RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
OK. On break at work so excuse phone typos.
The advantages I see for allowing noncredit five + replays.
Society benefit: if there are two tables+ signed and one doesn't go off due to cancelations, neither GM has to sit it out and no one has to sit through a "cold run" of a new scenario. It also means that at least one person's prep isn't wasted.
It benefits new players in that if you get s batch of walk ins you can run an older scenario and not slaughter the new characters.
Play play play!
It helps avoid the "table of death" in season 4 (5 players, barely in tier) by giving that sixth body. Maybe even filling a hole.
Personally? Many of our locals have characters that we'd love to see interact in a scenario. If a local gets her Ulfen up to 7th level, and someone is running where mammoths fear to tread, we'd both enjoy me replaying it with Ksenia for no credit, for example.
|
|
The fact that some are still saying "well I'm going to break it" kinda boggles the mind, or me at least.
I don't think anyone here is saying that they intend to blatantly rebel against the rule. Rather, some people are trying to indicate how the rule is a pain point, and adds difficulty to organizing game days.
|
|
Does a "non-credit" PC still burn resources used during the game? Yep!
Does the resources used by a "credit" PC on a "non-credit" PC to keep him in game count as used? Yes.
Do effects/conditions gained by "non-credit" PCs extend past the end of the scenario? Yep, and they must be cleared per the PFSGtOP. This of course costs money.
Can "non-credit" PCs give "credit" PCs things that would extend past the end of the scenario? (spells gained by access to the "non-credit" PCs book/familiar, or spells cast like "Continual Flame" ....) A good question that I don't immediately know the answer to. I would lean towards no, because this is one of those things that would likely lead to a potential abuse problem. The other side of this is obvious; the a non-credit PC cannot gain these things during a scenario they are not playing for no credit per the "no reward" clause.
Do we have a social obligation to "raise dead" a "non-credit" Iconic PC that died in the game? Haha you never have that obligation for a premade. But for a PC that's playing for no credit, then they have to figure out how to be raised. If that's likely to be a problem, that's one of the times the GM should probably not allow the PC to play for no credit.
To make it eaiser, can we just have the "non-credit" players use Kera? that saves us "credit" PCs healing wand charges right? If you like, but Kyra is often less useful and less fun than a well built PC.
Long story short, if you play for no-credit, you do not receive any rewards, all the consumables you use during the scenario are lost, and you can die or acquire a condition you must clear at the end of the scenario.
Mechanically, it is not a good idea to play for no-credit, but people do it when there's nothing else for them to do so they can still participate. That's kind of why, from my perspective, if someone needs to play for no credit then they should be allowed to (as long as they're not ruining the experience or making things more difficult, and as long as they're doing it because they are in a situation where they don't have a scenario they can play). It's entirely at their character's expense; they gain nothing from it other than having a good time (per the guide :)).
|
|
"Non-credit" isn't a different kind of character. There are already rules for playing this way. They're the exact same as any other. I can't see any justification for that not being the case.
Some interesting questions raised by the possiblility of haveing two kinds of character at the table: Credit PCs and Non-Credit PCs. Here are just a half dozen that jump out...
Does a "non-credit" PC still burn resources used during the game?
Yes.
Does the resources used by a "credit" PC on a "non-credit" PC to keep him in game count as used?
Yes.
Do effects/conditions gained by "non-credit" PCs extend past the end of the scenario?
Yes.
Can "non-credit" PCs give "credit" PCs things that would extend past the end of the scenario? (spells gained by access to the "non-credit" PCs book/familiar, or spells cast like "Continual Flame" ....)
Yes. As long as resources are paid for such a thing. The "non-credit" PC should have those expenditures marked on their Chronicle Sheet, just like any other player that had done such a thing.
Do we have a social obligation to "raise dead" a "non-credit" Iconic PC that died in the game?
Nope. Not any more than you would any other PC.
Do you mean Iconic NPC? Do you raise the 4th slot NPC for a 3 player table? I wasn't aware of that obligation if it's out there.
To make it eaiser, can we just have the "non-credit" players use Kera? that saves us "credit" PCs healing wand charges right?
That's a thing that happens at 3 player tables anyway. If the person is playing a Pre-gen, I don't see why you wouldn't use their resources. This was one of the risks of putting expendables on the pre-gen sheets.
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some interesting questions raised by the possiblility of haveing two kinds of character at the table: Credit PCs and Non-Credit PCs. Here are just a half dozen that jump out...
Does a "non-credit" PC still burn resources used during the game?
Does the resources used by a "credit" PC on a "non-credit" PC to keep him in game count as used?
Do effects/conditions gained by "non-credit" PCs extend past the end of the scenario?
Can "non-credit" PCs give "credit" PCs things that would extend past the end of the scenario? (spells gained by access to the "non-credit" PCs book/familiar, or spells cast like "Continual Flame" ....)
Do we have a social obligation to "raise dead" a "non-credit" Iconic PC that died in the game?
To make it eaiser, can we just have the "non-credit" players use Kera? that saves us "credit" PCs healing wand charges right?
