| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
what's "... the E6/P6 route..."?
E6 is a type of gameplay/set of houserules where you stop at level six and continue to earn feats and rewards rather than more levels. Ideally it avoids issues that occur at higher level play, with casters gaining more world breaking power, more rocket tag, etc.
Venture-Lieutenant, South Dakota—Rapid City
|
Yeah, I have to admit that after a year and a half of organizing PFS play in my area, we are just now hitting the point that we can run 7-11s. I'd still like there to be some high level (7-11) support just because you need awesome, epic PFS scenarios like the Walking Rune out there, but the 12+ area is ok for now. Between several modules, some APs, the new Emerald Spire Superdungeon, and EotT, there's some good stuff to work though and I'm STILL waiting to taste it.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Again, however: I feel like high level play is something that players aspire to. It's one of the reasons players get involved in the game (usually), and needs to be something that is out there for a goal. If it's not there, people will be disappointed. Having goals and aspirations is very important in anyone's life, even if it's just for a game.it's not as common an aspiration as you might think. V Michael Lazar for instance, my spouse, and one of our 5 star GMs, prefers low level play. where you have the risk and drama of high risk gaming without the rocket tag that seems to be a mainstay of high level play. One of our running jokes is at the time he discovered that he'd earned three levels on his Living City character and forgot to apply them.
High level play tends to concentrate on brute power, and it tends to shift emphasis away from roleplaying which can be another factor in why the comfort level tends to drop for some players who find their sweet spot in the middle. It's also why some very good players prefer the E6/P6 route.
The Pathfinder community includes a myriad variety of types and many are looking to get different things at different priorities. Juggling all these varying tastes is the key thing to making those tough marketing decisions where a wrong guess is a very expensive one.
That's why I said "usually." (-;
Happily, those who fit into the "I like low level play" mode fit very easily into the "I want to start new characters" group and the "I need a new character to continue playing" group, etc.
Meaning: low level play is easy to support. And incredibly important. So important, I think, that I'm actually concerned about Paizo's current lineup of 1st level modules (not PFS, but Paizo Publishing). Dragon's Demand, Thornkeep, Murder's Mark, and a couple of AP volumes are all that are currently available without trying to hunt down rarities. That's bad.
I would say that it defers them. Eventually you get to a point where the sheer number of feats can bring it's own problems.what's "... the E6/P6 route..."?E6 is a type of gameplay/set of houserules where you stop at level six and continue to earn feats and rewards rather than more levels. Ideally it avoids issues that occur at higher level play, with casters gaining more world breaking power, more rocket tag, etc.
Didn't say its perfect, just pointing to where and what it is. Ideally, you raise the effective APL overtime to increase the difficulty, and you make some changes to feats. E6 may not be for everyone, but it is something some people prefer, just as some people prefer savage worlds or Legend.
There's also an E8.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, a year later, there is a new post by Mike Brock in another thread wherein he states that the total reporting is still under 100 for Part One.
Hmm, I've done 5 and played 1, so that's like 6%! woo!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the issue with Eyes of the 10 is it’s hard to get the same players and a GM scheduled to play for 24 to 28 hours worth of time slots. They have to be played in order and that’s an issue with scheduling them.
If it was approached maybe there were 3 different level 12 tier scenarios that could be played in any order and then 1 final tier 13 that could only be played after the level 12’s were played I think you would get a lot more people playing them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the issue with Eyes of the 10 is it’s hard to get the same players and a GM scheduled to play for 24 to 28 hours worth of time slots. They have to be played in order and that’s an issue with scheduling them.
If it was approached maybe there were 3 different level 12 tier scenarios that could be played in any order and then 1 final tier 13 that could only be played after the level 12’s were played I think you would get a lot more people playing them.
Module play is harder to schedule during game days because they don't fit within the normal 5 hour time slot, and it's difficult to guarantee a consistent turn out. As a result, they're basically delegated to PFS home games. EotT has the same problem because it's a 4 part scenario and nobody wants to miss one of the parts.
The reason why there isn't a lot of high level play is because the campaign isn't producing high level scenarios that are easy to schedule. And because there's no high level content that is easy to schedule, the 12+ content gets played less, giving the illusion that there is no demand. It's a vicious cycle.
The demand is made invisible by the lack of supply, and by the reliance of the reporting tool as a metric of what people want to play.
Would the campaign consider producing a 5 hour seeker scenario as a test?
----
Edit:
It's hard to argue with the number of high level tables at GenCon.
How many high level tables were at Paizo con?
Edit 2:
I should clarify that I don't think there's more demand for 12+ scenarios than, say 1-5, 3-7, 5-9
|
Chevrolet doesn't make the Corvette to sell Corvettes, they make the Corvette to sell the Impala and the Silverado.From a business stand point like Drogon said above, and draw it to an economic angle, it does not make financial sense to sink more resources into one percent of your market. You have X number of resources, the more you put into that 1 percent of the market, the less you have to satisfy the 99 other percent.
