|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Detroit we are fortunate to have a lot of venues offering PFS events across the Metro area. We certainly don't have anything to gripe about when it comes to play opportunities. But there's a downside to this. When there's a local game convention it's hard to draw the players in. Why pay $25 to play something that you can play for free & closer to home? I've been involved with PFS since the start and I've organized enough conventions to understand why they SHOULD be attractive. What I'm saying is that it isn't working as well as it could.
Those of you who remember LG know how big conventions used to be. For those of you who don't, the campaign had a tiered system of release. When new adventures were released, they were available ONLY at conventions for the first month. The month after that, they were only available at public gamedays. Finally, after that two month waiting period they were available for homeplay or private tables. It created a demand for conventions that completely deflated when LG was killed.
Of course, an adventure that premiered at a convention was a big deal for other reasons too. There were critical event summaries that impacted regional plotlines. There were once-only interactive adventures you could only find at conventions. I ended up hating those, but they had fans...
Detroit had three conventions a year that dried up & blew away after LG. It was heartbreaking and it fractured the community.
My point is, a once-a-year Special, the abattoir that is Bonekeep and boons that are hit-or-miss; these things are weighed against travel costs, hotel rooms, convention badges, etc. There's an imbalance that does not favor the growth of convention attendance, particularly when there's a lot of play opportunities in the area already. My opinion is a tiered scenario release schedule like I described above could make conventions in demand again. I'd like to know your thoughts.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I tried to get into LG I found it elitist, unfriendly and unwelcoming and I did not try organized play again for years. So in general I find "LG did it like this" as a negative, rather than a positive argument.
In the Bay Area we self impose a similar experience. The 2 months or so before our biggest convention (KublaCon) Azmyth asks all the coordinators not to schedule the newest adventures until after KublaCon. While there's not 100% compliance it works pretty well and makes sure that KublaCon has plenty of new and exciting adventures.
So this may be a problem you can resolve on the local level without rules from on high.
|
I've always found the concept of region-specific adventures pretty interesting, as well. Maybe have them locked to public venues over "X number of tables" or something for the first 90 days, then rolled out worldwide.
Would be cool to have some Taldor-specific adventures in a geographic area... (or Cheliax, etc). Might be tricky to design and pull off, but if we had, for instance, "3 new adventures per [faction, kingdom, etc] per year in each of our geographic regions around the world" I'd be a big fan.
Example (would have to be based on reported tables/ player numbers):
Andoran - Europe
Cheliax - USA & Canada, east of the Mississippi River (appx.)
Grand Lodge - Africa & middle east
Osirian - eastern Asia
Qadira - eastern Europe and Russian Federation
Sczarni - USA & Canada, west of the Mississippi River (appx.)
Silver Crusade - South America
Taldor - Australia
Make a couple (2-3) adventures exclusive to a region for a couple months and see what happens? Would give the authors some time to gather feedback on table results, in addition to putting some more emphasis on "wow, I need to get out to that big 'ol event and play some stuff".
(I didn't assign regions based on anything in particular... just tossed them out there as a thought)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I agree with BNW. What is the importance of the cons?
I go to 3-5 cons a year. Almost every (PFS-playing) person I meet at conventions is there for one or both of two (and-a-half) reasons:
1) To gather with a bunch of like-minded individuals and have a good time doing - and talking about - something we all enjoy. To meet new people, see new characters, and in general to have a fun weekend.
2) To be able to play a LOT of PFS in a short period of time. Also to have access to some of the scenarios that are rarely run in local games.
2a) Same as 2) but replace "play" with "GM."
So the question is "Why are we trying to grow convention attendance?" If the answer is just "to grow convention attendance" then keeping material special to cons doesn't hold water with me. If we can define growth of a convention in a way that serves the community, then let's talk.
The one argument I can see being made is that boosting con attendance will increase the number of new players (especially if we are talking about a non PFS-specific con). The counterargument to that is that for new players, it doesn't matter if the scenario is exclusive or not.
Anyway, convince me that this wouldn't just further separate the haves and have-nots!
|
|
EDIT: Ninja'd big-time. I'll just say that at this point I'd be interested why you're missing the cons so much. Please understand that my perspective is that of someone who's never attended a gaming convention and has never felt much interest in doing so.
Maybe you guys will convince me that they are worth the trouble after all!
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regionalization was a huge benefit to Cons in LG. Back then, you could only play core adventures, regional adventures that belonged to the region you happened to be standing in at the time, and Meta-regional adventures that belonged to the meta-region you were standing in at the time. There were a few exceptions that were allowed by the campaign organizers where multiple regions could be run at the same time, such as Marching to the POU that allowed both Grand March and Principality of Ulek regional adventures, but these required special exceptions. The net result of all of this is that people would want to travel to conventions at different regions so that they could play mods they normally couldn't. This was a great boon for conventions though I am not as convinced it was a boon for LG in general.
The only reason the regional system worked in LG was because all regional adventures were written by volunteers (which meant quality varied greatly). The moment you start paying for someone to write adventures, then the concept becomes extremely wasteful fund-wise as you are no longer reaching the maximum customer base.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: Ninja'd big-time. I'll just say that at this point I'd be interested why you're missing the cons so much. Please understand that my perspective is that of someone who's never attended a gaming convention and has never felt much interest in doing so.
