|
So this is the vibe I'm mostly getting: 7 player tables are not the optimal PFS experience but the flexibility they give coordinators is good. Not everybody agrees and it's dangerous to assume us yahoos on the PFS boards accuratly represent the PFS population as a whole.
Here's an idea which solves the stated issues but probably wouldn't be especially popular:
Cap tables at 5 with "play play play" allowing 6 to be seated so player's won't be turned away.
This is an even bigger mistake, IMHO. Our venue has imminently more people that a hard cap at 5.
|
Sorry Dragnmoon, didn't mean to speak the bad words.
Bomanz: I wasn't proposing a hard cap at 5, I was proposing a soft cap at 5 and a hard cap at 6 so we can get rid of 7 player tables and still allow coordinators the flexibility to seat an extra player when necessary
This of course has the same problems as just getting rid of 7 player tables for venues that say frequently have exactly 7 players.
|
My two coppers.
The last thing i would want to do is run a 7 person table. I would much prefer to run two 3 person tables with 2 GMs. But on the other hand, I don't like turning people away.
I would prefer to have the option of a 7 person table, in case i get a couple of walk ins, and my two "back up GM" players are not present.Elyas.
Andrew Philips- Hey it is good to see you back on the boards...I hope everything is going well.
!!!Caution Threadjack-- So how do folks do the whole back up GM thing? I can't stand to run a scenario unprepared, I don't feel it is fair for players, esprcially new players.
Myles--I am currently attempting to return to gaming at Game Theory, time restraints have forced me to only run PFS during my Sunday home game breaks. If you still come to Duke I'll keep a watch for you.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I can see becoming draconian once you get to a high attendance level, where 40 people are showing up each week, but when it's 15-20 and there is normally enough space and time to just wing it, then only someone who is hard core and wants this to be a part time job is going to be on top of everything.
A well-organized group of 15-20 that uses tools that make running and planning events easier is more likely to grow into a group of 40 players than one that doesn't. This is why we have an ever-growing network of regional coordinators to help set up these tools for their local games to help the campaign grow—which is in everyone's interest, from Paizo's to game store owners, to GMs and players. We can't make campaign-wide rules that you must use some sort of preregistration, but we would prefer all groups do so, as it will help the campaign flourish.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I trust my GMs and coordinators. Ask any of them in Atlanta. I didn't make appearances at their individual game days for months because I knew I could trust them.
Exactly my point. Although we would have loved to see you more often. You trusted them to make good decisions.
A large part of that is I knew they would follow the rules that were in place and I didn't have to check up on them. I just went back and counted over the four rule revision threads and there are multiple instances were people claimed to have already broken the rules as written or will in the future if it is something they don't like. Help me rationalize that please?
I suppose the real question is "what is the purpose of this rule?" If the answer is "to keep things fun" I don't see the point, you should rely on your GMs. If the answer is "because 7 player tables are too easy, there's no real risk involved" then maybe there does need to be a new rule.
Or have Joe Caubo put his "how slight modifications to a scenario can result in an easy TPK" online as required viewing for all GMs.
|
|
My two coppers.
The last thing i would want to do is run a 7 person table. I would much prefer to run two 3 person tables with 2 GMs. But on the other hand, I don't like turning people away.
I would prefer to have the option of a 7 person table, in case i get a couple of walk ins, and my two "back up GM" players are not present.Elyas.
Andrew Philips- Hey it is good to see you back on the boards...I hope everything is going well.
!!!Caution Threadjack-- So how do folks do the whole back up GM thing? I can't stand to run a scenario unprepared, I don't feel it is fair for players, esprcially new players.
Myles--I am currently attempting to return to gaming at Game Theory, time restraints have forced me to only run PFS during my Sunday home game breaks. If you still come to Duke I'll keep a watch for you.
Currently our group is trying to tackle the logistics of our weekly games. Last year we were one table of 4, now we hover between 16-22 players a week, 3 planned GM's and 1-2 backup GM's incase new or infrequent players show up at the last minute. We hate turning people away, if you spent an hour on a bus to find out you can't play, you'd prob never come back. We're trying to groom more GM's but until we do, 7 player tables are common for us.
