|
Also, as a player, would you just not want to *use* this? If so, then ignore it. Are you concerned from the perspective of a GM (that's what I'm assuming).
Finally, I would think opening this on a trial basis (only for players with X stars or more) would be a good idea earlier, then think about opening it up wider than that if things go smoothly.
Essentially, no. I wouldn't. Again, just my preference, I'd rather not use this.
If, as both a player and a DM, (really no difference), it was between this and no replay at all (for credit) or the very minor GM Star replay we have, I would pick this as it does, or more accurately it might, in a minor way, address some of the main issues I encounter with picking scenarios that everyone can play.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I track my scenarios here and have a hardcopy sheet I can use to travel with here.
You just can't play PFS every week for 3 years and not start to run out of scenarios.Pirate Rob actually proved otherwise.
He is using Modules and APs, since those often take more than 4 hours, and since many venues only have time for 4 hours, not universally viable.
And as BNW pointed out, I only said "start to run out" It doesn't matter if you only have 10 scenarios left, but the rest of the local players have played those 10 scenarios...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tivadar27
If you do a search on replay under PFS forums you can find the many threads that come up about this issue over the years.
I was once a voice for replay and over the years I agree with Drogon reasons.
To make a long story short. Replay today exists in a limited form now that it ever has in the past.
Forms of Legal Replay
1. Level 1 Modules
2. You can play / GM a scenario in the standard Campaign and then in the CORE campaign which effectively give 4 credits for once scenario.
3. Tier 1 only scenario's
4. Use your GM stars to (and have the chronicle sheet marked that a star was used.) replay. 1 Star per scenario.
Yes some of the methods above require you to GM / Contribute to the life of the campaign which I think is a fair trade.
Many of the "veterans" of organized play can tell you about players who have abused this. I have given warnings and booted one player from a game for using knowledge of the scenario that his PC couldn't have known and then shared to players at the table.
The rule of No-Replay exist as a tool to limit the abuse that can happen.
Yes some players are more than capable keeping PC / Player knowledge separate but in this case it is a blanket rule that just helps reduce the headache.
That is my 2 electrum pieces on the subject.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly two? This is a bit of a supposition, I think. I would suggest reading that thread more thoroughly. I can add more to your list, if you like:
And this thread
Finally: a fifth thread
Hopefully that list will add a little more than "exactly two" experiences to my credibility.
In the interest of full disclosure I have sent you to my own post in the second thread, which discusses LFR when it was still a touchy subject for me as a new store owner struggling to survive. I feel it is relevant, however, having been already brought up in the current thread, and considering that the D&D Adventurer's League allows full replay and is suffering many of those same problems in my stores already.
The reason I wanted to resist is because those threads are all a year and a half old, or older. In the intervening 18 months there have been another half dozen (or more) threads that have cropped up on the same topic. I really don't want to get bogged down debating the same thing. Again. Because even if you are convinced and let this thread die (or just walk away pissed because you can't convince me - and you won't convince me) someone else will pick up the replay torch a few months from now, and we'll be running on this same hamster wheel one more time.
Instead, I encourage you to read through those posts, and the one you were directed to by Walter. Look at what Pirate Rob pointed out about the ability to play PFS into perpetuity, even if someone plays four times a month (more? I forget). And realize that since Pirate Rob made that post there has been another season plus worth of scenarios, AP volumes, and modules. And in the same time frame the Core mode has been added, outright DOUBLING the number of games you can play under PFS rules, and apply to Pirate Rob's model.
I find it unfathomable that you are running out of options.
|
Venture-Agent, Ohio—Columbus
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think something to point out here is that people are not looking for unlimited replay, just another option that open things up more. Some places Core is not an option due to lack of other players (and you still need other players and GMs) as its not for them. We should not have to shoehorn people into options that don't work for that group.
I don't think it's going to break the system down if we have GM stars result in more than a single replay without a rare boon to refresh them. Say star times n? Be it a season or say 10. It would get more people interested in GMing where your not like here where we practically battle over who's GMing today. We have locally started to run into the issue of running APs/Modules due to that but have time issues. We usually run weekly + weekend full day once to twice a month.
Or make the refresh boon less rare, I think I saw it offered once.
The request has already been made to open up the AP's that don't have sheets; that gives more things to play.
