|
After having run it 4 times, there's really only one time I can think of a character's 13th level ability just straight up wrecking a fight that should've been a serious problem.** spoiler omitted **
|
|
Plus, we can speculate over how close Josh was to leaving Paizo when he wrote Part 3.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the idea of the 'First Steps' version for being a Seeker would be especially interesting and would give a much more genuine figure on if it was worth Paizo investing in further 12+ content.
I really like this idea.
"Congrats, you've been promoted to Seeker. Here's your new responsibilities within the Society. Go out and do Seeker specific stuff" (not high-level PC stuff, but *Seeker* stuff)
|
So I know for myself, I would love more seeker stuff. But in the same respect, I have been in Society a long time as well and my PC spread is a little all over the place.
I have a 16th (Charlotte the Dragon Destroyer & Dawnmother of Nerosyan), 12th (Lady Ophelia of Absalom), and two 11ths on slow progression (Sir Elliott & Dame Lucia of Andoran). These PC's I love playing the most. So of course any chance to dust them off and let them have a good time is awesome.
But after that... My next highest PC's are 5th. (Mariposa & Meridia).. So while I am in a bind about playing higher level things, I need more lower/mid tier stuff to get them into the higher tier play. If they survive that long and far.
I think a new arc is needed, but in the priority list, I do not anticipate it happening anytime soon. Thanks to the AP's being chronicled in higher books, and module play adventures like Wardens of The Reborn Forge we have plenty to play, but need more peeps to make happen.
Additional note: I have noticed, that there is a lot of higher tier play, but many times, they are closed groups instead of being open to the general society groups. While I am not hating on this practice, we have to consider, that the people who may play EoTT, may not GM it for others groups once they are done. So that can easily be some of the reasons as to why we can find EoTT players, but NOT GM's to run it.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16
|
They should make chronicle sheets for the adventure that is putting a table of EoT together. They're having a rough go of it on our local message board. Every time they post it reminds me of this thread.If it's any consolation, I can assure you that the 12+ modules are very fun.
Though, there is something to be said about the difficulty in getting a table together for that if your local group does not have a lot of 12's.
Man, I have been trying to make that game happpen for the better part of a year - since my cleric went to 12th at PaizoCon 2013. The thread you are refering to is only the latest attempt.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've had 13th level character abilities "screw" the scenario up 3 times now. Okay, only one ability. Summon monster VII for a T-Rex in the final encounter.
It may make it trivial, but damn is it ever funny.
To be fair, I was playing for no credit those last two times.
|
I guess it goes to show how different the game is at higher levels.
Yes. IMO, the power vs. level curve is non-linear. Not quite exponential, but the game with level 11 characters is alot more different than a game with level 7 characters, than the same level 7 group is when compared to a level 3 group. I refer to this phenomena as 'synercheese'.
|
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eyes of the Ten is arbitrarily difficult to make a table for, and has become more difficult since Mike Brock took over. Characters have to be at exactly 33XP, and there is no more option to wipe any overage.
So, when a group is aiming for Eyes, what apparently happens is that the first few members make 12th, but it's super-hard for the rest to get there, because they no longer have Tier 10-11 tablemates. This means that the Eyes table has to wait for a new crop of Tier 10-11 characters in order to make the tables which get the Eyes players to exactly 12th.
This was a lot easier when we could use modules to rocket a whole group to 12th, no matter how far the members were into 11th level. But for some unknown reason, we can't do that.
What this means is that if Eyes has very low play numbers, all that proves is how difficult it is to make an Eyes group happen.
-Matt
It was changed because people gaming the system so they could start EoT at 12.2, and then finish part 1 at 13.1 so they could enter part 4 at 14th level. So, yes, I made the decision that characters have to be exactly at 33 XP to start EoT (and I guess arbitrarily made it more difficult in your eyes). Cheaters gonna cheat, people gonna game the system, blah blah blah, but at least they aren't going to game the system to where they're playing a 12th level scenario at 14tn level.