A 7 player table can be loaded with the right mix or the wrong mix and sometimes its a cold run scenario so I have no idea if a trap or combat is gonna wipe the party or be a cake walk. so my 2 cents.Scenarios I find work well with a right mix of 4 players, wrong mix of 5 and bad mix of 6 players for most role playing, puzzles and combat. Adding just 1 right player or any 2 players just in numbers can turn a scenario from a challenge to cake. So I'd propose a base line of 4 players at tier = 0, 6 is +1, and 7 +2. GM's can add another +1 to the tier as a float so he can scale up or down depending in his mix of players to the encounter in the scenario. All skill dc's and saves are based on tier, not a flat number. I remember a thread that specifically discussed this but I admit I didn't read all of it. Number of opponents and or stats, so say every +1 above tier add 1 thug or increase all AC's by 2, or add low visibility or terrain effect. etc etc. (personal gripe > I really wish all scenarios has the stat blocks printed in them at each encounter, not 'use thugs stats in act I' or see Bestiary. If I have to run a cold scenario this slows me down)
I know this may add more from the writer or designer POV, but it would make your product have a greater range of playability.
We play for the challenges (that should always be scalable), we walk away with the story.
|
|
i'm for a hard 6 limit on the table size.
i've seen what an adventure designed for 4 does when 6 people play it. even 6 flavorful and non-optimized players. and it isn't like they can play up to the next tier all the time, sometimes the difference is too much.
i run a home game of legacy of fire, and play in one of rise of the runelords. both seem a lot easier with tables of 6 players, where a table of four might have to struggle more or be creative. with a table of 7, i've had to up the CR on every encounter for my legacy of fire game, but i can do that , because its a home campaign.
pfs can't do that, its not a customizable system like that. it has to be consistent for all. so i'm more in favor of setting a cap of 5 or 6 players.
Its not always about GM attention. 7 players can make a scenario longer to run, and definitely slows down combat. if you want to keep to a standard running time, especially at conventions, you can't have 7 person tables.
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
It seems to me that the existing rule of 4-6 players when possible and 7 when necessary is still the best compromise. Losing players because we can't legally seat a 7th might seem worth it for those lucky enough to have a nice deep player pool.
For those of us out on the 'Raggedy Edge' getting to the point where there are enough Players to have back up GMs and multiple tables is a goal that we are aiming for and will be harder to achieve if a hard cap of 7 is removed from the organisers options.
Also. 7 is not ideal but we have had some great games with 7 players. Seeing a hard cap of 7 as the best compromise does not mean I think it OK to allow 8 or more Players just to encourage growth. In my experience turning away an 8th has never come up but a hard cap of 6 would have been very inconvenient.
W
Venture-Captain, Croatia & Slovenia
|
Let's take the "how do we find players and organize games" stuff to a different thread, partly to help Mike et al focus on this thread, and partly because I think it's a great topic for a thread.
Organization of open sessions is what has direct influence on size of tables. Therefore, if certain organizational tools help in keeping tables smaller, its a good thing to try and implement.
Rules are good and well but we are discussing what is happening when they are used in RL so I think this is more than relevant.
Besides, looks like we're all just spinning in circles by now :)
|
|
Hey folks, not pushing one way or the other here, but I've experienced something I haven't seen discussed here.
As both a GM and a musterer, I have had to deal with irate players who insisted that I was obligated to sit them as a 7th player "because it is in the Guide" (even in one case where I had another table of 3 of the same scenario). I have no problems standing up for myself and my players, but it's not a situation people should have to be put in.
Venture-Lieutenant, North Carolina—Raleigh
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The 7 player rule bootstraps the (sometimes) only experienced gamer willing to GM and get PFS off the ground in a new game store, so that maybe 1-2 of the new players can rise to GM capability too, and there's enough flexibility to handle fluctuations in the number of local players.
I've been that 7th player, and been very grateful for it, after a year-plus of not gaming at all due to work/school/life.
Show mercy (7 players) and pull people in.
