|
In another universe wherein I was magically put in charge of PFS overnight, things would work very differently. Now, don't freak out. I am not about to be put in charge of PFS, overnight or ever. None of these changes will probably ever happen. I have no influence over anything, so nobody has to lose their minds and regard this thread as threatening. All I am wondering is how far afield I am from the tastes and preferences of the PFS community in general (I'm guessing the answer will be "very.") So, here is the vision of PFS as it would exist in my perfect world:
1. There would be a fast track for levelling up, just as there is a slow track. It would probably require only two games to gain a level. Furthermore, all characters would get a free rebuild usable at anytime before level four, as well as one rebuild every time a hardcover book was released. This would be in addition to the rebuilds currently allowed when erratas are made that affect your character. Rebuilds would, overall, be extremely permissive.
2. You would not keep track of gold pieces. Whatever character you played that night would have to have magic items of total value equal to or less than that indicated for his level in the CWBL chart, with something like the existing limits on max gold per item. Each character would have a level based per-game gp allotment to spend on expendables like wands, scrolls and potions. Every time you levelled up, you would simply add gp value to your items to bring yourself up to your new CWBL. (The system for all this would probably actually be slightly more complicated than what I'm saying here, but you get the idea.)
3. The mods would have only one tier, but would be written with an easy, normal and hard mode. In the case where there was no obvious consensus, the players and GM would vote on which mode to play/run, with the GM's vote counting double. Basically, normal mode would be more or less what we have now. Easy mode would probably see all the CRs reduced by one, and hard mode would see them all increased by one or two.
4. Since there is no keeping track of gold, rewards for the mods would come in the form of boons and access to special magic items, with better (meaning cooler, not more powerful) stuff being available for beating hard mode. In general, the boons and special access magic items would be more effective/unique/interesting (more like the ones they have started to give in places like Thorn Keep, as well as the race boons and such that are currently awarded only at cons). One of the boons you could get would definitely be the ability to start your next character at 2nd or 3rd (maybe even 4th) level rather than having to start at level 1.
5. Resurrection would be obtainable only through boons or, possibly, prestige (not exactly sure what I would do with the prestige system...maybe keep it more or less as is). It would be one of the boon options available in probably something like 30%-50% of the mods, maybe more if you're playing hard mode.
6. The campaign record sheets would be smaller, probably printed on cards or something that you could keep in your wallet or a cardholder so they're less bulky to keep up with. In general they would be condensed and you'd need less of them.
7. About half the scenarios written would have a slightly more roleplaying or puzzle heavy orientation, achievable because they would have only one or two fights in them. Even the normal scenarios would probably have something like three fights and one optional.
8. You would get double XP and totally awesome boons for GMing.
Well, I think that's it, my vision of a perfect PFS. I'm sure it will be a nightmare for a lot of people, but maybe some of you would like it. Let me know your reactions. How alone am I on this?
|
|
6. The campaign record sheets would be smaller, probably printed on cards or something that you could keep in your wallet or a cardholder so they're less bulky to keep up with. In general they would be condensed and you'd need less of them.
While I can see the appeal of this particular idea, let me tell you why I hate it. :) It would require judges and organizers to spend lots of time with scissors or make them buy postcard paper to print the things out. Then if there was any meaningful information at all on them, those of us in the 40+ crowd may find we need a magnifying glass to read them.
Please take this post with the humor intended. I am not trying to flame here.
Den
|
1. Nah.
2. Nah.
3. Yeah!
4. Nah. Doable under the current system.
5. Nah. People love their characters.
6. Nah.
7. Yeah! Nice one!
8. Boo to the double experience but I like the idea of boons for GMs.
Nice thought exercise!
Overall, I am really satisfied with the decisions that campaign management have made.
|
1) The free rebuild idea kills it. Saw too much of that in LFR, where people weren't invested in their characters. Plus, I would play levels 1-4 as a crazed power attacking barbarian, then swap to something like a wizard. Just...no.
2) So I'll walk around with stoneskin, nearly non-stop, because I don't actually spend the gold. I'm not worried about firing off that +5 holy ghost touch slaying arrow, since I'll just get one back for the next adventure anyways. I'm not worried about leaving my weapon behind, I'll just be given a new one. Just...no.
3) Only one tier, but 3 different versions....which is what we have now. Sounds like an old 1-7 scenario. Just more narrow in the level range, but just as much work, so less people will be able to play it, thus not making monetary sense. Nope.
4) No to starting high level characters. A character is defined by what they have done. It makes them who they are. No thank you, not at all. Making more interesting stuff available on chronicle sheets means that people will start tracking what scenario "has" to be played with certain characters in order to be as efficient as possible. Just no.