At least now it is not an unknown reason. When I made the ruling, I advised the same exact thing so it hasn't been an unknown reason.
Additionally, part 1 was put there for at least two years before I made any such ruling. And when I made that ruling, it had been reported as run less than 35 times. So, apparently it has been difficult all along to make an Eye group happen, not just specifically because of my ruling as you allude to, since so few games were run in more than two years of available play.
|
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This has been said before, but I really think it's the real heart of the matter.
When I started playing PFS and heard that you could play characters above level 11 at the specials they ran at Gencon, I thought it was a really cool idea, one that I looked forward to. Now, a couple years later, when I finally have worked hard and gotten a character into that range, having that option removed, in spite of it being availabel at previous GenCons, is a let down.
Is it required, or even greatly needed for there to be more seeker level support? Not really. But keeping it in at least one special produced per year is a really cool reward for those players who have worked hard to get to those levels. And those players really are some of Paizo's most die-hard, loyal fans. And while it isn't the only reasons someone might choose to attend GenCon, it certainly can be a very compelling reason to come for someone who is on the fence, or has never attended before. I know that personal, I always spend a good chunk of my disposable income every year to attend GenCon because I'm in several living campaigns that offer content at GenCon that will never be offered anywhere else again.
I am also very well aware of the amount of extra work it requires to prepare high level content. The current Seeker Arc available is a really cool option. Having another Seeker Arc would also be amazing. But cutting out any support for Seeker level characters at CenCon just feels like a big letdown on something that used to be one of the cooler things available in the campaign. Is it really that much to want to have the option of one seeker level tier on the special each year?
So where should we draw the line? If we added a tier 12-15 for Gen Con 2015, won't we get the same argument from people who have characters that are 16+. And then if we add a tier 16-18, won't some of the "most die-hard, loyal fans" who have characters at either level 19 or 20 feel left out? With the argument you've presented, we are always going to leave someone out of receiving a "really cool reward" unless we have a special written for levels 1-20.
And if we include material all Seekers can play, now we've added three additional tiers. I guess we could do that but personally, I don't think it is worth it to have only two new normal scenarios since we would have to devote the available sources to developing three additional tiers to a special instead of a third new scenario. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe people do want that, but I have a suspicion It is a very, very low percentage of the player base.
Publisher, Chief Creative Officer
|
When I went to Gen Con I spent my time mostly volunteering for Gen Con I remember the RPGA Living Greyhawk days, there was a special series of modules that needed to be completed so that you could get a Holy Avenger. There were people who went to conventions for no other reason than to do those modules.
Ummm…
I have one of those Living City holy swords.
So does Jason Bulmahn.
Come to think of it, I think Mike Brock might have one, too. :)
|
So where should we draw the line? If we added a tier 12-15 for Gen Con 2015, won't we get the same argument from people who have characters that are 16+. And then if we add a tier 16-18, won't some of the "most die-hard, loyal fans" who have characters at either level 19 or 20 feel left out? With the argument you've presented, we are always going to leave someone out of receiving a "really cool reward" unless we have a special written for levels 1-20.
And if we include material all Seekers can play, now we've added three additional tiers. I guess we could do that but personally, I don't think it is worth it to have only two new normal scenarios since we would have to devote the available sources to developing three additional tiers to a special instead of a third new scenario. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe people do want that, but I have a suspicion It is a very, very low percentage of the player base.