Until that percentage go to about 15 percent, I dont think Id pay much attention to that total.
As an automotive company, GM's hey day was 40 years ago. Inferring any company should follow their business practices is misguided, at best.
|
|
what's "... the E6/P6 route..."?E6 is a type of gameplay/set of houserules where you stop at level six and continue to earn feats and rewards rather than more levels. Ideally it avoids issues that occur at higher level play, with casters gaining more world breaking power, more rocket tag, etc.wow... I like this! I like it alot... got to read more on this.
THanks!
ditto!
|
Now, a year later, there is a new post by Mike Brock in another thread wherein he states that the total reporting is still under 100 for Part One. There are 50,000+ players actively playing PFS. If only 500-700 of them have played through Part One (let alone Parts 2 through 4) the percentage of Seeker play is tiny. Assuming 700 have played it (the maximum) and assuming 50,000 players (the minimum, I think) that means that 1.4% of play is Seeker.
So, it turns out I'm (mostly) right. I can breath easily again. (-:
I hope I don't tighten your chest again by pointing out that Eyes is not the only way to get to and play Seeker level content. :) We'd need reporting data for those modules that include 12th level in their range.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope I don't tighten your chest again by pointing out that Eyes is not the only way to get to and play Seeker level content. :) We'd need reporting data for those modules that include 12th level in their range.Now, a year later, there is a new post by Mike Brock in another thread wherein he states that the total reporting is still under 100 for Part One. There are 50,000+ players actively playing PFS. If only 500-700 of them have played through Part One (let alone Parts 2 through 4) the percentage of Seeker play is tiny. Assuming 700 have played it (the maximum) and assuming 50,000 players (the minimum, I think) that means that 1.4% of play is Seeker.
So, it turns out I'm (mostly) right. I can breath easily again. (-:
Not at all. I completely agree with that position: everything should be reported, all the time. That data is incredibly important to Paizo, and not giving it to them is a huge failing on the part of organizers, players, and GMs who want more content.
Of course, you're likely pointing out that the number is higher than 1.4% if you account for AP and module play. You're likely right, except that the AP and module play will also broaden the number of reported/unreported games. I think the spread that Mike pointed out is still mostly intact.
Play and report more to prove him wrong, everyone. Then you'll see more content for what you like.
|
Well let's see..
I personally have a 12th, 11th (x2), 10th,9th, 7th (2), 6th, 4th (x2), 3rd (x2) and a couple 1st (credit babies for later)
I know that here in Jax we have an Eyes of the Ten group going on, three of us VOs had been holding our seeker candidates for one specific group (which doesn't look to gell in so.. I don't know if my 12th will ever make it) and two MORE groups rapidly closing in on 12th.
So, by September we could (Potentially) look at 3 EOTT groups and I believe James said there was a home group of high level players in the area who only do Cons.
Also, I can't recall the number of times I've heard 'I can't way to play my 10th+ PC in <insert special/interactive/whatever at <suchnsuch Con>'. I know I WAS looking forward to doing that next year @ Megacon.
|
|
Happily (or sadly), I guess I'm with the few folks who play higher level stuff on a semi-regular basis.
Since the beginning of the year I've GM'd:
Ruby Phoenix (L10-12)
Academy of Secrets (L12-14)
Siege of the Diamond City (L12-13)
And plan to GM:
Ruby Phoenix (again)
TBD Sanctioned AP for L13-15
Since the beginning of the year I've played:
Skull and Shackles parts 4, 5 & 6 (campaign mode, L10+)
Academy of Secrets (L14 Monk)
Siege of the Diamond City (L15 Oracle)
Tomb of the Iron Medusa (L15 Oracle)
And hope to play:
TBD Sanctioned AP/mod for L14-16
TBD Sanctioned AP/mod for L15-17
Our FLGS routinely has a 7-11 table every week, ran EoTT in the spring, will run it again in June and hopefully once more in the fall.
Among the other reasons already mentioned for the pyramid-shape of players (scheduling, numbers, casual player drop out) is also the case that you may make a character, level them up to 4-7 and then realize you don't really like how they play. If you're lucky, you can salvage the character with PP and a rebuild, if not, you've burnt scenarios on a lost cause and will have to start again on another character, meaning you consume twice as many lower level scenarios as you do high level scenarios.
However, as an avid MMO player, I know playing high tier PFS is comparable to being a hardcore raider--you are a very small (but invested) percent of the entire player population and you should not expect the Devs to cater to you.
|
|
...