Now, if Paizo decides that keeping mods from being "too easy" (seating tables of 7) is more important than keeping players happy, THEN AT LEAST:
Specifically allow tables of 7 for tiers 1-2 and tier 1, because most newbies want to "Play Play Play" and will QUIT PFS WITHOUT TRYING IT EVER AGAIN if the PFS crowd won't accept them.
First impressions are almost everything.
We (RPGs) aren't so popular that the world is beating a path to our doorstep.
We cannot afford to be more than minimally restrictive in any aspect of table seating that relates to new players.
Period.
Table minimum 3, Table max 7 at all Tiers (or at least for Tiers 1-2 and 1).
Be a good businessman, a good doorman, a good greeter and do everything you can within PFS rules to NOT TURN NEW PLAYERS AWAY.
Thank you for reading.
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
Hey folks, not pushing one way or the other here, but I've experienced something I haven't seen discussed here.
As both a GM and a musterer, I have had to deal with irate players who insisted that I was obligated to sit them as a 7th player "because it is in the Guide" (even in one case where I had another table of 3 of the same scenario). I have no problems standing up for myself and my players, but it's not a situation people should have to be put in.
I sympathise, and I bet everyone posting here will too. If having a rule that emphasises that the hard cap is entirely at the GMs discretion would help then that surely we should have one! Of course the only way to fix it totally is to have one firm cap rather than a hard and a soft one! Otherwise you will always have ppl putting you in that position. It is not that I am dismissing what you bring up, Neil nor suggesting that it not undesirable but in line with what I have said in previous posts I honestly don't feel the cost of losing my discretion on this matter is worth the benefit.
From my point of view I already have the right to say who plays where and what in an event I am organising and if push come to shove then someone can go home disappointed. I would much rather face that problem than have to explain why we won't seat them when most of the guys already seated played their first game with a table of 7. Moreover if the the reason their are unseated players is because a GM cried off, then I really want the discretion to seat extra players.
The fact is that if one is in the happy position of reaching a critical mass of players that the luxury of turning ppl away on the grounds that it might be more fun for the 6 that got there first, then I am envious. I do think if you have got that far then I am sure you will have zero problem in making it clear that table numbers are at your discretion.
I am thinking that in the evolution of most thriving PFS groups there will be a time when the group grows to 7 before a second table appears. The second table being initially the exception but slowly becoming established. Then repeat with the third table. If you are growing in numbers a player at a time, I strongly request not tying the organiser's hands by removing his or her discretion.
W
Hey folks, not pushing one way or the other here, but I've experienced something I haven't seen discussed here.
As both a GM and a musterer, I have had to deal with irate players who insisted that I was obligated to sit them as a 7th player "because it is in the Guide" (even in one case where I had another table of 3 of the same scenario). I have no problems standing up for myself and my players, but it's not a situation people should have to be put in.
I was actually wondering something along these lines if people had this kind of problem or if some organizers were just seating people til a table hit seven and then started filling the next to seven and so on.
Anyway, I think the current soft cap of six and hard cap of seven, to be used on when absolutely required, can be kept as is if maybe the Guide also included some sort of wording that tables sizes are to be kept balanced if at all possible. In other words, say you have three tables running the same scenario and you have 17 players for them. You are not going to have two tables of seven and one of three with a pre-gen, rather you are going to have two tables of six and one of five.
And Neil, that player sounds like someone who only wanted to sit at the big table so that they could bump up the APL and play in a higher sub-tier for a better reward. And even if that was not the case, things like this need to be discouraged.
|
|
A well-organized group of 15-20 that uses tools that make running and planning events easier is more likely to grow into a group of 40 players than one that doesn't. This is why we have an ever-growing network of regional coordinators to help set up these tools for their local games to help the campaign grow—which is in everyone's interest, from Paizo's to game store owners, to GMs and players. We can't make campaign-wide rules that you must use some sort of preregistration, but we would prefer all groups do so, as it will help the campaign flourish.I can see becoming draconian once you get to a high attendance level, where 40 people are showing up each week, but when it's 15-20 and there is normally enough space and time to just wing it, then only someone who is hard core and wants this to be a part time job is going to be on top of everything.
