Replaying Scenarios (without stars)


Pathfinder Society

251 to 300 of 369 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

Steven Huffstutler wrote:
Drogon wrote:
Steven Huffstutler wrote:
Conman the Bardbarian wrote:
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-:
I think we both can agree walk-ins happen.

Nope. That's the crux of this argument, despite my tongue in cheek reply to you. If you schedule ahead of time and make the rules clear, walk ins DO NOT happen. I am living proof.

5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, California—San Diego aka RAdeMorris

Conman the Bardbarian wrote:
Or you could let him GM cold for no credit.

Sometimes cold isn't the best solution for a no-credit.

Sovereign Court

Drogon wrote:
Steven Huffstutler wrote:
I think we both can agree walk-ins happen.
Nope. That's the crux of this argument, despite my tongue in cheek reply to you. If you schedule ahead of time and make the rules clear, walk ins DO NOT happen. I am living proof.

I'm glad you have had success with this, but I suspect there are a lot of groups where this paradigm isn't going to be desirable.

Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

RAdeMorris wrote:
Conman the Bardbarian wrote:
Or you could let him GM cold for no credit.

Sometimes cold isn't the best solution for a no-credit.

Conman is also known for a very dry brand of sarcasm. This comment was meant not to be serious, methinks.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Drogon wrote:
Steven Huffstutler wrote:
Drogon wrote:
Steven Huffstutler wrote:
Conman the Bardbarian wrote:
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-:
I think we both can agree walk-ins happen.
Nope. That's the crux of this argument, despite my tongue in cheek reply to you. If you schedule ahead of time and make the rules clear, walk ins DO NOT happen. I am living proof.

I agree with this sentiment.

While we do have a couple venues in our area that cater to walk-ins, the organizers know to have a couple GM's "on call" so to speak. But in these cases, the walk-ins are almost always new players, and so confirmation or some other low level scenario works.

But a strict RSVP policy that you don't waver on, does ensure that RSVPs happen and that walk-ins are fairly rare.

Shadow Lodge

Drogon wrote:
RAdeMorris wrote:
Conman the Bardbarian wrote:
Or you could let him GM cold for no credit.

Sometimes cold isn't the best solution for a no-credit.

Conman is also known for a very dry brand of sarcasm. This comment was meant not to be serious, methinks.

We laugh now, but I'm secretly hoping to get it to happen tonight at TEG.

1d20 ⇒ 20


I am pretty flexible when I go to play. Unless absoluterly needed I do not DM what I have not played. I will, but try my best not to. I try my best to make sure everyone can play when I show up. I always have a backup scenario ready.

I will work a great deal to make sure no one has to go home. Now if your area is full of people unwilling to compromise for whatever reason. Well yes the no replay can deter people. But if there are that many people not willing to compromise I would blame them, not the rule.

The only time people walked away from the game where I was at was because other people were not willing to compromise.

5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, California—San Diego aka RAdeMorris

Conman the Bardbarian wrote:
Drogon wrote:
RAdeMorris wrote:
Conman the Bardbarian wrote:
Or you could let him GM cold for no credit.

Sometimes cold isn't the best solution for a no-credit.

Conman is also known for a very dry brand of sarcasm. This comment was meant not to be serious, methinks.

We laugh now, but I'm secretly hoping to get it to happen tonight at TEG.

1d20

As long as fun is had by all, game on. [=

My earlier reply was based on another player's experience with a cold-run scenario.

Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

Acedio wrote:
Drogon wrote:
Steven Huffstutler wrote:


I think we both can agree walk-ins happen.
Nope. That's the crux of this argument, despite my tongue in cheek reply to you. If you schedule ahead of time and make the rules clear, walk ins DO NOT happen. I am living proof.
I'm glad you have had success with this, but I suspect there are a lot of groups where this paradigm isn't going to be desirable.

Not to belabor the point, but why? Why is it undesirable to avoid all these situations that cause so much grief for you? Why would you NOT want to purely schedule ahead of time and avoid having any unforeseen circumstances or be forced to turn someone away, someone who may have ridden a bus for the last hour to get to you?

nosig, of course, can easily refute my questions, and gainsay my evidence. Interestingly, he is firmly in the "no replay" camp. So, it seems the two extremes in the scheduling paradigm neatly avoid this issue. Why not join in and make sure the rules are clear for your players, thus no longer having this problem?


Drogon wrote:
Acedio wrote:
Drogon wrote:
Steven Huffstutler wrote:


I think we both can agree walk-ins happen.
Nope. That's the crux of this argument, despite my tongue in cheek reply to you. If you schedule ahead of time and make the rules clear, walk ins DO NOT happen. I am living proof.
I'm glad you have had success with this, but I suspect there are a lot of groups where this paradigm isn't going to be desirable.

Not to belabor the point, but why? Why is it undesirable to avoid all these situations that cause so much grief for you? Why would you NOT want to purely schedule ahead of time and avoid having any unforeseen circumstances or be forced to turn someone away, someone who may have ridden a bus for the last hour to get to you?

nosig, of course, can easily refute my questions, and gainsay my evidence. Interestingly, he is firmly in the "no replay" camp. So, it seems the two extremes in the scheduling paradigm neatly avoid this issue. Why not join in and make sure the rules are clear for your players, thus no longer having this problem?

Even if people tracked 5 days across the Mojave Desert to play at your game store. Why can the people not compromise? They could DM another table, or have them or someone else run another game.

If you randomly show up unaccounted for why would you feel entitled to not compromise for the game you crashed?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Finlanderboy wrote:
Drogon wrote:
Acedio wrote:
Drogon wrote:
Steven Huffstutler wrote:


I think we both can agree walk-ins happen.
Nope. That's the crux of this argument, despite my tongue in cheek reply to you. If you schedule ahead of time and make the rules clear, walk ins DO NOT happen. I am living proof.
I'm glad you have had success with this, but I suspect there are a lot of groups where this paradigm isn't going to be desirable.

Not to belabor the point, but why? Why is it undesirable to avoid all these situations that cause so much grief for you? Why would you NOT want to purely schedule ahead of time and avoid having any unforeseen circumstances or be forced to turn someone away, someone who may have ridden a bus for the last hour to get to you?

nosig, of course, can easily refute my questions, and gainsay my evidence. Interestingly, he is firmly in the "no replay" camp. So, it seems the two extremes in the scheduling paradigm neatly avoid this issue. Why not join in and make sure the rules are clear for your players, thus no longer having this problem?

Even if people tracked 5 days across the Mojave Desert to play at your game store. Why can the people not compromise? They could DM another table, or have them or someone else run another game.

If you randomly show up unaccounted for why would you feel entitled to not compromise for the game you crashed?

That is the question, isn't it?

Sovereign Court

I'm sorry Finlanderboy, but how is being willing to play for no credit so that everyone else can get credit not a compromise? Like really, from my perspective, this clarification makes it more difficult for people to compromise.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Northwest aka WalterGM

2 people marked this as a favorite.