Maybe you guys will convince me that they are worth the trouble after all!
Well, since you haven't ever been to a Con it would be hard to understand. But essentially, the answer is "Cons are a lot of fun!" They usually have a high energy level, they give you a chance to meet and play with people you may have never met before, sometimes you get a chances to meet up with old friends who moved away, or with people you have met only on these forums. Frequently you have the opportunity to play things you might normally not get a chance to play. And there are often interesting shopping and special event opportunities. Of course, if you are not that fond of large social gatherings and don't like leaving the comfort zone of your small local gaming group, I don't imagine Cons would be very attractive to you.
|
|
You're right, Doug, in that Pathfinder Society doesn't really mesh well with conventions, for various reasons. It would be nice to have conventions feature special events, and for there to be a reason to choose convention play.
Before I continue, it's worth noting that when speaking of LG, it's important to specify which regions you are referring to, because the LG experience varied greatly by region.
I know that back in Geoff and Gran March, the campaign staff did a really good job of making conventions special, and the campaign itself became more attractive and more interesting as a result of the convention efforts. It would be nice to see Pathfinder Society do something similar to make participation more exciting. There's just not a whole lot to look forward to other than the monthly scenarios, which kind of puts a ceiling on the attractiveness of the campaign. Back in Geoff and Gran March (I lived on the border), swapping stories about the convention experiences and building up our PCs for the upcoming conventions made the regular gamedays more exciting, because players were working towards something instead of just gaining levels and cash.
Just thought I'd throw that out there. Having full convention support made the whole of Living Greyhawk more desirable. A similar model would likely make Pathfinder Society more desirable.
-Matt
|
|
Also note that next year D&D 5.0 will be arriving; and Pathfinder will be facing stiffer competition than it has had this year. It always pays to be ahead of the game.
It'll also be really nice to see what sorts of fresh ideas come out of organized-play campaigns for Fifth Edition. As with every organized-play campaign, some things work and some things don't, and they all have the opportunity to learn from each other.
-Matt
|
** spoiler omitted **
In the Bay Area we self impose a similar experience. The 2 months or so before our biggest convention (KublaCon) Azmyth asks all the coordinators not to schedule the newest adventures until after KublaCon. While there's not 100% compliance it works pretty well and makes sure that KublaCon has plenty of new and exciting adventures.
So this may be a problem you can resolve on the local level without rules from on high.
We have one major convention for the year--Con of the North--in February. We also ask our store coordinators to hold off on the December and January releases, so that we can premier them at Con of the North.
That seems to work fairly well.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
The one argument I can see being made is that boosting con attendance will increase the number of new players (especially if we are talking about a non PFS-specific con). The counterargument to that is that for new players, it doesn't matter if the scenario is exclusive or not.
Anyway, convince me that this wouldn't just further separate the haves and have-nots!
I do not think that Cons, especially PFS specific Cons, are likely to directly increase the number of new players. The people who usually get the most out of Cons are the invested players. But these are the people who primarily form the backbone infrastructure of organized play; the DMs, organizers, etc. who make the game happen. These are the people who end up doing the actual recruiting and mentoring of newbs. So keeping these people happy and enthusiastic not only keeps them around longer but should also indirectly increase the number of new players due to their efforts.
Sometimes a Con can also turn a casual player into an invested one once he realizes how much fun Cons are.
I am sure there are other reasons I am missing but that is at least some of them.
|
|
One of the best things I liked about Living Greyhawk was the region concept- with a certain number of specific adventures set in,and only played in, that region. Sure wish that idea could be brought back to life as I think that regions having their own story lines gives gamers more of a feeling of closeness to, and influence on the game world. I think that this added to gamers' comraderie and social interaction, as well as encouraged new players to try out the game. I know that this involves both more work and a lessening of centralized control but I feel that it is worth the trouble. Also note that next year D&D 5.0 will be arriving; and Pathfinder will be facing stiffer competition than it has had this year. It always pays to be ahead of the game.
This. A thousand times this. I so miss regional flavor.
|
|
I need to clarify that the idea of big conventions with campaign-altering consequences appeals to me on a personal level.
But what is good for me is not necessarily good for the campaign as a whole.
With that said, I never played Living Greyhawk. I don't have a personal point of reference. I have talked to many people who did. Doug's original posts suggested that we reserve scenarios for conventions (at least for a short time). As he mentioned there are already a limited number done like this (the annuals like Siege of the Diamond City and the newer grindfests that are Bonekeep).
Here's what worries me: if all scenarios have an "exclusivity period" it could easily have the effect of drawing many of the most active players from the local level to the convention level. They stop going to FLGS. Those players are the ones who are most vocal in recruiting others. It's much easier to say to a friend, wife, co-worker, etc. "Hey, I'm going to a game store/restaurant/library 15 minutes away for about 5 hours on Saturday. Want to come try this thing I've been talking about?" than "I'm going to to a convention in BigCity two hours away on Saturday and Sunday. Want to come? It's not too expensive."
