|
I go back to my original question a few posts ago, how would you like players to fix the problem? I want to do what you want us to do to fix this, so tell me what that is. If con organizers don't report tables and our badgering them fails to make it happen, where would you like us to send the data? I, as would many others, be more than happy to let you know our play history so you could make more informed descions.
Basing your plans off of a data gathering system you know is deeply flawed is generally a poor idea (trust me, I'm a scientist). At best you might be able to draw some overall trends, but you certainly cannot say "There are almost no high level PCs" when you know people aren't reporting games (and assuming the players are not cheating they stop playing at 12th-level so their "reported" level will NEVER hit 12).
(Apologies if this double posts/reflects a previous post, the board seems to have eaten my first one.)
So, I'm confused.
People in this thread have asked "what do we (the players) need to do to for higher level events to happen". Those in charge have responded "we need data to back up that move; buy, play, and most importantly report modules to reflect this desire for high level play". To which those gathered respond: "You method is flawed/invalid and that isn't a good enough answer. Give me another one." Repeat as necessary until you reach 150+ posts.
You have asked a question and have been given an answer. You seek to invalidate that answer and demand a different one. I have to wonder at what point an answer will be given that would end this cycle and what that answer has to look like.
This isn't meant as a dig at Skerrit or anyone in particular; his was just the post that triggered this train of thought. I'm as eager for play above level 12 as most people here; planning characters only this far makes many concepts unachievable in the current organized play state (prestige class oriented ones, for example).
And I share the concerns about the reliability and validity. But I also know that any data gathered from human subjects in what are circumstances with the least control possible is going to result in data that only gives a general idea at best of what's going on. We've been asked as a community to hold people accountable for improving this data; that is to say, the critique has been addressed.
|
|
People in this thread have asked "what do we (the players) need to do to for higher level events to happen". Those in charge have responded "we need data to back up that move; buy, play, and most importantly report modules to reflect this desire for high level play". To which those gathered respond: "You method is flawed/invalid and that isn't a good enough answer. Give me another one." Repeat as necessary until you reach 150+ posts.
Not exactly true. The original poster said "Why don't we have High Level play?" To which the answer was given, "Because according to our metrics there are no high level PCs." So posters began to say "Your metrics are wrong because I am high level." To which the response was "Well then, report your games correctly." To which players responded, "We would love to. How, without cheating and creating fraudulant events, would you like us to do so since we were not the event coordinators and we haven't been able to get them to report them?"
The response we were waiting for was just given by Mark Moreland a few posts ago. Everyone should email their actual complete play histories to hyrum.savage@paizo.com and Hyrum will sort it out. (That being the post immediately before yours)
I strongly encourage every single player who's data is incorrect to email their correct play histories to Hyrum so Paizo can properly base their descions off of the true numbers for the campaign.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Folks, I'm pretty well convinced that we need to be doing more to support high-level play.
I'm pretty well convinced that we need to do a special high-level experience at Gen Con next year (and maybe Paizo Con) at the very least.
I find it interesting that so many folks waited until all of the Eyes of the Ten modules were out before playing the first one. This argues fairly strongly, in my view, that we maybe should have started with a one-off rather than an elaborate multi-part story released over the better part of a year.
I'm concerned about borking the power curve on high-level events by capping the level, but letting people accumulate treasure. I'd expect this rule to change as part of any high-level expansion we might do, but I am getting well ahead of myself. I just want to make it clear that my personal opinion is that if we're going to provide more robust high-level support, we've got to let characters advance beyond 12th level. I really don't think that high-level spells and character options are as terrifying as some folks make them out to be. If you don't want to judge a high-level event, don't.
I'm pleased to see that folks clamoring for high-level play seem to agree that these need to be special events, not just another tier appended onto a module that also works for first-level characters.
The reporting situation is pretty pathetic, admittedly, and we'd be fools to make decisions based on it alone. No one metric is enough to make something happen, except possibly my whim. That turns out to be a fairly powerful thing around here.
We will be talking a lot more about this in-house following Paizo Con.
I appreciate everyone's feedback on this important issue.
Most of all, I REALLY appreciate everyone's enthusiasm, interest, and support for this campaign. I really want to make it the best organized play RPG campaign in history, and take the long view. This is a program we plan to support for a long, long time.
Threads like this will help to make sure that happens.
Thanks again, everyone!
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
The response we were waiting for was just given by Mark Moreland a few posts ago. Everyone should email their actual complete play histories to hyrum.savage@paizo.com and Hyrum will sort it out. (That being the post immediately before yours)
I strongly encourage every single player who's data is incorrect to email their correct play histories to Hyrum so Paizo can properly base their descions off of the true numbers for the campaign.
That's not what I said. Sending us a list of every session you've played in isn't going to do anything, as a laundry list of sessions will likely be more than we have the time to process. If, however, there are specific coordinators in your area who are lax in reporting, we would like to know how to contact them, and have examples of events we know they organized but didn't report, not so we can add your sessions to the database manually (a task we don't have the time nor manpower for) but so we can contact the coordinator and urge them to follow through with their responsibilities to the campaign and report the events they've run/organized.
Eric, thank you for the sincere request for ideas on what players are interested in seeing and for giving this notion some good consideration.
I am confident you know that, in your current player base, there is a lot of experience writing and managing the higher level play options for organized campaigns. A request from you and/or Mark would certainly produce more than a few volunteers to help make things successful.
|
Folks, I'm pretty well convinced that we need to be doing more to support high-level play.
I'm pretty well convinced that we need to do a special high-level experience at Gen Con next year (and maybe Paizo Con) at the very least.
I find it interesting that so many folks waited until all of the Eyes of the Ten modules were out before playing the first one. This argues fairly strongly, in my view, that we maybe should have started with a one-off rather than an elaborate multi-part story released over the better part of a year.
