Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
No, the adapting of previously played scenarios is not permitted. Newly run scenarios should be adapted as written, but existing Chronicles should never be altered retroactively.
Now this may well be addressed elsewhere and my lack of perception has allowed me to miss it. What I do not get is why, given that there is no option for replay for credit those of us who have been playing for a while have essentially ended up being penalised.
Seems that some balancing of PA should be possible. So I was respectfully wondering why the decision not to do so was taken.
W
|
Now this may well be addressed elsewhere and my lack of perception has allowed me to miss it. What I do not get is why, given that there is no option for replay for credit those of us who have been playing for a while have essentially ended up being penalised.
Seems that some balancing of PA should be possible. So I was respectfully wondering why the decision not to do so was taken.
I imagine because policing it would be an administrative nightmare.
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
I imagine because policing it would be an administrative nightmare.Now this may well be addressed elsewhere and my lack of perception has allowed me to miss it. What I do not get is why, given that there is no option for replay for credit those of us who have been playing for a while have essentially ended up being penalised.
Seems that some balancing of PA should be possible. So I was respectfully wondering why the decision not to do so was taken.
Plus one for this.
I have at least twenty players that rotate through my game monthly. I do not want to have to deal with this. thank you for the prompt response, Mark.
Automatically changing this on the online system could be easy or hard depending on how it is set up. I am guessing it'd be hard to impossible otherwise the decison to say sorry but no dice to the guys n gals who have been out there recruiting the players who will now get all the extra PA is just plain inexplicable. On paper based Chrons the whole extra PA is easy enough to achieve, I would guess via a special Chronicle for that purpose. .
What I had imagined was having a special chronicle that you download, a GM checks your paper based chronicles are all in order, adds the PA and reports the chronicle. No XP of course, no money though some small rp related token of thanks for being here for the last couple of years is not really a bad idea.
Simply put new players get more game options and get them earlier than the old gang, whose characters will have had to deal with less PA and fame from the word go and this inequality will carry on and on. I know my group is really rather unhappy about it. They can't see why the risk of a small minority of ppl trying to manipulate the system is reason to penalise established players.
My own objections are less viceral than my players but I do share their sense of injustice and confusion as to why the primie facie unfairness is somehow justified on administrative grounds
|
|
Having the PA be retroactive would definitely be a nice thank you to all the players who started in season 0. Their characters tend to have less PA for their lvl compared to someone who started in say season 2. I leave it up to the organizers to consider a possible mechanism for doing so. I do like the idea of a one time PA alteration on the first scenario played in season 3, just like a faction change.
|
|
Having the PA be retroactive would definitely be a nice thank you to all the players who started in season 0. Their characters tend to have less PA for their lvl compared to someone who started in say season 2. I leave it up to the organizers to consider a possible mechanism for doing so. I do like the idea of a one time PA alteration on the first scenario played in season 3, just like a faction change.
This already happened. If you started in season 0 (as I did), then you got a PA boost when converting your 3.5 character to PFRPG for season 1.
|
|
What I had imagined was having a special chronicle that you download, a GM checks your paper based chronicles are all in order, adds the PA and reports the chronicle. No XP of course, no money though some small rp related token of thanks for being here for the last couple of years is not really a bad idea.
If I was GMing PFS, the last thing I'd want would be a group of players, each waving a sheaf of chronicle sheets at me, wanting me to check through the whole lot just for the sake of a couple of PA.
Simply put new players get more game options and get them earlier than the old gang, whose characters will have had to deal with less PA and fame from the word go and this inequality will carry on and on. I know my group is really rather unhappy about it. They can't see why the risk of a small minority of ppl trying to manipulate the system is reason to penalise established players.
Why not start a brand new PC? Then you'd be on a level playing field with any new players.
My own objections are less viceral than my players but I do share their sense of injustice and confusion as to why the primie facie unfairness is somehow justified on administrative grounds
'Visceral'? 'Injustice'? Seriously?
The Powers That Be haven't offered any justification, and I don't see why they need to. I was only offering my opinion on the subject.
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
If I was GMing PFS, the last thing I'd want would be a group of players, each waving a sheaf of chronicle sheets at me, wanting me to check through the whole lot just for the sake of a couple of PA.
If it involved counting a few chronicles it would be my pleasure to help fellow players out. In your example it would involve counting two sheets for the couple of PA. So count up the year 0 chrons fill in the form add it when next reporting.
Why not start a brand new PC? Then you'd be on a level playing field with any new players.
I don't follow you. My new PCs can no more play the year zero mods than my existing ones can replay them
'Visceral'? 'Injustice'? Seriously?
Yes. That was the reaction. Yes. Applying more generous rules to one person and less generous ones to others is rather unfair. Yes. Seriously.
The Powers That Be haven't offered any justification, and I don't see why they need to. I was only offering my opinion on the subject.
I appreciate it was your opinion and that you are not The PFS but it is a pretty fair assumption and certainly the reason we would ascribe. Difference is we don't feel the same positive way about you seem to me at least, to feel.
Are you really contending that you cannot see why some people feel that it would be better to make an allowance for the existing player base and that an explanation of the rationale would be welcomed.....Seriously ;-)|
|
heretic,
Even for the paper chronicles, it is not as simple as you seem to feel it is.
You would only give/get that extra PA for certain season 0 scenarios, and your sheet doesn't really note whether you succeeded at the primary mission of the game. And after 3 years, even if you were the original GM for the player, do you remember whether John's group, on 11/8/2008, succeeded at the primary mission of Silent Tide (e.g.) or not?
And, for unfairness, do you also want them to go back and retroactively add the extra PA (and missing gold) for the GMs? Eswpecially since there have been at least two different setups for GM rewards affecting some modules?