For anyone getting heated over this discussion:
I think that we're reaching a hurdle with this conversation, the crux of which is a failure to understand where each side is coming from.

I am not rallying to prevent this clarification, I am just trying to understand it better. I'll need to if I'm to explain it to the players in my area. The system we have been using for the last three years has changed overnight, and we're having to adjust.

Please don't dismiss mine and Acedio's passion regarding this as just another in a long line of people asking for the same thing over and over again. We're reacting to something that's affecting our area now and just checking to make sure it really is what's best for us.

I am more than happy to listen to explanations of previous failings of other campaigns, and to see the merits of having stricter sign ups with no-replay possibility at all. What I want to ask is for people on the other side of this to try and see it from another perspective for just a moment.

A group of enthusiastic and committed people that have been an asset to the PFS community for the last three years have just been told that they are "doing it wrong." A portion of them will now be severely restricted in what they are able to play, and how easily they will be able to find tables. And the reasons we are hearing for this change are "it's better for the campaign as a whole" and "it'll lead to worse things down the road." Now I can accept that. I can trust Mike and Drogon's experience with this matter to make the right decisions, and I'll argue on their behalf tonight when I go to my FLGS. But not everyone is going to be as accepting as me.

And as far as I'm concerned, we as a community owe it to them to hear their issues with this clarification and do our best to ensure that their voices are heard. I think we'll all have a much better time in this thread if we treat each other with the respect that's deserved.


Acedio wrote:
I'm sorry Finlanderboy, but how is being willing to play for no credit so that everyone else can get credit not a compromise? Like really, from my perspective, this clarification makes it more difficult for people to compromise.

I would consider someone insisting to play the scenario again as someone unwilling to compromise. I would say they shoudl DM.

Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

Acedio wrote:
I'm sorry Finlanderboy, but how is playing for no credit so that other people can get credit not a compromise? Like really, from my perspective, this clarification makes it more difficult for people to compromise.

I think Finlanderboy is singling out the guy who insists on getting credit after showing up unannounced. He has no sympathy for that person.

While Finlanderboy's attitude is understandable (and I share it to a certain degree) I would rather there were no hard feelings at any stage. By scheduling in advance and adhering to the RSVP rule, I avoid turning anyone away. By having an unbelievably open schedule, one in which every single player who shows up is expected to have nearly a dozen scenarios prepped and ready to go, nosig also avoids it. It's the middle ground that runs into problems. They say s@#% or get off the pot for a reason, I guess.

Edit: I don't think anyone is getting heated, Walter. I see a lot of honest discussion. The heated up attitudes bailed a page ago.

I am proposing solutions to problems, as are others. We just aren't doing a very good job of agreeing to each others' solutions.

For what it's worth, I have also conceded that, should there be some kind of enforceable rule in place regarding replay for no credit (meaning you have to have a track-able and measurable way of getting and using those replays, along the lines of GM stars), then I would join the compromise. I find you all to be reasonable people. I find Mike Brock and Jon Compton to be intelligent administrators who know how to foresee (and fend off) potential problems. We *can* all get along.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a post by Ryan Bolduan (original twin cities Venture-Captain) on our local meetup site in June of 2012.

Ryan Bolduan wrote:

I wanted to talk briefly (okay, not briefly, I just saw how long this post is, wow) about a problem I’ve been hearing about across the country from other Venture Officers. Specifically, players beginning to indicate that they’re running out of scenarios to play.

Pathfinder Society is just coming out of its childhood. We’ve experienced four seasons so far, and in July we’ll complete the season 3 story-arc at PaizoCon (PFS started with “season zero”, which is why we’re only on season 3). On average we get 26 scenarios a year added to our slate (with one or two bonus scenarios here and there). As of the end of season 3, we will have 92 scenarios still active over the four seasons (19, 28, 26, and 29 respectively) not including special events and the “4-star special”.

This may seem like a lot, but there are a few things to remember. First, those 92 scenarios are split over several tiers and roughly half (41 to be exact) are slated for “higher tiers” of 5-9 and 7-11. Second, we only get two new scenarios a month, only one of which is designed for 1-5’s. Third, 33 scenarios represent a “full life” of a character from 1-12, so you can roughly get three characters to 12 with the current scenarios (this isn’t exactly true, but close enough).

So why all this math? We all want you playing as much as you want/can, but we also want everybody to be aware of what can happen if you maintain an extreme “burn-rate”. If you’re playing weekly or more, or go to conventions and enjoy 5-8 scenarios in one weekend it can easy to lose track of what you have left to play. A player that plays weekly will eat through roughly half the scenarios available in a year. By the end of year two that player will have played all the pathfinder society that is available and won’t be able to enjoy the games weekly anymore . If you play whenever we run (which winds up letting you play about twice a week), you will be out of things to play before this time next year. Unfortunately, this level of play makes for an untenable situation, but we also don’t want to discourage you from playing – after all, playing is what keeps PFS alive!

So what can you do? Here are some ideas we’ve talked about:

GM!
Join the GM ranks and help us run games – you get character credit just like you’d get player credit – this doubles the number of chronicles you can apply to characters. I cannot stress this one enough. We have a fabulous slate of GMs, but if you've played a character to level 4 or 5, it's really time to think about sitting behind the GM screen yourself.

Level up!
Get that character to level 5 or 7 and keep playing – If you keep starting a new character around level five to “try things out”, you’ll run out of tier 1-5 scenarios very quickly.

Modules!
Play modules – Get a group of Pathfinders together on one of the game weekends and play through a module. They take about a day to run through (or a couple of days if you want to break up the session). Your character will earn 3XP and 4PA for playing through a module.

Start up an Adventure Path!
We will certainly miss seeing your pretty face every week, but one of the most important aspects of PFS is networking. Get to know your fellow players and find a group of like-minded players you’d like to invite to run a regular home. Adventure Paths make great options as they’re well defined, and most importantly, fun. While this isn’t a way to play Pathfinder Society and earn credit with your PFS characters, it is a great way to enjoy Pathfinder in general. So as much as we’ll miss you, we really won’t mind.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Walter Sheppard wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

I definitely feel for your crew Walter.

It is never fun to have the feeling that something is being taken away from you. And I'm sure that is exactly how many of your players are going to feel.

So with that, all my discussion on this topic is with the understanding that you are in a difficult position.

I'll do my best to curb my further discussion for ideas on how to accommodate your players who have played through most stuff, rather than just tell you that your wrong for whatever reasons.


Drogon wrote:
Acedio wrote:
I'm sorry Finlanderboy, but how is playing for no credit so that other people can get credit not a compromise? Like really, from my perspective, this clarification makes it more difficult for people to compromise.

I think Finlanderboy is singling out the guy who insists on getting credit after showing up unannounced. He has no sympathy for that person.