While I have not been part of PFS long enough to see how all of the year specials have played out, perhaps it might be workable to just mix things up once in a while? I completely understand how designing a tier 1-20 scenario could be a giant pain, both to write and prepare. So instead of trying to include the full range of characters every single year, maybe doing something like:
Year A: special tier 1-7
Year B: special tier 7-12
Year C: special tier 12-20
I would think that at gen con, there would be enough alternate games taking place that most everyone would still find a table to play their available characters at, yeah?
|
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
Thanks for the thoughts. That won't work unfortunately. All tables in the Sgaamore are devoted to the special. So, if you limit it to only characters of levels 7-12 or 12-20, there is nothing for a vast majority of the playerbase to play. Also, the highest pregens we have are level 7 so people wouldn't even be able to participate in the 12-20. Count how many people on this thread and every other thread of similar topics are asking for that high of a level of content and then compare that number to the 65,000+ playerbase. It isn't even 1/2 of one percent. Even with the amount of people who show up to play the special at both Gen Con and PaizoCon, we had less than 30 tables of tier 7+ last year out of 184 tables combined at both shows.
With the Thursday night special this year, we are offering tier 3-7 only. But for the "big" special, to eliminate a large majority of the player base from playing their own character is a very bad idea.
|
|
Thanks for the thoughts. That won't work unfortunately. All tables in the Sgaamore are devoted to the special. So, if you limit it to only characters of levels 7-12 or 12-20, there is nothing for a vast majority of the playerbase to play. Also, the highest pregens we have are level 7 so people wouldn't even be able to participate in the 12-20. Count how many people on this thread and every other thread of similar topics are asking for that high of a level of content and then compare that number to the 65,000+ playerbase. It isn't even 1/2 of one percent. Even with the amount of people who show up to play the special at both Gen Con and PaizoCon, we had less than 30 tables of tier 7+ last year out of 184 tables combined at both shows.
With the Thursday night special this year, we are offering tier 3-7 only. But for the "big" special, to eliminate a large majority of the player base from playing their own character is a very bad idea.
Thank you for conversing plainly on the topic.
I can understand why that would present a difficulty then. At the end of the day, your decision to open up APs for us really helps out those of us wanting to continue on into 12+ territory. So in that sense, we are covered petty well in my opinion. It would be very cool to get a storyline tied scenario thrown out to seekers from time to time, though.
Perhaps then we might consider keeping the "big" special in the most played ranged, while occasionally offering a related side event for seekers? I understand how that can be difficult to balance in terms of man hours + costs =\= the amount of play those efforts would see, but I am also confident there are those within this community who you could draw upon to help make that a possibility while remaining within a realistic budget of time and money?
|
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
So where should we draw the line? If we added a tier 12-15 for Gen Con 2015, won't we get the same argument from people who have characters that are 16+. And then if we add a tier 16-18, won't some of the "most die-hard, loyal fans" who have characters at either level 19 or 20 feel left out? With the argument you've...I have some trouble buying this arguement, given that the previous two gencons have sucessfully had tier 12+. I understand that high level encounter design is very time consuming, but I've heard a ton of cool stories about the 12+ tiers at previous GenCon specials. You have sucessfuly designed one adventure per year with content for higher level seeker PCs.
And given the choice, I would completely prefer that resources for GenCon be spent on the GenCon exclusive content over release 1 more new scenario at the convention. I'm spending money to come to a convention, but I can play the new scenario later at home if you don't release it at GenCon. And I very much doubt that this sentiment is uncommon amongst PFS players who attend GenCon.
Fine, you have some trouble buying the first half of the argument, even though we have evidence to the contrary that no matter how much we give people, they are always going to want more for their character. Now let's address the second half.
Count how many people on this thread and every other thread of similar topics are asking for that high of a level of content and then compare that number to the 65,000+ playerbase. It isn't even 1/2 of one percent. Even with the amount of people who show up to play the special at both Gen Con and PaizoCon, we had less than 30 tables of tier 7+ last year out of 184 tables combined at both shows.
You would prefer one less scenario. The majority of the playerbase would not. That's a fact.
|
|
To me it seems dropping the special from 1-15 to 1-11 seems a arbitrary decision. Can you really tell me that creating 1 tier higher is that much more difficult than tier 10-11. And can your really tell me there were that many fewer seeker tables then tier 10-11 tables at specials? I don't buy it. At the 5 conventions I have been at over the past year I only count 1 extra 10-11 than seeker tables.
