|
Is anyone else having the same problem I am? In the past few weeks it's become harder and harder to find non-core society games. Even games that start out being advertised as standard games are being changed to Core games.
What is even odder, is that at local game nights where there is usually 2 or 3 or more tables being run, I'm now finding a single table playing Core. The last time this happened I asked about it was told they couldn't get any other GMs to volunteer.
I'm wondering if Core is just so much simpler to run, now GMs are reluctant to run more complicated games.
Is anyone else having this problem, or is it just me?
|
|
Apparently I'm just having a run of bad luck. I rarely have time to play more than once a month, but recently had time to play a bit more. I found a number of games that fit into my schedule. A few were core, so I passed on them. There were three game days that fit into my schedule that had standard games planned. Unfortunately, by game day only core games were being played.
Hopefully this was just an anomaly and I'll be back at a gaming table soon.
|
I'd to play Core, mostly because I've created a character for it, but haven't seen any games scheduled around the area for Core. I've seen about 15 games scheduled in my area, all non-core. It wouldn't be so bad except most were ones I have already played. There is a con coming up next month, and it's not core that is pressing 'classic' out, but 'the other game'.
|
|
Interesting Mr. Christian. I play in the Twin Cities. Like I said, I must just be having a run of bad luck finding a table.
You do? I don't recognize your handle or the name you have on your public profile. I only know of a couple core games that have been scheduled so far in our area, and those have been advertised as core on our meetup site.
So any other games that have turned to core have not been advertised as such, which really shouldn't be happening unless all those who have RSVPd for the games have agreed to such.
Which game days has this happened to you?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what you're saying is that there are still two tables worth of players who want to play non-Core, but they can't schedule them because no one will GM? Gosh, that's terrible that Core is allowing your GMs to play, I wonder where in the world you could possibly find, I don't know, two tables worth of people who could step up to GM the games that they themselves want to play in?Is anyone else having the same problem I am? In the past few weeks it's become harder and harder to find non-core society games. Even games that start out being advertised as standard games are being changed to Core games.
What is even odder, is that at local game nights where there is usually 2 or 3 or more tables being run, I'm now finding a single table playing Core. The last time this happened I asked about it was told they couldn't get any other GMs to volunteer.
I'm wondering if Core is just so much simpler to run, now GMs are reluctant to run more complicated games.
Is anyone else having this problem, or is it just me?
So what you are saying is that if you are not interested in GMing then your problems are not important. Shame on you. Not everyone can or should GM.
|
|
So what you are saying is that if you are not interested in GMing then your problems are not important. Shame on you. Not everyone can or should GM.
I don´t think Duifer is saying that. As I don´t thin you are saying those Gms shouuld fe forced to GMing two table of people who wants to play but can´t or aren´t interested on GMing, or are you?
Everyone has his own problems, but this problem, at least 8 people wanting to play, has solution: One or two of them could GM for the rest.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
What's happened here is that the group of people usually playing APs, modules, or home games instead of PFS* during PFS time have started playing core games instead. For us , that's one table out of two or three. The exact same people are showing up for PFS as before, we've just changed the format a bit.
*these people still showed up for PFS, either to play for no credit or GM, which is why they took to doing other Pathfinder gaming instead of PFS most nights. Now that core is an option, we are utilizing that instead.
Your problem sounds more organizational than anything. Are all your regular GMs doing Core? You may need to start cultivating a new batch of GMs for your PFS crowd. While some GMs would prefer Core > Classic for simplicity, with help you can get them started in either campaign. The skills learned transcend the PFS format and are great for participating in any RPG.
|
Still mostly running legacy here, although a few core tables here and there. :)
(We need an official name for non-core games...)
John Compton stated that Paizo has been calling it the "Existing Campaign" last night on the Know Direction podcast, though that's a little clunky. Regular Mode and Pathfinder Society RPG are also mentioned a couple other places on the website.
|
Pathfinder Society Core Mode or Pathfinder Society Normal Mode
We've had about one Core table and one or two Normal tables at our gamedays so far.
|
|
So, your response to "Not everyone is really able to GM." is "They should GM." In a case where presumably the people who would be GMing are the ones essentially using Core to replay a scenario they had done already. Which if I remember is one thing that has been given out as an arguement against replaying. That it creates a cliquish atmosphere that pushes out new players as the same group of grognards repeats the same thing again and again.So what you are saying is that if you are not interested in GMing then your problems are not important. Shame on you. Not everyone can or should GM.I don´t think Duifer is saying that. As I don´t thin you are saying those Gms shouuld fe forced to GMing two table of people who wants to play but can´t or aren´t interested on GMing, or are you?
Everyone has his own problems, but this problem, at least 8 people wanting to play, has solution: One or two of them could GM for the rest.
While I'm sure there are some people that can't dm, I think that pool is rather small. Its really not as hard as people are making it out to be.
|
|
While I'm sure there are some people that can't dm, I think that pool is rather small. Its really not as hard as people are making it out to be.
I agree, but there is an interesting conundrum of having good GMs in an area. The people who might be interested in GMing look at the good GMs and feel they could not live up to the standards set by their example. Convincing them to try anyway can be very difficult because they know the players will be judging them based on the standards set by the good GMs.