And it probably won't be just one or two Chronicles, soemoen with one or two would just shrug it off as minor. It woyuld be someone with 15 or more chronicles for Season 0 scenarios who you'd be auditing. Probably for multiple characters, too.
Have fun with that.
|
Seriously?
In no way shape or form am I as a PFS GM willing to shuffle through literally dozens upon dozens of chronicle sheets to update PP awards.
Sound extreme? Nope. Most of my active characters have over a dozen chronicles each. I would expect some sort of timeframe required to do this and I would expect players to want to get all of their characters retro adjusted.
I go to games, and volunteer my time to play, not be an administrator.
There was a bump of PP from season 0 to season 1. I would have to have copies of that Guide from that time to compare PP awarded before, adjusted, and afterwards.
It's a game. Meant for fun. Make it no fun and no one will be running these games for you players.
Besides, you already had the PP bump. You want even more PP as a bonus for being loyal for such a long time? Makes no sense at all. You started after season 0? Your choice to play in those games. Don't penalize the GMs for it. Have fun and don't worry about it.
Seriously, it's a game.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Ireland—Newtownabbey
|
You would only give/get that extra PA for certain season 0 scenarios, and your sheet doesn't really note whether you succeeded at the primary mission of the game. And after 3 years, even if you were the original GM for the player, do you remember whether John's group, on 11/8/2008, succeeded at the primary mission of Silent Tide (e.g.) or not?
For our group this would be relatively easy to do, we started playing in the middle of year 1 and have played through lots of year 0 scenarios, mostly with the same GM. He most likely can remember whether we succeeded on the main mission or not.
I can see that for other people who've played with multiple GMs, it would be a pain in the nether regions for someone unrelated to go back and add in the extra PA.
I'm slightly annoyed that having played the year 0 scenarios in years 1 & 2, we've gimped our characters' PA compared to what is now available if we'd played those scenarios in year 3. What I don't see is any nice way to deal with it.
Sometimes bad things happen to good characters (and neutral ones too apparently).
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Ireland—Newtownabbey
|
Simply put new players get more game options and get them earlier than the old gang, whose characters will have had to deal with less PA and fame from the word go and this inequality will carry on and on. I know my group is really rather unhappy about it. They can't see why the risk of a small minority of ppl trying to manipulate the system is reason to penalise established players.Why not start a brand new PC? Then you'd be on a level playing field with any new players.
Now you're just being silly. If you've already played the year 0 scenarios, then you don't get to repeat them. Starting a new PC in no way addresses this issue.
|
|
Now you're just being silly. If you've already played the year 0 scenarios, then you don't get to repeat them. Starting a new PC in no way addresses this issue.
So play season 3 scenarios. Or any you've missed from seasons 1 or 2. Or modules.
As you say yourself, you started playing in season 1. If your players are focused on PA, why play season 0 scenarios when you knew that they didn't always offer the same PA benefits? You would always fall behind someone who stuck to season 1 (and then 2) scenarios.
Out of interest, what is the rough fame/XP ratio of your characters? If it's more than 1.5 then you're already ahead of the curve.
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
heretic,
Even for the paper chronicles, it is not as simple as you seem to feel it is.
You would only give/get that extra PA for certain season 0 scenarios, and your sheet doesn't really note whether you succeeded at the primary mission of the game. And after 3 years, even if you were the original GM for the player, do you remember whether John's group, on 11/8/2008, succeeded at the primary mission of Silent Tide (e.g.) or not?
And, for unfairness, do you also want them to go back and retroactively add the extra PA (and missing gold) for the GMs? Eswpecially since there have been at least two different setups for GM rewards affecting some modules?
And it probably won't be just one or two Chronicles, soemoen with one or two would just shrug it off as minor. It woyuld be someone with 15 or more chronicles for Season 0 scenarios who you'd be auditing. Probably for multiple characters, too.
Have fun with that.
I mentioned that there was the possibility that some people could try and manipulate the process. The question is which is the fairer outcome? If you specify that year "0" chrons dated between certain dates will attract an extra PA each, then the possibility of someone getting and extra PA because they either on purpose or by accident "forget" that they failed the main mission is the cost. The benefit is that honest players (and GMs) get the same PA as someone playing the same scenario would today. Heck restrict it to chrons with the full xp award, it would still offer a rebalancing
As it is an entirely theoretical question I didn't want to go into detail about how one might do all this. What I would say is that I had envisioned the player offering only the relevant Chrons, the GM checking the date, counting them and then filling in a special PA update chron. I had even imagined that the offer to do this would be limited to year 3 or maybe even part of it.
I certainly would not expect or be willing to agree to a player handing anyone a stack of chrons and telling them to sort them out, the onus would be on the player to have them ready and to be honest.
W
|
|
heretic,
If a player hands me a stack of a dozen season 0 chronicles where he had 1 PA on each, I'd have to:
- Check the date on each, to make sure they weren't played in season 0 (as players were compensated with extra PA for this during the 3.5 to PFRPG conversion process) or season 3 (as the new rules are now in effect)
- Somehow establish which chronicles were for scenarios with only 1 PA on offer, and which were for ones with 2 PA on offer where one faction mission was failed (How would I do this?)
- For those with 1 PA on offer, ask the player if he could say hand-on-heart that his table had succeeded on the main mission, and sign that I believed him(!)
I think it's unreasonable to expect this to happen (potentially for six players!) at the start of a convention slot (PFS's primary play environment).
For most players who are focused on PA, I expect that they would have actively avoided season 0 scenarios, with the lower PA rewards on offer, and stuck to season 1-2 scenarios.