While Finlanderboy's attitude is understandable (and I share it to a certain degree) I would rather there were no hard feelings at any stage. By scheduling in advance and adhering to the RSVP rule, I avoid turning anyone away. By having an unbelievably open schedule, one in which every single player who shows up is expected to have nearly a dozen scenarios prepped and ready to go, nosig also avoids it. It's the middle ground that runs into problems. They say s+!$ or get off the pot for a reason, I guess.

I have no sympathy for peopel that feel entitled and will not compromise.

If i were at the game store I would volunteer to run another table for them so they could play somethign else. I would work with them so they could play.

If they make an effort to not compromise and/or make it harder for me to ehlp them. Well then I have no sympathy.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Northwest aka WalterGM

Drogon wrote:
Acedio wrote:
Drogon wrote:
Steven Huffstutler wrote:


I think we both can agree walk-ins happen.
Nope. That's the crux of this argument, despite my tongue in cheek reply to you. If you schedule ahead of time and make the rules clear, walk ins DO NOT happen. I am living proof.
I'm glad you have had success with this, but I suspect there are a lot of groups where this paradigm isn't going to be desirable.

Not to belabor the point, but why? Why is it undesirable to avoid all these situations that cause so much grief for you? Why would you NOT want to purely schedule ahead of time and avoid having any unforeseen circumstances or be forced to turn someone away, someone who may have ridden a bus for the last hour to get to you?

nosig, of course, can easily refute my questions, and gainsay my evidence. Interestingly, he is firmly in the "no replay" camp. So, it seems the two extremes in the scheduling paradigm neatly avoid this issue. Why not join in and make sure the rules are clear for your players, thus no longer having this problem?

The rules will be made clear for our players at tonight's game day.

There was no grief or hardship felt by players in my area when they volunteered to play for no credit. They just wanted to play.

In the past, everyone that wanted to play could, with little effort by the schedulers or those attending. With the clarification, scheduling online becomes king, and getting everyone credit becomes much harder to do when you have walk ups.

I don't think having walk ups is a problem.
I don't think having people want to play for no credit is a problem.

I do think that after this clarification getting everyone in my area to play when they want to is going to be far harder.

Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

And by the way, Walter, the "we have been told we were doing it wrong" is by far and away the most insightful thing that has been said here. No one likes to be told they're wrong. When you are told you are wrong you will actually fight to prove you were not wrong. I have witnessed over an over this basic instinct in people, and many of them even continue to fight after realizing they really were wrong: "Well, I wouldn't have done it that way if it hadn't been for [insert valid reason here]."

It's human nature to want to be right. It sucks when you find out you were wrong. Especially when you really are a good person.

For instance, I found out a few months ago that "always available if it's on your chronicle sheet" doesn't quite mean what I always thought it meant. It has been quite the chore to disseminate that knowledge to my player base. I start with this:

"So, I was wrong about something, and because of that I have inadvertently allowed all of you to do something incorrectly. I apologize for this, but here is what happened..."

Be Batman. Take it on your shoulders, and everyone will rally to your side. Rather than be upset about the problem, hopefully they will help you find solutions to the new problems you will face. It's your community; they will have faith in you.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

How much would making the star replays renew at gencon help?

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Drogon,

The problem is that your hypotheticals are running into peoples reality- hypotheticals lose out to observation.

Yes, you COULD find something for people to play... with an infinitely large player base and perfect attendance, no scheduling conflicts and no unforeseen events.

But that's not the reality people deal with. You don't just need a scenario you can play, you also need a scenario you can play, a dm that has it, three other people that can play that scenario and you need to get them all into the same place at the same time. If you have multiple people that all have a few scenarios left the chances of getting all of those at the same place at the same time drops precipitously.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Northwest aka WalterGM

EDIT: Thanks for the comment Drogon. That's the plan and we'll see how it goes!

So here's our situation. We have a bunch of people that love playing and don't mind if they wind up without credit after a game. We have enough of a mix that there will invitably be situations where, following the clarification, one or two people will be left out.

*What are those situations...

5 people... 1 person can't get credit
6 people... 1 or 2 persons can't get credit
7 people... 1, 2, or 3 persons can't get credit
8 people... not a problem, let's make two tables
9 people... not a problem, let's make two tables
10 people... not a problem, let's make two tables
11 people... 1 person can't get credit
12 people... not a problem, let's make three tables
13 people... not a problem, let's make three tables
14 people... not a problem, let's make three tables
15 people... not a problem, let's make three tables
16 people... not a problem, let's make four tables
etc

*These situations assume that when you split into multiple tables, all the people there have at least one scenario in common they can all get credit for. If you do this and still cannot get credit then dang, you all really do play a lot.

So basically, when you have a small attendence, you run into this issue. With 5, 6, 8, or 11 people you may be forced to send someone packing.

What about preventing this by having more strict online sign ups? The problem with that i that when people can't play for credit, they don't bother to show up. I don't like that the side effect of this solution causes less people to show up at my game days, so I don't want to do that.

What about starting an AP/Module instead? This might be the best solution, and we'll see how it goes tonight. The downside is that I will need at least 3 "lost souls" to make a table, so we would need to have low attendence where a majority of people weren't planning on getting credit. That might happen, but I don't think it'll be the norm.

What about playing less? Yes, this would appear on the surface to be a great solution. But, in the interest of flooding the store with patrons each game day, having people show up less isn't going to work.

What about playing something else, like the ACG or a miniatures battle? This would also work, and I will offer it to my players as a solution, but I think they'd much rather play Pathfinder than something else. After all, they've been attending all this time to play Pathfinder, I'm going to assume they like it.

So what I have is a couple of things to try that may or maynot work. The clarification isn't going to change because there isn't enough evidence in support of playing for no credit. I'll continue to tout it's enjoyment whenever the topic arises, but aside from that is there anything else we can do at this juncture? I don't think so.

I have to run now, but I'm sure to have more thoughts later today and will revisit this thread then.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Global Organized Play Coordinator

Walter, how many players do you have in your region that have less than 10 scenarios available to play for credit?

Sovereign Court

Finlanderboy wrote:

I have no sympathy for peopel that feel entitled and will not compromise.

If i were at the game store I would volunteer to run another table for them so they could play somethign else. I would work with them so they could play.

If they make an effort to not compromise and/or make it harder for me to ehlp them. Well then I have no sympathy.

So first off, I'm just going to be upfront and tell you that I'm starting to become frustrated with how you're responding to my concerns. You're coming off as very accusatory and blunt and it feels like you're painting people in our group to be these uncompromising jerks when that is the exact opposite. I'd like to have a polite conversation as I've been having up until now, but it's becoming more difficult. I don't know if this is your intention, but please give me a little bit of a break.

But anyway, sure, I can see what you're saying. But this doesn't solve the problem where two people have played the scenario. If you force the unannounced guest to GM, do you not have two people now competing for GM participation?