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see more conventions, especially of the mid-size. Meeting and interacting with new people is the real fun for me. But honestly some of our game days could almost qualify as mini-conventions based on the number of tables and attendees. There are two locations that usually run at least 8 tables (over two slots) once a month. I would hate to see that decline because half the players have already played the scenarios offered at a convention they drove 3 hours to (and paid for registration and hotel room) two months ago.
|
We are very blessed here in Denver to have not one but TWO conventions annually (not to mention there are those trying to establish PFS at the local Comic Con as well). Around here, they're kind of a big deal. Even with over a dozen stores on the Front Range active in PFS. I think there are a couple of reasons for this.
1) Energy. With that many players in one room playing the same game (al beit different scenarios), there is a sense of camaraderie that far exceeds any local game day I've been to. This puts everything into a euphoric state of mind. If you succeed greatly, you have people to revel with right there. If you die a horrid death, you have people to console you. Either way, the sheer number of fellow players gives a great vibe that gets people coming back every year from far and near.
2) New stuff. As mentioned by another, there's a habit here in D-land that the newest stuff isn't played much before a con to allow for some new and exciting game to be played. This has gone not according to plan before, but it worked out well in the end.
3) Special stuff! Paizo Con started off the Siege of the Diamond City special which then went to Gen Con and assorted game days and conventions all around. Then there's the Ruins of Bonekeep scenarios which are only for conventions of certain sizes. And speaking of conventions of certain sizes...
4) Boons. While not guaranteed at all cons, it is still possible for people to get boons at conventions. Race boons, day job boons, bonus boons, gold boons, all flavours of 'em.
5) Variety. Here, there's the opportunity to play games that aren't Pathfinder Society scenarios. I spent my first local con playing Call of Cthulhu, Star Wars, a cooperative roleplaying game, a zombie game, a bar brawl game, Warhammer 40k, and more than a little time in the merchants room. If your players are strictly Society players, use the extended time together to run modules that don't always see game day play.
Now these are all mostly things you've mentioned, but note the spin I've put on them. Some combination of these are used with great success by our Venture Captain and organizers to fill the seats. And that's what's needed. Advertising and relaying that enthusiasm to your players. Maybe three cons a year was too much for there. Maybe two is too much for here. Who knows?
Now, one question I have for you, sir Miles, is "were all the conventions that died out in the same location?" If so, that location might not be the most hospitable for travelers.
Basically speaking, if it's not worth it to your player, make it worth it for your players. Get them excited. If they don't want what you have, give them something they will want. Other games, modules, guests of honour (easier said than done, I know).
|
|
You're right, Doug, in that Pathfinder Society doesn't really mesh well with conventions, for various reasons. It would be nice to have conventions feature special events, and for there to be a reason to choose convention play.
Before I continue, it's worth noting that when speaking of LG, it's important to specify which regions you are referring to, because the LG experience varied greatly by region.
I know that back in Geoff and Gran March, the campaign staff did a really good job of making conventions special, and the campaign itself became more attractive and more interesting as a result of the convention efforts. It would be nice to see Pathfinder Society do something similar to make participation more exciting. There's just not a whole lot to look forward to other than the monthly scenarios, which kind of puts a ceiling on the attractiveness of the campaign. Back in Geoff and Gran March (I lived on the border), swapping stories about the convention experiences and building up our PCs for the upcoming conventions made the regular gamedays more exciting, because players were working towards something instead of just gaining levels and cash.
Just thought I'd throw that out there. Having full convention support made the whole of Living Greyhawk more desirable. A similar model would likely make Pathfinder Society more desirable.
-Matt
As one of the organizers (in the later years) of some of those cons, I concur. Granted sometimes we had to scramble, but we made sure the player experience was paramount and that we always made sure people had a reason to come. It was hard work, but we were willing to do it. I know there's people here that would put in the same amount of effort to help make regional modules, more interactive events, and whatever innovative ideas that folks come up with work. Lots of return for minimal investment.
All that said, I've been doing quite well maintaining the presence at the LG events I inherited as well as adding a couple more events.
|
|
Speaking from someone outside of Mainland America, when I was playing LG I did feel a little... disadvantaged that i was not in Mainland America. There it was relatively straightforward to jump the border and be in a new region. My own country, Australia was Perrenland (although I think later on this changed slightly).
What Im saying is that LG benefitted some countries more than others.
Ive been to some Australian cons. It was a way for me to catch up with some old gamer friends, play with some new gamers and enjoy a holiday at the same time. I think cons will pick up more when there is a genuine contender to take up against PFS (and I still think LFR will be retooled yet again for D&D next).
I dislike the very idea of favoring con play over any other type of play though. I would not want to see a culture of 'I went to X con and got X cool boon. It will be so cool to play a Half Coral Golem Orc!'. Esp in the current financial climate 'penalising' players who simply cannot afford to take time off work to go to cons or to even get there is just not good at all.
And thats not even taking into account the rushed scenario that hits cons because of their timetabled format.
|
|
I wasn't part of the LG experience so I can't comment on if it was good or not. I'm sure there are plenty of people that can argue either way. I can only speak from the experience of traveling across the country sampling the various cons. I got involved in PFS and Org Play 3 years ago despite being a lifelong gamer and knowing about cons. These are my observations:
Some Cons are Personality Driven: It's a specific organizer who brings the players in - whether its due to personal magnetism, a solid team in place or just business know-how he's the fire that keeps it going. When that particular Organizer goes away things fall apart and the con takes a while if ever to get back on its feet.