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
heretic,
If a player hands me a stack of a dozen season 0 chronicles where he had 1 PA on each, I'd have to:
- Check the date on each, to make sure they weren't played in season 0 (as players were compensated with extra PA for this during the 3.5 to PFRPG conversion process) or season 3 (as the new rules are now in effect)
- Somehow establish which chronicles were for scenarios with only 1 PA on offer, and which were for ones with 2 PA on offer where one faction mission was failed (How would I do this?)
- For those with 1 PA on offer, ask the player if he could say hand-on-heart that his table had succeeded on the main mission, and sign that I believed him(!)I think it's unreasonable to expect this to happen (potentially for six players!) at the start of a convention slot (PFS's primary play environment).
For most players who are focused on PA, I expect that they would have actively avoided season 0 scenarios, with the lower PA rewards on offer, and stuck to season 1-2 scenarios.
I am in a bit of a hurry here so excuse not breaking the post into quotes and responses.
First up there is no need for this to be done at the start of a convention slot. Second how many season 0 scenarioes actually had 2 PA?
Thirdly, checking the date is not really that hard imho and as I say if you feel that there is some danger that a cheat will claim an extra PA then either we operate an honour system or only sign when full XP is awarded. I still feel the benefit to the hundreds of honest players is worth the risk of a small minority trying to cheat.
However I guess that Paizo had the measure of us as a group if the responses here are representative. Going this particular extra mile is clearly seen as too much trouble for too little benefit.
I don't want to digress but this idea of being PA focused makes no sense to me at all. This is nothing to do with being PA orientated it is to do with doing the scenarioes of the right level available at the time and then doing them in order and not getting plot arches out of sync.
My original question was and remains, given that it is primie facie unfair to give player A 1 PA and player B 2 PA for exactly the same scenario why has the PFS decided against making any efforts towards rebalancing?
If there really are too many variables to allow chrons from year 0 played in year one or two to have an extra PA then sobeit. I am not sold that there are so many effected people that it would consume too much in the way of resources. I am not sold that a simple set of criteria as to what chron is eligible for the extra PA would be too hard to set. For what it is worth I'd happily set aside a few hours over the course of year 3 to help ppl out. If all GMs did this the matter would be sorted easily.
W
|
|
First up there is no need for this to be done at the start of a convention slot.
Then when would it be done?
Second how many season 0 scenarioes actually had 2 PA?
I've no idea. At least half of the ones I played.
Thirdly, checking the date is not really that hard imho
No, but it's potentially time-consuming.
and as I say if you feel that there is some danger that a cheat will claim an extra PA then either we operate an honour system or only sign when full XP is awarded. I still feel the benefit to the hundreds of honest players is worth the risk of a small minority trying to cheat.
I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase 'only sign when full XP is awarded'. Maybe it's just me, but I'm never going to sign my name against anything on a 'hunch'.
However I guess that Paizo had the measure of us as a group if the responses here are representative. Going this particular extra mile is clearly seen as too much trouble for too little benefit.
I think Paizo's commitment to organised play is exemplary. The guide and the first steps trilogy for free, and the tiny cost of PFS scenarios, as well as the support given by Paizo people and the VCs on this forum, are good example of just how much effort has gone in to making PFS a success and enjoyable for fans.
I don't want to digress but this idea of being PA focused makes no sense to me at all. This is nothing to do with being PA orientated it is to do with doing the scenarioes of the right level available at the time and then doing them in order and not getting plot arches out of sync.
You still get the same enjoyment out of playing through the scenario; the only impact is you got less PA than you feel you're entitled to. Does it really matter?
My original question was and remains, given that it is primie facie unfair to give player A 1 PA and player B 2 PA for exactly the same scenario why has the PFS decided against making any efforts towards rebalancing?
Because it would be an administrative nightmare.
If there really are too many variables to allow chrons from year 0 played in year one or two to have an extra PA then sobeit.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here.
Out of interest, for the main character(s) you're talking about, what are their current fame and XP counts?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Ireland—Newtownabbey
|
As you say yourself, you started playing in season 1. If your players are focused on PA, why play season 0 scenarios when you knew that they didn't always offer the same PA benefits? You would always fall behind someone who stuck to season 1 (and then 2) scenarios.
Because the GM generally decides what is going to be run. If he's bought the scenario, spent his money printing the maps and his time preparing it, then it would be churlish to complain that 'I'm only getting one PA for this "crappy season 0 scenario" that you've chosen to run'.
Also, there are only so many level appropriate scenarios. Doing the season 0 ones is inevitable at some point if you play often enough. If we'd known this was coming, I would have refused to play in a season 0 scenario until it was in force. Isn't hind sight wonderful.
And yes, I was annoyed when I finised master of the fallen fortress and found out there was no PA.
Out of interest, what is the rough fame/XP ratio of your characters? If it's more than 1.5 then you're already ahead of the curve.
I'm aware of 2PA that were available that I've missed during play at this point.
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
First up there is no need for this to be done at the start of a convention slot.Then when would it be done??
Via any GM who is prepared to check your chrons and report the theoretical special update chron I suggest we use.
Second how many season 0 scenarios actually had 2 PA?I've no idea. At least half of the ones I played.
Actually the more season 0 mods we can rule out because they had 2 PA on offer the better. The update chron can easily list the scenarios that ere eligible.
Thirdly, checking the date is not really that hard imhoNo, but it's potentially time-consuming.
A few minutes and when you compare the time lost when a character dies and can't get raised because he is a few PA short it is not really that time consuming.
and as I say if you feel that there is some danger that a cheat will claim an extra PA then either we operate an honour system or only sign when full XP is awarded. I still feel the benefit to the hundreds of honest players is worth the risk of a small minority trying to cheat.I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase 'only sign when full XP is awarded'. Maybe it's just me, but I'm never going to sign my name against anything on a 'hunch'.
