to have a third, but he moved. We have the occasional moonlighter DM, but that's it. I mean... that's it. We have one who tried to step behind the shield, and then life got in the way, so it's back to me and Darius.
You are "required" to have exactly one extra product in order to GM, a Bestiary. A book that I'm willing to bet money a good number of your players own, and frankly, if the situation required, could be shared in a game room with little to no issues. Beyond that one product, there need not be any additional costs to GM over play. Even the module, which already costs a fraction of what it costs to play the game, can be given in hardcopy format to a GM by the coordinator. Unless every single one of your players already can't afford a Core rulebook, what you have is a bunch of selfish players who don't want to help out the game, which is a very different story.
To say that there must be a "massive pethora of DM's with lots of money to spend on the game" is extraordinarily disingenuous.
Two DMs
An average of ten-fifteen players per game, about 1/3 old, 1/3 recently new, and 1/3 recently new/brand new.
We get an average of at least one new player each week, which is GREAT!Two DMs.
1. We don't have enough time to prepare due to our jobs.
2. We don't have enough support from our players, who are willing to step up and put up the money to GM.
3. We each prep, on average, three adventures each week, so try and cover our bases. Since most of our players seem incapable of e-mailing as to whether or not they will be there, it's a shot in the dark as to whether or not we pick our scenarios correctly.
Yes, being a GM is a thankless job sometimes. However, my group regularly sees an average of twelve players per game, and the issues we have are nowhere near as great. We let them know which modules are being run well in advance and let them know our schedule. If somebody has already played a module, they are capable of sitting out or if they're helpful, actually GMing for a change. Instead of just letting game run itself organically, coordinate it; trust me, your frustrations will diminish. Knowing three-to-four weeks in advance exactly which modules will be run when will make everybody's life easier. By resting all your frustrations on a group you yourself have described as "incapable of e-mailing to whether or not they'll be there", is going to cause nothing but frustration in the end. Try fixing the problem rather than just berating the new rule.
Removing the PPP rules is a terrible mistake, IMHO. If Paizo does this, it will drive away more players than it will bring in. The PPP rules, as they were, gave the GMs flexability on what to run, without having to turn players away. It's a tool in my bag that I'm very sad to see go. I fear I will loose a lot of my old, loyal players because of it.
Possibly, but on the flip side of the coin there is already documented evidence that the rule was being abused. The replay adaptation of Play, Play, Play was meant to be exactly what you described, a tool where if you only have three players, a fourth could join who had already played, not a mechanism for players to play the same module week in and week out. Many who were involved in LFR have described extensively the frustrations that the same rule started to cause, especially for new players sitting at a table with a group who just wanted to grind through to the end as fast as possible because they already knew the story. This isn't a situation where there is no prior evidence, in fact, there is sufficient evidence to seriously conflict with the idea that banishing the rule was a bad idea.
|
BTW I just did a whole con of no credit replays with the exception of one mod, so my son could catch up with my character. And this limit of only 2 or 3 characters confuses me but maybe that's cause I judge at home and cons.
PS: Kyle thanks for kickin' my butt in the BI.
Completely off topic
And that why we're looking at alternative ways to get more content out there, like modules and maybe AP's.
Hyrum.
Ooooh Exciting. Management Challenge on the OP level but easily get more players. When might we hear of this
|
|
I also see no replay as "don't play."
I would like it if there was a limited number of times a person or character could replay modules. As in 3 replays per character, 10 replays per person, or something similar.
This could take out the abuse and still let people be able to play and have fun. I do not play pregens. As a GM or a player in a game with 3 people, a pregen is ok to run additionally. I don't find playing a pregen fun.
GMs can only prep so many modules and hope that everyone hasn't played them before. It would be really nice if we could have some leeway when it comes to replaying.
In addition, in my group we have a ton of GMs. We usually don't GM something that somebody has played without having played it ourselves.
As for the max of two or three players, I think that person was saying you could only run two or three players to 12th level, the max.
|
|
Hmmm. I read the first few posts of this thread and planned to post a "I agree, please go back to the multiple replay rules, or some other version than the current limiting once-as-a-player-once-as-a-gm replay rule." I was even going to post the damaging effects of the new replay rule that I've seen to support my opinion.