I'm concerned about borking the power curve on high-level events by capping the level, but letting people accumulate treasure. I'd expect this rule to change as part of any high-level expansion we might do, but I am getting well ahead of myself. I just want to make it clear that my personal opinion is that if we're going to provide more robust high-level support, we've got to let characters advance beyond 12th level. I really don't think that high-level spells and character options are as terrifying as some folks make them out to be. If you don't want to judge a high-level event, don't.
I'm pleased to see that folks clamoring for high-level play seem to agree that these need to be special events, not just another tier appended onto a module that also works for first-level characters.
The reporting situation is pretty pathetic, admittedly, and we'd be fools to make decisions based on it alone. No one metric is enough to make something happen, except possibly my whim. That turns out to be a fairly powerful thing around here.
We will be talking a lot more about this in-house following Paizo Con.
I appreciate everyone's feedback on this important issue.
Most of all, I REALLY appreciate everyone's enthusiasm, interest, and support for this campaign. I really want to make it the best organized play RPG campaign in history, and take the long view. This is a program we plan to support for a long, long time.
Threads like this will help to make sure that happens.
Thanks...
Tacking on a system like this rarely works well. It usually comes off feeling cheap and flimsy.
To me, this just feels like a rather vocal minority yet again complaining until they get their way.
Post 12th play is simply not necessary. Everyone who started the campaign knew (or should have known) that 12th was the end. Many people planned their characters around this end. Their characters aren't designed to be advanced past it and may even become extremely weak while compared to those who did design them for that hope.
My biggest question is if you knew that 12 was the limit, and still played with the expectation that they must eventually go beyond the 12th level limit, where did you get that idea? Not trying to be mean here, folks just trying to understand. Why would you join a OP (or any) campaign thinking that you would get to play beyond the rules? I have a very lawful mindset and this just flabbergasts me. It seems like a spit in the face of those of us who joined expecting rules to be rules.
To me, this just feels like a rather vocal minority yet again complaining until they get their way.
I also suspect that it's a minority of "Überplayers" that care about high-level play, but (a) I could be wrong and (b) even so, why should I care if there's high-level play as long as it doesn't hurt low-level players like me?
|
|
The request for 4 "cap busting" scenarios per year seems quite reasonable, especially since we now have 3+ seasons of low level scenarios, which is more than enough to support casual (and even HC) players. Diverting a few resources from here to high level play couldn't hurt.
The only questions is, does PFOS want to support organized play at levels 13+? If they do, there's no reason not to (at least minimally)support high level play. If there's a solid technical or story-based reason to keep the level cap at 12, they should explain their design decision and life will go on.
Anyway, whatever they decide is ok with me (casual GM). :)
|
|
To me, this just feels like a rather vocal minority yet again complaining until they get their way.I also suspect that it's a minority of "Überplayers" that care about high-level play, but (a) I could be wrong and (b) even so, why should I care if there's high-level play as long as it doesn't hurt low-level players like me?
I don't know that this is just a vocal minority complaining - it's a group of players asking a question on the direction of the campaign and letting another opinion/desire be known. We play PFS because we have faith in Paizo's rule set and designers, their adventure paths proving what thy can offer use from levels low to high. If we had not asked or voiced our concerns, the numbers and evidence would left us unheard. We are not asking that the entire campaign become a high-level playground - we only ask that there be acknowledgment that a growing population is reaching the cap, and would like to see further opportunities for those characters to be played. As you mentioned, there will still be plenty of low-level events available, and the support for the campaign will likely still be 1-12, but the document that some had mentioned also stated some support for characters of 12, in a limited or some fashion. A fraction of resources being directed at 12+ is not going suddenly end the low level play - some players would like to play characters for more than a year, and not have an annual character creation (which the extended play will support wonderfully, and those that wish a quicker advancement are also sill able to enjoy their style of play).
As for tacked on HL failing, that is a pretty negative assumption and a bit of lack of faith. There have been a few examples were it utterly failed, but the big example had a multitude of other of other issues that did not setup for success. There are more examples of where it went just fine or went wonderfully.
|
|
As for tacked on HL failing, that is a pretty negative assumption and a bit of lack of faith. There have been a few examples were it utterly failed, but the big example had a multitude of other of other issues that did not setup for success.
I didn't say tacked on HL would fail, I said it comes across feeling 'cheap and flimsy'
There are more examples of where it went just fine or went wonderfully.
Here we will have to agree to disagree. I have personally seen more examples of it being done poorly than being done well.
My argument here is that if there was going to be post-12th gaming, it should have been planned for from the start. Adding it now is less than ideal. I would rather play a completely rebooted campaign that allowed it than have it added on after the fact.
As an aside, it's already been shown that lower levels suffer when the higher levels become a focus. Just see the issues from the beginning of the season when they had to retool the schedule to make up for the lack of low-level play. People already complain that certain level teirs aren't getting the attention the deserve (I'd like to see more 5-9s) Unless they increase the mods done in a year, this will get worse.
It seems to me that people are complaining about the failure of a system that hasn't seen the light of day yet. They have said since the beginning that there will be play for retired characters at 12. We are only now getting to a point that people with these characters are starting to show up at the major cons with their retired 12s ready to play. Next year at paizo-con and gencon, this will be a necessity. I look forward to those myself. It just hasn't been needed before now.
|
|
As for tacked on HL failing, that is a pretty negative assumption and a bit of lack of faith. There have been a few examples were it utterly failed, but the big example had a multitude of other of other issues that did not setup for success.I didn't say tacked on HL would fail, I said it comes across feeling 'cheap and flimsy'
There are more examples of where it went just fine or went wonderfully.Here we will have to agree to disagree. I have personally seen more examples of it being done poorly than being done well.
