DM Beckett wrote: I think there is a lot of room for further ideas.
What could be really cool is to start looking at making evergreen scenarios that are outside of the level 1 range, or even, better yet, outside of the 1st-5th tier.
For those of us that have difficulty finding things to run that most people at our tables can play and be included in, this would go a long, long way. Low level is not the problem. It's the 3rd-7th ish levels that are the issue.
Drogon wrote: 5 - Also for Paizo: Publish more evergreen scenarios, potentially even outside the tier 1-2 range. By publishing evergreen scenarios at tiers 3-7, 5-9, and 7-11, players will be given an "always available" avenue of play for their non-1st level PCs. GMs will have a suite of adventures they can always have prepped so that players will always have an available game. Ascalaphus wrote: I've been prepping The Wounded Wisp and comparing it to The Confirmation, and I think it's an interesting development. The Confirmation has random encounters to keep it "fresh", but playing it twice and running it 3-4 times (I lose track) for me the only thing that's really novel is how the end fight will play out. (That's gone differently every time though.)
The Wounded Wisp shows more finesse in writing evergreens; the random elements don't provide just different combats, but also put a different spin on the story.
Based on that experience, it'd be sweet to have an evergreen L3 and L6 (levels often reported as being hard to get past) that's maybe 64 pages long, but that can take so many twists and turns that it'll stay fresh for a long time.
After reading/skimming the thread I'd like to say this looks like a good option to me. Having a set of evergreen scenarios covering all the tiers. Larger than the normal scenario length to allow some variations in how they unfold.
Drogon wrote:
I believe you will notice that, in large part, I am fairly quiet about running modules/APs to supplement PFS play. Why? Because I agree with each of the points you listed. I believe you will also notice that, largely, I'm not a fan of evergreen scenarios (I've even argued against them during my more militant anti-replay days), so I don't really schedule them. Why? Because I have been active in looking for solutions to heavy play that do NOT involve replay of any kind, and therefore people in my area tend to view replay dis-favorably, allowable via evergreen status or not.
Rob put that together over the course of a few hours work, in response to someone saying they wanted to play that much, and that it was impossible to do without replay being expanded. He did it because I knew it could be done, and had offered a reward to the person who was...
Nods, I agree. And yes, I suppose it was rehashing a bit, this thread has gotten fairly long. Also, it's worth noting that Rob's original proposal was pointing at 8 plays a month, and not my target ~4, so it's easier to lighten up on the evergreens in that situation.
@Rob: Thanks for the update :). I gather you may be a bit of a data guy like myself, and I can appreciate that. Believe me, I do do a lot of planning for the adventures I'm going to play/which characters to play with. The issue is my free weekends aren't too flexible, and asking the local VC to coordinate scheduling around that seems unfair. This is somewhat on me, but it means there are weeks where I am unable to attend and I would like to. Normally in those sitatuations I try to GM, though that's not always possible.
This week DotS part 1. This is an adventure series I absolutely loved, however, I've both played and GMed it before. The other option on the table is Bonekeep, which I've played :). We typically run 2 different scenarios with ~3 tables each week here in Boston.
tivadar27 wrote:
rknop wrote:
3b: Some people think there already is too much replay.
Literally 0 people suggested this, and I've re-read the posts. Please reference at least one instance where someone indicated they thought this was the case.
Okay. I'll bite.
This has happened, in my region, amoung some prominent members of my local community who really should know better.
After the GM star replay was announced, a number of people started some very concerted efforts to achieving four stars, including discouraging regular GMs from GMing in order to rack up more games. In addition, they started encouraging newer players to concentrate on levelling up their highest-level characters, even spreading misinformation that Eyes of the Ten would be retired "by September 2014". All this in order to have the opportunity to replay Eyes.
This has been my only direct exposure to GM star replay.
Mekkis wrote:
Okay. I'll bite.
This has happened, in my region, amoung some prominent members of my local community who really should know better.
After the GM star replay was announced, a number of people started some very concerted efforts to achieving four stars, including discouraging regular GMs from GMing in order to rack up more games. In addition, they started encouraging newer players to concentrate on levelling up their highest-level characters, even spreading misinformation that Eyes of the Ten would be retired "by September 2014". All this in order to have the opportunity to replay Eyes.
This has been my only direct exposure to GM star replay.
Ugh, I'm sorry, that really sucks. I don't disagree that, basically no matter what, there's going to be some abuse. Someone actually pointed out that evergreens were being abused when they retired tiefling/aasimar.
I sincerely hope someone reported these player.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
tivadar27 wrote: ...it's worth noting that Rob's original proposal was pointing at 8 plays a month, and not my target ~4, so it's easier to lighten up on the evergreens in that situation.
@Rob: Thanks for the update :). I gather you may be a bit of a data guy like myself, and I can appreciate that. Believe me, I do do a lot of planning for the adventures I'm going to play/which characters to play with. The issue is my free weekends aren't too flexible, and asking the local VC to coordinate scheduling around that seems unfair. This is somewhat on me, but it means there are weeks where I am unable to attend and I would like to. Normally in those sitatuations I try to GM, though that's not always possible.