But I can see the writing on the wall. This thread has multiple Venture Captains posting about how they hate multiple replay. When those closest to Mark and Hyrum's ear don't like something, I ain't holding my breath for it to happen.
|
|
I wouldn't be opposed to a rule limiting credits for scenarios to 2, no matter if you GM or play as long as they're applied to different characters. I know this takes away a GM "reward," but honestly it's not much of a reward to those who GM because they enjoy it.
Seems like it could be a simple answer to a heated topic.
Play it twice, receive two chronicles.
Play it once, then GM, receive two chronicles.
GM it once, but then play it later, receive two chronicles.
GM it twice, receive two chronicles.
Seems like it would keep replay limited, but effectively double the available scenarios we can play.
I also think that if we could simply have WELL WRITTEN PRE-GENS from EVERY AVAILABLE CLASS at nearly EVERY LEVEL, then people would be more likely to use them. I'd love to try a summoner at 5th level, or a Druid at 9th level, or even play a Wizard at 7th level that showcases what a wizard can really do. Want to sell more books? Show the classes off!
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I also think that if we could simply have WELL WRITTEN PRE-GENS from EVERY AVAILABLE CLASS at nearly EVERY LEVEL, then people would be more likely to use them. I'd love to try a summoner at 5th level, or a Druid at 9th level, or even play a Wizard at 7th level that showcases what a wizard can really do. Want to sell more books? Show the classes off!
I second this.
Sadly, I also know the answer: "We don't have the staff or the time to develop this concept immediately, so we will add it to our (growing) to do list."
Which is fine. I am all for this company continuing to write and turn out stellar product. Keep that at the top of the list. Just add what Kyle suggested to the list.
Also, once again, I don't see why you can't farm stat blocks out to people like us to develop for you. Then, when you get them submitted, just look them over to be sure they're legal and post them for use.
Anyhoo, back to the regularly scheduled debate...
|
|
Two DMs.
1. We don't have enough time to prepare due to our jobs.
2. We don't have enough support from our players, who are willing to step up and put up the money to GM.
3. We each prep, on average, three adventures each week, so try and cover our bases. Since most of our players seem incapable of e-mailing as to whether or not they will be there, it's a shot in the dark as to whether or not we pick our scenarios correctly.
I'm not trolling here, I'm honestly curious. What you've described is pretty much a nightmare to me, and I would not be happy about this situation (replay or not, you have serious issues). It sounds to me like you are letting your players treat you like a door mat. Why? Your time is valuable and finite. Players should be kissing your ass to play at your table. Pick up the reigns, tell everyone this is the direction we are going and go that way. Those that don't like it? They can bugger off. You can't please all the people anyway, you were never going to. You pick a mod to prep (based on your tracking/trending data) two weeks ahead of time, you announce it via email list/calendar/warhorn/whatever. Players know what game is being played and as adults can determine if they can or want to play that. Make them RSVP in some way and make it clear that RSVP players get seated first, walk-ups are space available. You are supposed to be helping players have a good time, but not at the expense or exclusion of your own good time too. What you've described can't be fun for you, can it? Those that do will be grateful for what you are doing for them, and you'll have some kind of sanity and predictability in your life. Honestly, if I was prepping 3 mods a week not knowing what I was going to run on Friday night I'd have stopped having fun a long time ago.
|
|
I'm not trolling here, I'm honestly curious. What you've described is pretty much a nightmare to me, and I would not be happy about this situation (replay or not, you have serious issues). It sounds to me like you are letting your players treat you like a door mat. Why? Your time is valuable and finite. Players should be kissing your ass to play at your table. Pick up the reigns, tell everyone this is the direction we are going and go that way. Those that don't like it? They can bugger off. You can't please all the people anyway, you were never going to. You pick a mod to prep (based on your tracking/trending data) two weeks ahead of time, you announce it via email list/calendar/warhorn/whatever. Players know what game is being played and as adults can determine if they can or want to play that. Make them RSVP in some way and make it clear that RSVP players get seated first, walk-ups are space available. You are supposed to be helping players have a good time, but not at the expense or exclusion of your own good time too. What you've described can't be fun for you, can it? Those that do will be grateful for what you are doing for them, and you'll have some kind of sanity and predictability in your life. Honestly, if I was prepping 3 mods a week not knowing what I was going to run on Friday night I'd have stopped having fun a long time ago.