These are just initial, gut answers. This isn't a new ruling. This is me brainstorming out loud to open discussion if we decide to change the ruling of whether we should allow non-credit replay as has been asked for in this thread. I don't need anymore emails or PMs advising how the below are "horrifically stupid" rulings. It is currently brainstorming at this point and nothing more. Since replay for no-credit doesn't currently exist (outside of making a table legal), none of these are set in concrete as of yet.
1) Yes, non-credit PCs still burn resources during use at a game. If you do not wish to burn your PC's resources during a non-credit game, use a pregen. After all, the primary reason you are there is to hang out with friends and the like instead of waste the four hours. If that is the primary reason, then it shouldn't matter whether you are playing your PC or a pregen since the primary reason is just to hang out with friends and have a good time. Yes it is partly tongue in cheek but it partly isn't.
2) Yes resources used in game by a credit PC on a non-credit PC do count as used. If you don't want to "waste" resources on a non-credit character, then don't.
3) Yes, effects/conditions gained by non-credit" PCs extend past the end of the scenario. It is your choice to play that PC for non-credit. You know is going into it. If you don't want to risk it, then play an NPC.
4) Yes, "non-credit" PCs can give "credit" PCs things that would extend past the end of the scenario, such as spells gained by access to the "non-credit" PCs book/familiar, or spells cast like "Continual Flame".
5) Since effects carry over, I would still think that social obligation to raise dead exists. It is something the pay should think long and hard about before allowing a non-credit PC to play. Again, you know this before going into the game. Be ready to accept helping out the character, even if they are playing for no credit.
6) If playing for no credit because you don't want to lose an evening doing nothing, I would highly suggest using a pregen since you aren't gaining anything for your character. If the reason to play for no credit really is to just hang out and have a good time with friends, it really shouldn't matter whether you are using a real character or pregen. I suspect there are going to be some arguments in reply to this that show this isn't the case. I suspect people are really wanting to play their own PC in a scenario without any risks and that is placed above just hanging out friends and having fun. Maybe I will be surprised. We shall see. As always, I'm open to listening to reasonable discussion.
Again, none of these are currently in place. This is all just brainstorming. Please keep the pitchforks and torches stored for now. :-) Thanks in advance.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I'd add the GM should still hold power of veto. Whether it be because the player is a jerk, will spoil the surprises or will else wise ruin the SCE scenario. (Like bringing his level 11 saurian druid to "5th man" a table of four level 7s)
Do you really think someone will actually exercise this veto power? And when they exercise it, do you think they won't be shouted down by that "5th man" and his friends as a fun-hater?
When this loophole was first exposed in the last couple years, and when the additional loophole of GM star replays was created, people told me I was being silly for calling attention to the fact that the door was cracking open on allowing replay. I pointed out that social pressure is the main problem with this kind of thing; social pressure on GMs to comply with "group fun," social pressure on Venture Officers to mitigate "negative play experiences" by allowing replay, social pressure on new players who are already stressed about doing something like a public game and will now have the added pressure of having to jump on a schedule to ensure themselves a seat before replayers take them all.
My argument against replay is simple: it denies seats to those who deserve to have them. Do that enough times and you lose players. Lose enough players and the campaign begins to shrink.
Someone keeps telling me that by not allowing replay Paizo and I are losing his money. But I'm not losing any money when the seat he would have taken is instead taken by a new player or someone who hasn't yet played that scenario. In fact, I'd venture to guess that the new player is likely to spend *more* money by buying the Core Rule Book or APG.
Others keep telling me that I'm just shouting "The sky is falling!" and worried about something that is not a possibility. I will, once again, point at past failed campaigns that allowed this to happen. LFR did not start with replay for credit. It started with replay for no credit, then changed it to for-credit after "proving" that no-credit didn't harm the game experience. It was determined that play for credit would gain back some of the people who had stopped coming. Because, of course, the people who had stopped coming did so because they couldn't get rewarded for it. Which was wrong; people had stopped coming because they couldn't get seats. Introducing replay for credit made this problem worse, yet again, and LFR was now having serious problems. It only took the nudge of the "build a PC to tier" rule to push it into the grave.
We already have the "build a PC to tier" rule via pre-gens, as far as I'm concerned. No, it isn't nearly as prevalent, but it's a close second. Don't have a PC in-tier? Just grab a pre-gen and play along with the rest of us so we don't have to switch what game we're playing (or switch to the low tier, which we're not interested in). Best part is that we can use your pre-gen's stuff to pay for whatever we need in this game. Oh, and if you die, just put the chronicle on a new 1st level you'll never play again. After all, you can always replay the adventure later and see what it's like to "have fun" with the right character.
Kinevon is right about one thing: the direction this thread is going concerns me.
Stop telling me I'm simply complaining about a possible future that will not come to pass. That is incorrect. I am pointing at a past that has already happened and reminding everyone of a particular parable: Those who cannot learn the lessons of the past are condemned to repeat it.