Well you would be signing off that they had met the specific criteria set by PFS not that you believe them. When I said full XP I should have said full gold, a hang over from my LG days. Again not conclusive proof but good evidence that they completed the mission. Moreover given that many more missions are succesful that failed we would still be seeing more ppl getting the PA due than a miniority claiming PA the are not due.
However I guess that Paizo had the measure of us as a group if the responses here are representative. Going this particular extra mile is clearly seen as too much trouble for too little benefit.I think Paizo's commitment to organised play is exemplary. The guide and the first steps trilogy for free, and the tiny cost of PFS scenarios, as well as the support given by Paizo people and the VCs on this forum, are good example of just how much effort has gone in to making PFS a success and enjoyable for fans.
I am glad you appreciate Paizo's efforts. I am sure sure they appreciate your warm words. I don't see the relevance. I say that they seem to have judged that even people like your self who are clearly fans of theirs will not be willing to try and work a rebalancing. Am I wrong in this? and what has it got to do with the undoubted great efforts they have gone to, free or cheap scenario or helpful VCs on these forums?
I don't want to digress but this idea of being PA focused makes no sense to me at all. This is nothing to do with being PA orientated it is to do with doing the scenarioes of the right level available at the time and then doing them in order and not getting plot arches out of sync.You still get the same enjoyment out of playing through the scenario; the only impact is you got less PA than you feel you're entitled to. Does it really matter? .
You end up with fewer options than ppl who have had the same enjoyment. Again clearly an undesirable situation and one I remain unconvinced could not be in some way remedied.
My original question was and remains, given that it is primie facie unfair to give player A 1 PA and player B 2 PA for exactly the same scenario why has...
As to hitting nails, I am not yet convinced that some rebalancing is out of the question. as to my PCs when i get home I will answer t your question and poss re-edit the quoting here as again i am pressed for time
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sour. Grapes.
If no change had happened, you would remain happy with what you had.
This is why I stopped going to all the drama infused vampire larps. The fun of the game? Completely ruined over people who felt they got shafted by not getting more and more freebies.
You enjoyed the game yesterday. It hasn't changed for you. You're complaining because the new kids toy is shinier.
How about, instead of complaining because you want the new kids toy, you continue to enjoy playing the one you have?
|
|
Because the GM generally decides what is going to be run. If he's bought the scenario, spent his money printing the maps and his time preparing it, then it would be churlish to complain that 'I'm only getting one PA for this "crappy season 0 scenario" that you've chosen to run'.
If PA is such an issue, then why play the session at all? Is this at a convention, or game shop, or what?
Also, there are only so many level appropriate scenarios. Doing the season 0 ones is inevitable at some point if you play often enough. If we'd known this was coming, I would have refused to play in a season 0 scenario until it was in force. Isn't hind sight wonderful.
I know it's no consolation, but with two scenarios per month, and one module every couple of months, I doubt many people will outpace new PFS-compatible releases in future.
Is it your lack of PA that concerns you, or is it the fact that this shortfall has been fixed for new players? Would you prefer if it they missed out too?
Out of interest, what is the rough fame/XP ratio of your characters? If it's more than 1.5 then you're already ahead of the curve.I'm aware of 2PA that were available that I've missed during play at this point.
Unless you're very low level, it sounds like you're already considerably ahead of the power curve in terms of PA. I wouldn't worry about it.
|
|
I was curious, so I went back and counted up the 1 PA Season 0 scenarios my first character has played through. The count came to 10. I achieved the faction mission in every single one, so under these new rules I have 'lost' 10 PA.
Do I care?
Not even a little. I find that in PFS, your purchasing power is outstripped by your PA purchase limit very quickly. It matters when you have less than 16 PA, because then you can't be raised. But mostly, whether you have 16 or 60 PA means very little.
I don't feel cheated, slighted or marginalised by this change. Mark and co saw an opportunity to redress the PA imbalance between season 0 and season 1+ scenarios, and they took it. Good for them!
We should be applauding them for being able to make this change for future players, not whining that they couldn't make it back when we played those modules. They were fun, weren't they? Your character had some memorable times? Does it really matter that you didn't manage to achieve the maximum rewards as they stand now if you enjoyed yourself?
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
The effort in answering indivdual points in a proper "quote and reply" format is rather more than I and my ipad are upto so I will just repsond in general.
1) If it doesn't bother you that people often with characters in the lvl 1-3 range have lost out on PA through sheer bad luck and that they should just be grateful for the opportunity to play Paizo's game and enjoy what the PFS offers, that is legitimate position.
2) If the response you get from your players is discontent that their characters are now several scenarios further away from the all important 16 APs than they would be if they had choosen to meta game and only play more recent offerings and only now do the year 0 fare, that is a legitimate position too. Where I am we have started several characters each over the last couple of years so we could add new players to the group: three of the very first ones only made it past 5th because we headed to PaizoCon UK this year. So as one player said when the change was being discussed, ask me again when I die 1 PA short of 16.
3) In an ideal world I hope we all agree that the change would be retrospective. Is there anyone out there who feels that even if it could be arranged easily that it should not be?
4) I accept that making some quid pro quo for people who played year 0 charcters in years 1 & 2 can not be done without some work from those of us on the ground in concert with the powers that be. I don't feel that something to balance the disparity is unreasonable. Certainly in my personal experience of digging through ARs in LG and Chrons in PFS checking to see if someone has chrons that had 1 PA and now has 2 should not pose and insuperable problem....If the will was there and it would seem that there isn't the will.