If it was approached maybe there were 3 different level 12 tier scenarios that could be played in any order and then 1 final tier 13 that could only be played after the level 12’s were played I think you would get a lot more people playing them.
I like this suggestion. Seeker Steps anyone? Maybe even available for replay in the way First Steps was (just a thought, no actual delving into that idea yet :). Give it to the most trusted authors who need the least amount of developing and limit the 90% of critters to already existing art.
EoT for one of our groups took nearly three months to complete, they mostly met on the regular game day, but added a few home games as well. People just could not get that many games with the same people together at the same time.
Keep in mind I have been playing since season two and my highest character is only level 9. My experience is not representative. :)
|
|
What’s crazy about this only being reported 100 times is I know of 6 instances in Nor Cal that this has been run within the last year and 2 more scheduled later this year. Jerry C. ran it for a South Bay Group, David L. ran it for a east bay group, Stephen K. ran it for a SF group, Will J. ran it for a Sacramento group, and Eric B. is running it for a Sacramento group and it was also run at Black Diamond games in Concord a few months back.
It’s on the schedule to be run at Endgame in Oakland later this year and another South Bay group is putting together a team to play it.
|
|
1% of the total games played in PFS are Tier 7-11.Under normal circumstances I would agree. However, go to the specials and look at how many 7-11 tables there are. Look at the Seeker tables in the specials that allow it.So Let's take every table of every event run at level 12+ (if you remove PaizoCon and Gen Con, you have, at most, 2-4 tables at the largest gaming cons of 150+ tables) What do you think the percentage of the 64,000 playerbase it entails? Let me give you a hint....it's very, Very small.
If the high level of play is there, don't tell us, show us through reporting. It had nothing to do with laziness. It has everything to do with running 5 tables, 30 players (at Gen Con 2013), through content that took 2-3 weeks to develop solely for level 12+ play. Let that sink in for a second. Out of 140 tables we scheduled at Gen Con for seeker tier (12+), we had 5 tables of players. That's it
This is where reporting numbers can be misleading. How many of the 150+ GMs and HQ volunteers at the Gen Con special could have played a level 12+? I could have. How many later played a seeker table at a local convention?
Look at the Eye's of Ten. I've been trying to play Eye's of Ten since GenCon 2012. It's hard to get a group of 5 to 7 people to match their schedules to run EoT over several weeks/weekends. Local small conventions are a good choice in terms of time, but organizers don't want to offer EoT because it will monopolize 6 to 8 of their GMs for most of the convention. Offer it at GenCon and you have very few takers. It would cost $20 to $30 to play EoT at a local small con, but at GenCon that's more like $110 and all the time away from the other great things a GenCon.
The crux of the problem seems to be that the players of our high level PCs are also our main core of GMs. Players have high level PCs, want to play them but are recruited to GM.
|
|
Eyes of the Ten reporting is a terrible way of gauging interest in 12+ play, simply because of all the arbitrary restrictions involved with playing it.
We cannot distinguish whether the Eyes numbers are due to lack of interest or due to the arbitrary restrictions.
To gauge accurately, a 12+ scenario (not module, with its own set of scheduling restrictions) would be needed. Then we would have a clearer picture.
-Matt
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be up for writing a tier 12-16 scenario.
The only problem is that to make it interesting, it really needs to be a double-length scenario. At those levels, there's very little you can do (combat wise) in 4 hours. For the tier 14-15 specials, it took a highly prepared GM and highly prepared players to experience even half of the possible things to do.
So if we want a couple of combats plus great story and NPC interaction and some PC investigation and problem solving, it really needs to be an 8-10 hour scenario.
I think it makes it easier to schedule than Eyes, but still more restrictive than a normal 4 hour romp through the sewers.
|
|
I'd be up for writing a tier 12-16 scenario.
The only problem is that to make it interesting, it really needs to be a double-length scenario. At those levels, there's very little you can do (combat wise) in 4 hours. For the tier 14-15 specials, it took a highly prepared GM and highly prepared players to experience even half of the possible things to do.
So if we want a couple of combats plus great story and NPC interaction and some PC investigation and problem solving, it really needs to be an 8-10 hour scenario.
I think it makes it easier to schedule than Eyes, but still more restrictive than a normal 4 hour romp through the sewers.
Thats why I love online play! Sure, it'd take me 6-8 hours to prep at this level, but you can still run high stuff in 4-5 hours.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **I'd be up for writing a tier 12-16 scenario.Too bad any eligible characters wereprobablykilled in your other scenarios.
5. Find dragon defeated by the rest of the party
6. PROFIT!!
FTFY.
|
|
At those levels, there's very little you can do (combat wise) in 4 hours.If combat length is a problem, this figurative scenario wouldn't have to have more than one fight in it. Or any, if the team feels that one is too many. Just saying.