My argument here is that if there was going to be post-12th gaming, it should have been planned for from the start. Adding it now is less than ideal. I would rather play a completely rebooted campaign that allowed it than have it added on after the fact.
As an aside, it's already been shown that lower levels suffer when the higher levels become a focus. Just see the issues from the beginning of the season when they had to retool the schedule to make up for the lack of low-level play. People already complain that certain level teirs aren't getting the attention the deserve (I'd like to see more 5-9s) Unless they increase the mods done in a year, this will get worse.
It seems to me that people are complaining about the failure of a system that hasn't seen the light of day yet. They have said since the beginning that there will be play for retired characters at 12. We are only now getting to a point that people with these characters are starting to show up at the major cons with their retired 12s ready to play. Next year at paizo-con and gencon, this will be a necessity. I look forward to those myself. It just hasn't been needed before now.
Apologies - cheap and flimsy stuck me as failure; I find that would not be work the effort than. Given the structure of leveling, item access, campaign arcs, and PFS rules, iI view looking at the options of 12 and up as an expansion of the current campaign, not something that has to be forced. Erik mentioned the biggest possible issue, the expansion of wealth if level 12 remains static. There are higher level powers and abilities that may need to examined, but I cannot foresee a multitude of issues that cannot be solved. If it cannot be done correctly, I'd rather thy not attempt it. I have a belief that thy can handle it. As you stated, we may have to agree to disagree on this opinion.
I agree that perhaps the HL play should have been planned better from the start, but it was not. I guess I'm confused on why it cannot be a natural extension - certainly you could have perhaps planned characters differently with feat choices or classes with a knowledge that play would go beyond 12th from the beginning, but I cannot see that as a game breaker. And the request of 4 to 8 modules to support HL play does not seem unreasonable; in fact, I'll agree that the balance of supported tiers in past seasons was confusing. The first two seasons of play saw half of the modules for tiers 5-9 and 7-11, making it impossible to play those modules at times, especially at launch, til late in the season.
As for the complaining about a system that has not seen the light of day, it started with the Eyes of the Ten series already, and I believe addressing this now is better than not acknowledging it til next year. The play numbers were not perhaps showing the percent of players reaching 12th correctly - for example, I know tables of 7-11 events played at the passed two GenCon, and probably a decent number. After 1 to 2 years, I'd have to believe those players have played 3 to 12 events and retired those characters. I believe there are a good number of players out there at or very close to 12th, and starting this discussion now will only serve to better prepare for next year's play. And low level play should not suffer, as it's the bread and butter of PFS, and the pathway to even entertain this discussion of higher level play.
|
|
Thanks for your support and effort from everyone at Paizo. I really appreciate and ejnoy PFS. It's a great time to get together with friends and have fun. I would greatly look forward to some high level play and thnik it'd be a great time.
I do have one request though. I know Eric pointed out having special events at PaizoCon and GenCon for high level play, but as someone who can't really afford to go to large out of state cons I'd like to see something that you could do outside of Cons. I know a lot of attendees at large cons is the easiest way to make these special events happen, but there are a lot of other people who can't attend Cons. I know that special event mods can be run outside of a convention but it can be hard to get the required 4 table minimum to run them. I hear about all the really fun intereactive events that happen and I wish I could play them. I think that having support for both high level con events and high level non-con events with less requirements to be able to play them would be appreciated. Maybe that's just me and I'm being to whinny.
Again thank you to everyone at Paizo for listening to requests and helping to make not only a better experience for society play but improving the hobby over all.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Post 12th play is simply not necessary. Everyone who started the campaign knew (or should have known) that 12th was the end. Many people planned their characters around this end. Their characters aren't designed to be advanced past it and may even become extremely weak while compared to those who did design them for that hope.
That's a pretty naive viewpoint to take in a campaign in which literally every single character is marching toward this level cap every single time they play an adventure. I fully expect requests for higher-level play options to increase every single year.
We plan to support Pathfinder Society for the long haul. Just because there aren't enough high-level players right this minute to justify significant support doesn't mean that this will be the case in a year, or in two years, or in three.
I don't understand the viewpoint that says "If I don't like it, or if I'm not interested, it must be unnecessary."
I assure you, this is false.
A lot of things that seemed like good ideas three years ago when we launched the campaign have turned out to need revision. In time, this will very likely be one of them.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I think that having support for both high level con events and high level non-con events with less requirements to be able to play them would be appreciated. Maybe that's just me and I'm being to whinny.
No, it's a good observation. Whatever we do, whenever we do it, won't be strictly limited to huge conventions. Some stuff probably will be, but not everything.
|
I might be in the minority, but I'm glad PFS has a level cap of 12. In Golarion, you're pretty much a rarity and an absolute beast when you're at 12. I don't think the majority of people understand how much of an accomplishment they've achieved by being this high level.
I also enjoy the fact that at level 12, I can go and fight in a level 13 and 14 module. Sure, I'm going to be underpowered vs. someone rolling up a character who is level 13 or 14 (and be behind on my access to 7th level spells), but I look forward to the challenge. It will definitely make playing those modules feel a bit more epic with my character.
I look forward to being able to bring a retired character to PaizoCon and GenCon in the future, but I am in no hurry to keep riding the same horse. With all the new material (classes, spells, feats, abilities, etc), I see PFS as the perfect testing grounds that allow me to experience wild and crazy class designs that I just wouldn't be able to experience as quickly in a home campaign.
If you're looking for longevity in a character, I suggest partaking in any of Paizo's delectable Adventure Paths. They allow you to reach those higher levels PFS does not currently allow, gives you a lot of time playing with one character, and follows a more focused story line.