5) Too vague to really talk about.
6) Dear Abadar, *NO*. Too easy to lose, impossible to read, and I have *no* desire to have to spend that kind of time with scissors making them.
7) Yes please. I'd rather like to see that happen, actually. More things to do besides combat would make me a happy man.
8) Extra boons for GMs? Leads to GMs milling through games just for the sake of boons, which leads to bad play. GM for the love of the game and the story, not for the stuff you get. No thanks.
Over all....yeah...
|
|
So if I'm understanding everyone correctly, in general people here favor diminished freedom of choice, increased paperwork, and the everpresent possibility of audits (presumably because we do not get enough of these things in our home and work life). That's a little more Kafkaesque than I like my hobbies to be... ;)
|
|
Hey Erick,
I thought your thread was interesting when you posted your opinions and the asked what others though.Then you accused people of being fascist. Do you want other opinions or were you hoping for support and are now insulting others in an attempt to make them leave?
Take the joke for what it was. The sentiment is mostly sincere but the hyperbole was intended humorously :) Still, sorry if I offended anyone. I know you're not Nazis.
Are you sure about that?
|
|
6. The campaign record sheets would be smaller, probably printed on cards or something that you could keep in your wallet or a cardholder so they're less bulky to keep up with. In general they would be condensed and you'd need less of them.While I can see the appeal of this particular idea, let me tell you why I hate it. :) It would require judges and organizers to spend lots of time with scissors or make them buy postcard paper to print the things out. Then if there was any meaningful information at all on them, those of us in the 40+ crowd may find we need a magnifying glass to read them.
Please take this post with the humor intended. I am not trying to flame here.
Den
You're probably right about this, actually. Anyway, the important thing is just needing less of the sheets. I see them as necessary only if you want to use your cool item you got from a boon or something. And really, I don't even care that much then. I don't see why we can't all use an honor system. As a GM, if your character isn't unbalancing the game, then do I really care how you built it or where you got your stuff from? No I don't. If it makes somebody happy to lie about this kind of thing then my attitude is as long as you're not causing problems, knock yourself out. There are already plenty of perfectly legal ways to cause all kinds of problems with game balance, and frankly I'm a lot more concerned about that stuff. I'm personally not going to take someone to task for having a braid of a hundred masters when his character didn't play in Quest for Perfection. I mean honestly, why should I care about this kind of thing? As long as the character isn't causing problems then it's just not a concern to me.
|
|
1) The free rebuild idea kills it. Saw too much of that in LFR, where people weren't invested in their characters. Plus, I would play levels 1-4 as a crazed power attacking barbarian, then swap to something like a wizard. Just...no.
Hm, well the rebuilds probably wouldn't be THAT permissive. And even if they were, what's wrong with playing a barbarian and then a wizard? It sounds to me like you got to play two character classes instead of being stuck with one. Bonus!
2) So I'll walk around with stoneskin, nearly non-stop, because I don't actually spend the gold. I'm not worried about firing off that +5 holy ghost touch slaying arrow, since I'll just get one back for the next adventure anyways. I'm not worried about leaving my weapon behind, I'll just be given a new one. Just...no.
Nope. You can have stoneskin on only at the expense of the potions or wand charges or whatever that you didn't buy with the same money that game. The +5 whatever arrow is an expendable and bought as such. And okay, yes, you're not worried about leaving your weapon behind some place. But when have you ever seen this be an issue in a PFS game?
3) Only one tier, but 3 different versions....which is what we have now. Sounds like an old 1-7 scenario. Just more narrow in the level range, but just as much work, so less people will be able to play it, thus not making monetary sense. Nope.
No, now we have two different versions, not three, and you're missing the point. Characters of the same level would play easy, normal or hard mode, unlike the tier system. This alteration is to account for differences in power level from one PC group to the next.
4) No to starting high level characters. A character is defined by what they have done. It makes them who they are. No thank you, not at all.
I don't really even know what you mean by "a character is defined by what they have done" but the idea is simply not important to me. You are more than welcome to view your characters this way, but why do you insist that I do as well? What does it profit you? I don't understand this thinking. The boon would be optional for those that want to avail themselves of it, as it is a not uncommonly held opinion that the game at the first couple of levels is rather a slog, and suffers from design issues as well. Both other major evolutions of 3.5 (Saga and 4th ed) took this into account in their game design. The notion that there is something sacred to insisting that a character have played through every level also makes no sense in the context of PFS, as you can avoid doing so anyway by GMing and applying the XP you get.
