|
Now, why is this better than just having everyone run 1st level guys from the start? and by the time they reach 3rd level they could start switching in some of thier 5th levels some times....
Well, I'd agree that it obviously isn't as good as everyone just playing compatable levels.
But in Mike & Mark's wisdom, it's not permissible to allow players to rerun adventures even with new characters of a level appropriate to game with new ones. So the slow advancement is a tool they gave us that helps address the issue, shy of allowing re-runs of scenarios. That it's ALSO useful in other ways just shows that it's not a horrible tool.
|
Im aware of what the rule says, but to answer your further question, the rules do not say you cannot replay as often as you like, as long as you replaying is 1) Okayed by the GM of the scenario in question, and 2)You are replaying for the purpose of filling the table. Personally, I add another condition to it, being 3) That you are willing to take a back seat, and let the people who are actually playing the scenario the first time do the roleplay work.
As long as you stick to those, it's fine.
If you and your group dont want to run or play without receiving credit, that's fine. It's your own business, but that unwillingness is part of what is causing your problem.
|
|
He only runs one PC at a time (to retirement) so he often hits levels that he has problems finding a game to play. If he's 6th level and the only games offered in this slot are 1-5 and 7-11 he's stuck. And a little vocal about "the poor planning on the organizers part".
That's... terrible. Sorry to hear this, nosig.
I think if someone complained that their character couldn't play the offerings at my event, I'd tell them they were free to organize a table for the following week.
I have been volunteering with various organizations for many years. I don't tend to take it too well when people who benefit from my donated time complain about the manner in which I've donated it.
|
|
The only campaign I have ever encountered that allowed "replays" was LFR. It was one of the things that I feel made that campaign unique.
Agreed...I've played in a *lot* of OP campaigns, going back to Living City, and "no replays" has always been the norm. When LFR came along, and allowed unlimited replays, there was more than a little consternation among OP grognards, who believed that it would ruin the play experience.
I do suspect that replay in LFR helps make some tables happen, but I also know that it led to some cherry-picking to get certain rewards (certain low-level LFR modules see a *lot* of play, due to having +2 vicious weapons in their treasure bundles).
I've done some limited replay in LFR, mostly to help make tables come together, but I hate having to "play dumb", so I avoid it if I can.
|
While I am sure there are small, isolated examples of this, wanting replay does not appear to be the "norm." Mike has done extensive research and it has not been a topic of issue at any of the conventions I have attended...and I attend A LOT of conventions. The prevailing opinion is not to offer replay, even in a limited form.
The more extreme the disparity between the "hard-core" and casual players in your area, the more likely there will be scheduling issues. I softly disagree with the concept that the Guide discourages play, but it sure recommends inferentially that there is a frequency limit.
Statistically, if you play more than twice a month, eventually you will run out of legal scenarios to play. This is even more the case if you are avoiding conflict with convention schedules. It sounds like you and 1-2 others have reached the breaking point. Without knowing the entire dynamic, all the data/details, and getting involved personally, no one in the forums is going to have the "magic" answer.
My best advice is to express to your VC that you need help to solve the problem. That is really why we are here, to support our local play community. I am not aware of any VC that would refuse your request, but if you do encounter problems that are not being addressed, feel free to send an email to Mike Brock.
I am 100% certain that you can get past this. It might be a challenge at first and some players may have to occasionally play for no credit for the sake of the community. In the big picture, re-playing for no official credit is really no different than playing in a home campaign where there is no chronicles. You indicate that you have a "tight" community of players. If that is true, then they should be amenable to making some concessions to get all players on track. After all, it's about playing together and having fun, not the mechanical rewards...right?!?
|
|
I don't see how this doesn't speak to some level of deficiency or flaw in the campaign design.
I think what you're seeing is that it's a problem for your group, and its particular make-up -- a couple of self-confessed hardcore players who have managed to quickly play their way through many of the available modules, a fairly wide range of experience levels, and many players who have also played LFR, and thus have certain expectations about being able to freely replay modules.
Based on the nature of the other posts in this thread, it suggests that it may not be a problem which is widespread, or that many other groups are experiencing. That doesn't lessen the fact that it's a problem for your group, but it does suggest that your group may present a bit of a "corner case". No set of rules for an OP campaign is going to perfectly fit every player and every group, and there will always be some people for whom the rules just don't fit their particular needs or expectations.
|
|
I don't see how this doesn't speak to some level of deficiency or flaw in the campaign design.