PS. Finding a steady group to do a campaign with is the exact reason I even got involved in PFS. Now I'm involved in one and still do a lot of PFS (mainly GMing over playing). I enjoy it all a lot! :)
|
I know for myself that perhaps 1/5 of my sessions are reported and I quite believe that its far worse for others.-James
I guess that my area is a little different. As far as I can tell (no, wait, that's not quite right in as much as I keep and sort all of my chronicle sheets from each session), all of my 85 sessions played and 25 sessions GM'ed have been reported. So maybe the reporting isn't quite as bad everywhere.
|
|
Post 12th play is simply not necessary. Everyone who started the campaign knew (or should have known) that 12th was the end. Many people planned their characters around this end. Their characters aren't designed to be advanced past it and may even become extremely weak while compared to those who did design them for that hope.That's a pretty naive viewpoint to take in a campaign in which literally every single character is marching toward this level cap every single time they play an adventure. I fully expect requests for higher-level play options to increase every single year.
We plan to support Pathfinder Society for the long haul. Just because there aren't enough high-level players right this minute to justify significant support doesn't mean that this will be the case in a year, or in two years, or in three.
I don't understand the viewpoint that says "If I don't like it, or if I'm not interested, it must be unnecessary."
I assure you, this is false.
A lot of things that seemed like good ideas three years ago when we launched the campaign have turned out to need revision. In time, this will very likely be one of them.
It's naive to expect people to follow the rules they signed up for? If that is really the Paizo viewpoint, I don't see a reason to continue to support the campaign.
I'm merely expressing an opinion that i see under-represented on this thread. That you follow through with what the campaign said it would do. Just like there are player's the OP mentioned who won't get involved unless we go past 12, there are players I speak with that would stop playing if it did.
Last I knew, this was the place for opinions. If mine is no longer welcome, I'll move on.
I might be in the minority, but I'm glad PFS has a level cap of 12. In Golarion, you're pretty much a rarity and an absolute beast when you're at 12. I don't think the majority of people understand how much of an accomplishment they've achieved by being this high level.
I have to admit that it would probably rub me the wrong way if the Pathfinder Society turned out to have dozens of 18th level members, for instance. But I suspect that I won't even make it to 12th level (let alone 18th level), so I can remain blissfully ignorant of the goings-on at the highest echelons. :-)
|
|
I might be in the minority, but I'm glad PFS has a level cap of 12. In Golarion, you're pretty much a rarity and an absolute beast when you're at 12. I don't think the majority of people understand how much of an accomplishment they've achieved by being this high level.
I also enjoy the fact that at level 12, I can go and fight in a level 13 and 14 module. Sure, I'm going to be underpowered vs. someone rolling up a character who is level 13 or 14 (and be behind on my access to 7th level spells), but I look forward to the challenge. It will definitely make playing those modules feel a bit more epic with my character.
I look forward to being able to bring a retired character to PaizoCon and GenCon in the future, but I am in no hurry to keep riding the same horse. With all the new material (classes, spells, feats, abilities, etc), I see PFS as the perfect testing grounds that allow me to experience wild and crazy class designs that I just wouldn't be able to experience as quickly in a home campaign.
If you're looking for longevity in a character, I suggest partaking in any of Paizo's delectable Adventure Paths. They allow you to reach those higher levels PFS does not currently allow, gives you a lot of time playing with one character, and follows a more focused story line.
PS. Finding a steady group to do a campaign with is the exact reason I even got involved in PFS. Now I'm involved in one and still do a lot of PFS (mainly GMing over playing). I enjoy it all a lot! :)
+1
|
|
It's naive to expect people to follow the rules they signed up for? If that is really the Paizo viewpoint, I don't see a reason to continue to support the campaign.
I'm merely expressing an opinion that i see under-represented on this thread. That you follow through with what the campaign said it would do. Just like there are player's the OP mentioned who won't get involved unless we go past 12, there are players I speak with that would stop playing if it did.
Last I knew, this was the place for opinions. If mine is no longer welcome, I'll move on.
I'd just like to chime in, here, that when I started playing PFS (and that wasn't till December of Year One) there was nothing in the organized play guide indicating that the campaign would cap at 12. In point of fact, I built my first PFS character assuming that I would be playing to level 20. I had already played her several times by the time that the version of the organized play guide came out stating the level 12 cap. (And although I really love my healing cleric, it always annoyed me that I'd maxed out her wisdom score instead of her charisma score at first level because I'd built her to be able to eventually cast 9th level spells) So saying that everyone knew that the cap was 12 at the time they started playing the game is both unfair and untrue.
Please don't take this as an issue with the level 12 cap--it's not. But your statement's based on a false assumption.
Thank you teribithia, this is something I did not know. And it does change things a bit.
|
|
As another note, I can't see that the members of the Decemvirate are much higher than 12th level themselves. I can only imagine that as folks rise in level, they'd want to become a member of the Decemvirate.
As an aside, I have a cleric stated the way teribithia9 probably would have if the 12 cap was known back in the day. In either case, I think it goes to show that people work within the bounds they believe their character is intended to play in. I mean, I'm sure I'll get enough gold to get some tomes to up my wisdom (as well as using my level 12 stat increase to go to wisdom after my next scenario!), but knowing that there is (or isn't in teribithia's case) a level cap would have forced some character creation changes starting all the way back at level 1. I think you'll find a lot of players today create their characters with this hard limit in mind.
|
|
Personally, I like the level cap. I've played/GM'd a number of times in higher (15+) level campaigns and, IMO, the mechanical aspects of the game break down quickly after that. Sure there are instances where it works, but generally, I see it become increasingly difficult to arrange appropriate challenges and maintain the time frame. I think the sweet spot for a cap is 12-15. But agan, that's just my opinion.