The Old Guard Refuses to Adapt/Generation Gap: I experienced cons where the same people organized and refused to entertain ideas from the younger gamers. This created a rift where people were more worried about maintaining control rather than give everyone an enjoyable experience. Not too often there is residual resentment and folks stop coming. They stick to their comfort areas at local FLGS or tight groups. Also some folks retire from the game and prep no one to help continue the traditions, so they die a slow death due to attrition.
Technology Shift: I've often wondered if technology and applications such as Facebook have made us less sociable instead of actually connecting everyone like they are meant to. In the same manner that PDF's are becoming the norm, there is a possibility that online play on a VTT will become the de facto gaming method for RPG's in a few years as those VTT systems continue to become immersive. I mean what better experience it can be if you get a voice modulator when talking as an NPC and various other role-playing applications.
Regional Scenarios I also thought of this a while back 'wouldn't it be cool if we split into regions and had our own exclusive mods?' Then after some thought on this I concluded that regions would be a bad idea as PFS is not structured like LG was, I know it can be tinkered with to be made similar but at what cost? That a player from San Francisco can't play a mod because he cannot make it to my con in Jersey? Is there a way to make this work without alienating a significant portion of the player base? The other thing to consider is player ratio in comparison to the actual population areas. I know the East Coast player to population is nowhere near what it is in the Mid-West or in the Bay Area. With the advent in Season 5 the 'mark the box' mechanism was brought in to allow the players to affect the main PFS plotlines in a similar way. Perhaps in this aspect PFS need some more tweaking, maybe affecting actual canon of Golarion. This too has to be handled carefully as I wouldn't want a Time of Troubles, Sundering , Spell Plague type event every year of PFS.
Personally I do not think tiered-scenarios based on release times will make an impact on con attendance. I think some of the items I described above have a bigger impact. As most gamers who attend cons are your more involved, vested types who would probably go anyways if time/life/money all lined up. There is also a segment of gamers who are invested in the game will never attend cons or only attend local cons for personal reasons. Occasionally you will get new folks but its slow trickle at best.
I do think this thread will get ideas flowing on how to make cons a better experience so we not only we keep coming back but we also bring a few new folks along with us. With the next iteration of D&D I'm sure this is a topic that has been discussed and the need to keep the excitement of the campaign.
|
|
If its a trend i think its due to the online games. I probably won't get to play a lot of the new scenarios face to face, but with the online group they're an almost certainty because the new scenarios are the only way to guarantee that the geek soduku for who's available when and what scenarios they can play lines up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If its a trend i think its due to the online games. I probably won't get to play a lot of the new scenarios face to face, but with the online group they're an almost certainty because the new scenarios are the only way to guarantee that the geek soduku for who's available when and what scenarios they can play lines up.
If convention sign-ups are held in advance, you can plan around it. Like I'm signed up for Where Mammoths Dare Not Tread in February, so I'm not going to play it online. All it takes is planning and a little self control.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If its a trend i think its due to the online games. I probably won't get to play a lot of the new scenarios face to face, but with the online group they're an almost certainty because the new scenarios are the only way to guarantee that the geek soduku for who's available when and what scenarios they can play lines up.If convention sign-ups are held in advance, you can plan around it. Like I'm signed up for Where Mammoths Dare Not Tread in February, so I'm not going to play it online. All it takes is planning and a little self control.
*twitch twitch twitch twitch..*
|
|
I lived going to dome conventions back in LG, back thN I mostly GMed. Aftr a few teEs of being unable to attend I began again about 2 & 1/2 years ago for PFS and loved being able to Cath up on so many older games. After thatany cons, guessing about 9 cons, 27 days, I played so many old games, it is hard for me to find several to play at any given con. I mo longer feel comfortable gming at cons cause I run slow games
Bring able to hop a close boarder and get an extra eight games a year over a weekend was a huge motivator.
|
|
What is the importance of the cons?
Great recruiting opportunities for new players. I always meet new players at cons, some are local, some are from out of town, but they're new to PFS and I send them away with numbers and information on how to contact their local organizers (whether that's me or someone else). Even if I only convert 10% of them to long-term players, I'm getting 5 or so at every con.
|
|
Here's what worries me: if all scenarios have an "exclusivity period" it could easily have the effect of drawing many of the most active players from the local level to the convention level. They stop going to FLGS.
I find that the most active players in my area are willing to GM. A large con lets us play the newer scenarios before running them at FLGS. It actually increases the quality of the local games as the GMs are able to take what they liked from their play experience and incorporate it into the game at the scenario at the FLGS.
The last couple years after PaizoCon we have had to tell people they can not GM for a couple of weeks as too many people would volunteer in order to run their favorite scenarios from PaizoCon.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
I am a new-ish RPG player. Despite the 4-stars beside my name, I've only been involved in this campaign - or RPGs as a whole - for a year, so feel free to take my word with the requisite grain of salt.
However, from my perspective on the ground, we are in desperate need of low-level scenarios that provide challenge and interesting roleplay experiences. Unfortunately, so many of the pre-season-3 scenarios seem to just be slugfests with no real story behind them. Accordingly, I feel that releasing scenarios to be convention-only would do a great disservice to many local gamedays.