It's only a flaw if unlimited replay is considered an asset or at least outweighs the alternative. Please understand that the decision to restrict replay is not an arbitrary one. The vast majority of the community wants it that way. That is not to say that there aren't some local groups, yous included, that would prefer it, but the rules are largely in place because it is what the greater community wants.
damn forum ninja's ;-)
|
Im aware of what the rule says, but to answer your further question, the rules do not say you cannot replay as often as you like, as long as you replaying is 1) Okayed by the GM of the scenario in question, and 2)You are replaying for the purpose of filling the table. Personally, I add another condition to it, being 3) That you are willing to take a back seat, and let the people who are actually playing the scenario the first time do the roleplay work.
As long as you stick to those, it's fine.
If you and your group dont want to run or play without receiving credit, that's fine. It's your own business, but that unwillingness is part of what is causing your problem.
???
How often does condition #2 on your list actually happen? Do you frequently have tables with exactly 3 players, where you need a 4th person to fill the table, so you can accept someone who is replaying? That just doesn't seem like something that would occur very frequently in a group with a decent number of players.
Personally, I don't understand why replays for no credit are forbidden, other than to fill a table.
I know my local group has broken that rule at least once, although as far as I know, nobody realized we were breaking the rule at the time. Our group was founded by two people who play at cons and wanted to start a local group to play more often. So we occasionally play scenarios that they previously played together at a con, with one of them as the GM and the other playing for no credit, just for fun. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. Until this thread came along, I hadn't realized that was against the rules, and I really don't understand why it is against the rules. Personally, I'm fine with ignoring that particular rule every once in a while in a situation like ours.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Wow. This really is a dead horse. Skeletal, even.
Didn't this thread completely destroy this issue and end the debate? And didn't this thread put to rest the idea that LFR compares to PFS? (in the interest of full disclosure I sent you to my post in the second thread to save you time reading everything leading up to it - the LFR debate happened just prior and after this post).
I'm very sad to see this come up, yet again.
On the other hand, I'm thrilled to see that the campaign organizers are still in favor of No Replay. I really don't want to see the vibrant, healthy game that is PFS turned into the stagnant, sad state that is LFR.
[Edited for clarity]
|
|
How often does condition #2 on your list actually happen? Do you frequently have tables with exactly 3 players, where you need a 4th person to fill the table, so you can accept someone who is replaying? That just doesn't seem like something that would occur very frequently in a group with a decent number of players.
It hasnt happened locally more than a couple times as far as I know. I didnt mean we do that alot, but that it could be done alot, if it was necessary.
|
|
One could 'game' the system by deliberately keeping attendance low so that replays are technically legal under rule #2. But it's probably far simpler to willfully ignore the 'make a legal table' clause and just seat people. Who's to know the difference? Mark & Mike certainly won't, since there's no chronicles to report for those illegally seated fifth and sixth players.
So, with rule #2 promoting either turn-aways or deliberate breaking.. it's not a good rule.
Maybe one day they'll revisit the wording of it.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Is anyone besides the OP encountering the replay rules as a major issue to play?
Do we have a percentage of players having this as a major problem?
Anyone missing games and unable to play for this reason?
It's not a major issue for my local groups. I GM two nights a week usually, sometimes 3 if we have a module on the schedule. We all chip in for new scenarios and I keep them after they've been printed off. By using a filing cabinet and a bit of bookkeeping, I've been able to have about 50-60 gaming nights in the last five months -- by replaying older scenarios for new players and keeping the regulars stocked with a mix of new ones and higher tiered games. We have never had a serious issue with the replay rules, and no one has ever had to "sit out" from a game.
And for the record we have approximately a dozen to twenty on and off pathfinder players.
Wow. This really is a dead horse. Skeletal, even.
Didn't this thread completely destroy this issue and end the debate? And didn't this thread put to rest the idea that LFR compares to PFS? (I sent you to my post in the second thread to save you time reading everything leading up to it).
I'm very sad to see this come up, yet again.
On the other hand, I'm thrilled to see that the campaign organizers are still in favor of No Replay.
I agree, however I believe this thread was started because the OP was looking for something, some reason to keep going with PFS. Of course I could be talking out of my ass.