5) So if the reason for not backdating the changes is that there really is no practical way to implement it, then perhaps someother smaller in game nod to those affected would be suitable.
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
Sour. Grapes.
If no change had happened, you would remain happy with what you had.
This is why I stopped going to all the drama infused vampire larps. The fun of the game? Completely ruined over people who felt they got shafted by not getting more and more freebies.
You enjoyed the game yesterday. It hasn't changed for you. You're complaining because the new kids toy is shinier.
How about, instead of complaining because you want the new kids toy, you continue to enjoy playing the one you have?
Your spiritual approach has much to reccomend it, though I cannot share it.
I would have had just as much fun in a game system like LG where there was no PA. I would have enjoyed the game even if I got half the XP that the same players who opted to play later scenarios first and the early ones later. I would have enjoyed the game no less if I got half the gold and half the accesses. Thats not the point, surely
I'd still feel hard done by to find out that others were getting full XP, gold and access simply because of the date they played, not least because I played them in the order they were published, so not to have ppl playing a game in March where a VC is killed and then in April one where he gives the mission brief.
When your charcaters are striving for 16 AP, in many case 18 cos buying the CLW wand is seen as a wise move early on.... it is legit to feel that as much as you enjoyed the PFS games you are getting a raw deal in comparison.
I have other matters of real importance to worry about and it was the response of some of my group that led me to ask (respectfully): why? I do know that if my PC dies a couple of PA short of 16 I might be less philosophical too.
W
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
@heretic
I guess I'm confused. You keep saying it's unfair but everyone has had the same opportunities to play in the past and will have the same opportunities going forward.
Who was ripped off here?
I really shouldn't let myself get dragged into more of this. I posted a question as to why a decison was made and amongst other things I have told why I shouldn't ask the question, why I should not care one way or the other and essentially that I should be cooler about it all. I have also been told how wonderful Paizo are and I can only infer that someone feels I am being overly critical or rude ( either that or I missed a straw man being raised)
But... I just can't see what you mean. In reverse order: you do not have the same opportunities going forward because you have played the year 0 scenarios already and got your PA on the old rules. Players who in year 1 and 2 who decided to avoid the low PA year 0 now have the opportunity to go to them and get double PA. When you started playing in year one you by definition didn't have the opportunity to have played year 2 releases or even year 1 released later in the year. If you felt it better to play them in order for plot reasons you have ended up short of PAs
Now for me as a fellow poster put it this is mainly an issue of having enough PA that your PC will get their raise dead. The other benefits. Though recently sweetened are less vital. Losing a level 6 PC cause it has fewer PA than a level 5 who played the same missions would irk me TBH.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Ireland—Newtownabbey
|
I guess I'm confused. You keep saying it's unfair but everyone has had the same opportunities to play in the past and will have the same opportunities going forward.
Anyone who played one of these scenarios in Year 0 got a PA bump when they converted the character to pathfinder rules. Anyone who played the scenario in years 1 & 2, is eligible for a maximum of 1 PA. Players who play these scenarios in year 3 or later are eligible for 2 PA for no extra effort.
If you played the scenario in year 1 and succeeded at everything you got 1XP and 1PA. Complete that same scenario in year 3 and succeed at everything you get 1XP and 2PA.
Who was ripped off here?
Anyone who played the scenario in years 1 & 2, see above.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I guess I'm confused. You keep saying it's unfair but everyone has had the same opportunities to play in the past and will have the same opportunities going forward.Anyone who played one of these scenarios in Year 0 got a PA bump when they converted the character to pathfinder rules. Anyone who played the scenario in years 1 & 2, is eligible for a maximum of 1 PA. Players who play these scenarios in year 3 or later are eligible for 2 PA for no extra effort.
If you played the scenario in year 1 and succeeded at everything you got 1XP and 1PA. Complete that same scenario in year 3 and succeed at everything you get 1XP and 2PA.
Who was ripped off here?Anyone who played the scenario in years 1 & 2, see above.
I understand who you think is being shorted here, I just don't see it as being 'unfair'.
Unfair implies someone got special treatment or the rules were applied differently to some people which isn't the case here.
|
|
"Fair" is not the same as "Equal"
Here's an analogy: In order to truly put you on equal footing with the new players, we would have to strip you of your character, your XP, and all the good memories you've had playing a game for the past two years. In exchange, you get one extra PA per session, but ONLY if you play in Season 0, a season most of the new players are unlikely to play.
Sound like a good deal?
Frankly, I would have just as happily retired the Season Zero scenarios, since said new players would have to run game every other weekday for the next year to run out of options.
|
|
I really shouldn't let myself get dragged into more of this. I posted a question as to why a decison was made and amongst other things I have told why I shouldn't ask the question, why I should not care one way or the other and essentially that I should be cooler about it all. I have also been told how wonderful Paizo are and I can only infer that someone feels I am being overly critical or rude ( either that or I missed a straw man being raised)
Not exactly. You posted a brief, simple question, and got two or three brief, simple answers. You then posted follow up comments, using words like 'injustice' and accusing Paizo of not going the extra mile for PFS players (unfairly, in my book). That is what provoked the more passionate discussion.
But... I just can't see what you mean. In reverse order: you do not have the same opportunities going forward because you have played the year 0 scenarios already and got your PA on the old rules. Players who in year 1 and 2 who decided to avoid the low PA year 0 now have the opportunity to go to them and get double PA. When you started playing in year one you by definition didn't have the opportunity to have played year 2 releases or even year 1 released later in the year. If you felt it better to play them in order for plot reasons you have ended up short of PAs
Conversely, a bunch of season 0 scenarios have been retired, and new players have missed out on the chance of ever playing those in PFS.