+1 Mark said a lot of what I was trying to say with a lot more poise and tact.
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
Play it twice, receive two chronicles.
Play it once, then GM, receive two chronicles.
GM it once, but then play it later, receive two chronicles.
GM it twice, receive two chronicles.Seems like it would keep replay limited, but effectively double the available scenarios we can play.
+1 to all of the above. But I've made this same suggestion multiple times, only to see it shot down by Paizo peoples and Venture Captains alike. Here's to hoping this will be given a second (and third, and etc.) look as a solution to the Replay Rule problem.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
what every GM was screaming inside their heads after reading what William Sinclair wrote...
Yeah, I really have to get behind this. I don't understand why people are willing to take other people for granted. Taking a GM (or an organizer) for granted is inviting a lot of bad things on yourself as a human being, much less as a gamer. And for those GMs and organizers out there who feel trapped by this assumption, please understand that you are the ones who control what is going on in your play group. It's success is your fault. It's failure is your fault. Don't let other peoples' assumptions of your "place" be what drives your program down. Like Mark asked, is that fun for you? If not, why are you doing this? Stop. Go play with your friends and actually enjoy yourself.
I also have to add my voice to this:
Seems like it could be a simple answer to a heated topic.
Play it twice, receive two chronicles.
Play it once, then GM, receive two chronicles.
GM it once, but then play it later, receive two chronicles.
GM it twice, receive two chronicles.
I've backed Arnim Thayer up on this, before, and I'll back both him and Kyle up on it, now. I do not think this is a bad compromise.
I also have to add my voice to this:I've backed Arnim Thayer up on this, before, and I'll back both him and Kyle up on it, now. I do not think this is a bad compromise.Seems like it could be a simple answer to a heated topic.
Play it twice, receive two chronicles.
Play it once, then GM, receive two chronicles.
GM it once, but then play it later, receive two chronicles.
GM it twice, receive two chronicles.
And I will add mine again to what Arnim and I have been saying for a while now. And also repeat the other option to this one I have posted: Allowing credit once for each sub-tier of a scenario rather than a blanket two credits per scenario if that is still too loose for people. Of course, that would allow three credits for a tier 1-7 scenario, but I do not think that would be bad because of needing to play/run the different sub-tiers to earn the credit.
I also think that if we could simply have WELL WRITTEN PRE-GENS from EVERY AVAILABLE CLASS at nearly EVERY LEVEL, then people would be more likely to use them. I'd love to try a summoner at 5th level, or a Druid at 9th level, or even play a Wizard at 7th level that showcases what a wizard can really do. Want to sell more books? Show the classes off!
We're actually working on getting new pregens out there for use, at a variety of levels. They won't be crazy optimized, but they'll be worlds better than the current pregens.
Hyrum.
Even if you do announce beforehand what society mod you'll be running... chances are, with the current no replay rules, there'll be a greater likelihood of a prospective player who might not choose to play in that mod because that player has not only already played in the mod but has gotten all the PA's they'll ever need out of that mod.
Edited: Keeping on target and suppressing the talk-radio rhetoric.
|
|
Just want to say, Paizo... I'm loving your new replay rules; this thread is not representative of all your players. I get to play my favorite PCs as much as I want now, without running into the "Thirty-seven mods and you're done" issue. And on top of that, I've seen new GMs step up to the plate thanks to the carrot you've provided them.
Good job, guys!
-Matt
Replaying mods is never as much fun as playing them for the first time, but if everyone has played the mod before and just wants to try out new character concepts from the APG or other sources, then who exactly suffers?
When I played LFR we'd have replay days where we'd belt through eight scenarios in a single day, just doing the encounters essentially, DMing in turn and bumping characters up to about 4th level, at which point they could join the existing characters and play mods properly. We could have played board games or computer games instead, but this was more fun and made more use of the books we'd bought. It was a 'different' game in effect, but it was fun in its own right and linked directly into our regular LFR sessions.