However, I am not opposed to higher level play, just not interested in playing or GM it. If it was expanded for PFS, I would gladly organize it for our local games, but probably wouldn't GM those tables. Of course my opinion might change in a few weeks when I GM "Tomb of the Iron Medusa" at Origins. I might find that I enjoy PFS at level 14. We'll see.
The point is, I am not opposed to high-level play. I just choose not to partake of it. So I'm not going to call for a wholesale boycott of PFS if it happens. If a few other players are enjoying high level play, why does that impact those of us who don't? Assuming of course, that the addition does not water-down the quality of lower mods and the release schedule is increased to accommodate those higher mods. Sounds like it could increase popularity with those players who want it-so much the better.
I just don't like the "I'm gonna quit if this happens" talk, especially in regards to a rule that doesn't directly impact an individual player. IMO, it sounds very childish.
|
|
Personally, I like the level cap. I've played/GM'd a number of times in higher (15+) level campaigns and, IMO, the mechanical aspects of the game break down quickly after that. Sure there are instances where it works, but generally, I see it become increasingly difficult to arrange appropriate challenges and maintain the time frame. I think the sweet spot for a cap is 12-15. But agan, that's just my opinion.
However, I am not opposed to higher level play, just not interested in playing or GM it. If it was expanded for PFS, I would gladly organize it for our local games, but probably wouldn't GM those tables. Of course my opinion might change in a few weeks when I GM "Tomb of the Iron Medusa" at Origins. I might find that I enjoy PFS at level 14. We'll see.
The point is, I am not opposed to high-level play. I just choose not to partake of it. So I'm not going to call for a wholesale boycott of PFS if it happens. If a few other players are enjoying high level play, why does that impact those of us who don't? Assuming of course, that the addition does not water-down the quality of lower mods and the release schedule is increased to accommodate those higher mods. Sounds like it could increase popularity with those players who want it-so much the better.
I just don't like the "I'm gonna quit if this happens" talk, especially in regards to a rule that doesn't directly impact an individual player. IMO, it sounds very childish.
TK,
I'm not, in theory opposed to it either. If it does happen I may even take part it in it.
My post above about stopping my support wasn't about a decision to expand gameplay but more about an attitude I see more and more often on these boards that makes me less and less interested in continuing my own playing. This coupled with one of the worst days I've had in recent years.
I have an incredible amount of respect for the folks at Paizo in general and Mr. Mona in particular. I probably took things a bit more personally than I should have.
|
|
I don't understand the talk about "playing within the rules." We all know that RPG's change over time. Currently, there is no epic level rule set for PF, but it is reasonable to assume that, in time, it will exist. Just a natural progression.
Just because the level 12 cap exists for PFS, does not mean it can never be changed. History should teach us that the game evolves. And so far, nearly every change invoked by Paizo has been a good one that fosters gameplay.
Adding 13+ level play to PFS is really no different than any other release or publication. It was information not available to you at the time of character creation. You may have been able to plan for that material better had you known at the time, but now it's too late-at least for that PC.
Again I say that I am not a fan of higher level play, but I am a fan of more choices for players. Not everyone has access to "Ultimate Magic" or the "Advanced Player's Guide" but they still play and have fun. I don't really see the difference. YMMV
|
|
My post above about stopping my support wasn't about a decision to expand gameplay but more about an attitude I see more and more often on these boards that makes me less and less interested in continuing my own playing.
I understand that. I often find myself scratching my head about some of the posts in the forums, but remember that it is a very small vocal minority.
In my CS experience, there are often customer's who you are better off letting go to the "other guy" because they are unreasonable and will never truly be happy unless 100% of what you offer is their way.
Constructive feedback is great. But I see too much "brow beating" and "chest thumping" in the forums.
We should follow Paizo's lead and filter some of the "static" and know that the popularity of the game continues to increase and have fun playing it.
|
|
I don't understand the talk about "playing within the rules." We all know that RPG's change over time. Currently, there is no epic level rule set for PF, but it is reasonable to assume that, in time, it will exist. Just a natural progression.
Just because the level 12 cap exists for PFS, does not mean it can never be changed. History should teach us that the game evolves. And so far, nearly every change invoked by Paizo has been a good one that fosters gameplay.
Adding 13+ level play to PFS is really no different than any other release or publication. It was information not available to you at the time of character creation. You may have been able to plan for that material better had you known at the time, but now it's too late-at least for that PC.
Again I say that I am not a fan of higher level play, but I am a fan of more choices for players. Not everyone has access to "Ultimate Magic" or the "Advanced Player's Guide" but they still play and have fun. I don't really see the difference. YMMV
It has to do with the expectations that you have created. Things do change, they always will. With the many changes since Mr. Frosts departure I have come to see the campaign as 'unstable'(obviously others disagree). There's a balance to be reached between making necessary changes and making too many.
|
|
As another note, I can't see that the members of the Decemvirate are much higher than 12th level themselves. I can only imagine that as folks rise in level, they'd want to become a member of the Decemvirate.I imagine becoming a member of the Ten, is something that involves a lot more than mere leveling. You'd probably also have to deal with removing an existing seat holder first, and they might not take kindly to that notion.
And not all members need be high-level. At least in typical class levels. They could be wealthy, influential people who hire skills they don't posses. And there is always NPC class levels. I'm sure each member has unique skills that allowed them to ascend to their position, whether that be by their own hand or that of minion/cohort/hirelings.
If you do not want to partake of play past level 12 that is fine, you do not have to, neither as a player or a DM. Heck, you can stop playing at any level prior to 12 if you so choose, maybe the game is most fun to you from levels 1-8. I am fine with that.