Having specials go to tier 15 seems like a thanks to long term players who have character they can't use that often anymore.
|
|
At least now it is not an unknown reason. When I made the ruling, I advised the same exact thing so it hasn't been an unknown reason.
I see. That explains the leap from no XP-fall-off to exactly-33, but it doesn't explain the change from "XP beyond 33 fall off, along with the matching amount of gold" to the current "exactly 33" rule. Why was that change made?
Count how many people on this thread and every other thread of similar topics are asking for that high of a level of content and then compare that number to the 65,000+ playerbase. It isn't even 1/2 of one percent. Even with the amount of people who show up to play the special at both Gen Con and PaizoCon, we had less than 30 tables of tier 7+ last year out of 184 tables combined at both shows.
You would prefer one less scenario. The majority of the playerbase would not. That's a fact.
On this note, I am now wondering... if the goal is maximum accessibility, why is Tier 7-11 still supported?
Anyways, thank you for being clear and open about the future of higher-level play, instead of using "maybe" and "perhaps."
-Matt
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On this note, I am now wondering... if the goal is maximum accessibility, why is Tier 7-11 still supported?
I'm willing to bet that yanking high level support has been (and may still be) on the table. You should probably be careful with these kinds of observations. (-;
On a (slightly) more serious note: it has been said by PFS developers in the past that once characters begin to hit 12th level and above the power curve gets much more steep. This is backed up by looking at APs and Modules that are written for that level, as well - there seems to be far less "fluff" in products of that level range and far more crunch (stat blocks, mostly).
It has also been said in the past that, due to that change in the power curve, accounting for an "average" party become significantly more difficult. At lower levels the "wiggle room" an average party has is a lot narrower, so a standard encounter handles more tables more efficiently (creating fewer fringe tables, "fringe" defined as too dangerous or too easy). Once PCs hit 12th level that wiggle room becomes much wider, and "fringe" tables become far more likely. Seeing as the end result is more people with a bad playing experience, more development/writing time needs to be devoted to these levels, making them harder to implement and far less effective.
So, with those arguments in mind, devoting fewer resources to that demographic of players (which, you have to admit from seeing numbers that Eric, Mike, and Vic have all given us in the past, is very small) seems ill-advised.
Having said all that, I'm on board with something someone said above: one adventure per calendar year for 12th level or higher seems appropriate. I would expand on that and say that if it replaces a Tier 7-11 on the schedule I think this is a workable solution.
|
|
To me it seems dropping the special from 1-15 to 1-11 seems a arbitrary decision. Can you really tell me that creating 1 tier higher is that much more difficult than tier 10-11. And can your really tell me there were that many fewer seeker tables then tier 10-11 tables at specials? I don't buy it. At the 5 conventions I have been at over the past year I only count 1 extra 10-11 than seeker tables.
Actually, yes I can, having been a part of...3 Siege of the Diamond City tables, 2 Race for the Runecarved Key tables, a Year of the Shadow Lodge, and one Blood Under Absalom table. (Of course, the last two don't count much since they were 1-11.) If I can see the disparity with that much, how well can the Campaign Coordinator see it after who knows how many specials?
|
|
Going back to EoTT I can see the issues. Honestly, it needs to be phased out. It's clunky to get into and organize (it can take months). And story wise it's just plain outdated. It's likely that there will eventually be 12th level seekers out there who have never heard of the Shadow Lodge. There needs to be a new arc, preferably one that can fit all into one module.
But then again...I guess 5 star GM's need something to blow all five of their replay stars on..
|
|
Going back to EoTT I can see the issues. Honestly, it needs to be phased out. It's clunky to get into and organize (it can take months). And story wise it's just plain outdated. It's likely that there will eventually be 12th level seekers out there who have never heard of the Shadow Lodge.
Unsure if spoiler or common knowledge...