Making more interesting stuff available on chronicle sheets means that people will start tracking what scenario "has" to be played with certain characters in order to be as efficient as possible. Just no.
People do this already. And also, so what? Why does this matter to you?
6) Dear Abadar, *NO*. Too easy to lose, impossible to read, and I have *no* desire to have to spend that kind of time with scissors making them.
Ok, ok, you're probably right about this one.
8) Extra boons for GMs? Leads to GMs milling through games just for the sake of boons, which leads to bad play. GM for the love of the game and the story, not for the stuff you get. No thanks.
I would like to GM for the love of the game, and also get stuff. And I guess there's no way to know, but I seriously doubt GMs are going to "mill through" scenarios for boons.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, this could be a good thought exercise thread...
Well, I like the current system a lot. It has certain aspects I dislike for one reason or another, but overall it's a pretty solid system.
One thing I always thought would be cool would be to have an Aspis Consortium Organized Play that would exist alongside PFS. An "ACOP" to our PFS, if you will. Like the Horde and Alliance for those of you familiar with the Warcraft universe. ACOP would have the same general rules for organized play as PFS, but with some changes that would enable people to play evil aligned characters, different class options, etc. For example, maybe you could be an Undead Lord in ACOP, but Paladins were banned.
The missions would have a more mercenary or criminal feel to them. Reoccurring antagonists would be Pathfinder agents, Andorans, Silver Crusaders, etc and you would likely have scenarios where you worked hand in hand with various nefarious figures -- Lissalan cultists, for example.
You could integrate the two OP campaigns during convocation events or specials, with the two groups of PCs competing against one another through a sort of PVE environment -- meaning the PCs wouldn't play against each other, but they would both be after the same goal, and try to overcome obstacles quicker than their counterparts.
The downside to this is that it would over-complicate everything that is already on the verge of being over-complicated. While it might sound awesome in my mind, it could never be implemented without a massive budget and an expanded staff.
And that's the problem with a lot of the grand sweeping proposed changes I see from time to time -- they're just not feasible.
Luckily, this is just a "what if" discussion, so we can throw tangibility out the door and just have fun. ;)
|
|
What you're not understanding and you've chosen to namecall instead of taking criticism like a presumed adult...
You realize you namecalled in the same sentence in which you were taking me to task for namecalling...
...is that those things you want come at prices which bring more harm than benefit to the campaign.
Maybe, maybe not. That's exactly the debate I want to have.
The present system has it's flaws but it's a system that's far more efficient then your proposals for providing a consistent play experience with accepted levels of table variation.
The phrase I have a problem with here is "accepted table variation." I don't accept it, which is kind of the point. Neither, apparently, do all the people posting threads about the mods being too easy or too hard.
There's only been one time that I've audited characters for suspected misuse of rules, several times which I've done to help correct newbie mistakes, so I don't think that audits are quite the Sword of Domocoles you make them out to be. (Unless the player IS a cheater for such a Sword is indeed hanging as they always out themselves anyway in the end.)
The fact that it's rare doesn't make it less a "Sword of Damocles," if you want to say it that way. And my entire point about cheating is that there are already a million ways to hurt the game perfectly legally that aren't really being addressed. The people I have seen with the most egregiously overpowered characters were also the sort that followed every rule to the letter and had meticulously maintained paperwork.
If you think the present sheet system is a burden to maintain, imagine what it was like with certs in the Living City and Living Arcanis campaigns! You really don't know when you have it good.
So you admit that movement away from that kind of thing is progress... ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, now that's an idea I like, a forced cooperation Evil campaign. Individually You're not strong enough to be completely evil, because you're part of a greater organization that will punish you for being excessively stupid evil, but you're able to have a bit more freedom (to be bad) in your goals.
Gives us a chance to play with some of the great evil stereotypes.
|
|
Luckily, this is just a "what if" discussion, so we can throw tangibility out the door and just have fun. ;)
You're right, that's where this thing started, and I would like to hear more of what people would want if they could just hand wave any change they desired. And I agree the idea of an Aspis game alongside the existing one would be really cool, if logistically kind of nightmarish. Also, they could probably never do it for legal reasons. Fear of the potential lawsuits if someone playing a murderous character actually went and killed someone, etc...
|
|
In games that are moderated by Human beings, you're going to have variation. It's simply not avoidable. You want absolute uniformity, play a computer game.
True! In fact, what you're saying is sort of my point. The system should accept the truth you're expressing and therefore be flexible to accommodate it, rather than having only one setting as it does now.
|
|
And what exactly does that mean?