The more people go we shouldn't have any replay option, the more I go why should I play PFS if I'm going to hit a glass ceiling of gameplay if we play locally? If I can't fill a table because more than just a single person's already played it, I don't have a table to recruit with unless I run the same evergreens again. How does this not run into the same issues?
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
True statement.You're quite able to run an AP/module over multiple sessions at the game store.He is using Modules and APs, since those often take more than 4 hours, and since many venues only have time for 4 hours, not universally viable.
We can't get the same people to reliably show up for three part scenarios three weeks running. I do not want to even try getting them to show up for modules. Yes, I know you can get partial credit for playing part of a module, but then you are pretty much locked out of playing the rest of it forever.
Modules seem to be relegated to cons, home games, and the occasional weekend special session in this area. (With the exception of the goblins mods, and a couple others that can be run in 4 hours.)
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Drogon: I'm basing my statement on a quote from your fifth link....If I took your statement out of context, I apologize, but that was the information, as I read it, from that thread.
You are correct: you have taken my quote out of context.
The line you quoted was in response to the questions, "How do you run 170+ games per year WITHOUT constantly driving off players/doing replay/running non-PFS games?" Much of my inflexibility in that thread is also in response to those questions.
My experience with PFS is now 5 years long, and closing in on 6 years. My experience with replay and how it can sour an OrgPlay group is based on more years of Living Forgotten Realms/D&D Adventurer's League.
To be clear, here is that quote's (updated) context: Even though I have run that many games for that many years through my single location (and am about to double the number of games run by opening a second location) I have only three times seen replay be resorted to as a final option to get a player a seat. I am well over 1000 games coordinated, and am well under a 1% replay rate with my players.
Walter, Darius, Dragnmoon, and others are living proof that replay does not have to be the answer. They have each either used it as the simple solution, or resorted to it from what they felt was necessity, before finally sorting out methods to approach PFS without using it and finding lasting success that way.
My unyielding stance in any of those threads, and now, is that you can absolutely find solutions to play more without resorting to replay. It requires attention to detail from your coordinator like setting up spreadsheets to see what scenarios have been played less often. It requires you to adopt certain rules like taking sign-ups ahead of game time. It requires active maintenance of a player/GM base by recruiting both players and GMs and offering rewards for peoples' work. And it requires willingness to live within the system set up by the Campaign Coordinators.
Those threads have lots of solutions. Those solutions haven't changed. If anything, it has become easier to utilize them over the years as the player base grows and more content is published. Asking for the easy way through will only help in the short term.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16
|
I'd actually like to see the opposite of Core as a replay mechanic. Create a "hard mode" for each module, and allow 1 replay under hard mode. Not good for new players, but gives a new challenge to those veterans out there. Segregate hard mode characters just like core characters, so that they only play hard mode tables.
I'm trying to push core more in my area, but it appeals to a small number of players, with the common argument against being "why would I want to play without all these books I invested in". Giving it a harder push in the back half of the year. We'll see if it can pick up traction.
|
|
To be clear, here is that quote's (updated) context: Even though I have run that many games for that many years through my single location (and am about to double the number of games run by opening a second location) I have only three times seen replay be resorted to as a final option to get a player a seat. I am well over 1000 games coordinated, and am well under a 1% replay rate with my players.
Multiple tables and a larger group make that a lot easier. If there are three tables schedueled and one collapses you have a better chance of getting into something you can replay with 2 tables left than one.
If you have three scenarios left you can play in a large group you can find three other people with the exact same three left.
|
|
@Trik: I think that's expanding it up a bit too much. I like the idea of replay, but at this point, I've got 13 characters. I don't want to play the same adventure that much, and I'd imagine that could cause problems, as it's essentially unlimited replay.
So just for some hard data, with the ACG out, I'd like to try out some of the new classes. I've, so far, made one character using them. It'd be nice to give one or two more a go. Currently, of all of the scenarios that include level 1 (1-5, 1-7, 1-2), there's exactly 11 that I haven't played through Season 6, Scenario 20.
That's basically just under 2 new characters that I can play, assuming *everything* pans out. Yes, there are modules as well, and evergreens, but insisting on playing every level 1 character I have through evergreens just so I don't run out... well, that's worse than actually allowing replay of other scenarios, and significantly harder to do. As for modules, I haven't sorted through all of those, particularly the newer ones, so, yes, there are some opportunities there, but as others pointed out, scheduling those is a lot harder. I believe I've played about half of the modules open to level 1 and level 2 characters (Module level 1 or 3).