I also am against the idea of region-specific scenarios. While it sounds cool in premise, Paizo has limited resources which it can devote to developing scenarios. If this scenario can only be played in 1/4th of the nation, for instance, does it really deserve as much attention? What would the effect be on other regions? I know that I, personally, am running low on scenarios that I have not experienced; making regional scenarios would only exacerbate that problem.
Conventions are a very important part of RPG culture. They allow for concentrated play with interesting GMs from other regions. If that is not an experience that your players are interested in, that's fine, but it's not really a reason to hamstring the rest of the campaign in its day-to-day operations.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
If its a trend i think its due to the online games. I probably won't get to play a lot of the new scenarios face to face, but with the online group they're an almost certainty because the new scenarios are the only way to guarantee that the geek soduku for who's available when and what scenarios they can play lines up.
I've been thinking about that and I am not quite sure its true that online game play is hurting Cons. I mean, if all online PFS players wanted was to play games online, why are they playing PFS? There are plenty of fantasy MMOs out there that would fit the bill and do a much better job of online play, including a Pathfinder MMO. Yet their playing PFS instead of these. Obviously, something about PFS appeals to them that they can't get from MMOs. My personal opinion is that they greatly prefer the 'face-to-face' style of gaming, going online only when face-to-face is not a viable option. This would indicate that if Cons are a viable option for them, then they would choose that over online play.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
You know, I just realized something. My particular area, Central Florida, must definitely be doing something right. Back in the days of LG at its most popular I recall us having 7, maybe 8 tops, Cons with LG we could go to a year within a 3 hour drive. This last year we have had at least 12 PFS Cons within a 3 hour drive of me.
|
|
Thanks for all your thoughts folks. There were some good questions asked which made me think about my viewpoint on conventions. For me, I am nostalgic for conventions because that was how I got introduced to both 3.5 D&D and Pathfinder. If there hadn't been organized play at conventions, I don't think a lot of us would be playing Pathfinder today. For those of you who are from areas without local conventions or who haven't the means to attend a convention, I understand your apathy toward them.
I think the number one value that conventions offer PFS is visibility. They draw in people of similar interests and expose them to a community that may have been previously overlooked.
I certainly suffer from ego-centrism; just because things are a certain way in my community doesn't mean that applies to yours as well. There may be people in my own region who disagree with my assessment. I appreciate the solutions that have been made in other communities, and I hope we can adopt them in mine.
I joined LG in Year 6. PFS is in Season 5, which including Season 0 puts the campaigns at a similar maturity level. In 2006 in my region there were 4 local cons and 2 more within a 2 hour drive. In 2013 there is only 1 local con, and it doesn't come close to the numbers we saw in LG. I think it is because of the exclusivity that cons had with new releases. Perhaps I am wrong.
Currently there is planning going on for a convention in Toledo, OH in February called BASHCon. There aren't many local GMs in Toledo, so the con relies on GMs who are willing to travel. Back in LG, organized play at BASHCon occupied a 25 table auditorium all by itself. Nowadays, we're looking at 5 tables a slot surrounded by CCGs and miniature players. Understandably, people balk at paying for a gas, a hotel room, a convention badge and event tickets for stuff they can play in the next 2 weeks right in their neighborhood for free.
I am constantly pondering why five times the number of people were willing to go to these conventions 8 years ago, and how we could bring them back.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Well, it may be an issue of convention saturation. Locally, we have CharCon, which has been very, very successful. Our normal gamedays are 3-5 tables, and on the busier slots, we have up to 8 tables at any given time. However, Charcon is also the only convention in the region that has a great deal of RPG gaming. As a result, we have a lot more turnout. Ohio has a lot more conventions, though, including Origins, which is in a much more central location to the state.
There might also be issues with the convention itself. Is the hotel too pricey? How about the badge? The event tickets?
Finally, while I never played LG, it did seem like it was much more convention-oriented. That approach will understandably lead to more convention attendance, but at the sake of less content for local groups. Personally, I would prefer to reliably get my games in weekly and have occasional conventions than to play fewer games and get a greater turnout at conventions.
|
|
However, from my perspective on the ground, we are in desperate need of low-level scenarios that provide challenge and interesting roleplay experiences. Unfortunately, so many of the pre-season-3 scenarios seem to just be slugfests with no real story behind them. Accordingly, I feel that releasing scenarios to be convention-only would do a great disservice to many local gamedays.
We're just in desperate need of low-level scenarios, period. I recently put together a spreadsheet to help me schedule PFS that tracks every game that's been run at my store in the last four years and then calculates and displays the most recent date and the total number of times each scenario has been run. What I found is that there are precious few 1-5s and 1-7s that have been run fewer than 7 times each (some as often as 13 times), whereas most 5-9s and 7-11s have been run only 2 or 3 times each. With low-level scenarios being played 2 to 4 times as often as high-level scenarios (which is actually a conservative estimate, considering there are actually already way more low-level scenarios than high), I really think more focus needs to be put on increasing the availability of low-level material.