Regardless, here's my advice for the OP if he's still around.
Keep every scenario you play or print off if you can. Organize them by tiers and keep track of who gm'd them. Each member of your group can get credit for these twice - once for GMing and once for playing. Try to split (if you have enough in your local group) your player base into "old" and "new." The new players will end up replaying the older scenarios, which you can have one of your old players GM. Your veterans should have still plenty of scenarios left to play. As has been said, there's over 100 scenarios and modules alike to choose from. We're burning the candle at both ends where I game and we're *just* over halfway through all of them. I doubt that you're even 25% of the way through. It may be difficult to find out what ones you've played, so abuse the record keeping Paizo provides. Have your wife and daughter look theirs up too, if they ever played some games without you.
I'll end by saying that you shouldn't give up on PFS. Personally, as someone that's got an incredibly full schedule (grad school, 2 jobs, 40+ hours a week), by having Paizo provide me with pre-built campaign rules, interesting sessions, and guidance via forums whenever I've got questions, it makes actually sitting down and playing a RPG possible in my life. There's no way I could manage to GM any other game format twice a week, but with PFS I can.
PFS makes gaming happen for me and my players, who just want to get into the meat of a story without all the pomp and pretense.
One could 'game' the system by deliberately keeping attendance low so that replays are technically legal under rule #2. But it's probably far simpler to willfully ignore the 'make a legal table' clause and just seat people. Who's to know the difference? Mark & Mike certainly won't, since there's no chronicles to report for those illegally seated fifth and sixth players.
So, with rule #2 promoting either turn-aways or deliberate breaking.. it's not a good rule.
Maybe one day they'll revisit the wording of it.
What you propose is not only breaking the replay rule, but it breaks others and is also unethical. You are making a table with players that have nothing to lose because they are not being reported. They can do the brunt of the work while the legal players can sit back and watch and collect their XP, PP and gold at the end of the scenario. Because of the extra players, they may even play up and get access to a higher sub-tier of gear than they should have and will get more gold than they should have than if the rules were followed. And if it is ever discovered by those in charge, whether it is Mark or Mike or your local V-C or V-L, that entire session would be invalidated, potentially making those who could have played legally without the extra players, now have illegal characters because of the now invalid chronicles. So no, you are not breaking one simple little rule on replay if you do what you suggest.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Dragon - I obviously didn't read those threads ... just too huge. (I shudder to think that this thread might be headed in that direction.)
Yup. And is why I was so sad to see this skeleton dragged out of the closet.
You seem reasonable, however, and are listening to peoples' advice and discussing with a level head, so perhaps we're not headed down that same road.
stuff about LFR
LFR is healthy in many places. Those are places where the players, DMs and coordinators who are involved are very passionate. But it takes a ton of work from those people, and they are not in any way supported by WotC. On the flip side, with PFS getting so much support from Paizo it simply takes a little willingness to follow good habits to make PFS a success.
From a store owner's standpoint, I can tell you that I have never seen an organized play system as successful as PFS, outside of the one for Magic. And the effort required to maintain that success is pretty minimal, in comparison to all the other options (Magic included).
There are challenges in running PFS, and while you may not want to admit it, no-replay is one of them. For organizers, VCs and the like that mostly DM, you might not see it that way, but when the heavy players in my area get together, like at a con, seating a table can be frustrating and it wastes time. When things are known to be tightly scheduled, people who can't seat a legal character just don't come. I've even seen fudging the replay for no credit thing people have talked about ... I just didn't realize everyone was so open about it.
And that's the thing I find strange: most of you don't seem to care if things are replayed anyway (rules or no) ... just not for credit. I really don't get that.
Hm. I don't know how to really reply to this. I can only say that I see zero replay in my store, whether through fudging, due to someone making up a legal table, or any other reason. It just doesn't happen.
I also have zero issues filling tables constantly. We run 12 to 15 tables per month. I ran over 150 tables last year, alone. I also know we have no problems with this at our conventions, and are seating between 50 and 100 tables at those events, depending on which one you look at. I see no difference between the mustering and timing for LFR vs PFS at these conventions.
And, no, I care a lot. If you read those threads, you'll see I am very vocal in my opinions about this. In the time I have followed these boards and this discussion, I think I have seen more people care about this than any other topic, be they on one side of the issue or the other. As well, in my own (unprovable) opinion, I think more people prefer no replay than those who wish it were allowed.