Edit: This was typed before Mike's post showed up. I am not pointing at Mike and calling for the pitchforks. Yet...
|
|
...Good insights...6) If playing for no credit because you don't want to lose an evening doing nothing, I would highly suggest using a pregen since you aren't gaining anything for your character. If the reason to play for no credit really is to just hang out and have a good time with friends, it really shouldn't matter whether you are using a real character or pregen. I suspect there are going to be some arguments in reply to this that show this isn't the case. I suspect people are really wanting to play their own PC in a scenario without any risks and that is placed above just hanging out friends and having fun. Maybe I will be surprised. We shall see. As always, I'm open to listening to reasonable discussion.
Yeah, I have this one PC I was really fond of, and I just wanted to play with him as much as possible. I'd rather risk him dying in game that I was playing for no credit than play a pregen. He did wind up losing a lot of money on consumables (as he was often the closest thing to a healer at a table) and a couple of gross ability drain incidents, but it was still worth it. Though, if there was a scenario that I could play for credit I'd jump on that because they became few and far between (I didn't go out of my way to play for no credit just because I liked this character).
He had a lot of good RP opportunities, too, largely because he's a smart ass and slightly psychotic :)
I think its fully fair and reasonable to expect PCs that are playing for no credit to be subject to the same risks and rules that any other PC would have to deal with on the course on an adventure.
My argument against replay is simple: it denies seats to those who deserve to have them. Do that enough times and you lose players. Lose enough players and the campaign begins to shrink.
This is a really important concern. But I don't think it has to be like that. At least, we never excluded people who could play for credit in favor of those who could not. Playing for no credit should be done as a last resort and in such a way that it isn't done at the expense of others who can get credit. If a situation like that were to happen, the likely response (although not always possible due to corner cases) would be to move the non-credit player to another table where they wouldn't be getting credit so someone could play for a reward.
The goal for the "no-credit replay" is to maximize the number of opportunities for people to get credit, then maximize the number of people who are included on game day.
Can this kind of problem be solved with a good policy on allowing no-replay credit? I'm still of the opinion that we can find a good middle ground.
(Again, to beat the dead horse again, I would also be very opposed to allowing replay for credit. Your argument for why that is bad is really spot on.)
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Acedio, you are excluding them merely by weight of numbers. If you do sign up in advance (which I believe most do) then there is a list people are looking at. When a player who could play without replay looks at that list and sees a full table he simply doesn't sign up or show up. He is excluded not maliciously, but simply because he wasn't fast enough to sign up before replayers did.
|
|
Yeah I can see where you're coming from. Frankly I've had limited experience with the organization since using the warhorn so my experience is limited. I can speak to how it would work in the past though.
Prior to the war horn, we'd have walk ins and assign people to scenarios that were available that day. If someone couldn't play for credit, we'd just throw them at a table that had open seats if they liked. So at that time, the seat competition problem you indicated didn't really exist.
With the warhorn, there was one situation that I think is a decent representative one where I signed up for an event that I could play, but there was a no show so we couldn't get the game running. So I wound up playing for no credit at a different table. Also a situation where I wasn't competing with people for seats, but benefitted from the replay for no credit (as it didn't make sense for me to GM when another person went through the trouble of prepping it).
But yeah, if people are going to sign up for events they know they can't play, then that's going to be an issue. I do think that could be solved by a "at GM discretion" ruling, or having people who plan to play for no credit should walk in instead of sign up on the site. That way they can be put anywhere.
EDIT: I hope I'm not giving you the impression that I think you're just complaining for no reason.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I read threads like these, I wish Paizo offered a Warhorn equivalent for managing sign-ups that would give more information about the person who is signing up (i.e. their signup would be a no-credit replay). Of course, this would put a greater burden on accurate reporting of scenarios.
It wouldn't be perfect, since some scenarios will escape reporting, but it would give organizers more information about prioritizing seats. It would also alert players who unknowingly signed up to replay, which happens somewhat often, and is usually only caught much later on.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
6) If playing for no credit because you don't want to lose an evening doing nothing, I would highly suggest using a pregen since you aren't gaining anything for your character. If the reason to play for no credit really is to just hang out and have a good time with friends, it really shouldn't matter whether you are using a real character or pregen. I suspect there are going to be some arguments in reply to this that show this isn't the case. I suspect people are really wanting to play their own PC in a scenario without any risks and that is placed above just hanging out friends and having fun. Maybe I will be surprised. We shall see. As always, I'm open to listening to reasonable discussion.
I'd actually be more than happy to play my PCs with all the risks that everyone else faces and no chance of any kind of reward. There are tons of scenarios already that I've played through and thought, "Man, this was written for Rudi / the Prophet / Kogar / Oishi."
I'm pretty sure I'm the exception and not the rule, but I'd happily risk character death for some of those RP opportunities.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I read threads like these, I wish Paizo offered a Warhorn equivalent for managing sign-ups that would give more information about the person who is signing up (i.e. their signup would be a no-credit replay). Of course, this would put a greater burden on accurate reporting of scenarios.
God, how I want this.
Sadly, I see Paizo as continuing to hold on to their "small company" mentality, no matter what. I do not see them adding to a budget unless they have to (i.e., reacting to pressure). I do not see them getting ahead of the curve and attempting to predict what they will need. Instead, they are always catching up to where their players currently are, or where they should have already been in the first place.