Also, what if the original GM put a lot of effort into planning the scenario? Do you make them play (lets assume for credit) despite the prep work? This doesn't seem ideal just so someone who suddenly showed up can participate as a GM? What if in doing this the unexpected guest can't get credit?

On the other hand, you're right. Someone who shows up unexpectedly shouldn't feel entitled to special treatment. But at the same time if you have someone who didn't know any better (like wasn't aware you had a warhorn maybe), should you show them the door? Is that being inclusive? It's also 100% infeasible to reshuffle the table organization around for them so they fit perfectly, and it may just not be possible to do it. And it makes no sense to do that for one person. That's exactly what special treatment is.

So really as far as I'm concerned, the willingness to spend 5 hours at a table just to hang out with some friends without getting any progress towards the PFS campaign so that most of the people there can still get credit is compromising.

And Drogon to be concise, and hopefully not too snarky, the whole problem with "Why not do what I do and solve all of your problems" is kind of akin to asking "Why not just convert to my religion?" It just doesn't work for everybody. Your solution is likely good for you, but it's not good for certain locales, and there are a lot of participants in this conversation that have indicated as such.

For instance, we live in a college town. Most of the players are going to school. School is pretty unpredictable, you might get hit with a big home work assignment, you might have an extra difficult exam that you need to study for. You might have a job interview and might have to leave town. In a more general sense, people get sick. People get inundated with work. Sometimes, believe it or not, social opportunities come up that are more important than PFS for that day. A rigorous schedule could solve the problems, yes, but they would introduce others.

And what's frustrating is that these things that weren't ever a problem before because we had adopted a practice that elegantly addressed the scheduling issues. And suddenly we have to adopt that change and its causing much more ripple effects than desired.

What was really the cost of allowing people to play for no credit? As far as I can tell, significantly less than the cost of preventing them from doing it in certain settings.

In the most ideal world, I'd like to see campaign leadership allow store organizers to either adopt or reject such a paradigm. Not doing it works great for Drogon, and nosig (at least for now I suspect). And you know what, that's really great. But it doesn't work great for us, or Kinevon. Why does it have to be a blanket policy if you're very clear about the store policy?

Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Drogon,

The problem is that your hypotheticals are running into peoples reality- hypotheticals lose out to observation.

Yes, you COULD find something for people to play... with an infinitely large player base and perfect attendance, no scheduling conflicts and no unforeseen events.

But that's not the reality people deal with. You don't just need a scenario you can play, you also need a scenario you can play, a dm that has it, three other people that can play that scenario and you need to get them all into the same place at the same time. If you have multiple people that all have a few scenarios left the chances of getting all of those at the same place at the same time drops precipitously.

But...but...neither nosig nor I have hypothetical situations. We're real. I swear...

Walter Sheppard wrote:
What about preventing this by having more strict online sign ups? The problem with that i that when people can't play for credit, they don't bother to show up. I don't like that the side effect of this solution causes less people to show up at my game days, so I don't want to do that.

Out of curiosity, how big is your venue? I'm going to guess at the answer: "average game store."

So, a true hypothetical situation: 60 people show up. Do you have that many seats in this venue? If you do, I envy you.

For the sake of argument, I'm betting you don't. So, assuming 60 people start showing up consistently, what do you do? You're going to have to turn some away, I'd guess, because you only have 32 seats available in your venue (pure speculation, obviously).

Why am I messing with this number? Because I think you can view online signups as "60 people showing up" to your venue when you announce the schedule. After all it will be going out to your entire player base; that's the 60 "showing up." Now they all look through what is available and start making decisions. Some of them offer to GM. Others ask to be seated at certain tables. Eventually, your 32 seats are filled. The other 28 people will make other plans, knowing they can show up next time you offer a schedule. No one is being turned away, in the true sense of being shown the door and asked to leave. No hard feelings.

If you do not have 60 players as a base, you need to grow it. But you're in Spokane. I'll bet you have it.

BigNorseWolf, I have no clue where you are and won't debate with your numbers, as I've said in other threads (which I have promised to leave alone).

Edit: Acedio, I see exactly what you are saying about trying to convert you to my religion. And, like any good zealot, I see my way as the best way. To be fair, so do you. (-;

And don't be offended by Finlanderboy. He's blunt. But as blunt as he gets, he's not deliberately trying to upset you. I learned that long ago and now know how to apply the right filter to his statements and see the great value in them.

Sovereign Court

Drogon wrote:
Edit: Acedio, I see exactly what you are saying about trying to convert you to my religion. And, like any good zealot, I see my way as the best way. To be fair, so do you. (-;

Actually, on the contrary! I see no reason for you to change your working paradigm to allow something that you don't want or feel is unnecessary.

Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

Acedio wrote:
Drogon wrote:
Edit: Acedio, I see exactly what you are saying about trying to convert you to my religion. And, like any good zealot, I see my way as the best way. To be fair, so do you. (-;
Actually, on the contrary! I see no reason for you to change your working paradigm to allow something that you don't want or feel is unnecessary.

You may think that is the case, but I assure you it is not.

If replay for no credit becomes an accepted rule in PFS I will have a lot of people who know this and start asking to be let in. I will not be able to say "Not in my store" without inuring their wrath (even if it is merely in the form of bad reviews on Yelp, which has happened and does matter).

I.e., if you win this argument and get leadership to sign off on your idea of what is "good for the campaign" then I will be forced to comply.

The Exchange 5/5

Drogon wrote:
Acedio wrote:
I'm sorry Finlanderboy, but how is playing for no credit so that other people can get credit not a compromise? Like really, from my perspective, this clarification makes it more difficult for people to compromise.

I think Finlanderboy is singling out the guy who insists on getting credit after showing up unannounced. He has no sympathy for that person.

While Finlanderboy's attitude is understandable (and I share it to a certain degree) I would rather there were no hard feelings at any stage. By scheduling in advance and adhering to the RSVP rule, I avoid turning anyone away. By having an unbelievably open schedule, one in which every single player who shows up is expected to have nearly a dozen scenarios prepped and ready to go, nosig also avoids it. It's the middle ground that runs into problems. They say s&!& or get off the pot for a reason, I guess.

Edit: I don't think anyone is getting heated, Walter. I see a lot of honest discussion. The heated up attitudes bailed a page ago.

I am proposing solutions to problems, as are others. We just aren't doing a very good job of agreeing to each others' solutions.

For what it's worth, I have also conceded that, should there be some kind of enforceable rule in place regarding replay for no credit (meaning you have to have a track-able and measurable way of getting and using those replays, along the lines of GM stars), then I would join the compromise. I find you all to be reasonable people. I find Mike Brock and Jon Compton to be intelligent administrators who know how to foresee (and fend off) potential problems. We *can* all get along.

sorry - I had given up on this thread and ... it keeps pulling me back.