Please err on the side of caution and use a tag.
|
|
I would love to see special support for level 12+ but I don't mind if it's not every year. If it's not to much trouble every 3rd year might be cool, hopefully you can set it up when you have a year that gives you the extra time to plan ahead for that.
I am just glad I will get to play (or in this case run) the specials. Most players have characters in that range, including most with 12+ characters I imagine. They do have support for 12+ with modules and APs so nothing is stopping you from going all the way to 19.2 in PFS.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A single 12+ - accessible thing per year seems reasonable to me - BUT - I do not have the data that John and Mike (and the rest of the Paizo staff) have at their fingertips. The more important thing is the health of the campaign as a whole.
Funny idea - what about removing the replay restriction on modules with a starting level of 13+ ? This would allow players who get characters past EoTT or Ruby Phoenix or whatever to always be able to play "for credit" as Seekers, even if it's not in scenario-format (and removes "there isn't enough to play 12+" as a complaint against the current system).
Just throwing that out there (expecting it to get shot down) - While I'd love to see more for 12+, I'd rather see the local *and* global player base continue to grow and thrive, even if it means I end up with multiple characters hovering at the 12-14 area over the next few years (with "only" modules to play).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Count how many people on this thread and every other thread of similar topics are asking for that high of a level of content and then compare that number to the 65,000+ playerbase. It isn't even 1/2 of one percent.
Mike, I have never (before) made any post asking for higher level content - despite having two level 12+ characters and three more 9+. I can think of at least 16 (I took the time to think of the names) other active PFS players who have finished EotT that I've never seen post anything similar. I ask this with no snark and in all seriousness: do you want us to post asking for more high-level content?
I - and those I have discussed this with - trust in the PFS leadership to use their session reporting data to make the decisions best for the campaign. Most of us would love Seeker content (I personally would prefer a sequel to EotT for 12th levels over a few 3-7 scenarios) but are not agitating for it. We will continue to play, GM, and enjoy scenarios at whatever level we can get. We understand and accept that what we want is not what might be best for PFS as a whole but that does not mean we do not want it.
|
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
Count how many people on this thread and every other thread of similar topics are asking for that high of a level of content and then compare that number to the 65,000+ playerbase. It isn't even 1/2 of one percent.Mike, I have never (before) made any post asking for higher level content - despite having two level 12+ characters and three more 9+. I can think of at least 16 (I took the time to think of the names) other active PFS players who have finished EotT that I've never seen post anything similar. I ask this with no snark and in all seriousness: do you want us to post asking for more high-level content?
I - and those I have discussed this with - trust in the PFS leadership to use their session reporting data to make the decisions best for the campaign. Most of us would love Seeker content (I personally would prefer a sequel to EotT for 12th levels over a few 3-7 scenarios) but are not agitating for it. We will continue to play, GM, and enjoy scenarios at whatever level we can get. We understand and accept that what we want is not what might be best for PFS as a whole but that does not mean we do not want it.
The Atlanta region is an exception to the rule with as many times as EoT has been run from start to finish. Heck, we were one of the first two regions to complete all four parts and report them. I suspect, off the top of my head, Atlanta region has run it twice as many times as any other region minimum.
|
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
To me it seems dropping the special from 1-15 to 1-11 seems a arbitrary decision. Can you really tell me that creating 1 tier higher is that much more difficult than tier 10-11. And can your really tell me there were that many fewer seeker tables then tier 10-11 tables at specials? I don't buy it. At the 5 conventions I have been at over the past year I only count 1 extra 10-11 than seeker tables.
Having specials go to tier 15 seems like a thanks to long term players who have character they can't use that often anymore.
Development would have to address exactly how much more time it takes to develop the 12+ tiers. But if memory serves, just adding one extra tier 12+ added 3-4 extra days of work between development and editing. And that is significant since it is almost a full work week.