The true solutions to this problem:
1 - A full-blown reporting and tracking application for PFS members and coordinators that tracks everything and allows coordinators and players to see it all (gp, xp, fame, what scenario was played, what level the PC is...everything).
2 - [beat dead horse] More scenarios per month. One tier 1-5, one tier 3-7, and one tier 5-9 (alternating monthly with one tier 7-11). [/beating]
3 - Tangible rewards for players and GMs. Examples:
....3a - Play in 10 scenarios, earn a chronicle that gives you the right to replay an adventure.
....3b - GM 10 scenarios, earn a chronicle for a unique item.
....3c - Introduce 10 players to PFS, earn a $10 credit on Paizo.com.
....3d - GM 50 games, earn a chronicle for a unique race/prestige class.
....3e - This list, obviously, can continue forever.
4 - Make sure all adventure content is available for sanctioning under PFS rules. This includes reworking all Season 0 adventures, and giving out a rules document for encounter changes for all Modules published under 3.5 rules.
But Paizo brass claim they never have enough money or time to accomplish these things. They are always catching up, regardless of being the top selling RPG on the market for more than two years. Always. Because, you know, they're a small company. /-:
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff...
Not trying to be rude here, but we're talking about replay for no credit. Let's not start a big hateful debate about replay for credit when that's not the topic at hand. Incidentally, I think there are more people who would agree with you anyway (myself included). Also, Mike said he's not budging on that upfront.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I can see where you're coming from. Frankly I've had limited experience with the organization since using the warhorn so my experience is limited. I can speak to how it would work in the past though.
Prior to the war horn, we'd have walk ins and assign people to scenarios that were available that day. If someone couldn't play for credit, we'd just throw them at a table that had open seats if they liked. So at that time, the seat competition problem you indicated didn't really exist.
With the warhorn, there was one situation that I think is a decent representative one where I signed up for an event that I could play, but there was a no show so we couldn't get the game running. So I wound up playing for no credit at a different table. Also a situation where I wasn't competing with people for seats, but benefitted from the replay for no credit (as it didn't make sense for me to GM when another person went through the trouble of prepping it).
But yeah, if people are going to sign up for events they know they can't play, then that's going to be an issue. I do think that could be solved by a "at GM discretion" ruling, or having people who plan to play for no credit should walk in instead of sign up on the site. That way they can be put anywhere.
To be clear about my own stance: if it were proven that open availability for gaming were the best method to attract players, then replay would be an essential tool in a coordinator's kit. I agree with you and Walter entirely on that approach, and your community has proven that you can create good players who use this ability for the betterment of the community.
But I (and Mike Brock, and most coordinators, I think) have proven that constant growth (not just sudden growth but steady, constant growth in player numbers) is better created by having an advance signup list for all games. With that proof in place, walk-ons by necessity will have a hard time finding places to sit. They need to learn to adjust their own habits and sign up along with everyone else.
EDIT: I hope I'm not giving you the impression that I think you're just complaining for no reason.
No, you are not. You are someone with a problem, and you feel you see what the solution is. You are trying to convince me of the veracity of that solution.
On the flip-side, I hope I am not giving you the impressing that I am simply a naysayer and fun-hater who wants to see you leave the game because you're "old guard" and not a new player.
|
Actually, #1 would violate privacy regulations in many countries if it is tied to dates and locations as the current system is. I have already seen instances of a spouse signing up to Warhorn to compare their partner's actual gaming time with their claimed game time... if the Paizo system tracked all of this, it might be a problem.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Actually, #1 would violate privacy regulations in many countries if it is tied to dates and locations as the current system is. I have already seen instances of a spouse signing up to Warhorn to compare their partner's actual gaming time with their claimed game time... if the Paizo system tracked all of this, it might be a problem.
No, it doesn't. If it did, I wouldn't have tools like this available to me via WotC's Wizards Event Reporter. They are a significantly larger company with a massive overseas presence, and I can do all this with their system. I promise that Hasbro's lawyers would have put the kibosh on anything that would be an issue.
|
|
Sorry, I misspoke - it wouldn't violate the law since of course the waiver you'd click on when you signed up would cover that. Is it something every gamer would want to do, though, as a requirement of playing? Sure, it's a boon to organizers, but is that info really necessary to be available to the public - spouses, bosses, parents, teachers, what have you?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Drogon: Other than the Slippery Slope argument that any replayability leads to For Credit Replays for everyone every day, what is the downside of "No Credit" replays?
You said:
My argument against replay is simple: it denies seats to those who deserve to have them. Do that enough times and you lose players. Lose enough players and the campaign begins to shrink.
Doesn't disallowing replay deny a seat to a deserving player? Or is my value as a player inversely proportional to the number of scenarios I've played.
I know that, to a store owner, I'm less valuable as I have already given up money. Or at least, I'm not likely to buy another Core book or APG or Ultimate Magic.
Note: this is me generalizing to an extreme. You've always seemed like an awesome dude on the forums so I hope that isn't as insulting as it might have come off. If it is, I'm sure this last bit doesn't ease that.
Edit: I think I made that less insulting... Hopefully. Sorry if the initial tone was off.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Drogon, still on my phone here but maybe it is my mentality not jiving with yours.