While you are discounting evergreens, most people (not saying you) forget there are 12 of them. Of which, at least 4 give 3 XP. If you are going to limit yourself to the extreme end saying that there are only 2 characters left for you. I'd point out that the other extreme is 11 characters making it to level 3, none of which even use a 1-2 at second level (leaving those open still for play at level 2 should you need). (For codification first two scenarios would be evergreens, then an evergreen module, leaves you at 2.2, any scenario you haven't done gets you to 3) There you go that doubles your characters without including new scenarios coming out.
Edit for those counting: First Steps 1, We Be Goblins, Confirmation, Wounded Wisp, Thornkeep Accursed Halls, Emerald Spire 1, Mummy's Mask 1, Reign of Winter 1, Godsmouth Heresy, Master of the Fallen Fortress, Crypt of the Everflame, and Murder's Mark
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a reasons someone's picking up the torch every few months or so... it's something that's wanted by the players, and that should account for something.
It's something wanted by some players. Not all. There are others who don't want it.
Were you a part of any OP campaign before PFS? One that had unlimited replay? Drogon is a voice of experience here. Sometimes people want things that they don't realize they shouldn't want. Sometimes people want things that, once they get it, they regret the unforseen consequences of what they wanted.
We should learn from history. History tells us that unlimited or too liberal replay for credit destroys organized play campaigns. So, even though people want it (whether they really want that, or think that is a solution to running out of scenarios available at their venues), history tells us that giving in to that desire will in the long run hurt the same people who want it.
|
|
I'll always like the idea of any character being able to run any scenario, but no more than once on each character. Why? Because I'm able to keep my knowledge separate from my character's knowledge and I like the idea of being able to play with any group of people at any time.
You're not as good at that as you think you are. Nobody is.
There are two levels of mysteries in the stories of roleplaying games. The first is what your character doesn't know. From a acting point of view, I would believe that you can be good at keeping track of what your character doesn't know, and responding appropriately.
However, the second level is what you don't know. And, no matter how good you are at acting, the genuine surprise that you feel when you learn something new about a scenario just isn't there. It's less of an experience for you, and probably less of a fun experience for your GM. The genuine surprise of learning something for the first time is real fun that you can only have the first time you do it, and it's something beyond the fun of roleplaying a character learning something for the first time. (Think about The Empire Strikes Back; if you didn't know the "big reveal" the first time you saw that movie, it probably rocked your world. It sure did for me. This doesn't mean that I haven't enjoyed watching that movie multiple times since, but that one part of the experience I could only have once, and I'm glad nobody spoiled it for me.)
At PaizoCon, I had the good fortunate to run Wounded Wisp twice with players who had never played it before. I have never had that experience with Confirmation, or with Wounded Wisp online. It was much more fun to GM the game with players who didn't know what was going on, what was coming, than with players who do.
And, no matter how good you are keeping your player knowledge separate, there will be lots of people who aren't. Drogon's story about LFR shows how bad it can get. (Players interrupting the GM mid-sentence saying, "Skip the box text, just set up the first combat, we all know the story.")
|
|
I would point out that if your interest is playing, you can always replay any scenario you want with a whole group of players and a GM if everybody is doing it for no credit. At that point, of course, it's effectively a home game using the scenario as an adventure, but nothing stops you from doing this. If your real motivation is to try out a new class and see what it's like to play it, this should work for you.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ha 4 times I week, I got up to 8 times a week.
Basic path to PFSing 8/Month forever:
Play the 2 new scenarios
Play a sanctioned AP leg or Module for 2* slots
Play 2 level 1 re-playables
Play a level 1 re-playable module for 1-2 slots.
GM 2 slots.
* 2 Minimum, many will take more
This does assume that APs and modules continue to be sanctioned. Here are some other things to keep you occupied if you don't want to make a new 5xp character every month and/or don't have the ability to play things that take multiple slots, or want to do even more:
The specials and exclusives
Emerald Spire
Core Mode
GM more
Adventure Card Game
If I get a chance later I'll work on a detailed schedule for this season, only including things released this season.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have seen replay go badly in PFS already. When Aasimars and Tieflings were announced to be retired, the unlimited replayability of a handful of scenarios (probably primarily MotFF, but also Confirmation) allowed a small number of people to go nuts and "bank" a whole bunch of Aasimar and Tiefling characters, even though campaign management had asked poeple not to do that.