Well, in the most practical terms it means that players, being human, will be more or less skilled at tactics and strategy and character building. This will result, as you say, in a huge amount of variation from one table to the next in terms of the relative power/competence of the party. Furthermore, different groups will desire different levels of difficulty (you've got your Dark Souls fans and your Skyrim fans). So the mods should be flexible in terms of the challenge they are able to present at the same level in order to account for both of these factors.
|
|
1) The free rebuild idea kills it. Saw too much of that in LFR, where people weren't invested in their characters. Plus, I would play levels 1-4 as a crazed power attacking barbarian, then swap to something like a wizard. Just...no.
Hm, well the rebuilds probably wouldn't be THAT permissive. And even if they were, what's wrong with playing a barbarian and then a wizard? It sounds to me like you got to play two character classes instead of being stuck with one. Bonus!
Free rebuilds are, by their nature, permissive. Organized play is just that, organized. A character is meant to keep a history of who and what they were.
2) So I'll walk around with stoneskin, nearly non-stop, because I don't actually spend the gold. I'm not worried about firing off that +5 holy ghost touch slaying arrow, since I'll just get one back for the next adventure anyways. I'm not worried about leaving my weapon behind, I'll just be given a new one. Just...no.
Nope. You can have stoneskin on only at the expense of the potions or wand charges or whatever that you didn't buy with the same money that game. The +5 whatever arrow is an expendable and bought as such. And okay, yes, you're not worried about leaving your weapon behind some place. But when have you ever seen this be an issue in a PFS game?
It is an expendable/consumable, same as stoneskin. And you're right, it is used instead of other things. The issue is, it gives me free money and no reason *not* to be burning expensive spells all the time. The nature of PFS is that you can guess when combat will take place (usually), and stoneskin could thus be up at all times combat could happen. In a home game, the GM can make attacks happen around that. Giving players no reason to horde resources is a dangerous design mechanic. As for leaving weapons behind...yes, I have seen it happen. I nearly had to leave my Adamantine Morningstar behind in one scenario.
3) Only one tier, but 3 different versions....which is what we have now. Sounds like an old 1-7 scenario. Just more narrow in the level range, but just as much work, so less people will be able to play it, thus not making monetary sense. Nope.No, now we have two different versions, not three, and you're missing the point. Characters of the same level would play easy, normal or hard mode, unlike the tier system. This alteration is to account for differences in power level from one PC group to the next.
Ok, so we have two tiers of play, designed for players of differing strength. Or we have 3 modes of play, designed for players of differing strength. Either way, its the same scenario that has different stat blocks. Your solution, however, narrows the level range and makes it harder for play.
I don't really even know what you mean by "a character is defined by what they have done" but the idea is simply not important to me. You are more than welcome to view your characters this way, but why do you insist that I do as well? What does it profit you? I don't understand this thinking. The boon would be optional for those that want to avail themselves of it, as it is a not uncommonly held opinion that the game at the first couple of levels is rather a slog, and suffers from design issues as well. Both other major evolutions of 3.5 (Saga and 4th ed) took this into account in their game design. The notion that there is something sacred to insisting that a character have played through every level also makes no sense in the context of PFS, as you can avoid doing so anyway by GMing and applying the XP you get.4) No to starting high level characters. A character is defined by what they have done. It makes them who they are. No thank you, not at all.
The idea may not be important to you, but if we decide to create new characters of higher levels and not track item purchases, then characters are created as concepts, dropped, new characters are made, and there is no continuity of play. It may not matter to you, but it matters heavily to the community as I have seen it.
5) Making more interesting stuff available on chronicle sheets means that people will start tracking what scenario "has" to be played with certain characters in order to be as efficient as possible. Just no.
People do this already. And also, so what? Why does this matter to you?
The campaign tried doing that with the advent of season 4. It was widely rejected.
8) Extra boons for GMs? Leads to GMs milling through games just for the sake of boons, which leads to bad play. GM for the love of the game and the story, not for the stuff you get. No thanks.
I would like to GM for the love of the game, and also get stuff. And I guess there's no way to know, but I seriously doubt GMs are going to "mill through" scenarios for boons.
I have seen GMs run scenarios just for the boons.
|
|
How would that interact with the current tier system? Would each scenario have 6 versions? (low tier-easy, low-normal, low-hard, high-easy, high-normal, high-hard) What would be the difference between a low-hard and a high-normal setting?
Or just the 3, so you could only play it with a character of a narrower level range, but got to choose your difficulty?The first is a lot more work for each scenario. The second means less scenarios available for a character of a given level.
I was thinking it would mean the second, and yeah less scenarios is the resultant downside. But to me it would be well worth it. Quality over quantity, I say.
|
|
Free rebuilds are, by their nature, permissive. Organized play is just that, organized. A character is meant to keep a history of who and what they were.