I understand being sat at a table where other players are spoiling the adventure sucks, so why not prevent replaying on tables with people who haven't played the scenario before (or make it no credit)? Then allow people to build full replay tables with no illusions about roleplaying so they can get new characters up to speed or try out weird and wacky ideas?
Will there be some power-gaming, or looking for the right mods to max out equipment? Perhaps, but min/maxing a character build has far more impact than choosing the 'right' mods. The treasure found is almost always irrelevant anyway with 2PA on offer per mod. In this respect I much prefer PFS to LFR.
Another option is to allow DMs to gain credit more than once. I see no difference at the game table between a player who's built one character on DM credits and a player who built ten of them by DMing all those mods ten times. Except of course that far more people got to play if the mod is run more often, and there's more opportunity to build a balanced table if the player has a choice.
I think the current rules are fine, but limiting. I can't try out as many of the new characters as I want. I'm forced to miss games because I allowed a gap in character levels to occur and have limited opportunities to accelerate low-level ones. When I run out of games to play I'll have to find something else to do, and that may be more fun than PFS (surely not!) Diablo 3 and Dungeon Siege 3 are both coming out in 2011, allegedly...
At least I can't run out of Time Units by February and end up sidelining my character for a year (LG I'm looking at you). :-)
And yes, I do DM for the two groups I play with and take DM credit. If I could convert the LFR group to PFS as well then I'd have three groups, but I have no incentive to do so at the moment so I've stopped asking.
|
|
Let me be honest here: This has to go both ways, too. I haven't played at a single event at my local game store since the new rules went into effect. Why? Because no GM has been willing to offer up what scenarios they're prepping in advance (or only one has). I have a life and activities outside of this game and work, and if I don't know that there's even going to be a seat available, why should I bother showing up?
Chris I don't see what about the new rule would cause GMs not to pre announce the scenario they are running? In fact the new rule should Encourage making sure everyone knows what is going to be run next!
|
|
OK, This is a opinion I cannot endorse. I will never feel that players should feel like they should kiss my ass to play at my table. That's just unacceptable and so over the line I'm embarrased to read this.
I became a VC to share my enjoyment of playing Pathfinder. As a GM I consider myself a host. As a host, I like to make my guests feel as comfortable as posible. I'm not about to start telling people that they can "Bugger off".
Once again, I can live with the rule as it stands, but I will not endorse incivility.
Apparently my words were not as eloquent for you as they were for others. Obviously not everything I said was literal. The point here Michael is that the players should be treating the person who is taking all their free time to give them a good, quality experience with some respect. They should be thankful that someone is running a game for them to play. Most players never take a turn behind the screen. If you make a change of direction, some of the players are going to whine/cry/complain/leave/threaten to leave. I didn't say I'd tell them to bugger off, I said they can bugger off because as adults they will come to their own decisions as to weather they want to get with the program that is being offered or not. It may not be as a apparent to others, but to me there is a world of difference in those two thing. In the first case, you are telling someone to find a lake and jump in it. In the second case, you are indifferent to their state relative to the lake. I'm not going to make that choice for them. I'm not going to harass or threaten or beg them. This is what I'm offering up with my free time, if you like it great let's roll some bones! If you don't like it you are always free to do something else. Don't like what's being offered or the timing of the games or the location or whatever? Plunk down $3.99 and run your own mod! Start up a new group of players!
I also consider myself a host, and if you come into my house and treat me like dirt I'm going to ask you to leave.
|
|
Play it twice, receive two chronicles.
Play it once, then GM, receive two chronicles.
GM it once, but then play it later, receive two chronicles.
GM it twice, receive two chronicles.
I'll add in another +1 to this. Combined with having more low level scenarios, a few infinite 1st level scenario replays, and some Modules to add to the schedule this could solve the replay "problem." By simply letting it be two credits period you're doubling the available modules to play for people that don't want to DM. This would make "weekly" PFS games come much much closer to being fully viable for game stores, which seems to be the crux of the issue.
|
|
+1 to all of the above. But I've made this same suggestion multiple times, only to see it shot down by Paizo peoples and Venture Captains alike.
Please remember that the Venture-Captains are only co-ordinators. We may try to help by answering questions about rules and scenarios, or pass on information.