Now for me as a fellow poster put it this is mainly an issue of having enough PA that your PC will get their raise dead. The other benefits. Though recently sweetened are less vital. Losing a level 6 PC cause it has fewer PA than a level 5 who played the same missions would irk me TBH.
Differences in PA could be due to any number of things, including how strict a GM you have, what the spread of factions is round the table, whether your character is built in a faction mission-friendly way (e.g. high diplomacy/perception/knowledge skill score), what the attitudes of other players are to 'opposing' faction missions, etc.
What is the rough fame/XP ratio of the character(s) in question here?
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
"Fair" is not the same as "Equal"
Here's an analogy: In order to truly put you on equal footing with the new players, we would have to strip you of your character, your XP, and all the good memories you've had playing a game for the past two years. In exchange, you get one extra PA per session, but ONLY if you play in Season 0, a season most of the new players are unlikely to play.
Sound like a good deal?
Frankly, I would have just as happily retired the Season Zero scenarios, since said new players would have to run game every other weekday for the next year to run out of options.
An Analogy but not one I can really agree with. The reason I don't feel it is apt is that what is at issue here is putting people who have played the same scenario with the same degree of success on equal footing.
To be honest I don't see any logical equivilency between what you suggest and what I have been talking about. Your "deal" is a total non sequitor & in no ways the logical outcome of retrospetively applying a change in the reward for some scenarios.
As to these new players you mention, the players can have been going since the start of year 1 or even just before and just opted not to play many or even any year 0 due to the low PA.
While I can accept for the sake of argument IF it was impractical to administer some rebalancing then it cannot be done, if we wish to follow your line of thinking to it's logical conclusion you would rather not see it applied retrospectively even if it was easy to do.
Is that the case?
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
I know I should just assume the worst and go to bed but one more time with feeling then....
Not exactly. You posted a brief, simple question, and got two or three brief, simple answers. You then posted follow up comments, using words like 'injustice' and accusing Paizo of not going the extra mile for PFS players (unfairly, in my book). That is what provoked the more passionate discussion.
For the love of God man. What I said was that judging by the reponse here the PFS was right in judging that it's player base would not be prepared to undertake the work to allow the extra PA to administered. It is us, the player base as a whole who have said here that we just don't see it as reasonable to expect GMs to sign the Chrons and report them.
However I guess that Paizo had the measure of us as a group if the responses here are representative. Going this particular extra mile is clearly seen as too much trouble for too little benefit..
Again I think most of us would if it could be done automatically prefer it was retrospective, the argument surely is how and frankly I am guessing the PFS decided that inter alia there were too many GMS who would feel it was unreasonable to ask them.
I reported that there was a sense of injustice. That is a fact. If I run a year 0 scenario tomorrow for 6 players they will get double the PA of an equally succesful party I ran through it last month. The first lot will feel that they were rather unlukcy at this hence a sense of injustice! The ones who kept saying to me can we do some newer scenarios to whom I replied, lets do them in order (for several reasons) because after all it makes nodifference when you do the mod...
well they also feel unlucky hence the actual sense of injustice seeing their PA total that much further off 16.
But... I just can't see what you mean. In reverse order: you do not have the same opportunities going forward because you have played the year 0 scenarios already and got your PA on the old rules. Players who in year 1 and 2 who decided to avoid the low PA year 0 now have the opportunity to go to them and get double PA. When you started playing in year one you by definition didn't have the opportunity to have played year 2 releases or even year 1 released later in the year. If you felt it better to play them in order for plot reasons you have ended up short of PAs
Conversely, a bunch of season 0 scenarios have been retired, and new players have missed out on the chance of ever playing those in PFS.
Like the idea that creating new charatcers would fix the problem, this might make sense on the surface but not so much when you look at it.
Those scenarios have not been legal for a very long time. If you got in to play it and got your XP then everyone who played gets the same deal players cannot go back and play them for twice the PA they original players did.
Now for me as a fellow poster put it this is mainly an issue of having enough PA that your PC will get their raise dead. The other benefits. Though recently sweetened are less vital. Losing a level 6 PC cause it has fewer PA than a level 5 who played the same missions would irk me TBH.
Differences in PA could be due to any number of things, including how strict a GM you have, what the spread of factions is round the table, whether your character is built in a faction...
Again not so much. We're talking about a the same game with the same players and GM, the only difference is the date the game was played. The strictness of the GM is unlikely to affect wether she feels the mission was completed, the spread of the factions will again be the same on a 2 PA table as a 1 PA and again the mission completion PA won't be affected. Lastly if somehow you don't have a faction then you won't have had any PA prior to year 3????
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
Unfair implies someone got special treatment or the rules were applied differently to some people which isn't the case here.
Well now. We enter the realm of semantics for good or ill.
The rules are to my mind being applied differently for someone who played or ran the scenario in year 1 or 2 compared to someone who plays it tomorrow. Even if the character playing it tomorrow predates the one who did it last week that character gets twice the PA.
Why differently? because there was a change, to mind for the better, but that cchange is not being applied retrospectively.
The crux of the matter is this: If it could be done easily would we not all think giving the extra PAs would be better than not doing so? I would suggest the reason being that it is fairer that players who do the same scenario with equal success would get the same rewards.
On a side note in terms of rewards I wonder how we would rank XP, Gold, PA or special access. Given that PA allows us access to better shopping lists and can literally save your life it is pretty important, all the gold in the worlkd and no PA means no access to the item that would just suit your PC so nicely!
w
|
|
An Analogy but not one I can really agree with. The reason I don't feel it is apt is that what is at issue here is putting people who have played the same scenario with the same degree of success on equal footing.