I'm thinking more of the situation previously outlined of "table fails to coalesce gm left going home because he can't replay for no credit." Not "hey Drogon is running 5-45 Burn down the Blakros Museum again! Let's fill all those slots because he's awesome."
Maybe that's my disconnect. I'm thinking of good people in bad situations. Not as an all the time thing.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Sorry, I misspoke - it wouldn't violate the law since of course the waiver you'd click on when you signed up would cover that. Is it something every gamer would want to do, though, as a requirement of playing? Sure, it's a boon to organizers, but is that info really necessary to be available to the public - spouses, bosses, parents, teachers, what have you?
Again, I seriously doubt this. The only button I was given to click when I signed up for The DCI was "do you want to receive notifications via email?" I clicked "no."
I am able to see all the information about a player with The DCI that I need to do my job as a coordinator. Name; DCI#; city, state and country of origin, often with a ZIP code; what their ranking is; how many tournaments they have played; what format of tournaments they have played; and by clicking on the DCI# or name I can even view which tournaments they played and what their ranking was within that tournament.
All I want for PFS is the ability to see a character's history. I don't give a whit about location or even the player's real name. Just the PC. If that piece of paper that lives a life in a fantasy world has a "right to privacy" I would be very surprised.
Again, I can see all that with The DCI. Hasbro's lawyers are many and varied; I'm sure they would have spotted a problem with it.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Drogon: Other than the Slippery Slope argument that any replayability leads to For Credit Replays for everyone every day, what is the downside of "No Credit" replays?
You said:
My argument against replay is simple: it denies seats to those who deserve to have them. Do that enough times and you lose players. Lose enough players and the campaign begins to shrink.
Yup. The sky is falling. /-:
Doesn't disallowing replay deny a seat to a deserving player? Or is my value as a player inversely proportional to the number of scenarios I've played.
No. Your value as a player is as good as you want it to be. I have already outlined how you can play 8+ times per month and always do so for credit. <--Linked for your reference. That's pretty valuable.
But I don't want you to take seats that you don't need to take. "You" being the collective, by the way.
I know that, to a store owner, I'm less valuable as I have already given up money. Or at least, I'm not likely to buy another Core book or APG or Ultimate Magic.
Incorrect. If I am doing my job properly then you are always valuable to me. I feel that doing my job properly involves offering signup-ahead-of-time player lists. Replay makes that job hard to do. For credit or not for credit.
Note: this is me generalizing to an extreme. You've always seemed like an awesome dude on the forums so I hope that isn't as insulting as it might have come off. If it is, I'm sure this last bit doesn't ease that.
Edit: I think I made that less insulting... Hopefully. Sorry if the initial tone was off.
Again, no, you're not coming across as insulting or extreme. You have a problem and want me to see your solution as the best solution. I'm a tough nut to crack. (-;
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yup. The sky is falling. /-:
This is mostly what I was referencing:
Others keep telling me that I'm just shouting "The sky is falling!" and worried about something that is not a possibility. I will, once again, point at past failed campaigns that allowed this to happen. LFR did not start with replay for credit. It started with replay for no credit, then changed it to for-credit after "proving" that no-credit didn't harm the game experience. It was determined that play for credit would gain back some of the people who had stopped coming. Because, of course, the people who had stopped coming did so because they couldn't get rewarded for it. Which was wrong; people had stopped coming because they couldn't get seats. Introducing replay for credit made this problem worse, yet again, and LFR was now having serious problems. It only took the nudge of the "build a PC to tier" rule to push it into the grave.
I think that community leaders like you can help protect against this snowballing into what LFR apparently became. The fact that playing repeatedly for credit is a problem doesn't mean that playing for no credit is.
No. Your value as a player is as good as you want it to be. I have already outlined how you can play 8+ times per month and always do so for credit. <--Linked for your reference. That's pretty valuable.
And if the FLGS doesn't offer something I can play for credit on the day I have available that week? If the table I'm supposed to play at folds and my only option is "go home" as "Play for no credit" isn't there.
What if I play through a scenario and realize that it's tied inherently to the story I'm trying to tell with my character? I have to shelf that character and wait until I've earned another star and use one of my lifetime replays. So I can only have up to 5 scenarios that are linked to interesting stories for my characters?
But I don't want you to take seats that you don't need to take. "You" being the collective, by the way.
I feel like your "need" is subjective. No one here needs to take a seat. We all want to. Why do I deserve to sit at a table less than another player? If it's possible to seat all players, shouldn't we do that? If the aim is for more players, shouldn't the aim also be for more tables at which they can play?
Incorrect. If I am doing my job properly then you are always valuable to me. I feel that doing my job properly involves offering signup-ahead-of-time player lists. Replay makes that job hard to do. For credit or not for credit.
Aside from possibly needing to set up more tables in an evening, how does that make it harder to do? If you have 20 players that could attend that evening and 10 are excluded because they've played that evening's scenarios, isn't that a failure somewhere in the system?
Again, no, you're not coming across as insulting or extreme. You have a problem and want me to see your solution as the best solution. I'm a tough nut to crack. (-;
Cool beans.