Tiered releases fights that goal. Local scenarios, so long as they're in addition to rather than instead of the core Paizo-released scenarios, would help. I know Paizo has a quality bar they're usually very careful never to fall short of, but I'd love to see better equilibrium between quality and quantity, which I think volunteer-written adventures at a local level as a supplement to Paizo's paid output would help achieve.
|
Conventions may have had more importance in LG because of the regional aspect. Going to a new region for most people probably took a lot of effort, so doing it to play in ome game would be silly. But playing in 6 games or more was probably worth it. I'm just guessing though; I played in one game of LG total (the only local game I knew of conflicted with my home game).
|
|
You also have to think that Living Greyhawk fans split in two primary directions after the campaign dissolved: Pathfinder Society and Living Forgotten Realms. In Philadelphia nearly the entirety of our core LG fanbase bet on the wrong horse and remained D&D-loyalists. Regardless of how this played out elsewhere, there was a dilution of the core player pool of hardcore gamers. Both campaigns have since dragged in thousands of casual players to get their local numbers up, but conventions are built on the backs of hardcore gamers. It could take decades to recover from losing 50% or more of your core convention goers (which 3.5 and thereby its spiritual successor Pathfinder did when 4.0 released).
|
|
I am a new-ish RPG player. Despite the 4-stars beside my name, I've only been involved in this campaign - or RPGs as a whole - for a year, so feel free to take my word with the requisite grain of salt.
However, from my perspective on the ground, we are in desperate need of low-level scenarios that provide challenge and interesting roleplay experiences. Unfortunately, so many of the pre-season-3 scenarios seem to just be slugfests with no real story behind them. Accordingly, I feel that releasing scenarios to be convention-only would do a great disservice to many local gamedays.
I also am against the idea of region-specific scenarios. While it sounds cool in premise, Paizo has limited resources which it can devote to developing scenarios. If this scenario can only be played in 1/4th of the nation, for instance, does it really deserve as much attention? What would the effect be on other regions? I know that I, personally, am running low on scenarios that I have not experienced; making regional scenarios would only exacerbate that problem.
Conventions are a very important part of RPG culture. They allow for concentrated play with interesting GMs from other regions. If that is not an experience that your players are interested in, that's fine, but it's not really a reason to hamstring the rest of the campaign in its day-to-day operations.
So Netopalis and I do not always agree on things, but this is one of those things in which we do. Now granted, I come from a realm where we have a heavy convention rotation that spands the entirety of the year at this point. So we are always going to cons on a regular basis. I myself this year went to ten real life conventions, and then there were the online ones as well.
I don't think online takes away from the convention format, as conventions are many times "working/playing vacations" for some. I know many who use the convention as their opportunity to play adventures that they are going to go home to their local chapters and run. Also, when I go to convention, I just don't go to play PFS only, I play/run other games as well.
I am not for a "regional only" style because, conventions catch hell already for the boons that you can only get at them. So those who cannot go to conventions due to life/work/etc reasons get screwed no matter what. (Which is rightfully understandable as they are special events.) But if you were to make it regional, it could turn into that one situation where players could sell their boons on E-bay and they know they could get away with it cause their boon is regional and cannot be found at another group. Which could possibly unleash a whole new set of demons.
I agree, we do need a few new sets of "New Player Adventures" for just low tiers. While we have some nice go-to adventures such as Mists of Miwangi, we can only run that so many times. Now the format of The Confirmation is a GREAT start and foundation of "evergreen products". But a few more are needed like it to help ease the "new player curve" that we are having. (Huzzah!)
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
You also have to think that Living Greyhawk fans split in two primary directions after the campaign dissolved: Pathfinder Society and Living Forgotten Realms. In Philadelphia nearly the entirety of our core LG fanbase bet on the wrong horse and remained D&D-loyalists. Regardless of how this played out elsewhere, there was a dilution of the core player pool of hardcore gamers. Both campaigns have since dragged in thousands of casual players to get their local numbers up, but conventions are built on the backs of hardcore gamers. It could take decades to recover from losing 50% or more of your core convention goers (which 3.5 and thereby its spiritual successor Pathfinder did when 4.0 released).
We had a similar situation in our neck of the woods. The only difference being that the enthusiasm died out for LFR about 4 years into the campaign and now has zero presence at any of the local Cons. Most of the people that went LFR have now switched over to PFS.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
- Exposure. Not to be confused with gaining new players. Exposure is getting people to talk about it and showing that the game has a healthy community. Even if people are talking about PFS but not playing it themselves, they spread interest.
- Exposure. Not to be confused with exposure above. Conventions expose GMs and players to new people and play styles. This makes us all better people.
- See friends from around the country. There are dozens of people I only see at Gen Con, PaizoCon, Dragon*Con, etc. This also applies to smaller conventions that I travel 4-5 hours for like Winter War, Gamicon, etc.
- Get better at GMing. I make it a goal to try to play with as many different GMs as possible at every convention I attend. Exposure to both good and bad GMs helps make me a better GM. If I'm better at GMing, the players at my table can become better GMs and the cycle continues and we all get better and everyone has a better time. MOAR FUN
- The energy. There's always a passion and energy for the game at conventions that I don't get at game days or home games. This helps me stay interested in the game. No offense, but if I always played with the same people, I'd get bored with them (at least for gaming purposes, but they may become really good friends)
- PFS has been pushed into a lot of conventions are aren't historically table top RPG conventions. This is great for exposure purposes, but potentially pulls tables away from other conventions that historically focus on TTRPGs.