We still feel the repercussions of that today. When changes to rules are coming, they no longer tell the general PFS playing public ahead of time, because people abused it so badly before.
That abuse would not have been possible at the level it was without replay.
Not as big a deal as the destruction of LFR, but it is something negative that's impacted the whole campaign that was enabled by the level of replay we have right now.
|
|
Yes, I suppose, in theory, I could run Evergreen Scenario, Evergreen Scenario, Evergreen Module, Some other Scenario to hit level 3, which would give me 11, but that seems really formulaic... and a lot of work/scheduling to get it to happen like that.
Honestly, I've gotten to the point where I'm starting to plan like this, and I think that's a bad sign. I have to be very selective of the characters I play every week (rather than just playing whichever I'm in the mood for) because I can't "waste" a scenario. This makes PFS a lot less fun...
I agree its pretty formulaic. Its difficulty to get set up depends on the local player pool, different locations/areas it may be very hard while in others pretty darn easy. I was giving an example of the more extreme other end of character creation. (The fact that it coincides with Pirate Rob's how to play 8 times a month forever, is not really coincidence, though at no point had we discussed it. It is simply the most efficient use of evergreens in terms of getting the most out of them and leaving the most possible scenarios available) That said I have not hit a point were I do this. I have characters with 3 or 4 xp in evergreens and some with 1 (I think only my -1 had none). It very much extends the longevity of play to mix at least some in. Take it as you will.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why PfS and LFR would be so different that something that went badly in LFR would not go the same way in PFS.
But it was LFR's unlimited replay for credit that caused the problem, not all replay. If you have limites in place then it might work.
Well, there are also a lot of factors to this that are often, it seems, swept under the rug. The various Living Campaigns where extremely notorious for being very, very difficult to acquire gear and wealth, whereas PFS it is not. It was a literal practice to have the other players raid a dead PC's body for gear and money, because that was one for the few ways to actually get cool stuff, and I'm not at all kidding here. This was an actual practice that the Living Campaigns are known for.
Another factor was that gaining XP was also pretty difficult. Back n Living Greyhawk (3.5), I remember my first game I received something like a total of 33gp and 200 XP (for a successful game). 200 out of the 2,000 I needed to level up. This was pretty consistent. PFS instead has a roughly minimum 500gp (for 1st) and 1/3 XP for next level system.
Replaying, and replaying a lot was essentially required in order to advance in any significant way.
So things like this is what a lot of the people that claim Replay would be bad because of what happened in Living Campaigns are actually meaning, and in my personal opinion, tends to sound much more like an excuse than a logic argument.
It also assumes that there would be a significant amount of people that go Chronicle hunting, or that in PFS that is somehow a bad thing. In actuality, very, very unlikely.
As was pointed out, this is a subject that does come up rather often, (which is kind of telling), and for the most part, there seems to be a small group of voices against the idea. Dragonmoon and Drogon are two of, what it seems the main champions against it.
They also seem to be in a position that is something I would not consider at all common or universal, where they do have a large and interchangeable player based with plenty of room to run games in a good location from a dedicated game store(s) where the owner is also able to run games.
Many of those things are not applicable to a lot of other people, and I can also say that from the PbP community, Sign Up sheets that are often touted as preventing a lot of the more common issues that lead people to want more Replay, at least in my experience, tend to cause as many issues as they possibly solve. A lot of people, for instance can not edit the sign up sheets from touch screen devices. New players get left out, not knowing that there is a non-traditional method for finding games. They fill up so fast that it makes it impossible to know if you actually got in, what subtier to expect, etc. . .
In my most recent game, it turned out about 3 to 4 times the maximum seats at a table tried to get in, which lead to the DM deciding to go with a random lottery. I don't blame them, but had I known that, (I literally need 1 game before I can EotT it up), I wouldn't have waited a week or two to find out I wasn't even playing and found something else, which would have really been bad if I had a EotT game waiting on me. I also had to sign up like 6 players who could not access/edit the Sign Up sheet.
I think a lot of the decision to not allow or broaden the Replay capabilities for PFS are based on a lot of uncommon assumptions that also favor some fairly uncommon circumstances as if they where the norm.
I'd also point out that we can plainly see the results from both the (somewhat) infinite DM Star Replay and the Evergreen material to see that so many of the concerns and reasonings against more Replay options just do not really hold up. But that's just me. I don't mean this to be rude or insulting, but a lot sound more like excuses rather than logic.