To be honest I don't see any logical equivilency between what you suggest and what I have been talking about. Your "deal" is a total non sequitor & in no ways the logical outcome of retrospetively applying a change in the reward for some scenarios.
As to these new players you mention, the players can have been going since the start of year 1 or even just before and just opted not to play many or even any year 0 due to the low PA.
While I can accept for the sake of argument IF it was impractical to administer some rebalancing then it cannot be done, if we wish to follow your line of thinking to it's logical conclusion you would rather not see it applied retrospectively even if it was easy to do.
Is that the case?
So, in order to have a chance at gaining 2 PA instead of 1 for the Season 0 modules, these same "new" people would have had to have given up, until this unanticipated change, the joy of several of the better Season 0 modules. Did you play Mists of Mwangi? Did you enjoy it? Would you have delayed your enjoyment of it for a simple, at the time extremely unlikely, change for it to give out 2 PA instead of 1?
The problem with the rebalancing is that, unlike you, many of us see multiple and manifold difficulties with being able to do it at all, much less being able to do it accurately.
Also, please use retroactively, not retrospectively, since retroactive is the meaning you want, something applied to events in the past as well as in the future. A retrospective is a look back at the past, but only a look, like those season closer episodes which show highlights from the rest of the season, or a show that covers the life of someone, but doesn't change the events, just reports on them.
Now, to break the difficulties out for you to understand our viewpoint:
1) Affects multiple players
2) Affects multiple, but not all, Season 0 scenarios
3) Requires that the PC has successfully completed the primary goal for the module, which may have nothing to do with achieving full PA, XP or GP.
4) Frequently would need to be done at the beginning of an already tight Convention slot. Lots of people only play at conventions...
5) Frequently will be done by GM X, while the scenarios were run by GMs A, B, C, D, E, F & G (or more!) Working in a vacuum, here.
6) This ignores the changes that would be required by the Paizo database, which is only used for PFS, and therefore would require using money currently spent on PFS stuff that the player base in general gets access to, like new modules, to pay for a backend programming update.
Overall, I would rather look to the future, then get buried by the past.
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
So, in order to have a chance at gaining 2 PA instead of 1 for the Season ) modules, these same "new" people would have had to have given up, until this unanticipated change, the joy of several of the better Season ) modules. Did you play Mists of Mwangi? Did you enjoy it? Would you have delayed your enjoyment of it for a simple, at the time extremely unlikely, change for it to give out 2 PA instead of 1?The problem with the rebalancing is that, unlike you, many of us see multiple and manifold difficulties with being able to do it at all, much less being able to do it accurately.
Also, please use retroactively, not retrospectively, since retroactive is teh meaning you want, something applied to events in the past as well as in the future. A retrospective is a look back at the past, but only a look, like those season closer episodes which show highlights from the rest of teh season, or a show that covers the life of someone, but doesn't change the events, just reports on them.
Now, to break the difficulties out for you to...
1) Affects multiple players
2) Affects multiple, but not all, Season 0 scenarios
3) Requires that the PC have successfully completed the primary goal for the module, which may have nothing to do with achieving full PA, XP or GP.
4) Frequently would need to be done at the beginning of an already tight Convention slot.
5) Frequently will be done by GM X, while the scenarios were run by GMs A, B, C, D, E, F & G (or more!) Workign in a vacuum, here.
6) This ignores the changes that would be required by the Paizo database, which is only used for PFS, and therefore would require using money currently spent on PFS stuff that the player base in general gets access to, like new modules, to pay for a backend programming update.Overall, I would rather look to the future, then get buried by the past
Wow, such sound and fury. You know when I got my law degree the term retrospective legislation was good enough for the examiners, it will do here. I will assume it is as Shaw put it two peoples divided by a common language thing rather than pedantry.
Again I don't see what your first point has to do with it. I am not trying to be confrontational. I just don't see it. Again it boils down to the fact that if you played the same scenario equally well the date you played in an ongoing environment like PFS should not matter.
I have actually addressed many of the points in your list. Some points are self explanatory and I trust you are not suggesting that I have failed to grasp them.
point 1) Yes. Clearly.
point 2) Yes so the update chron would have to list the eligible chrons. which if the 50% figure you suggest is right is about 10 possibles.
Point 3) Actually not really. It requires them to honestly believe they did. To reiterate you either work an honour system or you say that only full awards of gold are sufficient evidence. It doesn't need to be beyond reasonable doubt! Even with plan a there, whats the worst that could happen 99% of honest players get the PA they would get if they played it in year 3 and 1% cheat themselves and everyone else out a few PAs.
point 4) I guess it could happend but I would say that it would need to be done when a GM has time to do so. I would guess most of us have home games aswell as ones in conventions. I would do it for my players and one of them who GMs would do it for me.
point 5)Not an issue , see point 3
point 6) It was partially the ability to do this outside of tight timeslots & running the database that lead me to suggest issuing a special chron which would allow the rebalancing to done in one report. If it really is prohibitively expensive that would be a shame and in fact a jolly good answer to my initial question.
Now to repeat my question of earlier ths morning.... If it could be done easily would it not be better that it was done than left as things stand?
W
edited
|
|
Wow, such sound and fury. You know when I got my law degree the term retrospective legislation was good enough for the examiners, it will do...
If it could be done easily would it not be better that it was done than left as things stand?
Sound and fury? Not at all. Logic and reasoning, only.
If it could be done easily and fairly, sure. But it cannot be done both easily and fairly, which is why it was not offered as an option.
Easy? Just give everyone an extra PA for any Season 0 module they have played. Also update all GM credits to whatever the current model is.