Note: I think infinite replays for credit sound like a terrible idea. All we'd see are the season 4 7-11s (from what I've gathered). Some people would just go shopping for all of the best boons so they can win harder.
Aside from the fear that it'll lead to "For Credit" replays, it seems like the argument is that it'll make scheduling harder. It seems like it's the opposite of that to me. I don't run a store nor to I coordinate a store's events.
Privately, though, it's already a pain to juggle schedules / play histories. We have several awesome players in the area that have a handful of scenarios left many are not the same scenarios. Watching what happens to an off the cuff home game (or at the store game) when two of them are available is painful.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But yeah, if people are going to sign up for events they know they can't play, then that's going to be an issue. I do think that could be solved by a "at GM discretion" ruling, or having people who plan to play for no credit should walk in instead of sign up on the site. That way they can be put anywhere.
Just as a reminder, we always permitted the GMs to have discretion as to whether or not they wanted people replaying at their table. That much is quite clear in the current version of the guide.
"If you have already played a scenario and wish to replay it for any reason, you must inform the GM that you have already played the scenario. Some GMs may not be comfortable running an adventure for players who have foreknowledge of what is to come. If your GM is not comfortable with you replaying a scenario, you must find another GM who is. GMs have the right to deny players the opportunity to replay a scenario for any reason, but all GMs are encouraged to be as flexible as possible when replay is the only option that allows them to seat the minimum legal number of players at a game table.
If you spoil the plot for the table, the GM has the right to ask you to leave the table. Be very careful about character knowledge versus player knowledge. If you’re concerned about possibly spoiling something during the course of play, take the GM aside and ask how she would like it handled. Remember: the goal of replay is to make sure fun gaming happens, not to remove the fun from gaming."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a vaguely related note.
I much prefer tables that I play at and GM at to have no players playing with foreknowledge. Not even players who have previously GMed the scenario.
That said, as a player or GM I will never object to a player who's GMed the scenario sitting down to play. They've already sacrificed enough having to GM it without getting to play it first.
If it didn't involve the inevitable question why can't I get credit for playing twice I would be in favor of changing the current credit rules to 2 chronicle sheets, no more than 1 from playing. (Meaning you could get both from GMing)
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
"No Credit Replay" leads to "For Credit Replay" equals a slippery slope argument. I get that.
But my slippery slope argument began long ago. I've been fighting this battle for years, starting in 2010 with a truly bitter knock-down, drag-out fight with a store owner in Pennsylvania. I'm pretty sure he still can't stand me to this day, even though he currently has one of the more successful PFS programs in the country and never needed replay to accomplish it. Since then I have predicted every step.
I can look all the way up my slippery slope and see to the top where "You cannot replay a scenario for any reason" is the signpost.
Next down is a beaten, burned, and abused signpost that says "Play Play Play" surrounded by bones and weapons, the detritus of many battles.
Next down is one that says, "You may replay a scenario if you are the fourth player at the table, thus making it a legal table for play." Just under that in confusing lettering is one that might or might not say, "Or the third, thus giving the GM a GMPC." And underneath that is a faded and possible "Or the third and fourth, of course..." with a tiny little question that says, "What if I'm the second and my friends are the third and fourth? Is it okay then?" that doesn't want to get noticed because the answer is likely one the asker won't agree with.
Next down is "You can replay a scenario that is Tier 1, only, and only with a new 1st level PC with no xp."
Next signpost down reads "You can replay a scenario that is Tier 1 any number of times with a 1st level PC (with 0, 1, or 2 xp), and once with a 2nd level PC."
Next one down reads, "GMs may replay scenarios for credit a number of times in their career equal to the number of stars they have." Just underneath that is one that reads "Perhaps we'll allow GMs a number of replays per YEAR equal to their stars."
So I turn and look down the slope and the next sign I read says, "You may replay for no credit."
After that is a cliff. At the bottom of that cliff lies a dead and broken Living Forgotten Realms campaign.
You're frustrating me by telling me that my view of history is an internet fallacy.
|
|
Haha well, I don't know if this helps make you feel better, but a lot of us were under the impression, and seem to think that the "You may replay for no credit" sign should have been closer to the top of the slope.
EDIT: I'm not convinced that replaying for no credit introduces scheduling issues. But I do fully think that the "slippery slope" to "replay for credit" is something we should be wary of. But I feel that with all things considered, allowing replay for no credit is still not a step that throws us into the gaping jaws of the "replay for credit pit." Or so close that we have no way to avoid it.
But that's just me. I haven't seen it happen like you have.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Haha well, I don't know if this helps make you feel better, but a lot of us were under the impression, and seem to think that the "You may replay for no credit" sign should have been closer to the top of the slope.
I never thought it was up there. I've always known it was further down, and have argued about its placement in the past with Matthew Morris, TriOmegaZero, and Walter Sheppard. Turns out I was right. d-:
EDIT: I'm not convinced that replaying for no credit introduces scheduling issues.
I already know it does. First, I will remind you that I watched it happen. Second, I can name a half dozen players who will immediately take any seat I offer in my shop that they can play. Give them the ability to just ignore which scenario is where and they will simply sign up for every time slot they want. That is six seats at 5 time slots that are automatically gone, and I only have space for 24. And there are many more who will learn that simply signing up without looking first is the best play, otherwise they will lose seats.