I've yet to see a solid reason put forth against higher level play. But I have seen a lot of negative reaction to the idea. And I just don't understand it. No one is asking to have anything taken away from those that do not like play past 12.
Since the campaign began in there have been (or by Aug will be) 83 scenarios (Season 0 - 28 [19 are still playable], Season 1 - 28, Season 2 - 27) available to play, plus 4 adaptations of published Paizo adventures and and three GenCon specials.
Five of these events are for level 12 characters. Five. That is an itch above 5 percent of what is available.
If Paizo continues to produce 28 scenarios each year, and 4 of those were written for play past level 12, that would be just under 15% of what is available. If they wrote 6 per season, that would be just over 21%. If Paizo took a poll, I bet more than 15-20% of its player base would say they do want this option made available.
Under a yearly 22/6 ratio there would still be plenty of play options for people of all flavors. As time goes by more and more players will have more and more characters running past 11th level. Some people could/will have their 3rd level 12 character in early 2012 - even with slow advancement this will probably happen by GenCon 2012.
Erik has said they will be talking about this in-house and making a plan. He did not say he was going to scrap all play under level 11. So no one that dislikes higher level play has anything to panic about.
|
|
Stuff
For me at least, it's not that big of a problem should the level cap be raised, it just means I need to budget for different expenses in game for my cleric!
When I start a new character, whether it is for organized play or a campaign, I stat them all the way up to the highest level they will reach just so I know what decisions I will be faced with when leveling them up. Now, I'm not so hard set in my leveling tree, and leave a lot of options open (like waiting until Ultimate Magic came out so I could get a cool feat like quick channel before I played any scenarios at level 11).
I guess it's just nice to know beforehand. Then again, I don't think there are as many folks who plan their characters to the extent that I do.
/If I GM 27 scenarios that all offer 2 PA and apply them to my Undead Lord Cleric, I will have enough PA and Gold to purchase a Darkskull. Granted, I will only get 6 scenarios to use it in, but still pretty awesome if you ask me! :)
|
|
I've yet to see a solid reason put forth against higher level play. But I have seen a lot of negative reaction to the idea. And I just don't understand it. No one is asking to have anything taken away from those that do not like play past 12.
Beacuse you are taking the resources away from the majority that plays in the 1-11 range. That's really what it comes down to. That you think it is negligible is obvious. Those of use who have seen unbalanced play levels occur once already in the campaign disagree. If Paizo was willing to dedicate even more resources and time by increasing the number of mods each year in PFS then I would probably support you in this. So far, they have not been.
|
|
It has to do with the expectations that you have created. Things do change, they always will. With the many changes since Mr. Frosts departure I have come to see the campaign as 'unstable'(obviously others disagree). There's a balance to be reached between making necessary changes and making too many.
IMO, most of the changes were necessary and should have been part of the original ruleset. Whether due to the learning curve or hindsight being 20-20, I really don't see anything that could be considered "earthshaking."
The amusing thing (to me at least) is that there was just as much clamoring for rules changes during the first two seasons, it just wasn't really being done. Now that Hyrum/Mark seem to be listening to the feedback and adjusting for it, there is just as much complaining, just a different group. Sometimes, it seems they can't win for losing.
*my comments are not meant towards any individual member of the community, just my 2cp...Explore, Report, Cooperate*
|
|
It has to do with the expectations that you have created. Things do change, they always will. With the many changes since Mr. Frosts departure I have come to see the campaign as 'unstable'(obviously others disagree). There's a balance to be reached between making necessary changes and making too many.IMO, most of the changes were necessary and should have been part of the original ruleset. Whether due to the learning curve or hindsight being 20-20, I really don't see anything that could be considered "earthshaking."
The amusing thing (to me at least) is that there was just as much clamoring for rules changes during the first two seasons, it just wasn't really being done. Now that Hyrum/Mark seem to be listening to the feedback and adjusting for it, there is just as much complaining, just a different group. Sometimes, it seems they can't win for losing.
*my comments are not meant towards any individual member of the community, just my 2cp...Explore, Report, Cooperate*
I'll say that I was firmly behind Josh's line-in-the-sand mentality. Sometimes, you just are a lot better not getting what you think you want and only getting what you really need.
|
|
stuff
The fear is that in order to accommodate additional publications, existing schedules and quantity will be impacted, at least in the short term.
If you follow the staff in chat/blog/etc, you'll see that they are regularly working 6-7 days a week and into the late hours to get everything done. Adding additional work would be a challenge. There is a point when enough is enough. In addition to new material, there is errata, FAQ, and rewrites that are on the list of tasks that have to be incorporated as well.
Perhaps they can/will hire additional developers to assist. But that is a more long-term solution. If everyone is willing to wait until season four, perhaps it can be planned for.
If players want more scenarios to play, especially those of you who have extensive experience writing for other OP, then start writing and submit the material to Paizo for review. If they get an influx of quality material, I'm sure that Erik would adjust the schedule to add them. If not, then perhaps the quality of "your" work isn't/wasn't as good as you though it was.
*my comments are not meant towards any individual member of the community, just my 2cp...Explore, Report, Cooperate*
|
|
I've yet to see a solid reason put forth against higher level play. But I have seen a lot of negative reaction to the idea. And I just don't understand it.
My personal best reason has nothing to do with playing and everything to do with immersing yourself in the world of Golarion. Just to give you an idea:
Power Levels: The vast majority of humanoids are "standard," ranging in level from 1st to 5th - most with NPC classes like commoner, expert, or warrior (it's uncommon for a character with only NPC class levels to be above 5th level). A significant number of a nation's movers and shakers, along with other leaders, heroes, and notables, are "exceptional," ranging in level from 6th to 10th. "Powerful" characters, ranging in level from 11th to 15th, are quite rare - typically only a handful of such powerful characters should exist in most nations, and they should be leaders or specially trained troops most often designed to serve as allies or enemies for use in an adventure. Finally, "legendary" characters of 16th or higher level should be exceptionally rare, and when they appear should only do so as part of a specific campaign - all legendary characters should be supported with significant histories and flavors.