However, our opinions on direction of policy are just opinions, and (as is obvious from recent posts) may differ from one another.
The only things I have regularly seen "shot down" are unlimited replay and the idea that there is currently no replay. But even those may not be unanimous opinions.
|
|
Prior to PFS, No living campaign EVER EVER offered a replay option AT ALL. You either played the module ONCE as a player, or you ATE it as a GM. Later on some benies were offered to ameliorate the sacrifice from "Slot Zeros" to let the GM's play before they ran the module at cons, or a one time option benefit per module eaten.
You might want to go recheck this assumption, specifically, you may want to check out the information on Living Forgotten Realms where replay is allowed. Many people who complain about replay use their experiences in LFR as an example of what bad things can happen.
Living Greyhawk had some excellent aspects, but it wasn't perfect. It's what my local group played and we put up with its foibles, such as Time Units and eating mods, because we liked D&D.
When LG ended my local group split into those that wanted to continue 3.5, those that went to LFR, those that went to PFS, and a few who just stopped playing. I started out playing LFR and the replaying aspect was a boon, I've had no bad experiences with it at all. I then switched to PFS after a couple of years because of the constant changes to LFR.
The reason we're even having this debate is because Paizo do listen and will make changes occasionally. The problem that Paizo have is that different people want different things. For myself replay is excellent and enhances my enjoyment of the game. For others posting here clearly it has the opposite effect. What can they do?
I think there needs to be a way of allowing replay whilst preventing replayers ruining the game for others (accidentally or otherwise). I think this is achievable, but there needs to be a little give and take.
|
Perhaps it will be helpful if I put forth a “cliff notes” of the Replay discussion from another thread. I will also try to include the rules as well.
Well I have been reading one of the threads Arnim started concerning GM rewards and chronicle sheets.
From what I understand at first there was no replaying allowed, and GMs just GMed for the love of it.
Then GMs got one credit (not retroactive) for a scenario they GMed, that they could apply to a character of theirs.
Replaying was allowed as long as it was a different character of a different character. The further caviat was that this was to be used as a last resort to fill a table.
I am guessing the rules at this point theoretically could allow someone to “replay” a scenario as much as 5 times with a different character and different faction. Once he GMed he couldn’t then play a scenario and receive a chronicle sheet for his character.
This then led to a discussion of an imbalance.
Which led into a discussion the possible abuses of play play play, and limits needing to be placed on replay.
I see that replay was intended as a last result.
In a couple of posts Mark Moreland expressed concerns people were using the play play play rule to replay scenarios and “game “ the system
I also seem to remember reading somewhere someone expressing concern about payers “farming” specific scenarios to get a reward. I am guessing this refers to something I have seen Wow players sometimes do, they run through an instance until the magic item they wants randomly appears for them.
After some confusion and nashing of teeth, Which lead us to this ruling.
Official PFS Ruling wrote:

If you play you earn 1 credit that is applied to the character that played through the scenario.
If you GM a scenario, you earn 1 credit that can be applied to any character that hasn't played through the scenario. 
You receive GM or player credit regardless of the order you play/GM the scenario. You may not earn more than 1 player credit and 1 GM credit regardless of how many times you GM or play the scenario. You are free to use PPP to seat legal tables, but if you already have earned your credits you do not earn any additional ones.
Hrym Savage wrote: 
We'll be clarifying and updating PPP soon as well but yes, if you play a character in a scenario there is always the threat of death (plus the use of consumables), regardless of whether or not you get credit for it. 

Replay still exists, but not for credit. The replay rule has one reference to receiving a chronicle, and only then by saying a GM doesn't need to give you one if you spoil the plot. I don't see the need to further clarify it, though it will be reworded in the next version of the Guide to be less wordy and more concise. 
Hyrum. 

The faction restriction no longer applies because a player can only get credit for playing with one character. If I GM #43, I apply the credit to my favorite character, who is a member of the Osirion faction. I later play it and since I lurve Osirion and refuse to play any of those other dumb factions, I play the scenario with my other Osirion faction PC. Or vice versa. Since I can't ever get credit with my third character, who may be another faction or may not, it doesn't matter. Some people really like one faction, and the current rule allows them to get both GM and player credit for that faction."