- Over-aggressive game day offerings. Local interest can cause coordinators and store owners to increase their number of game day offerings. These are typically much cheaper for players than conventions and often more convenient travel-wise. Often after a surge of interest, that interest dies down but the level of game days often continues creating a situation where there are more games being offered in the area than players.
The long and short of it:
- Paizo isn't going to produce more scenarios in the next couple of years.
- Paizo isn't going to release control over the scenarios unless they completely pull out of supporting PFS.
- Store owners, game day coordinators and convention coordinators need to work together to make each of their offerings special enough to attract players and GMs
|
|
I mean, if all online PFS players wanted was to play games online, why are they playing PFS? There are plenty of fantasy MMOs out there that would fit the bill and do a much better job of online play, including a Pathfinder MMO.
Well, the pathfinder MMO isn't out yet. But that aside playing online is NOT like an MMO. My regular online group (which by freaky coincidence i was playing with for about a month before realizing they were also a local group) does more role playing than I usually see at PFS or even some home games because we don't need to rush through the scenario before the places closes.
Playing online with a virtual tabletop is NOT like an MMO, at all. You're not level grinding, doing random quests, or gathering, and you actually get to make your character do anything you could at a tabletop, including creative solutions that computers can't handle.
This would indicate that if Cons are a viable option for them, then they would choose that over online play.
Cons are very expensive. Even with having both ends of a train station within walking distance, I'm looking at either commuting 2 hours each way at 32 bucks a day, or paying 130 bucks a night for a hotel room. Con attendance, food, drinks, it adds up.
|
One huge advantage to gaming at cons is that it is a fresh set of faces.
It's an entry point for new people with a friendly atmosphere that doesn't have the "cliqueishness" that joining a group of 5 people who have played together for years at a gameday sometimes does.
It's a chance to play under (and thus learn from)a GM that might do things differently than the people you usually play with.
And it's a chance to run things like "Siege of the Diamond City" that can't feasibly be done in a local game store.
Does the cost add up? Sure it does. And for many people, it won't be worth it. I understand that. That said, it's a unique flavor of PFS that I don't normally have access to, and that makes it worth it.
|
|
And it's a chance to run things like "Siege of the Diamond City" that can't feasibly be done in a local game store.
If there is one thing that would make conventions big again, it would be an increase in the frequency and variety special events.
How can we do this? By letting conventions create and run their own unique special events. I am told that the My Realms adventures in Living Forgotten Realms were good for this, as they were essentially customized adventures created within the framework of a template. An equivalent for Pathfinder Society would be a huge boon for convention play, as it would mean that players could travel to conventions and receive a unique experience, a Special one, even.
The long and short of it:
Paizo isn't going to produce more scenarios in the next couple of years.
Paizo isn't going to release control over the scenarios unless they completely pull out of supporting PFS.
Store owners, game day coordinators and convention coordinators need to work together to make each of their offerings special enough to attract players and GMs.
It's worth noting that something akin to My Realms hits all three of these points, well maybe two and a half depending on how you interpret Point #2 there. Is it really too much to let creativity shine within an adventure template? Can anyone else with My Realms experience comment?
It would be nice to see more special events, as that would help create excitement not only for conventions but for the campaign as a whole.
However, something else might just revive convention play, and that's Fifth Edition. Right now, Pathfinder Society is pretty much the only game in town, though I've heard about 13th Age Organized Play, Neo-Exodus, and Ashes of Athas. Once the organized-play options generated by Fifth Edition get started, we'll see more campaign choices, which means more small campaigns, which means more campaigns which can do well by building their base through convention play. Conventions are hubs for smaller organized-play campaigns, and I look forward to seeing some once there is a new avenue for their creation.
This mirrors the Living Greyhawk situation, where there was a long list of smaller organized-play campaigns at conventions, like Living Arcanis, Heroes of Rokugan, Delta Files (I think this was solely mid-Atlantic), Witch Hunter, Jameson City Saga (also mid-Atlantic I think), Living Death, etc. I might be able to play Pathfinder Society every week, but I might want to travel to a convention to play a smaller campaign which I can't play every week, one which is more immersive and caters to my personal playstyle than the generalized-focus of Pathfinder Society.
So, perhaps conventions may already have an element coming with which they can be revived.
-Matt
|
|
As someone who has benefited hugely from the recent push both in online play and in strengthening far-flung PFS communities I am one of those who is more ambivalent about cons. I think that making online play more official and creating lots of VO's outside the USA has done more good for PFS than any number of big cons with their nebulous benefits of exposure ever will.
I also do understand what the con goers in this thread are talking about with over saturation in already large gaming markets, especially with the rise of local game days and online cons as official PFS 'events'. Since big-name megacons like Origins or Gencon or Paizocon are never going to lack for players or interest this is a problem with local events it seems and thus might just be a symptom of growing pains from the work that has been done to expand the availability of play. In that respect I see it as a good thing.
If there is one thing that would make conventions big again, it would be an increase in the frequency and variety special events.
How can we do this? By letting conventions create and run their own unique special events. I am told that the My Realms adventures in Living Forgotten Realms were good for this, as they were essentially customized adventures created within the framework of a template. An equivalent for Pathfinder Society would be a huge boon for convention play, as it would mean that players could travel to conventions and receive a unique experience, a Special one, even.