How do I know these players names? They're the same ones who played LFR and did the same thing in that campaign. They only switched to PFS after burying LFR. And the transition to actually paying attention to the schedule was really hard for them. I know because I heard all the complaints until they learned to comply.
But I do fully think that the "slippery slope" to "replay for credit" is something we should be wary of. But I feel that with all things considered, allowing replay for no credit is still not a step that throws us into the gaping jaws of the "replay for credit pit." Or so close that we have no way to avoid it.
But that's just me. I haven't seen it happen like you have.
Thank you for the acknowledgement.
As you can see, I know how to compromise. I understand and condone the "GM Star" compromise. I can get behind a chronicle sheet replay style of compromise, like I outlined above in my Player and GM rewards post. If this can be controlled in some way other than "common sense" I will capitulate.
But I am not okay with social pressure being the only check against this rule. Social pressure will always side with bullies and the more vocal crowd. Give them a stick and they will use it against you. Too many of us are incapable of handling confrontation, as it is. If they have to stand up to someone and say, "You can't replay because I am not comfortable with it," that line will never get used. Because using that line is the same as saying, "I don't want to play with you," and no one wants to publicly say that to anyone's face.
|
|
I'm on a phone at this point so this will be shorter.
I'm saying no such thing. I'm sure those developments Have all happened. Im also sure that since some if those changes, player growth has been exponential.
History is history.
Arguing that things are destined to get worse if you let a not all that bad thing happen is what we should avoid.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
To expand on what Acedio has stated, I think this ultimately boils down to the following.
The people that are in support of replaying for no credit don't have the long history with OP campaigns that the people rallying against it do.
Those of us that have experienced good times replaying for no credit see now that we might be the corner case in all this, which is depressing, but acceptable.
In the end, I think we're going to have to rely on Drogon, Mike, and others because in the end, they've got the most experience with Organized Play. They've already proven the know which decisions to make to better grow PFS, and man has it grown. So I'm more than happy to give up replaying for no credit if it results in a robust system that'll be around for years to come. I believe Acedio and the others still posting here just want to make sure that is the case. That this decision will be helping the campaign rather than hurting it.
I hope that I've helped widen the awareness regarding this topic, and that our I hope that our community can serve as a niche example of how there is no "right way" to enjoy PFS. At least that's how I see it.
|
In my lodge we have some what of a unique problem our VC has for the past 3 years asked our store coordinator not to schedule scenarios released after april until after the conventions season this makes it very hard to play every week I gm also I am almost to my second star.
I think credit for replay should be allowed for levels one to five. Its really not fun for me at least to play levels 1 to 5 any way but it is necessary to play in those games so that I can play in the higher level games that I enjoy.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I'm on a phone at this point so this will be shorter.
I'm saying no such thing. I'm sure those developments Have all happened. Im also sure that since some if those changes, player growth has been exponential.
History is history.
Arguing that things are destined to get worse if you let a not all that bad thing happen is what we should avoid.
And I am saying that the exponential growth we have seen is due to the rules that are in place. If it wasn't due to the rules that are in place, why is the campaign not already dying out?
So, you are right: history is history. Why do you want to ignore it?
Finally, "not all that bad a thing" is fully in the eye of the beholder. I label it "Very Bad." Others, obviously, label it "SWEET!" Still others label it "What The Hell Are You Talking About, Anyway?" I think what we label this is what we are arguing about.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I think credit for replay should be allowed for levels one to five. Its really not fun for me at least to play levels 1 to 5 any way but it is necessary to play in those games so that I can play in the higher level games that I enjoy.
And so it begins...
|
|
stuff
I have followed this thread and read through peoples attempts to logically provide reasons to allow replays.
Of all exceptions that could happen to enable to replays there have been more than suitable alternatives for those exceptions.
The GM star replay was an excellent compromise between the debates as well as a reason to DM more. Honestly if you played every scenario, why not DM more? Give back to the community that allowed you to play them all. Then you also earn more replays. Yay everyone wins!
I greatly appreciate Drogon's use of logic, experience, and examples. The only thing I ever disagreed with him on is the change of faction mission in season 5
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
The only thing I ever disagreed with him on is the change of faction mission in season 5
We don't disagree on that anymore. I have found the change to be less than fulfilling, and feel it was too much detail for an OrgPlay system's loose coalition of GMs to handle. Awesome in concept. Not so awesome in reality.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I think credit for replay should be allowed for levels one to five. Its really not fun for me at least to play levels 1 to 5 any way but it is necessary to play in those games so that I can play in the higher level games that I enjoy.And so it begins...
That's a bit unfair, isn't it?
I think that the topic of replay for credit is unrelated to the one we are having about replaying for no credit. Old discussions about replaying for credit do not include the idea of replaying for no credit, because if they had this clarification would have come up a lot sooner.
That replays for credit are being brought up now is only because this thread has the word "replay" in it. Correlation does not imply causation, after all.
|
|
I think credit for replay should be allowed for levels one to five. Its really not fun for me at least to play levels 1 to 5 any way but it is necessary to play in those games so that I can play in the higher level games that I enjoy.