Would this be fair? Not at all.
Fair is what adds the extra time and effort to the equation, and moves it from being a simple change to being a massive undertaking.
And multiple players meant multiple players to do this change for at each table, as part of the already strapped 5 hour time slot.
It is alreay too easy for a game to overrun even a 5 hour slot, without additional bookkeeping being added. And there wouldn't be an end to it, because some people don't play very often, and may have only the one character, of the 2-3 they have that might be affected, with them at any time.
I have a set of 9 characters, varying from 1st to 10th level, and a significant portion of Season 0 scenarios for them mixed in there, along with the 10th level having both "played during Season 0" and "played after PFRPG conversion" Season 0 scenarios in his list, not to mention some as GM credit, too. Just doing my own audit of him for that reason alone, as my own character, would be a PITA. Having to audit similar PCs for others, while setting up to run a game, additional PITA.
Sorry, but as soon as you go for fair, you are going to lose easy. And it won't work if it isn't fair. Better to stay with the current status quo, then to add additional work for the campaign volunteers to do, reducing their desire to volunteer.
PFS, like any F2F gaming, tends to run a bit light on GMs available. Let's not promote the ones that are there leaving, huh?
I only scanned the posts as I read through to avoid all the arguing, so if this was already pointed out, I apologize for repeating it.
There is already a precedent for this in the GM reward system. When the reward system went from no reward to half rewards, GMs that got no reward were not allowed to retroactively add half rewards to any characters with GM credit. And when the reward system went from half rewards to full rewards, again GMs who had earned the old rewards were not allowed to go back and add in what they did not earn before. So why should players get to go and add a bunch of free points to characters that had not earned them when the GMs, who do much more work for their rewards, could not?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Well now. We enter the realm of semantics for good or ill.
Unfair implies someone got special treatment or the rules were applied differently to some people which isn't the case here.
You are confusing semantics with just using a word wrong, fair means everyone gets the same opportunities. What you are talking about has much more in common with buyers remorse than any sort of fairness.
The rules are to my mind being applied differently for someone who played or ran the scenario in year 1 or 2 compared to someone who plays it tomorrow. Even if the character playing it tomorrow predates the one who did it last week that character gets twice the PA.
This is sort of like saying it's unfair to put a product on sale or reduce it's price without retroactive discounts for everyone who purchased the product.
Just because it would have been nice to get that TV on clearance doesn't mean you were treated unfairly.
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
Well now. We enter the realm of semantics for good or ill.
Unfair implies someone got special treatment or the rules were applied differently to some people which isn't the case here.You are confusing semantics with just using a word wrong, fair means everyone gets the same opportunities. What you are talking about has much more in common with buyers remorse than any sort of fairness.
The rules are to my mind being applied differently for someone who played or ran the scenario in year 1 or 2 compared to someone who plays it tomorrow. Even if the character playing it tomorrow predates the one who did it last week that character gets twice the PA.This is sort of like saying it's unfair to put a product on sale or reduce it's price without retroactive discounts for everyone who purchased the product.
Just because it would have been nice to get that TV on clearance doesn't mean you were treated unfairly.
Dennis
I am sorry but this still looks like a matter of semantics. I got your point when you first asked the question and you underlined it with the distinction between unfair and being shorted.
I just have difficulty accepting that rewards in an RPG are anagalous to buying electrical goods. It surely gave me pause for thought but...It is more like a racing league changing the points value of a finish mid season. No big deal if everyone has already raced the same circuits the same number of times but when they have not, surely unfair?
I am a fan of Paizo and have been largely responsible for the albeit limited spread of PFS in my part the world. The reason I asked the question is because of the reaction from my group. There are really two issues here.
Would it be better if the PA could be applied retroactively
Would the cost in terms of admin be prohibitive?
I still feel it would be better and so it boils down to the cost/benefit of a GM applying criteria to the listed year 0 chrons.
W
|
Okay everyone seems to be going off on random tangents about this question...to the original poster I say this , your question is valid and since there is a finite amount of modules a character can play before he retires its even more valid.
The only ones who can truly tell us why no retroactive application is allowed are the developers.
Now there is absolutely no reason I can see why this cant be allowed , it would be fair to everyone and would require a simple note on your latest cert at the end of a mod to correct, that all being said I ask the devs at this point... if its so trivial an adjustment and doesnt matter as most people on this thread say then.... why not just allow it and save the PFS all the heartache?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Our local PFS group is chronically short on two things, shop time and volunteer time. This adds a burden to them both and there is no net benefit to play. That's not even looking at how to mess with reporting this stuff in a reporting system which doesn't support arbitrary assignment of PA.
If people insist retro-activity is required for some misplaced sense of 'fairness' I'd rather just leave the season zero modules at 1 PA at this point since they are likely not getting a lot of play regardless.
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
Our local PFS group is chronically short on two things, shop time and volunteer time. This adds a burden to them both and there is no net benefit to play. That's not even looking at how to mess with reporting this stuff in a reporting system which doesn't support arbitrary assignment of PA.
If people insist retro-activity is required for some misplaced sense of 'fairness' I'd rather just leave the season zero modules at 1 PA at this point since they are likely not getting a lot of play regardless.
Dennis, Obviously I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this issue of the random timing of your game so affecting the reward being a matter of fairness or not. I hope we can agree to disagree.
I keep banging on about the fact that if it can be done then it should be done but it is entirely conditional on it being practical.
Thing is if in your considered and well informed opinion you feel that the admin would be too much for your already stretched resources then there is clearly a big problem. It would be horribly inequitable if the playing resources in one area meant Frank can get his PAs updated and Frances cannot.
W