Assuming WalterGM is right and you are simply looking for a way to continue, rather than trying to find a way to allow replay, I wish you luck. Read those other threads, when you have time. You will find lots of very good ideas in them. Look up Painlord's Guides to Coordination and GMing to find more ideas.
Take care.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
And that's the thing I find strange: most of you don't seem to care if things are replayed anyway (rules or no) ... just not for credit. I really don't get that.
I think that it's because, in any system, no matter how noble the intention of the participants, there will be those that want to abuse it. Replaying the same game fifty times, even if you swear you're not using player knowledge > PC knowledge, is something that shouldn't happen in PFS. And these rules prevent it from happening. They also give Paizo a base of people that are basically "subscribers" to the system. Like any other interactive, multiplayer game with consistently new content - there are continual fees to help support the system (see MMORPGS).
|
|
There are challenges in running PFS, and while you may not want to admit it, no-replay is one of them.
It's clearly a problem for your group (and, apparently, for some others). Campaign administration seems to feel it's not a widespread enough problem that a change in the rules is warranted.
And, frankly, if you and your group are going to go through three modules per week*, any single OP campaign, past or present, which doesn't allow unlimited replay of modules** is going to leave you in this exact same situation. Living Greyhawk, for example, was a huge OP campaign...but, unless you physically traveled to other regions to play***, you'd get about 28 or so new modules to play per year (8 regionals, 20 cores).
Others in this thread have already suggested things like playing Pathfinder Adventure Path modules with some of your group, in addition to playing PFS. But, if, for whatever reason, your group really wants to stick with OP-type games, it sounds to me like you need to supplement PFS play with a second campaign. While PFS and LFR are, by far, the biggest games in town, there are a number of smaller campaigns which you could look into.
* which is what you indicated you'd do when playing LFR, and seems to be how often you want to play PFS.
** as noted earlier, LFR, not PFS, is the outlier in this area.
*** in Living Greyhawk, real-world areas mapped to in-game regions. You could only play regional modules while you were physically in that real-world area. For example, the Verbobonc region was assigned to Illinois and Indiana; you could only play a Verbobonc module when you were physically in Illinois or Indiana (and you needed to have a resident of one of those states as your DM, IIRC).
|
|
If I'm understand you correctly, this is the problem:
1) In the past you've been playing 3 slots per week, which is 12 scenarios per month.
2) Bad experiences with PFS GMs.
3) Hardcores have played everything.
4) Disparity between play levels.
5) You want replay, ideally replay for credit.
With #1, the obvious answer is you can't play as much as you want to play. PFS creates only 2 new scenarios every month, and some modules. If the desired amount of scenarios you wish to play exceeds that, you're going to hit that limit. This is why you want replay. It would help your cause a lot if you actually reported more sessions, because Paizo would consider producing more scenarios.
I think you're doing the right thing by GMing, because GMs can pretty much play an unlimited amount of Pathfinder.
For #2, everything will vary from region to region. I'm assuming that you're not a bad GM, so it's just a matter of finding a few other good GMs you like to play with. Problem solved.
For #3, I guess you guys need to play less, and if you really want to play with your wife and daughter, make sure you play the new scenarios with them.
For #4, as we've already mentioned, First Steps can be replayed an unlimited amount of times. Some low level modules can also be replayed an unlimited amount of times. That's enough to get to 3rd level with ANY character, which means you can play with other PCs until they get to 8th level at least.
You can make a new PC and help them level with that PC. That's the only answer to level disparity. We all deal with it.
For #5, I doubt this will change anytime soon. However, I don't understand or agree with not being able to replay for no credit. See below. Report your sessions! You play a LOT.
It's possible that with enough hardcore players like you, if you're both buying and reporting scenarios, Paizo COULD increase the number of scenarios from 2 per month, to 4 per month. But they would only do it if the numbers supported that kind of increase.
In reading the posts above, it seems that these rules are largely (except for the two chronicle sheet part of the rules), and quietly ignored.
The two chronicle (one as player, one as GM) per player rule is never ignored.
Having someone's spouse replay a scenario for no credit as a 5th PC is not the same thing. It doesn't do any harm and they're not getting credit. Paizo should really leave the "replay for no credit" decision up to GM discretion, because every situation is different.