I know this is an awful lot of text to wade through, and i have copied/ pasted, but perhaps it will help frame the discussion.
|
|
you may want to check out the information on Living Forgotten Realms where replay is allowed. Many people who complain about replay use their experiences in LFR as an example of what bad things can happen.
And many people, like me, use their experiences in LFR as an example of why replay is a good thing.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
You should have went to Stuffed COWS last weekend.
I've never heard of Stuffed COWS, I need to google it (and maybe add it to my cons I visit in the future.)
This tends to be the way of most Organized Play campaigns.
It may be glorious memory (where you remember the glory days as void of problems), but I didn't have trouble in LG playing 13+ level games.
Not knowing what the Neg boon is, But how does a Negative boon stop you from playing the character?
I think it was a -1 to CHA skills boon or something minor. Either way, a negative boon for me as a player is something I can't handle. So while I "could" play with it (nothing is preventing me from doing so) I won't play with it.
To me, there is a difference between making a bad choice (I died, oh well spend several thousand and I'm back in black) and a scarlet letter (I have this negative boon I can't pay my way out).
they'll be worlds better than the current pregens.
I kind of feel sorry for the author of the current pregens, they seem to be universally disliked (the pregens.)
|
|
Perhaps it will be helpful if I put forth a “cliff notes” of the Replay discussion from another thread. I will also try to include the rules as well.
Thank you, Elyas, I found your cliff notes to be very helpful.
Prior to PFS, No living campaign EVER EVER offered a replay option AT ALL. You either played the module ONCE as a player, or you ATE it as a GM. Later on some benies were offered to ameliorate the sacrifice from "Slot Zeros" to let the GM's play before they ran the module at cons, or a one time option benefit per module eaten.You might want to go recheck this assumption, specifically, you may want to check out the information on Living Forgotten Realms where replay is allowed. Many people who complain about replay use their experiences in LFR as an example of what bad things can happen.
Since I personally never played any living campaign before 4th Edition LFR (or participated in any live tabletop rpgs before 4E), I can try to clarify that the current LFR rules is that any scenario can only be played thru once by a character. The "replay aspect", that people seem to be complaining about, comes into play with different characters played by the same player only. Since DMing LFR has no character based rewards comparable to what PFS offers, a person can DM a scenario however many times he or she wishes.
|
|
you may want to check out the information on Living Forgotten Realms where replay is allowed. Many people who complain about replay use their experiences in LFR as an example of what bad things can happen.And many people, like me, use their experiences in LFR as an example of why replay is a good thing.
It really comes down to:
Good roleplayers will be good roleplayers, even if they are replaying a scenario.
Bad roleplayers will be bad roleplayers, even if they are playing a scenario for the first time.
People who follow the rules will follow the rules, even if it means they can't play, or have to drop out of the system.
People who cheat will find a way to cheat, no matter what the rules are.
The stated number one rule of the Pathfinder Society is to get as many people playing as often as possible.
If this is really the primary rule, then it would be appreciated if the succeeding rules reflected this.
If this is not really the primary rule, then it would also be appreciated if the primary rule were changed to reflect reality.
|
|
I'd like to point out that allowing unlimited replay (or even the previous PPP rules of up to 5 replays) is not getting new people to play PF, which is what is implied by the PPP rule. If you re-read the entirety of the PPP rule, in addition to the first sentence, you will see that it indicates more about gaining new players (specifically the last sentence).
Replay really only benefits existing players who play more than what is currently sustainable by Paizo and ALSO do not GM.
You want to 'test' out a new build? Fine, do that if you wish, but why do you need official credit if you only want to 'test' a new build. Have a brand new player you want to help level and a really small group that has played every mod since year zero? Either be patient for the new low level that is offered every month or play pre-gens (or replay for no credit if the goal is to help the new guy).
People will find ways of cheating or gaming the system with any rule, however it's much harder to game the system currently that it was in previous incarnations of the PPP rule. This isn't a game where you can create 20 different characters and grind them all to 80 in the span of a few months.
|
|
Please excuse me for this lengthy post. I got on a roll and before I knew it, well I had written far to much.
I also want to put in that I think Hrym Savage, and the others are doing a good job, and they are doing their best to manage things.