With the increase in online-only geographically isolated players as well as possible oversaturation in terms of events I see this, increasing specials and other unique events to be the only responsible way to combat the problem that some are having. It would address the growing pains of over saturation of local scale and online events by helping to make each one unique in a way that they cannot be now.
Adopting a regional model would likely smash all the work that the leadership has been doing to widen the player base, unless it were done extremeally carefully. Also it would increase the required regular output of scenarios far above what Paizo can support, so that is especially a non-starter.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's the purpose of PFS if you are only going to game with the same people every time?
Conventions are one of the reasons for having an Organized Play system in the first place. So that no matter where you go in the world, if you follow the rules of OP, you can play at local conventions.
The same is true for traveling to local game days, but really, not very many people spend money for only 4-8 hours of gaming. They spend that money to travel to conventions to munch on the feast that is PFS. 24-72 hours of PFS at one location over the course of one weekend. A busy person who can't make a game day every week may even find it easier to take time off for one weekend of gaming.
Speaking of spending money, conventions also help the local gaming economy. That FLGS that everyone in the area knows now has lot more people from out of town who can buy their products. Lesser-known game companies can have their games demo'd by people who may not have known that the company existed. Many conventions have charity auctions that can raise more money than a single game day could.
|
|
I joined LG in Year 6. PFS is in Season 5, which including Season 0 puts the campaigns at a similar maturity level. In 2006 in my region there were 4 local cons and 2 more within a 2 hour drive. In 2013 there is only 1 local con, and it doesn't come close to the numbers we saw in LG. I think it is because of the exclusivity that cons had with new releases. Perhaps I am wrong.
I started playing Organized Play campaigns in 2001, and was pretty heavily involved in the Chicago-area LG scene (as well as other campaigns, like Living Force and Living Death).
Among our local crowd who was involved in LG, there was a subgroup who were *very* dedicated to going to conventions -- I'd guess they attended 2-3 conventions a month, all over the Midwest. A big reason for that, as has already been touched on, was the Regional and Meta-Regional adventures in LG -- if you wanted to play an adventure set in Highfolk, well, you needed to go up to Wisconsin to play it. And, similarly, we got a lot of attendees at our local conventions from Wisconsin and Michigan, because they had to come to Illinois (or Indiana) to play Verbobonc adventures.
When LG wound down, and was "replaced" by LFR, the regional structure that was so integral to the LG experience was removed. LFR still had "regional" adventures, but you could play them anywhere. This had the effect of removing much of the incentive that a lot of gamers had to travel to other areas to attend cons -- those out-of-state cons would be offering the same LFR adventures that you could play locally (either at a local convention, or at home). As a result, more than a few of the smaller, regional gaming cons which had sprung up around LG (and had been primarily, if not exclusively, focused on LG play) withered away in the LFR era.
I also concur with what has been noted earlier, that while the regional system in LG worked very well in some places, it worked very poorly in others. Some regions had great volunteers / administrators, and excellent writers...but others didn't. At least one LG region essentially ceased to exist, because the volunteers in that region just couldn't deliver the level of support needed. While some regional adventures were very good, others were, well, not so good. And, in some areas, you could easily travel to different regions (here in Chicago, it was only an hour's drive to "Highfolk", and you could also get to "Dyvers", "Furyondy", "the Shield Lands", and "Veluna" pretty easily), but in other areas, it was difficult, if not impossible, for many gamers to experience other regions (see the comment upthread from Matthew Pittard about Australia).
Paizo has definitely set a high bar for adventure quality for PFS (professional editing, typography, maps), and it would be very difficult to maintain that level of quality on a regional basis, since I would imagine that "regional PFS" adventures would not receive the same level of editorial or development support from Paizo.
|
|
I think the key is variety that appeals to more people.
I am about ready to stop attending cons simply because I have played just about everything now, including 95% of published modules. I hit up the new scenarios at the local stores, so there simply is not much of a draw for me. My issue is compounded with the new module format which no one that I have seen runs at cons. So, instead of 27 scenarios + 6 mods a year for me there are now 27 scenarios and no mods. The only exception is I might get a 1 day ticket for convention specials (Bonekeep, etc.) I do GM sometimes, but while it used to be fun I'm burned out on it now and it seems more of a chore.
I have a few friends who stopped going to cons because there is only 1 game per session that they haven’t played and if it doesn’t go off the feel SOL. They have no interest in switching to a GM. So they have stopped going to cons.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One other thing I just remembered about conventions during the LG era...
In LG, once you GMed an adventure, you could never play it. There was even a term for GMing one before you ever had a chance to play it -- "eating the adventure". There was no such thing as "GM credit" in LG, so you weren't able to apply the XP/GP to one of your characters, either. You were just being a good citizen, and "taking one for the team".
So, what frequently would happen is that conventions would offer the "premiere" of a new regional adventure, and the GMs for that adventure at that convention would be either the adventure author, or the regional staff (who weren't allowed to play their region's adventures). Attendees at the con would have the chance to play the adventure, and then come back to their home areas to GM it for their local groups -- attending the con had the incentive of giving these GMs a chance to play the adventure first.