Do you really want to send someone home after they drove 1 hour to be there? What if that person drove their spouse to the game, and now you lose the spouse from the game as well? Is that really better than allowing a 5th player to play for no credit? This is why GMs break that particular rule. (I've seen it broken as well). Pathfinder is a social game!
I'm interested though ... If so many of you seem to think it's perfectly alright to replay as often as you want, just not for credit, what is the rationale for not replaying for credit. I'm starting to realize that most of you are not actually following the rules in your approach to the campaign, but I'm wondering: Why do you support the rules?
If I was GMing more store and convention games, and I saw entire tables of people replaying for credit, it would make me want to quit GMing for that store / convention. That's why I support not replaying for credit.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Maybe people keep on beating the dead horse because there are a lot of people dissatisfied with the fact that the horse is dead.
Nobody is advocating unlimited replay for credit, and in fact allowing any replay for credit (other than the situations already covered in the rules) probably adds more problems than it solves. But if it's legal for the fourth player at a table to be replaying a scenario (and possibly other players; the rules as written would, technically, not disallow a table where more than one player had played the scenario before), why is it such a heinous crime to seat a fifth player alongside four first-time players?
The alternative - sending that player home - seems overly harsh. It's often hard enough to get a group of players together; extra obstacles that prevent otherwise-willing players from participating just make it even harder.
If you've only got six or seven participants, what are you supposed to do? That's not enough for two legal tables, so you can't split into two groups. And even with eight participants, the suggested 'solution' - split into two tables, have one of the experienced players act as GM on the second table, and have each GM run one of the pregens, is more than a little unrealistic. Some players just aren't comfortable with the idea of being the GM; it is a very different experience.
And, finally, there's the assumption that all scenarios are interchangeable, so it's straightforward to find one that nobody at the table has played. That assumes all players are equally willing to play in any level-appropriate scenario, which is very far from the truth. The setting, plot line, and style of the scenario are also important.
[I'll stop now - I've already gone on far longer than i had intended]
For #4, as we've already mentioned, First Steps can be replayed an unlimited amount of times. Some low level modules can also be replayed an unlimited amount of times. That's enough to get to 3rd level with ANY character, which means you can play with other PCs until they get to 8th level at least.
Only one problem with this one, unless you are referring to something I have missed. Yes, you can replay for credit First Steps and any level one sanctioned module as much as you want with 1st level characters. But as soon as you play that level one module with a 2nd level character, that is the only 2nd level character that can get credit. So First Steps and one module is enough to get one character to 3rd level. You can only get to 3rd level as many characters are there are sanctioned level one modules with this method, not as many as you want.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
OK - I'll stay on the soapbox a little longer.
I don't think GMs should necessarily be able to play in a module for credit if they have already run the module as a GM.
But, on the other hand, I don't think a player should always be stuck with the Chronicle sheet from their first time through a module. Everybody knows that there are some bad players (and even the occasional bad GM) that can ruin the experience for everybody else at the table. At a convention you don't know who'll you be playing with beforehand; if I were unlucky enough to run into one of those situations I'd hate to have something like that on the permanent record of one of my characters.
While not an everyday scenario, I'd like to see some way to appeal the hard-and-fast ruling (perhaps by petitioning the event coordinator or the local Venture Captain) to allow a Chronicle sheet to be removed from the record. It's probably too much to ask that the player Chronicle sheet award to a GM who already knows the plot of the module be subject to the same kind of review.
|
|
OK - I'll stay on the soapbox a little longer.I don't think GMs should necessarily be able to play in a module for credit if they have already run the module as a GM.
This topic has been discussed ad nauseum and you are more than welcome to read those threads, but I don't think those of use that lived through those discussions care to revisit them.
The rules regarding GMs getting to play after running a scenario were changed so that more people would step up and help run the game for other people. This was to make it fair across the board.
Personally, as one who GMs way more than I actually get to play, I'm contend with the current rules and do not wish for them to be changed.
|
|
Maybe people keep on beating the dead horse because there are a lot of people dissatisfied with the fact that the horse is dead.
Or a few people who like the sound the horse flesh makes when you give it a good solid smack.
I don't think GMs should necessarily be able to play in a module for credit if they have already run the module as a GM.
What do you suggest as an alternate GM reward?