There are a number of other long dead topics where this has been beaten to death. There is a lot of very strong, compelling evidence that replay for credit is a bad thing for the health of the organization. If you feel strongly about this issue, please go post in one of the existing topics.
However, this is not the place to discuss this and it is distracting from the topic at hand. This conversation is specifically about allowing replay for no credit in specific situations. Bringing up replay for credit here is just going to cause unnecessary conflict. Mike Brock already said outright in this very thread that he's not going to even consider allowing replay for credit, so there is no value in discussing it here.
Thanks.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think credit for replay should be allowed for levels one to five. Its really not fun for me at least to play levels 1 to 5 any way but it is necessary to play in those games so that I can play in the higher level games that I enjoy.And so it begins...That's a bit unfair, isn't it?
I think that the topic of replay for credit is unrelated to the one we are having about replaying for no credit. Old discussions about replaying for credit do not include the idea of replaying for no credit, because if they had this clarification would have come up a lot sooner.
That replays for credit are being brought up now is only because this thread has the word "replay" in it. Correlation does not imply causation, after all.
I'm sorry but no, I don't feel it is unfair. There is always a "next step." The fact that it happened within a half dozen posts of my illustration simply makes it premature. The only way to stop the next step from happening is to make it clear that there is no going beyond this point.
And, by the way, those old arguments DO include the concept of no-credit. People brought it up all the time as an option, and those who wanted credit would shoot it down as "Not enough." If it hadn't been there, I wouldn't be so vocal about it right now.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So, this is an honest question:
If replay is a bad idea in general, because you sit like a bump, ...
...why do we allow GMs to play scenarios (for credit, even) after GMing them?
... why does the campaign allow me to replay (for credit, even) 5 scenarios of my choosing?
I can see why farming scenarios is a bad precendent, and how it takes away from new players having an opportunity to participate. So, why do we allow it at all?
Is it because I am presumed to have a mature understanding of the situation, and the campaign trusts my discretion to prioritize the health of the player base above my own desires?
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, this is an honest question:
If replay is a bad idea in general, because you sit like a bump, ...
...why do we allow GMs to play scenarios (for credit, even) after GMing them?
... why does the campaign allow me to replay (for credit, even) 5 scenarios of my choosing?
I can see why farming scenarios is a bad precendent, and how it takes away from new players having an opportunity to participate. So, why do we allow it at all?
Is it because I am presumed to have a mature understanding of the situation, and the campaign trusts my discretion to prioritize the health of the player base above my own desires?
My guess is that, yes, you are expected to be mature enough to make the right decision. If you aren't then you are likely not GMing unless forced to and either have no stars or very few stars, so you cannot do much damage with your immature decisions.
An example: my star replays have yet to be used. I have considered it once, and only once. I would have done so to sit at the table of a brand-new, never even once GM'd before person so that I could make her comfortable with her game and give her the feedback she wanted me to give her (along with four other prolific GMs and Venture officers who had NOT played that particular scenario). She never actually ended up running the game, so I never used it.
And, frankly, the way I feel about replay I likely never will.
I think I can pretty confidently say that I would actually be in favor of revoking all replay. At this stage, however, that would actually be detrimental.
As for the reasoning about opening up replay of any type: well, peer pressure can accomplish a lot of things. We who post on these boards can apply a lot of pressure.
Edit: TriOmegaZero is spot on, and why I think revoking replay would actually be detrimental, despite it having my support.
And, Conman, you are developing a knack for pointing out elegant solutions in one sentence or less.
Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Pullman
|
Maybe someone should try a replay for no credit night where everyone just plays a scenario everyone has already played and let us know how it goes.
Would we not run into the opposite situation where we have one guy who shows up who can play something and then we are forced to turn him away?
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Maybe someone should try a replay for no credit night where everyone just plays a scenario everyone has already played and let us know how it goes.Would we not run into the opposite situation where we have one guy who shows up who can play something and then we are forced to turn him away?
Not if you schedule it ahead of time. d-:
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Pullman
|
Not if you schedule it ahead of time. d-:Maybe someone should try a replay for no credit night where everyone just plays a scenario everyone has already played and let us know how it goes.Would we not run into the opposite situation where we have one guy who shows up who can play something and then we are forced to turn him away?
I think we both can agree walk-ins happen.
|
|
...why do we allow GMs to play scenarios (for credit, even) after GMing them?
To let us (read GMs) enjoy a scenario without trying to keep up track of players actions along with NPCs, so we can try to add to the experiences of other players, so we can develop characters through play rather than just assigning Chronicle sheets to blobs. Maybe. It's what I use my replays for (or try to at least).
... why does the campaign allow me to replay (for credit, even) 5 scenarios of my choosing?
To replays by stars means to GM more, which leads to more tables being run, which leads to what TriOmegaZero said.
I believe the incentive to GM is more valuable to the campaign than the detriment of allowing such limited replay is, resulting in a net gain. A larger pool of GMs means more games, while the limit of once each prevents it from being a weekly occurrence.