Yep, I can really tell you that. I'm traveling so don't have exact figures in front of me. Best I can remember, at PaizoCon we had 4 tier 12+ tables and 11 tier 7-11 tables. At Gen Con, we had 6 tier 12+ tables and 24 tier 7-11 tables.
Those figures may be off by a table or two but they are fairly close.
|
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
At least now it is not an unknown reason. When I made the ruling, I advised the same exact thing so it hasn't been an unknown reason.I see. That explains the leap from no XP-fall-off to exactly-33, but it doesn't explain the change from "XP beyond 33 fall off, along with the matching amount of gold" to the current "exactly 33" rule. Why was that change made?
Count how many people on this thread and every other thread of similar topics are asking for that high of a level of content and then compare that number to the 65,000+ playerbase. It isn't even 1/2 of one percent. Even with the amount of people who show up to play the special at both Gen Con and PaizoCon, we had less than 30 tables of tier 7+ last year out of 184 tables combined at both shows.
You would prefer one less scenario. The majority of the playerbase would not. That's a fact.
On this note, I am now wondering... if the goal is maximum accessibility, why is Tier 7-11 still supported?
Anyways, thank you for being clear and open about the future of higher-level play, instead of using "maybe" and "perhaps."
-Matt
XP and gold "falling off" was a clunky and crappy fix to a problem and confused and muddied the waters. It is much easier across the board to advise you have to be at 33 XPs to start EoT. No subtracting gold or XPs. I know that isn't the answer your looking for but that is it and I'm not going to argue about it any further. That is the solution we settled on until we retire the entire series. Future Seeker arcs won't be as problematic as this one has been due to several reasons I'm not going to go into on these public message boards.
|
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A single 12+ - accessible thing per year seems reasonable to me - BUT - I do not have the data that John and Mike (and the rest of the Paizo staff) have at their fingertips. The more important thing is the health of the campaign as a whole.
Funny idea - what about removing the replay restriction on modules with a starting level of 13+ ? This would allow players who get characters past EoTT or Ruby Phoenix or whatever to always be able to play "for credit" as Seekers, even if it's not in scenario-format (and removes "there isn't enough to play 12+" as a complaint against the current system).
Just throwing that out there (expecting it to get shot down) - While I'd love to see more for 12+, I'd rather see the local *and* global player base continue to grow and thrive, even if it means I end up with multiple characters hovering at the 12-14 area over the next few years (with "only" modules to play).
We are not opening unlimited replay any further than it currently is.
|
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
I'm am speculating here, but I suspect that most of the players that have PCs in the 9+ range (and really the 12+ range) at GenCon are the PFS volunteers that are running, not playing, the games.
Not really. The Special has more new or first time GMs since a good many veteran GMs specifically ask for that one slot off so they can play. This includes many VOs.
|
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
...since a good many veteran GMs specifically ask for that one slot off so they can play.I don't understand this concept.
I don't try to read into the reasonings behind requests. But I have at least 20 emails for volunteers this year that have specifically asked for the slot off so they can play and advised they would GM any other 8 slots.
|
|
I don't try to read into the reasonings behind requests. But I have at least 20 emails for volunteers this year that have specifically asked for the slot off so they can play and advised they would GM any other 8 slots....since a good many veteran GMs specifically ask for that one slot off so they can play.I don't understand this concept.
As one of those 20, I can tell you my reasoning: I enjoy GMing but I also enjoy playing occasional scenarios with no prior knowledge.
In addition to GenCon I'll attend two or three regional cons next year (if you consider Dragon*Con regional.) I know at least two of those will be running the Season 5 finale special. The numbers of players vs. potential GMs is different than at GenCon, so I'll end up GMing those two specials. I know GenCon will have the GMs, so I might as well play before I GM and get to experience it unspoiled.
I will be spoiling "The Choices We Make" and "Bonekeep 3" for myself, but I have been heavily invested in the Season 5 storyline and chose to make the Friday night special my one personal playtime.
Edit: now that I'm more awake I'm guessing TOZ was another of those 20.