We'd love to get GMs who step up for no reward at all but GM rewards are a big part of recruiting for many of us. What do you propose as an alternate?
|
This topic has been discussed ad nauseum and you are more than welcome to read those threads, but I don't think those of use that lived through those discussions care to revisit them.
*Forces those memories upon Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome*
Muhahahaha, you shall never escape them. You will be tortured with them over and over until your sanity shatters!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This topic has been discussed ad nauseum and you are more than welcome to read those threads, but I don't think those of use that lived through those discussions care to revisit them.*Forces those memories upon Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome*
Muhahahaha, you shall never escape them. You will be tortured with them over and over until your sanity shatters!
pfft .. I work in healthcare with insurance .. it's already shattered
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Maybe people keep on beating the dead horse because there are a lot of people dissatisfied with the fact that the horse is dead.Or a few people who like the sound the horse flesh makes when you give it a good solid smack.
I don't think GMs should necessarily be able to play in a module for credit if they have already run the module as a GM.What do you suggest as an alternate GM reward?
We'd love to get GMs who step up for no reward at all but GM rewards are a big part of recruiting for many of us. What do you propose as an alternate?
A GM already gets to take a maximum award and apply it to a character of his/her choosing, with no risk to the character; that's already more than a player can do. And if the GM plays the module before running it, that's two Chronicle sheets. If further GM awards are needed, then allow both the Chronicle sheets to come from GMing the session so that being the first GM to run a new module doesn't mean giving up that second one.
|
|
How would you encourage GMs to play scenarios before they run them without punishing the GMs who have to slot zero those scenarios?
I suspect the majority of GMs would love to play each scenario first, the catch is that Paizo isn't driving around in a bus doing slot zero for every single scenario out there. Someone is going to have to 'eat' that scenario, why should that person get the short end of the stick?
The current system has it's flaws, but screwing over slot zero GMs isn't one of them and any change in it should keep it that way.
|
|
Reading this whole thread is far too difficult, so I'll just reply to the last few responses. :-)
I actually enjoy NOT playing a scenario before I GM it. Playing a scenario taints my view of the author's intent. By not playing a scenario, I feel a stronger sense of ownership. Does any of that make sense? Probably not.
The first time I run a scenario it's garbage compared to the second time and beyond. I find that I don't get much better after the 3rd time, as I'm stuck in my ways beyond that.
|
I'd like to say that because our group has gotten *bigger,* we have to offer more scenarios when we play. This lets us break up the more experienced gamers and the newer gamers. We have not had as much difficulty lately with breaking up the newer scenarios and the older scenarios. Recently, we've had a much easier time at scheduling scenarios - partly because we have had a lot of players step up to GM.
All I was arguing for, in vain, is for it to be legal for someone to replay W/O getting credit. Instead, I will just continue making sure everyone who comes to game has fun. Which is the point of the game, in my opinion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm addicted to chronicle sheets and will rarely GM an adventure if I'm not getting a sheet, which is probably a shame as I'd likely do a better job GMing an adventure a second time.
This thread has given me an idea though, maybe we could have have some sort of generic chronicle sheet for repeatedly GMing an adventure. There's the potential deforestation problem for people like Kyle and figuring out what would be a good boon that's repeatable and not problematic.
|
|
I'm addicted to chronicle sheets and will rarely GM an adventure if I'm not getting a sheet, which is probably a shame as I'd likely do a better job GMing an adventure a second time.
This thread has given me an idea though, maybe we could have have some sort of generic chronicle sheet for repeatedly GMing an adventure. There's the potential deforestation problem for people like Kyle and figuring out what would be a good boon that's repeatable and not problematic.
I really like this idea and think it has potential.
Probably would have to be something akin to the chronicles for reading a pathfinder novel (no xp and no gold awards so there's no incentive or potential for twinking a character), but something is more than nothing.
Something generic enough to apply to any replayed or GM'd chronicle shouldn't be overly difficult to come up with. The thought off the top of my head is a free reroll boon. Of course only usable once per session, no matter how many such boons you have.
Another idea is to make a list of 'generic' chronicles with different (short) lists of hard-to-aquire equipment listed. Things like dragonhide (make it masterwork so the druids of PFS can finally upgrade to magic), scrolls of higher than min caster level, wands with abnormal level/charges, potions of metamagic'd spells, etc.) With this approach you can let someone pick a chronicle to obtain such item(s).