I mean, hats off to anyone who reaches level 12. If it wasn't for the Pathfinder Society, your character would probably be carving up areas of the Inner Sea and lording over people without folks having much ability to stop them (my cleric with his +24 (25 after the next game) to Diplomacy would ascend quickly in the leadership of some land or become Archbishop in the Church of Sarenrae anyyone?).
I will also agree with the fact that the ability to re-allocate resources to create those scenarios aren't in the cards at the present, but things will probably change in a year or two.
/BTW At the end of June there will be 6 offerings for higher level play (12 arc + 2 modules). But even then that doesn't accurately reflect the time investment relative to other scenarios with the 1st part of the 12 arc acting as 2 scenarios and the modules can be pretty much guaranteed to take up 3 scenario slots. I'd say 5 events (or 6 soon) doesn't accurately reflect the sum total of what is available for your retired character, considering those events are pretty massive.
//My local VC, Mike "To Kill A Brockingbird" Brock said the level 12 arc takes at least 24 hours of actual play time to sit through the level 12 arc. He just ran it this weekend for a group in our area.
///Looking forward to my date with retirement in mid-July.
My personal best reason has nothing to do with playing and everything to do with immersing yourself in the world of Golarion. Just to give you an idea: [good points snipped]
I have to admit that I would find it kind of a turn-off if the PFS meta-plot involved four threats each year to the Pathfinder Society that could only be handled by "exceptionally rare" nigh-demigods.
If players want more scenarios to play, especially those of you who have extensive experience writing for other OP, then start writing and submit the material to Paizo for review. If they get an influx of quality material, I'm sure that Erik would adjust the schedule to add them. If not, then perhaps the quality of "your" work isn't/wasn't as good as you though it was.
*my comments are not meant towards any individual member of the community, just my 2cp...Explore, Report, Cooperate*
I find it amazingly and amusing that you can put your "disclaimer" at the bottom of your message, right after taking a "shot" at me and/or others. What exactly did saying "then maybe your work isn't as good as you thought it was" possibly do other than insult or attack the group making the argument for more high level play?
If you'd not read some of the stuff these folks have written I am confident you'd see that its quite good. If you have read it, no matter your reaction to it, then you're just trying to take a shot without repercussions.
If/when some requests for writers to submit samples or ideas for higher level scenario then maybe I/others will do so. But since that has not been a request (to this point the level 12s have been handled in-house author-wise) I won't do so just on a hope and a prayer. In general I believe it is is waste of time to submit unsolicited writing to a publishing company. And since there is not a shortage of actual events, I don't see a need to just submit more, that was not the gist of this thread/request.
But no one asking for more high level play has ever made this about "we can do this better than 'you'." All we've said is we've seen/done a lot on OP campaigns, and are trying to make the argument that quality/fun higher level scenarios can be produced without affecting the quality of the "other" aspects of the campaign. In fact, I (and others) believe it would enhance it, on a number of fronts. And some of the folks have mentioned they'd volunteer to help.
From what is reported and being said by many on these boards, a majority of players are not at level 12 with even one character. Well then my response is that those players have nothing to worry about, there's still plenty of events to play for them. One can't say they fear there will be a reduction of what is available, then also say they have lots to yet play. Contradiction.
And for those mentioning this is a vocal minority trying to get their way, I'd submit that the nay-sayers are not able to prove they are any more/less of a vocal nor minor group. And I think trying to make the vocal minority argument is akin to saying "we don't like you or what you have to say so just go away". Very welcoming.
I also find it interesting that, of those arguing against the higher level notion, every single VC that has posted has been against it. To me, this flies in the face of the "Explore/Cooperate" aspect of the campaign. Accommodating all interested players is part of a VC's charge, right? or is it just for new players?
|
|
I also find it interesting that, of those arguing against the higher level notion, every single VC that has posted has been against it. To me, this flies in the face of the "Explore/Cooperate" aspect of the campaign. Accommodating all interested players is part of a VC's charge, right? or is it just for new players?
This, more than anything, is what sets me off against you, Frozen. The idea that somehow, because some people have made it plain they disagree with you, they arent acting in the spirit of the campaign.
We've all stated our opinion. We've all had our say. We aren't lesser people for disagreeing with you.
Power Levels: The vast majority of humanoids are "standard," ranging in level from 1st to 5th - most with NPC classes like commoner, expert, or warrior (it's uncommon for a character with only NPC class levels to be above 5th level). A significant number of a nation's movers and shakers, along with other leaders, heroes, and notables, are "exceptional," ranging in level from 6th to 10th. "Powerful" characters, ranging in level from 11th to 15th, are quite rare - typically only a handful of such powerful characters should exist in most nations, and they should be leaders or specially trained troops most often designed to serve as allies or enemies for use in an adventure. Finally, "legendary" characters of 16th or higher level should be exceptionally rare, and when they appear should only do so as part of a specific campaign - all legendary characters should be supported with significant histories and flavors.
I agree, that is a problem/contradiction. And is another reason the leveling every 3 events is an issue (to me) because it is so easy to get past that level 5 and into the world's defined "power belt".
I mean, imagine how many characters are going to be over level 7 at the end of Season 3 (not to mention over 11). How about at the end of Season 5?
Now, the "census" of all active PCs doesn't have to be something that is "recognized" by the campaign world itself. Really, in spite of characters "knowing" each other we as players should take it all with a grain of salt and understand that "only" they are the ones doing each scenario, its not also happening with the other thousands of characters that are also being played through those encounters.