It's not at all difficult, for example, to make it a hard rule in the guide that anyone that has played the scenario before, run the scenario, or is bringing a PreGen to the table is required to give their seat up for someone that has not and can legally play. That honestly right there solves most of the concerns about Chronicle hunting and players dominating seats to the point that they make it impossible for new players to join.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As was pointed out, this is a subject that does come up rather often, (which is kind of telling), and for the most part, there seems to be a small group of voices against the idea. Dragonmoon and Drogon are two of, what it seems the main champions against it.
Interestingly, Dragnmoon was one of my first adversaries as a proponent FOR unlimited replay. I think that is telling, seeing as we're talking now about what is and is not a good indicator of public desire.
There are voices for the idea, and they want it. They are vocal and ask for it because they are unhappy with the state of things.
If (yes, I'm willing to say IF) there are more people NOT in favor of replay, they are contentedly playing their games and feel no need to come onto these boards and let you know how happy they are. It is not in our nature to let you know when we are pleased. The loudest voice is most often the one of dissent. So, no, you don't hear about the "No Replay" torch from anyone besides those of us who jump on these boards to debate with the new requests that hit every few months.
What's more telling, I think, is what Paizo knows: that replay is not good for OrgPlay. Therefore, they are very careful about how it is approached, and have long said it will not be a fundamental part of PFS. They know because they ask people at game days, conventions, and during conversations with their customers. Asked directly if a player wants replay, it seems that the majority are telling Paizo, "No, thanks."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know, I would be rather interested in seeing some sort of yes or no vote on the subject.
But, not having been at any of these game days, conventions, etc. . . where it has been asked, I honestly can't say one way or the other, but how unbias where the populations asked? Even so, at best that seems to just put it around 50/50 when compared to the pages and pages on the subject here.
Something else to consider is, as far as I can tell even here with some of the new passionate voices for more Replay options, "Infinte" Replay is not something being asked for be practically anyone, and I have no doubt that most would be against it. I'm not asking for it, and do not recall doing so.
It has, however, been well established (assuming we can all agree that Paizo's word is true), that these boards are not any realistic representation of the population, and that's even more true for PFS. It is a general rule of thumb, but not at all universally true by any means that people do more often discuss things they are unhappy with, but, there is really no way to judge just how true, if it is at all, that is and to what degree. Not outside of book reviews.
We can, however, look at past examples, and I'd like to hear suggestions that the limited DM Star Replay or evergreen scenarios have ever been seen as detrimental, or even bad choices compared to the no replay that came before it. With respect, you do have more PFS DM experience than I do, but you are also offering anecdotal evidence, which does seem to be contradicted strongly by, or at least not match) more factual theoretical evidence.
I have no doubt that Paizo is careful with their approach. But being that we can not (or can we?), see what questions where asked, to who, how many times, when, or what the statistical answers and trends looked like, it's not particularly meaningful to use that as an argument.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I admit that, seeing as my experience is tied to me, it is anecdotal. However, it is experience gained over years (and thousands of games) of running OrgPlay for various systems. And I can confidently say that the overwhelming number of players are NOT in favor of replay (in any form, actually, but I'll leave that debate alone). They don't vote by saying so. They vote by not returning. Their reasons are not "I don't like replay." They are more nebulous than that:
The same guys are always playing.
I can never get space at the table I want.
I'm tired of being told I might have missed something and should look again, and lo' and behold, I did.
I'm tired of being told I should play something different because this or that adventure doesn't treat xxx class well.
All these things were told to me as people left LFR. Many never said a word. I had to track people down and ask why they weren't coming back. And now these same things are starting to be told to me as players try to find something else to play besides the D&DAL.
I have never heard those complaints for my PFS games. Excepting the same players thing, I suppose; there are certainly those people out there who others don't like playing with no matter what game they are playing. But even that complaint rarely occurs, where it was a constant with LFR.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I admit that, seeing as my experience is tied to me, it is anecdotal. However, it is experience gained over years (and thousands of games) of running OrgPlay for various systems.
When I say it's anecdotal, I'm referring to the fact that, (and this is very true all around), instead of having, for example a spreadsheet showing results or a post showing numbers that we can all go off of, we have you saying it was done. It doesn't mean it's wrong or false, but it does mean that it is not going to help ease anyone that is dissatisfied with what is.