I needed to reply to the bold part above the "By having an unbelievably open schedule, one in which every single player who shows up is expected to have nearly a dozen scenarios prepped and ready to go, nosig also avoids it." This is the way it is done in St.Louis - and at first it would drive me insane. But now I listen to everywhere else and I am so happy we do it this way. But to clear up part of your statement.

Not everyone here prepps a dozen scenarios. Here are some ways it plays out... most people who play here are just players. People who judge are in a minority (like everywhere I think).

1) Often a small group of player (& maybe a judge) will say - "Hay! Let's play X-XX this week/next week" and one of them will step forward to judge or round them up a judge or give the organizer a head up that they need someone to run X-XX. Now they get to the shop and they sit down at a table and say "We're going to play X-XX, and we've got 4 empty seats." and maybe it goes, and maybe it doesn't.

2) Then add in several judges who have some things Prepped and ready and they show up and say to the organizer... "I'm here to judge - and I've got X-XX and Y-YY ready" and he matches them to a group of players at that tier. Maybe that table goes off too, or maybe a player or two gets bumped to a different table, or they pick up one or two more from one of the others...

3) then you have the "random collection of players" who all end up lumped together and they compare lists and one or two of them are in the boat I am... If they have some scenarios in common they can play - they check to see if there is a judge in the house who can run one of them. Maybe one of them ends up judging something that he prepped a year ago and has run once or twice before.

4) If all else fails there are a handful of judges (like me) who can, and are willing to, pick up a scenario and run it cold - though often we may have prepped it a week, a month, 3 months ago... and after all - we're the guys who have played almost everything right?

hope that helps understand how we do it in my neck of the woods... It does seem to work though - sometimes (often) it runs long. Often we don't have showy maps (I often am heard to say "I have a hand drawn map of this - at home! ArrggH!"), or we don't have the right figure ("These three poker chips are Large Scorpions!")... but everyone gets to play. (Almost...). We have grown very large, and even with a reduced group still regularly field 6 or 8 tables a week on weeknights, and a dozen or more on our game days.

The Exchange 5/5

I notice no one here is even considering doing it the way we do in St.Louis.

This is from a post from OCT of 2012, about the way we do it here - and even then it had been SOP for years...

"As I discribed above, the standard procedure is:

1) the players getting together, comparing lists of scenarios played, sorting out PCs. This allows them to get the core of a table. (Usually 4 PCs to set the scenario and Tier)

2) Select the table we will play at, and arrange seating around it.

3) Tell the Coordinator that we have a table and a likely scenario and Tier.

4) Wait to have a judge assigned. Very Pro-active players will "troll for a judge" - chatting up a judge we like and know and requesting him come run at out table.

5) The judges speak to the Coordinator to determine what tables are running what scenario and sort out which of them are running.

At any point after #3 additional players will be sent to table that have less then 6 players (in some cases 7 players) to "fill them out".

For the most part, that's the way PFS works in St. Louis."

can you do that in your location? clearly not - but isn't that just what people are proposing with Pre-signups? put a day or more between each number and a week between 3 and 4.

(Monday, 1st week) the players getting together, comparing lists of scenarios played, sorting out PCs. This allows them to get the core of a table. (Usually 4 PCs to set the scenario and Tier)

(Not needed step - 2) Select the table we will play at, and arrange seating around it.

(Tuesday, first week - 3) Tell the Coordinator that we have a table and a likely scenario and Tier. PICKING A SCENQRIO

(Wednesday, first week - 4) Wait to have a judge assigned. This is done by the coordinator posting the scenario on the list - Very Pro-active players will "troll for a judge" - chatting up a judge they like and know and requesting him come run the table.

(Thursday up until the day of the game - 5) Judges select tables and prep....

In my home town, we just compress this into 20 minutes before the games start - that way we know EXACTLY who is going to be there - because they already are....


It is very unsatisfying level up a character using GM credit...without actually playing the character and putting it thru its paces its about as fun as going to herolab...clicking the level up button...and saying "whoooh, what a badass now"

Why not have people GM for no credit all the time and for every 5 scenarios GM'ed they can replay a scenario with a PC that has not played that scenario?

This would give people an incentive to GM who really much prefer to play...running out of scenarios...do some GM'ing and replay a few of your favorite scenarios.

You are always going to have the issue of someone using "prior knowledge" under either system but lets face it 90% of people are mature enough to not metagame and the few that can't..hand them their sheet and tell them to leave the table so the rest can enjoy the game.

Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

nosig wrote:
stuff about St. Louis' schedule

Here I am trying to grow your legend by touting what a bunch of badasses you all are and you go and serve up a giant slice of humble pie. Thanks, nosig...

No, I cannot see it working anywhere else, really, unless it was a place that STARTED that way. Just like WalterGM and his crew started things in Spokane their way, and it works for them. Just like Mike started things his way in Atlanta and it works for them.

Your way would make me insane. I admit that. I would go stark raving mad. But it works for you guys, and there is no arguing with that.

I still stand by my statement, however: St. Louis's method is the other end of the extreme from mine (Denver's). The middle roads are the roads that seem to lead to trouble.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Michael Brock wrote:
Walter, how many players do you have in your region that have less than 10 scenarios available to play for credit?

I was an active player in Walters community until about 5 months ago (I graduated and moved away) and I was one of those folks that fell into the category of close to less then 20 games available. To my memory, when I was there, we had 9 folks come to shop on a regular basis (twice a week) to play games for no credit because they were close, not quit to less than 10 playable for credit.

When I went, I would say maybe one game day a month (8ish a month) everyone in the shop was able to play for credit. And that is because the serial players like Walter, Steve, another gentlemen and myself would step up to the plate and GM so we could get as many people credit as we could.

For me playing PFS was never about getting credit, it was about being in an environment where I could play a game with people I cared about. It was about the community. Being able to play a game for no credit allowed me to still enjoy the environment, the folks, and play a great game.

In my opinion the rules that disallows replay for no-credit takes PFS play from folks that just want to hang out and relax with their friends, both new ones and old ones. I know for a fact that if half of those folks that showed up to play knew about no replays for no-credit they would stop going to the shop. Which would be a terrible thing for how much they have supported the community, brought new people in, and made it a blast to play there.

Shadow Lodge

P.S. Walter is at game night atm, he should be back on in an hour or less. Unless they go late....

Shadow Lodge

Drogon wrote:
nosig wrote:
stuff about St. Louis' schedule

Here I am trying to grow your legend by touting what a bunch of badasses you all are and you go and serve up a giant slice of humble pie. Thanks, nosig...

No, I cannot see it working anywhere else, really, unless it was a place that STARTED that way. Just like WalterGM and his crew started things in Spokane their way, and it works for them. Just like Mike started things his way in Atlanta and it works for them.