-Matt
I find that some players who claim they'd enjoy a scenario with zero combat encounters are actually players who push the extreme ends of powergaming and use their professed love of roleplaying as a cover. Scenarios are meant to be designed for the average PFS player/character, not those at the extremes whatever they may be.
/tangent
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **I'd be up for writing a tier 12-16 scenario.Too bad any eligible characters wereprobablykilled in your other scenarios.
Honestly, much like Requiem, scenarios designed specifically for high-level characters should be more focused on intrigue with a side helping of combat. It's a chance to play a character that has a lot of emotional investment and scenarios should draw on that emotion and help players develop their characters even more.
**OR**
Step 1. Encounter a mythical Care Baird.
Step 2. Cry
Step 3. Continue to cry while it drinks your tears.
Step 4. Head to the local tavern and enjoy a beer with the creature.
Step 5. Convince the creature to drink horrible concoctions.
Step 6. Steal creature's loot while it pukes in the corner. (aka PROFIT!)
|
|
Honestly, much like Requiem, scenarios designed specifically for high-level characters should be more focused on intrigue with a side helping of combat. It's a chance to play a character that has a lot of emotional investment and scenarios should draw on that emotion and help players develop their characters even more.
That was basically my point above. That "side helping" can be a single combat, or even a non-required combat. Sweet.
-Matt
|
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Module play is harder to schedule during game days because they don't fit within the normal 5 hour time slot, and it's difficult to guarantee a consistent turn out. As a result, they're basically delegated to PFS home games. EotT has the same problem because it's a 4 part scenario and nobody wants to miss one of the parts.
The reason why there isn't a lot of high level play is because the campaign isn't producing high level scenarios that are easy to schedule. And because there's no high level content that is easy to schedule, the 12+ content gets played less, giving the illusion that there is no demand. It's a vicious cycle.
The demand is made invisible by the lack of supply, and by the reliance of the reporting tool as a metric of what people want to play.
Would the campaign consider producing a 5 hour seeker scenario as a test?
----
Edit:
It's hard to argue with the number of high level tables at GenCon.
How many high level tables were at Paizo con?
Edit 2:
I should clarify that I don't think there's more demand for 12+ scenarios than, say 1-5, 3-7, 5-9
There aren't many adventures for 12+ that could be run in the five hour time slot. One combat can last 60-90 minutes alone.
|
|
There aren't many adventures for 12+ that could be run in the five hour time slot. One combat can last 60-90 minutes alone.
There were plenty of Living Greyhawk scenarios which supported APLs 12-16. It's certainly doable.
And as I mentioned before, such a scenario could have one combat and be an excellent 12+ scenario.
-Matt
|
|
$6 per ticket for five time slots does not equate to $110, not even close.
It would cost $20 to $30 to play EoT at a local small con, but at GenCon that's more like $110 and all the time away from the other great things a GenCon.
I was including the cost of a badge in my estimate.
4-day GenCon badge $70
5 GenCon slots $30
Total $100. error 9%
Local con 4-day badge $25
Local con 5 slots: included
At those levels, there's very little you can do (combat wise) in 4 hours.If combat length is a problem, this figurative scenario wouldn't have to have more than one fight in it. Or any, if the team feels that one is too many. Just saying.
-Matt
I find that some players who claim they'd enjoy a scenario with zero combat encounters are actually players who push the extreme ends of powergaming and use their professed love of roleplaying as a cover. Scenarios are meant to be designed for the average PFS player/character, not those at the extremes whatever they may be.
/tangent
Hmm. Write two scenarios, one with only one combat or even no combats, the other wall to wall fighting. The first is a roleplay scenario that sets up the events of the second, but made such that you could play one without the other.
That way everyone gets something. :)
-j
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be up for writing a tier 12-16 scenario.
The only problem is that to make it interesting, it really needs to be a double-length scenario. At those levels, there's very little you can do (combat wise) in 4 hours. For the tier 14-15 specials, it took a highly prepared GM and highly prepared players to experience even half of the possible things to do.
So if we want a couple of combats plus great story and NPC interaction and some PC investigation and problem solving, it really needs to be an 8-10 hour scenario.
I think it makes it easier to schedule than Eyes, but still more restrictive than a normal 4 hour romp through the sewers.
I find that at this level of play the vast majority of PC investigation needs are solved magically, and in fairly short order. There are of course exceptions though, but overall I agree with your assessment. Trying to cram a high level scenario into a 4-5 hour slot would most likely be doing the author's work and the adventure game play itself a disservice.
If something like this were to be taken into consideration, I personally think it would be excellent to model them around a double-length feature (8-10 hour standard), but leave the XP for completion at 1 point, and with similar gold gain. Keeps the PC progression in pace with other scenarios, and also gives seekers more opportunity to play their favorite characters without "leveling out".