Now, I'm not saying you are lying, but rather pointing out that even if it is true, there is no evidence for it or results. There is no criteria for the questions. How many toothpaste commercials say that 4 out of 5 dentists agree. It may be true, but it itself is a meaningless statement without the further facts. How many actual dentists where asked? If the total was 5, that doesn't mean much. 5,000,000 dentists does if 4/5's of them agreed to endorse it.
Unfortunately, this seems to be the modus operandi of so many threads like the ones you linked. They follow cyclical arguments, often suggesting people go search for answers that never actually come. It's always people referencing or quoting others who are referencing or quoting something else.
For example, how would replay devastate/destroy/ruin/kill PFS? Based on what evidence. Or are those just flowery words, because I honestly don't recall any living campaign dying out (from anything but edition changes). Living Greyhawk went strong until 4E as far as I recall, as did Living Star Wars. What changed was that it went to Living Forgotten Realms with 4E, and even then there was a huge debate as 3E fans fought to keep Living Greyhawk going despite WotC absolutely abandoning 3E Heck, if I remember correctly, they even succeeded as a sort of 3PP entity. Now, just so there is no ambiguity of terms here, when I say Living Campaign, I am referring to things like Living Greyhawk, D&D Encounters, and I think it was called D&D Dungeon Crawl, not just one specific iteration. They do not work on the same basic system as PFS, so it's inappropriate to simply compare one version/iteration as if they where.
4E's Living Forgotten Realms, (something I was not a fan of), likewise did not fail from what I can see. Seems to still be going strong into 5E.
Being that there are already some Replay Option available in PFS, and that the Core Campaign thing does seem to be doing at least well enough to not go away, (I honestly don't know, there does seem to be a small fan base though), we can see that the idea of people shoving out new players does not seem to exist on a significant or wide scale worth being concerned about.
So, by devastate/kill/etc. . . Organized Play, do you mean (with supporting evidence) that it would actually be harmful to the Organize Play player base or a risk of somehow stopping it from existing next year, or do you mean it might change it to something that isn't your personal preference?
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LFR did fail under 4E. Miserably. No one has empirical evidence showing why it failed because no one was tracking it to see what was happening until it was too late.
LFR is back under 5E, and doing reasonably well. Certainly not anywhere near as many people are playing it as it there were in its heyday at the beginning of 4E. And I am seeing a steady drop in the number of attendees as time marches on.
I actually DO have all these numbers, thanks to the Wizards Event Reporter, and can easily reference them, going back several years. I can also see what names show up, when they show up, and what they are playing. It's pretty nice. And I use that information to contact people who are NOT showing up and ask, "Hello. I noticed you're not playing anymore. Any particular reason?"
Thus, my experience continues to be something I will reference over and over again, no matter how often I am told it is anecdotal.
|
|
Personally I think replay for no credit is harmless for communities with the organizational capacity to handle it.
However, replay for no credit is a workaround/solution to a problem (scenario availability) that already has a few workarounds that do not involve opening replay for no credit. Moreover, it does cause some scheduling difficulty for larger communities. For instance, how do we guarantee that someone who can play for credit is prioritized over someone who cannot? From what I learned from Drogon last time we debated this, it seemed like a substantial risk for his community and I think it's an important one to prevent elsewhere. And because of that disadvantage, and perhaps others, there's not going to be enough of a voice to get that policy changed.
The majority is less interested about the corner case where people don't show and a table gets canceled which results in the people who did show having nothing to play. There are workarounds but there are also situations where you wind up with scheduling conflicts that are impossible to solve for everyone.
Is that problem alone worth opening up replay for no credit? Probably not. But perhaps that might change if there was more data on how frequently that happens. Or alternatively we'd have enough proof to make an informed decision to not address it because of infrequency. Maybe there are also some more draconian community level rules that could help prevent that.
I think if there was better tools in place to help determine if people were eligible for credit for a given scenario, we could then have the scheduling sophistication to open up replay for no credit.
Of course, the other side of that if Paizo were to try and invest in scheduler tools that integrated with their session reporting DB, we could then have scheduling tools that could calculate a playable scenario for a group of people.
That's development dollars though.
|
|
LFR did fail under 4E. Miserably. No one has empirical evidence showing why it failed because no one was tracking it to see what was happening until it was too late.
LFR is back under 5E, and doing reasonably well. Certainly not anywhere near as many people are playing it as it there were in its heyday at the beginning of 4E. And I am seeing a steady drop in the number of attendees as time marches on.