Your way would make me insane. I admit that. I would go stark raving mad. But it works for you guys, and there is no arguing with that.

I still stand by my statement, however: St. Louis's method is the other end of the extreme from mine (Denver's). The middle roads are the roads that seem to lead to trouble.

Walters crew are out of Pullman. Preston is the Boss Hog in Spokane, who also does a boss job

Grand Lodge

My contribution to this topic are a pair of experiences where being able to replay for no credit would have been nice.

.

.

I showed up to a PFS event with a friend of mine who had never played. This event had two tables. The scenario that I thought my friend and I would play ended up playing up to a higher tier; my friend would have been unable to play at the same table as me with his brand new character we had spent the afternoon building and learning. I could not play at the low tier table, because I had already played the scenario being run at that table as a player. So I was unable to experience the first scenario my friend played alongside them - I was in the front of the shop at a different table. I would have HAPPILY played for no credit, given away no spoilers, and accepted that consumables still get used and the death of my character was a possibility. (The risk and expenditure of resources "for no gain" is the price of replaying a scenario.)

Yes, he could have played a played up and played a pregen to be at my table, but he rightfully wanted to play the character we had spent so much time building. He had a backstory and a personality for it that he was excited work with, as well as the fact that we'd spent the afternoon learning the rules of this one specific class to the point where he felt comfortable taking it for a drive.

.

.

Another situation where being able to replay for no credit would have been nice happened a month ago:

A scenario I was running had some unusual sign-up circumstances where there were a lot of people signing up, cancelling, and "I'll come if there's room". A veteran GM said they'd show up and run a second table if needed since the numbers were so shaky. It looked like the GM was going to be needed based on our sign-ups and facebook - there was a lot of movement and additions and possible shows. On the day of the game 7 people showed up, one of them the veteran GM. Not enough people to fill a second table.

The veteran GM said he was going to play for "no credit". He was checking his device frequently, and left halfway through the second encounter. He said he was tired, but I wonder now if he realized that he couldn't play for "no credit" halfway through the event and wanted to bow out gracefully. If the latter, it would have been nice to have him around. He's a fun player to have at a table!

Another veteran GM showed up that night too. They ended up burning a star to play, saying that they wanted to play with us and see some of the crafts I had made to represent each map. I feel bad that they had to burn this star or "go home". I understand that the star is for "credit", but it was "Silent Tide". You're not getting anything amazing from that scenario. He just wanted to play with us for fun!

.

.

In both of these scenarios additional options were available. (The GM could have burned a star or sat in the background and heckled us and my friend COULD have played a pregen.) The point in sharing these situations is that the option of playing a second time for no-credit would have made for a nicer outcome and better social experience. Neither situation would have been to cheat or game the system.

I think that players genuinely enjoy playing new scenarios more than running the same thing twice. However, from time to time replaying something for no-gain provides more options and flexibility for just wanting to have fun.

5/5 Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka Pirate Rob

Undel wrote:
Lots of Stuff

Thanks for story time, it got me thinking...

I wonder if part of the reason I don't see the need to replay without credit is the fantastic job many of the Bay Area venues do organizing their game days.

I know what's going on in advance. I can plan, I can pre-register and after doing so, I've never been sent home empty handed or had to re-play for no credit.

Aside on time I did leave empty handed:
I did once or twice bow out and go back home after a few walk-ins showed up. I happily gave them my slot rather than play with 7, Explained to them how their pregens worked and then headed home

----

On another note, if you've got multiple tables going on, and multiple people playing for no credit, I imagine it's possible to make sure they are on tables of 4. While clearly against the spirit of the rules, if it's necessary to make your game day work until you can adjust, I'd suggest transitioning.

Lantern Lodge

Michael Brock wrote:
6-point brainstorming...

Seems reasonable to me.

Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

That Porter Kid wrote:
Walters crew are out of Pullman. Preston is the Boss Hog in Spokane, who also does a boss job

Hrm. I saw "Eastern Washington" and assumed. Dunno why I always do that...

Anyhoo, Pullman it is. Population of 32,000, as of the 2012 census, so I think it is safe to say that it is 32,000+ in 2014. My hypothetical 60 person player pool is still more than viable based on gamer demographics (and - even better with Pullman - college town demographics, which has Washington State University with a total student population of 27,000).

I would love to know your current number of players, Walter. Not just per day, but how many are registered in your area ("your area" being a 20-30 minute drive from the venue at which you host games).

1/5

No re-play for credit is great, and should not be changed.

However, re-play for no-credit should be opened up. Quite simply, people hunting for boons or just after the XP have no incentive to play for no credit -- the only people that do are those trying to have fun. I just don't see them spoiling things for others (and if they do, the GM should step in).

TLDR: The only incentive to replay for no credit is fun. Always follow the incentives. :)

Scarab Sages 4/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—St. Petersburg aka Stetrix

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why do people care 100s or 1000s of miles away from where we play if we sit a player for no credit (venue or GM 's choice). This isn't a convention, your store or home.

Does it impact you? Only if you really really want to make someone else you will probably never meet do what you want. So perhaps that is a yes for some and no for most.

Does it give the player an advantage? Yes, that +0 nothing of nothingness, 0 Prestige, 0 Gold, 0 Experience and loss of any resources used really boosted their character into awesomeness. err, sorry that is a no.

Does it mean there maybe a few less players on a given week in the store? Perhaps, and they won't be there to spend the money that they would have on minis, snacks or other items.

Is it practical to say "Hey just GM a scenario or AP". I typically purchase the scenario I prepped for the week in advance and read through it a few times, make notes, look up the encounters I am not familiar with, pick out the minis and possibly print a map before hand. So for me to run a scenario cold isn't my favorite thing to do and when I have done it, it is not as smooth (and probably not as enjoyable) for the players. Since this also doesn't happen very often, it would mean moving at least 4 players from the other tables to have a legal table. For now we will say go home and plan better next time (why didn't you register on the forum loser), sorry you just got the day off work, or dropped in to play that's the rule.

So if you are in Rattlesnake Ridge,UT, Opossum Holler, KY, San Diego, Chicago or Minneapolis why do you care if we sit someone in St Petersburg, FL for no credit (assuming the rule was changed to allow the venue and/or GM to decide)? Will it lessen the enjoyment of your game? Impact your far away store or Paizo in any way? Will it make your character less then he/she was before? It's a game, lighten up and let people have their fun if it has no impact on your enjoyment of the game - I thought that was the purpose...That and trolling the forums, yes, trolling the forums is fun too. Insert maniacal laughter.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why do I care if you do it by the rules for OP? I don't really.

No more than I care if you don't allow someone to take 10 on a knowledge check - or allow someone to run a Vivisectionist or... roll thier HP every time they level or any number of the other rules that are part of PFS.

Want to re-play for no Credit? Not a problem. Want to do it at a table where part of the PCs are getting credit... that just might be against the rules.