I don’t know if you all remember DR. Sues? My parents read them to me, and I luckily have had the privilege of reading them to my nephews and nieces. I liked the story about the Lorax. Another story I particularly liked was “The Starbelly Sneatches, and the Sneatches Without”. I enjoyed reading them to my nephews and nieces, because I found there was more to the stories then I initially thought.
Another story that I remember was the story of the “North going Zax and the South going Zax. I think the story went something like this: The North going Zax walked north and wouldn’t step an inch to the left, or an inch to the right, an inch to the east or an inch to the west. The South going Zax was much the same, intent on going forward and wouldn’t deviate from his chosen course one bit.
Of course both Zaxes met, and the North going Zax and the South going Zax refused to step an inch to the left or an inch to the right, an inch to the east or an inch to the west. The puffed up their chests waved their arms hollered shouted demanding the other got out of their way. Neither did.
As the book progressed, farmers came in started farms, then a town started, then a city. As a child I loved turning the page and seeing what new buildings were there. the last picture I remember was that of both the North going Zax and South going Zax, still standing, facing each other with their chests puffed up, and their hands on their hips. A traffic circle and a freeway had been built around them. It was an amusing story.
I often see many similarities between our current politicians, the polarity they have cultivated, and the Zaxes, but that is a discussion for another thread.
Now I am not a Venture Captain, Nor a Coordinator. I am simply a player who has played and GMed Pathfinder Society a few times (15 I think). Over the past year, while I have led a gypsy like existence between, Vermont, North Carolina, Washington DC, and New Jersey/ New York City, and the Pathfinder Society Organized play, has given me a chance to both play and GM, when I don’t think I would have otherwise had the chance to do so. I have played in the Raleigh NC area, the DC area and the NYC area. I also went to a couple of small conventions, one in Vermont (Carnage on the Mountain) and another in North Carolina (Mace Convention in High Point) where I have played Pathfinder Society games as well. My home base is southern Vermont, and if life lets me settle back there, I would like to start a PFS game in the local gaming store, (Toy City in Keene NH) but that all depends on what my friends and the regular players there want to do.
I think much of this discussion about allowing replaying comes from people, who are worried about what will happen if people are turned away, and turned away repeatedly on the one hand.
On the other hand the people who are against any form of replaying, I think are worried about a can of worms being opened, in terms of abuses.
The pathfinder society games work largely on the honor system. Some people will stick to the system the rules, and others will find ways to subvert the system of rules to their own advantage.
I think there is one thing we can all agree upon here. It is better for the society to grow rather then shrink.
The current ruling is clear, and I think while taking the whole of the society into consideration, I think that it will benefit the society as a whole.
However I do have a couple of reservations. I think that this current ruling will hamstring players with high-level characters, and or multiple characters. I also think it will prevent veteran players from playing with new players.
I do think Arnim’s suggestion of having two credits per module; weather two players, two GM or one of each to be an excellent one. I do however thing that the credits should be split between two characters.
I also think that it is a very bad idea to turn away players. I think that it is far better to find a way to be inclusive, even if that means bending the rules a little bit, rather then exclusive.
I understand that after the “Living City”, Campaign, there was Living Grey Hawk, now the RPGA has Living Forgotten Realms. We players now also have the choice of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play games as well. I understand that the Pathfinder Society Organized Play was originally intended for Convention Play. (I know there are other living campaigns like “Arcanis” but unfortunately I am not very familiar with them) Perhaps I am wrong about this. But to me it seems as if it has grown beyond the convention setting and PFS is played in homes and also in Game Stores as well. It seems to me that the question of “replay” is raised in situations where you have a fairly large pool of players, and you have a weekly or perhaps in a few cases bi weekly games. Because of the number of modules available to play, and 2 a month rate, which they are being produced, I think that someone mentioned that if you play more then once every other week, you will run out of modules to play.
I have read somewhere that there are some thoughts going into working on allowing modules in for PFS play. This is an exciting idea.
Now earlier some people have posted that they have little sympathy and to possibly blame players for putting themselves in a position where they have been “fast burners” or eaten through most of what is available. I think some people have expressed that this behavior is irresponsible. While everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, I do not think those particular opinions are helpful in finding solutions.