This week DotS part 1. This is an adventure series I absolutely loved, however, I've both played and GMed it before. The other option on the table is Bonekeep, which I've played :). We typically run 2 different scenarios with ~3 tables each week here in Boston.
Highlighting done by me. Reason coming up shortly.
1 - The Boston VC is an incredibly experienced, incredibly good man. I imagine that, if you sat down with him, you might be surprised by what you come out of that meeting with. Will he alter the schedule just for you? Probably not. But I'll bet he has options you didn't think of.
2 - Four plays a month is pretty easily achievable, if you are willing to GM (and it looks like you are very much willing to). Thus, the highlighted part of my quote: what precludes you from GMing it, again? If it's just the character credit doing so, you are missing out. Running an adventure you've already run gives you the chance to experience all those NPCs again, see what different players do in different situations, try out that new "voice" you've been wanting to try, and cuts your workload down tremendously (because reading it, prepping the creatures, and drawing the maps are all much more quickly accomplished when you've already done it once). There are adventures I've run as many as seven times. Each time I get better. Each time my players come away saying, "So THAT'S why we hear this adventure is so fun!" and my own reputation grows. That's worth a lot.
Consider this.
Drogon wrote: 1 - The Boston VC is an incredibly experienced, incredibly good man. I imagine that, if you sat down with him, you might be surprised by what you come out of that meeting with. Will he alter the schedule just for you? Probably not. But I'll bet he has options you didn't think of. I know both the VC in Boston and the VL for the Metrowest region, I game with both fairly regularly. As I stated, some of this is on me, as I do have a weird/shifting schedule sometimes. The VL actually reached out to me after this discussion started, and I've let him know a bit more about the low-level scenarios I've *not* played (as I said, there are 7). I'm not trying to say these things are impossible, but they definitely do get a lot harder.
Drogon wrote: 2 - Four plays a month is pretty easily achievable, if you are willing to GM (and it looks like you are very much willing to). Thus, the highlighted part of my quote: what precludes you from GMing it, again? If it's just the character credit doing so, you are missing out. Running an adventure you've already run gives you the chance to experience all those NPCs again, see what different players do in different situations, try out that new "voice" you've been wanting to try, and cuts your workload down tremendously (because reading it, prepping the creatures, and drawing the maps are all much more quickly accomplished when you've already done it once). There are adventures I've run as... Nothing is stopping me. Well, that's untrue. I'm out of town for the 4th and getting back the morning of the 5th (when our games run). I'm unsure if I'll be back in time for gaming, so I don't want to commit to GMing this week. Mostly this week was provided as an example.
It's mostly situations like this that make things a bit harder. Sometimes I don't know my weekend schedules or free times, or they change last minute. The really nice thing about PFS was always the flexibility for me. I could pick up playing opportunities when I felt like it. I'd argue that *is* one of the great things about PFS in general, and that sort of thing becomes a lot harder when you've been playing longer.
That being said, this doesn't happen *all* the time, so opening up GM star refreshing *would* likely solve a lot of problems for me.
I actually really enjoy re-running scenarios/modules. It lets me refine my technique and you really get to know the scenario, which helps. I actually used one of my original GM replays to re-run Children of the Corn... err, Feast of Ravenmoor. At the time I didn't realize you could re-run for no credit :).
That being said, typically if I have a choice between running for credit or running for no credit... Well, I'll probably be choosing the credit, unless the scenario really is insufferable.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Drogon wrote: The Boston VC is an incredibly experienced, incredibly good man. As an aside, if David's ever at your table and playing a pregen, you really do need to insist he plays Seelah. It's one of the more amusing things I've seen.
John Compton wrote: Regarding the Expanded Narrative boon, that's something I'm willing to explore making more commonly available. One advantage of convention boons is that they allow the campaign to test out an idea, use it more if it works, or discontinue it if it doesn't without causing too much damage. So far the feedback I've heard about the Expanded Narrative boon is "This shouldn't be a convention boon" or "This should be a GM boon," which by omission seems to say "Otherwise, this boon works fairly well with the exception of those issues."
Is that accurate?
I haven't seen or heard of any issues for the Expanded Narrative boon other than availability; it does a good job of limiting the number of replays to a reasonable number.
Now if only I could actually get my hands on one... out of the three conventions I've been involved in since it was created, the only one that actually had the boon I didn't get a high enough roll for :P
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
As someone who has managed to snag a couple, and used one, I personally feel that the Expanded Narrative Boon should (at least eventually) reach the same availability as the current GM Star Boon. At the very least it needs to be more widely available than it currently is.
John Compton wrote: Regarding the Expanded Narrative boon, that's something I'm willing to explore making more commonly available. One advantage of convention boons is that they allow the campaign to test out an idea, use it more if it works, or discontinue it if it doesn't without causing too much damage. So far the feedback I've heard about the Expanded Narrative boon is "This shouldn't be a convention boon" or "This should be a GM boon," which by omission seems to say "Otherwise, this boon works fairly well with the exception of those issues."
Is that accurate?
From my own personal experience I've enjoyed the use of Expanded Narrative, it does what its supposed to do well. I agree with others that making it more widely available is a good idea, would making it available as a download on the website be something that is viable?
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society
|