I recently had a new player show up at our group from another city that he had recently moved to. We were having GM shortage problems so I asked him if he was interested in GMing any. He responded by saying he didn't feel he had enough experience with PFS to do that yet. I asked how long he had been playing PFS. His response was 2 year. I admit it might be hard for me to relate since I have 40 years of RPG gaming experience under my belt, but I would think 2 years would be more than sufficient experience with PFS to qualify to judge.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I'm sure there are some people that can't dm, I think that pool is rather small. Its really not as hard as people are making it out to be.So, your response to "Not everyone is really able to GM." is "They should GM." In a case where presumably the people who would be GMing are the ones essentially using Core to replay a scenario they had done already. Which if I remember is one thing that has been given out as an arguement against replaying. That it creates a cliquish atmosphere that pushes out new players as the same group of grognards repeats the same thing again and again.So what you are saying is that if you are not interested in GMing then your problems are not important. Shame on you. Not everyone can or should GM.I don´t think Duifer is saying that. As I don´t thin you are saying those Gms shouuld fe forced to GMing two table of people who wants to play but can´t or aren´t interested on GMing, or are you?
Everyone has his own problems, but this problem, at least 8 people wanting to play, has solution: One or two of them could GM for the rest.
While I'm not coming out in favor of either side of this argument, GMing isn't hard to do, but it is hard to do well.
|
|
Not even trying isn't a technique for improvement.
This is a logical argument. However, this is a self-confidence issue and I find that logic and self-confidence are frequently at odds.
If they won't GM how can they believe someone else should?
This one is a little less logical. Just because you don't believe you are qualified to do something doesn't mean you believe other people aren't.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, I'm doing my best not to come out in favor of either side of this debate, mostly because I see good points on both sides, and I realize it's both a complicated and delicate issue, which, no matter how you go, hurts some and helps others.
That said for those suggesting that the players who find themselves without a GM (because the GMs are moving to play or GM CORE) should step up, I can only shake my head a tad. One of the driving forces behind CORE was to provide an easier and simpler game for new players AND new GMs. Having the experienced GMs jump ship for CORE therefore forcing players to become new GMs of normal doesn't make a ton of sense to me. We've got experienced GMs running off to play and GM "simple" mode, forcing new GMs to run "complicated" mode.
|
|
Some people have done it, know they're not good at it and really hate doing it.
Other people are good at it and enjoy it.
Other people are good at it and don't particularly enjoy it but only feel it fair to give back.
There are a lot more than the two categories you've presented.
I enjoy GMing most with brand new players. I get to try to make them excited to come back.
I also enjoy GMing for friends, but I like playing more.
I enjoy GMing least with players who come to the table looking to beat me as the GM and win Pathfinder. I suspect those players will be sticking largely to Normal mode.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And to how you could ask someone else to do it, if you wouldn't yourself.
Some people have a sense of entitlement.
Some would be willing to but know they can't either because the suck at it or don't have enough time to do what they consider a good job.
Many people assume the GM is doing it because he wants to, not because he is doing so out of an obligation to the community. The fact that most GMs enjoy GMing confuses them into not realizing that they would still rather be playing if given the choice.
Some people are really good at making excuses, both to others and themselves. "Sure, I'm willing to GM. But I can't right now because of (insert excuse here)."
And that is just some of the reasons.
|
|
I have yet to see any Core tables in my local scene (4 venues per week, usually 2 tables each) but that is probably because for the most part we don't have many players who have played a large percentage of scenarios, and those that have tend to GM more anyways.
I'm curious to see if it becomes a thing here. I'm willing to play Core but I'm not too concerned which campaign I am in as long as I get to play something.
|
|
I've dedicated one of the three or four tables a week at my larger store to core. we had four players for it last night, the other three tables were full (confirmation, midnight mauler, you only die twice).
my roommate is dedicating one day a month to core for the two tables he gets at his store, but he runs on saturdays.
the smaller store I run only gets one table a week (tuesdays), so I've switched it to core campaign only. there is another small store in seattle just getting started that is running only core games, and I'm working with the coordinator there to not double up on anything as we're dipping into the same player pool.
core is less popular than I anticipated. I'm only seeing the same 6-8 players that seem interested.
|
We'll get more core players as more players run out of things to play, or when newer players want to play just a slim version of Society, so they don't need to absorb a huge amount of rules. Those are the two main categories that we are looking at for core right now. There are of course the players who have plenty left to play in the regular campaign, but want some relaxing "retro" pathfinder too. All in all, as stated above, let things play their course. You'll see people drifting into core games more often as it gets a bit more longevity.
Core Campaign is going to evolve into an amazing introductory course into PFS. New players will get a good grasp of the basic rules and want to play something more exotic. This will bring them into the regular campaign. For those of use who have played a lot of the regular campaign, we'll still have plenty to play for a long time now.
|
|
In my area, there is one core table at the weekly game that usually has 3 tables. Unfortunately, the core game is the only one that is tier 1-5. All of the standard games for the next month are 3-7 or 5-9. There is a bi-weekly game that has non-core mode entry scenarios, but It's a bad time to start a new character.
|
|
In my area, there is one core table at the weekly game that usually has 3 tables. Unfortunately, the core game is the only one that is tier 1-5. All of the standard games for the next month are 3-7 or 5-9. There is a bi-weekly game that has non-core mode entry scenarios, but It's a bad time to start a new character.
Not really, since you can switch a Core mode character to Normal and can rebuild before level 2.
Core up to 3xp, switch to normal. That should cover the next three weeks, at least.