Want to play a 25 Point build Catfolk? Sounds great to me! Please don't do it at a table with people trying to play a PFSOP game...

It does create a problem when someone from one of your games comes and playes with us - and we have to say...

"sorry - you can't do that here. It's against the rules...."

It gets worse when you discover that the guy playing the 25 pt. 7th level character, with half a million GP of equipment, that he created last night... bumped you best friend from the game by signing up early. And you don't discover the issues until 30 minutes into the game - after your friend went home...

Dark Archive 5/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Hello everyone! I am the aforementioned shop owner from Pennsylvania, famed for my knock-down drag-out defence of replay. In a curious bit of irony, Skaldi the Tallest is actually a player at my store, and mentioned this discussion to me yesterday, (correctly) believing I had been referenced in the discussion.

Drogon, it's not that I can't stand you, it's that I think your arguments too often fall into the trap of "A is true and B is true, so there must be some causal relationship between A and B", not to mention you often come across as believing your store is living proof of the one true way to make everything right with the gaming industry. That said, I have been presently surprised by your open-mindedness to other ways of handling PFS while skimming this thread, even if I still believe the causal conclusions you're drawing are wrong, and despite you continuing to dodge people's points by insisting your (sometimes) false conclusions must be real since the situations they're based on really happened.

So, let me start with some premises:

1) Unfettered replay-for-credit would be bad for Pathfinder Society today.
2) The only good reason to deny someone a seat at a table is to prevent that person from turning other people away.
3) A store sinks or swims based on its ability to give its customers what they want (even if, or perhaps especially if, they don't know what they want).

In 2010 when there were around 50 scenarios, and APs and modules had yet to be sanctioned for play, replay-for-credit was a necessary system. There simply weren't enough scenarios back then. That said, I was new to organizing roleplaying games at the time, and my ignorance had worsened my problems. It simply never occurred to me to publish a schedule ahead of time or to offer advance sign-ups, and once you get people used to just showing up, it's tough to retrain them. When replay ended, PFS ended in the city of Philadelphia, the combined result of my short-sighted scheduling and the premature ending of a policy that could have been phased out as scenario supply strengthened. After a year of running a homebrew replacement for PFS, we decided to give PFS another shot, this time with a better organizational system and we've been doing well with it ever since.

However, even Warhorn isn't a perfect solution. Sometimes people sign up early and forget to drop themselves when they realize they have a scheduling conflict. Sometimes new customers show up out of the blue because somebody told them when we play PFS but failed to tell them they needed to sign-up in advance. Normally the scheduled tables go off without a hitch regardless, but sometimes things need to be switched around at the last minute to accommodate everyone. It's just the nature of the beast. Even when the schedule works out as expected, I know there are people who wanted to play and had the time, but didn't sign up because there wasn't anything on the schedule they hadn't already played. I try to let my customers know that they can request scenarios for the schedule and if they give me at least a week's notice I can add to the schedule to try to accommodate them, but scheduling math is actually really messy when you want to keep everyone happy.

Drogon, it sounds to me like you don't suffer from these problems because you've created a false scarcity in available seats by not having a big enough play area to meet the demand in your area. You're leaving money on the table because every customer you disappoint is that much more likely to vote elsewhere with his or her dollars. You're probably right that the new customer is likely to spend more, but which customer spends more is irrelevant. Why aren't you ensuring that you can seat them all? Nothing is more infuriating to me than selling out an event. It means I wasn't prepared for my customers' needs. You're solving scheduling problems by ignoring the bigger problem of not having enough space. I think you'll find that scheduling is messier when you have the space to meet demand, and that the concerns of people with more seats than bodies aren't going to be solved by "running a tight ship". You're inevitably going to be sending people home, or at the very least pointing them elsewhere, which is still disappointing when they have their hearts set on PFS (even if they end up enjoying whatever other activity you steer them toward).

None of this is an argument for replay-for-credit, but it's definitely a plea for options. 99% of the time I'm able to switch people to different tables, or switch one of the scenarios being run, to make sure that everyone can play. But every now and then someone offers to replay for no credit and it ends up being the best solution. Until last night I thought that was fine since the guide appeared to say so, and I'm a little disheartened to hear that it isn't. It's never anybody's first choice of solution. Everybody would rather play something they've never played before, and they'd rather get credit for playing, but sometimes the choice comes down to 1) somebody hurriedly reading through a scenario they weren't prepared to run, or 2) somebody replaying for no credit. For all the risk that somebody replaying might ruin a game for everyone else, it's almost guaranteed to be a bad game when the GM just rushed through a reading without doing real prep. This situation is rare, but it happens, and it should be facilitated.

I don't want unfettered replay, as I agree that part of what contributed to LFR's downfall was how bored everybody got with playing the same scenarios over and over again, but I don't think having the tools necessary to make all of my customers happy is too much to ask. Mike, if Paizo doesn't believe higher scenario output is possible (Drogon is right here, by the way, three per month is the magic number), please at least give us the tools to solve scheduling issues. Ever so occasionally, somebody replaying for no credit really is the best option. My store seats over 100, and we've run over 700 tables of PFS, so I hope my data can be taken as seriously as Drogon's.

Scarab Sages 4/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—St. Petersburg aka Stetrix

nosig wrote:
... that just might me against the rules.

You may have missed For now we will say go home Because it is the rule. Hint: I'd like the rule to change.

And I see your clear point that having someone sit and play for no credit is the same as playing a Vivisectionist or 25 Point build Catfolk - as opposed to burning a GM star and replaying or GMing the scenario 1st then playing as a player legally. Clearly excellent apples to apples examples related to the topic at hand. Thanks for that.

Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

Stetrix wrote:
Does it impact you?

Yes. As I have pointed out several times, if this becomes a written rule it is one I will have to follow. There is no "judgment" that is okay to the general playing public. Yes, some will be fine with the idea of me saying, "Not in my store," but others will want the rules to be followed to the letter. If I don't follow them that will negatively impace my game days, and we will be having this conversation again.

Right now I can point at the rule and say, "No, you cannot replay, even for no credit, unless you are the fourth man at a table." And I have maintained that for years, by the way, despite insistence from others on these boards to the contrary. And I do get asked on occasion. If I have to change that to, "Not in games I coordinate," do you really think that will be a positive for me?

Stetrix wrote:
Does it give the player an advantage?

Yes. It allows them to take a seat without having to be concerned about what is on the schedule. That advantage is taken against the player who is slower, or only just nosing into the world of OrgPlay. When that seat is occupied, the player who is slower or new won't get that seat.

Stetrix wrote:
Does it mean there maybe a few less players on a given week in the store?

Not if you are scheduling properly. And "scheduling properly" can be an RSVP system like Denver, or a loose muster system like St. Louis. Either one works, as has been proven, to seat any and all players who show up for the game days.

Stetrix wrote:
Is it practical to say "Hey just GM a scenario or AP".