I actually DO have all these numbers, thanks to the Wizards Event Reporter, and can easily reference them, going back several years. I can also see what names show up, when they show up, and what they are playing. It's pretty nice. And I use that information to contact people who are NOT showing up and ask, "Hello. I noticed you're not playing anymore. Any particular reason?"
Thus, my experience continues to be something I will reference over and over again, no matter how often I am told it is anecdotal.
I do find it curious, as locally, 2 out of the 3 big local gaming stores had very active 4E Organize Play going on, at least did up until 5E, I honestly haven't checked in the last two months or so). (Which is also anecdotal). Even to the point that it pushed out our attempts to start up PFS in those locations. There was too much call for 4E, (and mini wargames, MtG, and Yugio), that we literally had to give up tables. All anecdotal, and I my area, (actually a similar thing happened in KC, too), might just be an anomaly.
I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying. Anecdotal isn't bad, per se, but it does mean that it's value to everyone else besides yourself is diminished. Can you share these numbers from the Wizards Event Reporter? I understand if you can't, legally for example, but that's precisely also where the disconnect happens in the debate.
No one is asking you not to use your experience. Instead, instead of a debate say we are in court, just for the sake of argument, and your argument rests on the fact that you do have a record of purchase transactions. But, as soon as you can't or will not produce them to be seen or tested, it's basically invalid.
Obviously, you are not on trial, and it's just a debate, but if the basis of your argument can't be verified or tested, it's only barely better than if it hadn't been mentioned. No one can see if the premise is false or incomplete, which means it can't even be discussed.
Again, I don't mean that to be rude or disrespectful. You clearly have more experience than I in PFS at the very least.
|
Venture-Agent, Ohio—Columbus
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All: Please note, *no one* (or next to no one) is suggesting unlimited replay. I think we all agree that this would be a bad idea, and could be easily abused. Those of us who want this are looking for a way to open up replay a bit more to make PFS more playable long-term....
a) Replay after some length of time after playing a scenario, something I proposed, for example, 2 years seemed reasonable to me. If you were replaying in this manner, you'd be required to provide evidence of your last play clearly upfront.b) Expanding GM star replay or at least refreshing that replay. Automatic renewal of replays for stars yearly, or perhaps more replays per star. Refreshing yearly would add a flat number of replays each year that players could select from any tier/scenario, making scheduling conflicts less of an issue, and getting characters through levels where you've played a majority scenarios including those levels easier.
Thank you for bringing this backup. I walked away from this for a bit because if we lock down replay altogether those of us with a much smaller communities are getting locked out of PFS due to table composition issues and like someone mentioned eventually you cannot level characters without scenarios to get them out of evergreen situations.
I have not noticed recently in these threads 'unlimited' replay - except where people are noting that it is horrible. It's not something people with issues are asking for. Most asking for things to be opened up are not even asking for 'replay' as the be all end all of the solution, but something that gives groups that are hitting limits a way around this.
In response to the I've only seen replay for no credit a few times in years. We've had it be the case at least 1-2 times a month someone has to replay for no credit or we don't have a legal table and they have played the scenario already. This is after already juggling who can GM for credit and optimize the group for the most people getting credit.
The choke hold point seems to be 1-5 & 3-7, there are modules, evergreen, ect -- but that doesn't kick people at times far enough into the next tier to be able to continue in some cases. Its been mentioned before - that not always fun to if you want a new PFS character grind through the evergreens you've already played.
In some cases those low tier games are lost to I got the character to say level 5 and it died. All the games that character played are still locked to the player for replay. [It sometimes is no fault of the player, we just had a GM critical one shot a character from full HP past negative con that was on the high end of acceptable level for playing the module. Just due to the tactics of the module as written.]
Perhaps another suggestion to add on to the two above, is somehow opening up the lower tier games if you can show that are filling that tier up? If not increasing the number of replays in general, say a single replay per star and one for a low tier scenarios only?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've begun to understand that unlimited replay would be harmful to PFS. So I'm fairly certain I wouldn't want that.
What I DO want is an expansion of the GM star replay. I want the stars to recharge annually at Gen Con WITHOUT a boon. Yes, that would install a system of "use 'em or lose 'em" but I would be just fine with that.
It allows some replay on a regular basis, but doesn't make it so prevalent that it would hurt the campaign, in my opinion.