I understand that this is the nature of it. But why? Only because it has traditionally been so? Are we perhaps just used to thinking this way? Why must it be so?
It is an expendable/consumable, same as stoneskin. And you're right, it is used instead of other things. The issue is, it gives me free money and no reason *not* to be burning expensive spells all the time. The nature of PFS is that you can guess when combat will take place (usually), and stoneskin could thus be up at all times combat could happen...
This can happen anyway. The idea of this mechanic is it's just a different way to distribute resources. A player who often plays up has well above the CWBL, and so could just budget for casting stoneskin every game anyway on top of that. It's ultimately not actually much different (even though it seems so) except it involves less paper (save the planet!...and also, you know, time and aggravation).
As for leaving weapons behind...yes, I have seen it happen. I nearly had to leave my...
The exception that proves the rule.
|
|
It sounds like you prefer more free form play, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, in order to be able to have a program where we can show up almost anywhere in the US and find a table to play at, there are common rules. By necessity, that requires limiting certain things and there being a little more paperwork. If people prefer more free form games, then I think home games are right for them. Organized Play, by its very nature, cannot be free form.
|
|
"Ok, so we have two tiers of play, designed for players of differing strength. Or we have 3 modes of play, designed for players of differing strength. Either way, its the same scenario that has different stat blocks. Your solution, however, narrows the level range and makes it harder for play."
I see what you're saying but there's a crucial point you're missing. The differing strength is determined by your level under the current model, but not under my model. That is necessary as players have exhibited many times over at this point that there is an incredibly wide range of character power out there within the same range of levels.
"The idea may not be important to you, but if we decide to create new characters of higher levels and not track item purchases, then characters are created as concepts, dropped, new characters are made, and there is no continuity of play. It may not matter to you, but it matters heavily to the community as I have seen it."
You are correct, and it sounds wonderful to me. I would much, much rather play several different concepts over the prime level range of the game (approx. 5th-9th) than play a smaller number of concepts for longer periods of time.
Furthermore, many many concepts don't come together until after a few levels in (due to feat trees and the overall fact that gaining levels is the only way in the game to get stuff), and quite often they turn out to be less fun to play than you imagined. Let's consider this. Even a concept that comes together at 4th level (many require more than that) requires ten games (9 to get there and then you play at least one game with the "completed" concept). Each game is about four or more hours long and where I play I have about an hour and a half to two hours of total travel time. So I'm clocking an average of somewhere around 6 hours devoted to each game. Times ten that makes 60 hours of my time to get the character to level four whereupon I can finally start playing the character the way I wanted to. SIXTY. HOURS. That's over two full days of my life. And then what if it turns out the build isn't actually all that fun? Or, worse, it's based on a misinterpretation of the rules that doesn't get noticed until whatever level? (I've seen this happen to people more than once) Or I get there and then they errata the build out of existence. Etc. I'm sorry, but to me that seems like an unreasonable thing to ask of people.
The other thing that makes our positions on this matter different (and, I feel, strongly favors mine) is that your position requires me to play your way, whereas my position does not require the same of you. If some people get the option of rebuilding, or of skipping levels, it does not affect your ability to make a character and play it up through the levels just as you always did. And you don't ever have to rebuild if you don't want to. My fun does not depend upon you having less fun, whereas your fun, in this case, does depend on me having less fun.
"I have seen GMs run scenarios just for the boons."
This is, of course, anecdotal. But I understand that neither of us really has anything but anecdotal evidence and guesswork to offer here. I have not seen this, or if I have I didn't know it because they ran it just as well as they would have anyway, so who cares if they were after a boon?
|
|
It sounds like you prefer more free form play, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, in order to be able to have a program where we can show up almost anywhere in the US and find a table to play at, there are common rules. By necessity, that requires limiting certain things and there being a little more paperwork. If people prefer more free form games, then I think home games are right for them. Organized Play, by its very nature, cannot be free form.
We have no argument over your basic statement. What we differ about is how limiting those common rules must be. I see no reason why they actually have to be very limiting at all, and I think it is far better to err on the side of freedom rather than limitation. I think this game in particular, and this hobby in general, is burdened by a lot of thinking that is simply left over from the way things used to be done. But the game has changed a lot. Sure, in the old days I might not have minded so much that I have to play the same concept for months and months. Because there were very few concepts to play in the first place! You basically were like a warrior guy, a wizard guy, a cleric guy or a thief guy. These days, there are like ten builds I want to play in the monk class alone. It's almost sadistic to give me all these cool archetypes and options and such, and then ensure that I will never play more than a handful of them...