And I guess this is where I am extremely confused.
Clearly Paizo values the people it considers to be the regional coordinators. However, I live and play in a region (Chicago) where the 'official' coordinator is wholly unknown to me (and is organizing PFS play for a convention that is scheduled opposite DCV, where a good portion of the local PFS players will be on the same weekend). Those of us who are veterans of other OP campaigns seem to know how to organize individual sessions and events.
Likewise, for the weekly open PFS game -- for which I am, apparently, partially responsible -- we utilize an on-line registration site (See Example), but many players prefer to leave it to their whim on whether they will register or not.
Much of the new discussion seems to be the result of what I believe to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the structure of OP campaigns, especially one like PFS that has no expectations of the players being able to shape the larger events in the world. Likewise, I feel that much of the tone of the discussions has caused me a fair amount of concern about the judgment of those in charge, especially in regards to PFS play essentially being a product that Paizo is selling, using a largely unpaid labor force to grow the availability of such a product.
It is my opinion that allowing seven player tables (never my first choice) is preferable to turning players away. It is preferable to have judges be thoroughly prepared to run a mod than giving it "cold" to a GM when an overflow table occurs, but I would not argue in favor of a ruling mandating only the former.
It is also my opinion that placing rules limiting the role-playing directed back-stories (and possible "re-skinning" with no mechanical changes) does not increase the enjoyment of the players. Consistency is admirable, but if that were the only metric upon which success were measured, all players could simply be issued iconics.
Hopefully these points will be taken as they are intended, which is to say that they are my (partially) informed observations.
If I understand it the theory is that a 7 man table is less fun so it would be split into a pair of 3 man tables + pregen with 1 player becoming GM.
Does the campaign seriously believe that 3 players + pregen is more fun than a 7 man table?
Leave the staff and players the flexibility to do what is needed. One of the best rules add to this campaign was the 7 man table. It makes it far easier to seat tables with the correct APL.
|
|
If I understand it the theory is that a 7 man table is less fun so it would be split into a pair of 3 man tables + pregen with 1 player becoming GM.
Does the campaign seriously believe that 3 players + pregen is more fun than a 7 man table?
Leave the staff and players the flexibility to do what is needed. One of the best rules add to this campaign was the 7 man table. It makes it far easier to seat tables with the correct APL.
Easier to seat tables with the correct APL? Have you been reading this thread?
Even the people generally pro- leaving the rule as it currently is have stated, again and again, that 7 player tables have issues with APL, as you either wind up walking through a scenario, or wind up with extra PC deaths because the subtier appropriate is too dangerous if no PC manages to go first.
A table of 7 2nd & 3rd level PCs would likely be playing sub-tier 4-5 in a Tier 1-5 scenario, and therefore have a chance of having to deal with a 5d6 fireball in their midst.
5d6 averages 17.5 points of damage if the save is failed.
2nd level d8 boy (with 14 Con) has 17 hit points. Hmmm.
Save or die is ugly at levels where you know that they can happen. 2nd level shouldn't be one of them.
Heck, I almostlost my 2nd level d10 PC in a sub-tier 4-5 game, because he was the only 2nd level and everyone else was 4th level.
|
|
For myself, 7 player tables at higher level are far more painful than running 7 players at low level. I would hate to turn away a new player from a intro mod just because I have 6 players already. Running 7 players through a tier 1 mod is not hard.
Interesting idea. What if table size was a factor of Tier? Low tiers, 7 players okay. Mid tiers, 6 max. High tiers, 5 max.
Low-level stuff is pretty easy for the GM adjust on the fly, playing up to make things sufficiently difficult, and although new players make take some time, nobody's character is so complex that 7 is going to slow things down much more than 6. And walk-ins and new players are most likely going to show up to play low tiers. High-level combats, on the other hand, are incredibly complex, so lots of players would be a problem. And, yes, at higher levels, players can and should be expected to re-register or communicate with the GM/coordinator/scheduler before just showing up.