My goal is to try and help PFS grow, and I would much prefer to be inclusive. I both loathe turning people away, and seeing players either side lined with no game to play, or sent away.
I just hope we can find some solution, and perhaps some limited form of replaying might be part of it. Again I thought Arnim’s suggetion was a good one.
Again I apologize for tossing in my “bucket of pennies” which I have subjected all of you to rather then my two cents. Well those are my thoughts for what they are worth.
|
|
And many people, like me, use their experiences in LFR as an example of why replay is a good thing.
I can say that locally the LFR replay rule was generally liked by the players but it killed our judgepool. Burnout was rampant. Even then it was sometimes the occasion of I've played this mod 6 times, guess I gotta make a 7th character.
Which leads me to something else. Sometimes, the best thing you can do for your local game day/group/hobby is walk away. You don't NEED to play every slot of every game available. As a coordinator I can honestly say that when I order low level mods for an established group, I did not order them for the replayer. The person who demands his replay right once it is offered (and ive seen this) can shut out the person who actually hadn't played before.
Most of the people who attend the boards here care enough about the game in general that they don't fall into the bad stereotypes we've all seen at the table. If the new replay rule help keeps some of the bad behavior down, I'll live with it. That being said, as a fairly recent convert to PFS, Omaha is nowhere close to running out of mods for anyone.
In the end we all want what is best for our groups. A lot of people keep arguing about what they think is best for Paizo. I'll just come out and say that regardless of the black day that Paizo sloughs off into the sea, I want what is best for my people. I think that's what we all want. Hiding your opinion behind an argument that it is the best for Paizo is simply a way to try to bolster a weak argument.
|
|
Honestly, if I was prepping 3 mods a week not knowing what I was going to run on Friday night I'd have stopped having fun a long time ago.
Indeed, players have a responsibility too! When I want to play a certain scenario, I get together a group of players and a DM. And if I can't find enough players that haven't played that scenario I'll ask someone that has and ask him/her to help me out. And guess what, they always do!
|
|
Seems like it could be a simple answer to a heated topic.
Play it twice, receive two chronicles.
Play it once, then GM, receive two chronicles.
GM it once, but then play it later, receive two chronicles.
GM it twice, receive two chronicles.
I am Ok with this with one caveat. When you replay a scenario you should be limited to 1 PA on your chronicle. In my experience the faction missions are not very secret and replayers have a definite advantage with regards to prestige. It also maintains a reward advantage for people who make the effort of GMing scenarios.
|
|
I am Ok with this with one caveat. When you replay a scenario you should be limited to 1 PA on your chronicle. In my experience the faction missions are not very secret and replayers have a definite advantage with regards to prestige. It also maintains a reward advantage for people who make the effort of GMing scenarios.
This I like.
|
|
I am Ok with this with one caveat. When you replay a scenario you should be limited to 1 PA on your chronicle. In my experience the faction missions are not very secret and replayers have a definite advantage with regards to prestige. It also maintains a reward advantage for people who make the effort of GMing scenarios.This I like.
+1
Heck, I recently played in a mod I'd run (using the new rule) and I got 0 PA. It was a season zero, and my character would not have been able to recognize the item he was supposed to get so, even though I knew where it was, I didn't grab it because that would have been out of character.
I am Ok with this with one caveat. When you replay a scenario you should be limited to 1 PA on your chronicle. In my experience the faction missions are not very secret and replayers have a definite advantage with regards to prestige. It also maintains a reward advantage for people who make the effort of GMing scenarios.Seems like it could be a simple answer to a heated topic.
Play it twice, receive two chronicles.
Play it once, then GM, receive two chronicles.
GM it once, but then play it later, receive two chronicles.
GM it twice, receive two chronicles.
Why? With the system that is in place right now, someone could GM a scenario and then go and play in it with no penalties, no limit on PA or anything else.
Plus, if you use your rule with what Kyle and Arnim and I have been advocating, then someone who only GMs will get way ahead on PA versus someone who only plays. If I run a scenario twice, I would have two characters with 2 PA, if you were to play in that scenario twice, you would have one character with potentially 2 PA and one with a max potential of 1 PA.