No. That statement tends to get made as the "solve" for a lot of problems, and I will never agree with it. Some people don't want to, or flat out can't, and they should not be forced.

But, do you want to play PFS as much as 6 times per month for credit and never once GM?

Here's how. Just discard the points in the schedule where you would GM (thus being able to play PFS for credit more than 8 times per month, on average)

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

nosig wrote:
No more than I care if you don't allow someone to take 10 on a knowledge check - or allow someone to run a Vivisectionist or... roll thier HP every time they level or any number of the other rules that are part of PFS.

This isn't the same. People are asking for a rules change, which isn' remotely the same as cheating. The rules for organized play are set by people, not an inviolable law of the universe. If people change their mind on it, then its not cheating.

Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

Benn, a few things, in no particular order:

I don't care who spends more money in my store. I like all of my customers, and I'm pretty sure I have a reputation for treating people fairly no matter their financial standing, or how long they've played whatever game they are playing. I will point at more money here vs. there only when others are trying to use that against my position.

If I suffer from an "artificial" limit of play space, it is merely due to the size of the store. I seat four tables during game day slots, and run other events in the remaining space. My store is constantly full of players for various games (or merely by coffee shop customers doing homework/day jobs/dates/whatever). There is no such thing as infinite space within a game store, as I'm sure you know (although I envy you if you can seat 100 RPG players - that's an incredible amount of game space). But, if all 350 registered players (that I am aware of) in my area showed up in my store for a game day I would violate my occupancy limit three-fold if I tried to seat them all. That isn't really an option. As you have discovered, an RSVP system avoids that kind of problem.

Last, I always try very hard to present my store as "my store." Walter has his proof. nosig has his proof. You have yours. We all have the ability to show what works and what does not. I am not saying "my way is the only way." Instead I am saying "If how I'm suggesting you do things won't work, why did it work so successfully for me?"

PS - It's been nice to watch you succeed after your earlier troubles. I'm glad that worked out for you.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Global Organized Play Coordinator

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Stetrix wrote:

Why do people care 100s or 1000s of miles away from where we play if we sit a player for no credit (venue or GM 's choice). This isn't a convention, your store or home.

Does it impact you? Only if you really really want to make someone else you will probably never meet do what you want. So perhaps that is a yes for some and no for most.

Does it give the player an advantage? Yes, that +0 nothing of nothingness, 0 Prestige, 0 Gold, 0 Experience and loss of any resources used really boosted their character into awesomeness. err, sorry that is a no.

Does it mean there maybe a few less players on a given week in the store? Perhaps, and they won't be there to spend the money that they would have on minis, snacks or other items.

Is it practical to say "Hey just GM a scenario or AP". I typically purchase the scenario I prepped for the week in advance and read through it a few times, make notes, look up the encounters I am not familiar with, pick out the minis and possibly print a map before hand. So for me to run a scenario cold isn't my favorite thing to do and when I have done it, it is not as smooth (and probably not as enjoyable) for the players. Since this also doesn't happen very often, it would mean moving at least 4 players from the other tables to have a legal table. For now we will say go home and plan better next time (why didn't you register on the forum loser), sorry you just got the day off work, or dropped in to play that's the rule.

So if you are in Rattlesnake Ridge,UT, Opossum Holler, KY, San Diego, Chicago or Minneapolis why do you care if we sit someone in St Petersburg, FL for no credit (assuming the rule was changed to allow the venue and/or GM to decide)? Will it lessen the enjoyment of your game? Impact your far away store or Paizo in any way? Will it make your character less then he/she was before? It's a game, lighten up and let people have their fun if it has no impact on your enjoyment of the game - I thought that was the purpose...That...

Because that player may then chose to go to Megacon or Dragon Con or Gen Con or some other con. When they show up to play for no credit and the GM or the VO or the coordinator refuses to sit them to replay for no credit, that player them takes it out on the GM or the VO or the coordinator, whether that be yelling or cursing or sulking or whatever. And it isn't fair for that GM or VO or coordinator to have to deal with it since you decided to let the player ignore the rules that are set in place for the campaign.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Global Organized Play Coordinator

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Benn Roe wrote:
Ever so occasionally, somebody replaying for no credit really is the best option. My store seats over 100, and we've run over 700 tables of PFS, so I hope my data can be taken as seriously as Drogon's.

If it was ever so occasionally, I might have considered it. Just like seven player tables are supposed to be the exception and a rare occurrence. However, we now have people who are showing up four or five times a week and replaying for no credit almost every time. There is a huge gap between ever so occasionally and almost every time.

PFS was designed for play two times a month. It has been confirmed that way since Season 1 in Guide 2.1. The language in that Guide, on page 18, was unambiguous and we may go back to it. It reads:

Scenarios May Only Be Played Once You may only play a Pathfinder Society Organized Play adventure scenario once. This means that once you have played a scenario, you may never play that scenario again with any future characters. The only exception to this rule is using a pregenerated character to replay a scenario in order to make a legal table.

GMs were then allowed to receive credit so that the most active participants could choose to receive credit and participate in PFS four times a month. Then, there was an outcry that people didn't want to GM, but they did want to play more than twice a month, so we added sanctioning of modules and APs. To make those easier, we allowed for people to forego campaign rules and use home play for the, so they could be adjudicated easier. Now people can participate up to 8 times a month and never run out of things to receive credit for as long as people take the responsibility to plan schedules out.

I am not opening up play for unlimited replay with no credit. It isn't currently scheduled to happen and it isn't planned to be changed in the foreseeable future. We discussed it at a meeting in house yesterday and everyone in that meeting was in agreement. Do we recognize the need to add 1 or 2 more scenarios a month so we can up the opportunities to participate from 8 to 9 or 10? Sure we do. Are we able to go to 3 or 4 scenarios a month at this time? No.

The Exchange 5/5

Stetrix wrote:
nosig wrote:
... that just might me against the rules.

You may have missed For now we will say go home Because it is the rule. Hint: I'd like the rule to change.

And I see your clear point that having someone sit and play for no credit is the same as playing a Vivisectionist or 25 Point build Catfolk - as opposed to burning a GM star and replaying or GMing the scenario 1st then playing as a player legally. Clearly excellent apples to apples examples related to the topic at hand. Thanks for that.

And my point is - have everyone play something they haven't.

Rather than having the schedule set the available players, find some way to have the available players set the schedule. We (all of PFS) do this now to a limited extent. Everyone says something like "Normally the scheduled tables go off without a hitch regardless, but sometimes things need to be switched around at the last minute to accommodate everyone. (- Benn Roe above)"... so, when you have someone who can't play - "things need to be switched around at the last minute to accommodate everyone".

I know this works. I see it work in my home town every week. Everyone (almost) who shows up, plays. Every time.

251 to 300 of 369 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Replaying Scenarios (without stars) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.