So dose of suspension of disbelief is always is required for a shared organized play campaign like this, I think.
I also find it interesting that, of those arguing against the higher level notion, every single VC that has posted has been against it. To me, this flies in the face of the "Explore/Cooperate" aspect of the campaign. Accommodating all interested players is part of a VC's charge, right? or is it just for new players?
This, more than anything, is what sets me off against you, Frozen. The idea that somehow, because some people have made it plain they disagree with you, they arent acting in the spirit of the campaign.
We've all stated our opinion. We've all had our say. We aren't lesser people for disagreeing with you.
And neither am I a lesser player/person for asking about and making an argument for some new play options.
I and those trying to make a solid argument for why this is viable are these one that've been told we're part of a "vocal minority" and told to "STFU and just do what you're told".
And since a fair bit of that message has come from VCs yeah, maybe I am a bit frustrated. Maybe its my marketing/management career rearing its head, but I think its never a wise idea to tell your current customers (even if its just some of them) that they should just do what you say and like it, especially when they are trying to GIVE you feedback (most companies pay big $ for this stuff) on what they'd like to see (and pay you for).
So explain to me how it is that _you're_ the one being told your opinion is not valid because its different than yours or someone else's?
The people making the pleas for a few more high level play options have done so by trying to provide information, examples and experiences they've had. Most of the people arguing against it have an argument that can be boiled down to "I don't like it or I may miss out on something".
There's room for numerous play styles in a campaign this large. One group is simply trying to make its case for what it likes. If its not your cup of tea, why are you trying to put a stop to it? just go keep doing what you like (there's plenty of scenarions available).
|
|
I also find it interesting that, of those arguing against the higher level notion, every single VC that has posted has been against it. To me, this flies in the face of the "Explore/Cooperate" aspect of the campaign. Accommodating all interested players is part of a VC's charge, right? or is it just for new players?
That's odd, I don't remember posting against it. I even went back and looked.
And I don't believe what you are claiming is specifically in the RAW of the job description if you want to go there. I certainly don't, I'm just saying.
PFS is a marketing vehicle for Paizo products. It's supposed to help build interesting an entire portfolio of work. At some point players and GMs who are interested in deeper exploration of various things will have to split off of PFS play to some degree. Weather that is a 15th level campaign, something set entirely on sunken Azlant, or a Krynn-style Cataclysm. I'm spinning up a home game set in Numeria full of crazy tech and psionics. I'm not pushing that stuff for Season 3 story lines. Erik already indicated that post 12 play isn't off the table so I'm not sure why this tread continues. *sigh*
EDIT
There's room for numerous play styles in a campaign this large. One group is simply trying to make its case for what it likes. If its not your cup of tea, why are you trying to put a stop to it? just go keep doing what you like (there's plenty of scenarions available).
Honestly, I think some of it may come from the perception that there WAS a log jam of available scenarios which we are kinda just starting to clear out from. The implication being that there is only so many hands to do the work, and the majority would rather see the work done in X rather than in Y. To me if there is player support for it and company support for it game on. I don't want to play games at those levels and nobody can force me to run them, so their state of existence doesn't really matter to me.
|
|
I also find it interesting that, of those arguing against the higher level notion, every single VC that has posted has been against it. To me, this flies in the face of the "Explore/Cooperate" aspect of the campaign. Accommodating all interested players is part of a VC's charge, right? or is it just for new players?
This, more than anything, is what sets me off against you, Frozen. The idea that somehow, because some people have made it plain they disagree with you, they arent acting in the spirit of the campaign.
We've all stated our opinion. We've all had our say. We aren't lesser people for disagreeing with you.
And neither am I a lesser player/person for asking about and making an argument for some new play options.
I and those trying to make a solid argument for why this is viable are these one that've been told we're part of a "vocal minority" and told to "STFU and just do what you're told".
And since a fair bit of that message has come from VCs yeah, maybe I am a bit frustrated. Maybe its my marketing/management career rearing its head, but I think its never a wise idea to tell your current customers (even if its just some of them) that they should just do what you say and like it, especially when they are trying to GIVE you feedback (most companies pay big $ for this stuff) on what they'd like to see (and pay you for).
So explain to me how it is that _you're_ the one being told your opinion is not valid because its different than yours or someone else's?
The people making the pleas for a few more high level play options have done so by trying to provide information, examples and experiences they've had. Most of the people arguing against it have an argument that can be boiled down to "I don't like it or I may miss out on something".
There's room for numerous play styles in a campaign this large. One group is simply trying to make its case for what it likes. If its not your cup of tea, why are you trying to put a stop...
REALLY????
Noone has once told you to STFU. But you have consistantly ignored all of our opinions.
If anything, you've found a pretty important champion for your cause in Mr. Mona.
So explain to me how it is that _you're_ the one being told your opinion is not valid because its different than yours or someone else's?
|
|
I and those trying to make a solid argument for why this is viable are these one that've been told we're part of a "vocal minority" and told to "STFU and just do what you're told".
First of all.. you took what I said out of context .. I didn't specifically tell you or anyone what to do .. Perhaps I said it wrong, but I get a little rankled when time and time again people are given answers and they still harp on the subject (que replay threads anyone?)
The powers that be told us specifically what they look at and that in their opinion the numbers are not where they feel they need them to be to expend the resources on higher level play when it's lower level play that appears to be growing-- from the numbers that they have and we don't.
What we as players see is one side of the story and it's in our specific area, we don't see the broad world picture that the employees see and base their business decisions on.
You started out this thread with a negative attitude and taking a defensive stance (in my opinion)and with a "I'm better than you stance" and you've continued that defensive stance even AFTER getting one of the higher ups to agree with you. Does anything make you happy?
