Venture-Captain, Isles—Online
|
unlimited replay was one of the final nails in the coffin of 4E LFR for me, when a local group ran a 'speed day' where they just ran the combats & skill challenges (so as to be legal, as they had all played them multiple times before and the plot was meaningless). they ran 8 scenarios in 8 hours just to farm the certs for powerful items.
If your players have burned through the 300+ available scenarios, they need to learn to pace themselves; rather than expect paizo to turn out more scenarios a month.
|
We finally felt that happen last October when we noticed that 3 particular players could not play PFS scenarios with each other besides the newest releases. They just had too few unplayed scenarios between them. Personally, I started to pace myself during last season and it's paid off. There's always something to play in cons at least.
No sweat though, those 3, me and others're doing Cult of the Ebon Destroyers this weekend.
|
BNW: I think the problem is that you are assuming that you have to schedule 4 tables all-at-once in order to have both Core and Standard PFS.
You don't.
I help coordinate a small location here, and we usually are only able to get one table going any particular day. We just schedule the table as either Core or Standard, depending on how everyone, including the GM, is feeling.
We do have limits on some of our players on Standard mode scenarios available (myself being one of the worst culprits here). In order to open things up, we tend to wind up alternating, at present, between low-to-mid Core (1-5, 3-7) games and higher Standard games (5-9, 7-11). That gives the GMs a chance to run "easier" stuff, with the low-to-mid tier games, with games that take more preparation (5-9, 7-11).
For a larger group, with multiple tables, find out if you have enough people to run a Core group as an occasional insertion in place of one of the Standard tables, as a way to ease the scheduling for Standard games, maybe give a GM an easier (in terms of PC capabilities, at least) game to run.
|
Contributor
|
Core tables exacerbate the problem of geek Sudoku in small venues. Exponentially.No. No it doesn't. It may not work for your venue, but it works just fine for others (like mine).
If the players are interested in Core, then you schedule Core tables. If the players are not interested in Core, then you don't schedule Core tables.
Easy.
I'm glad that works for you. I think both you and BNW have a point that I see. For one, Core doesn't really exacerbate our "Sudoku" problem because no one at my store is interested in playing Core for reasons I mentioned. However, because no one is playing it, BNW is right in that Core's existence doesn't really help alleviate my store's scheduling issues.
|
Contributor
|
I have to wonder about those hoping for replay, why not just play the scenarios outside organized play system? I've heard of gm's using all the PFS rules(1 exp/scenario, Fame, factions, etc) and running a home campaign with them. You could even organize a regular table for that.
As a Venture-Agent, my job is to run Pathfinder Society Organized Play. Saying, "Go run something that isn't PFS," isn't really what I'm supposed to be doing in order to be a successful coordinator. Its like being a doctor who tells his patients to use holistic medicines without any medical or scientific backing.
|
Contributor
|
I honestly don't see a reason to add more replay into the campaign. I understand that there are people who are running out of content (we have some locally too), but that has been their choice. The fact is there is a limited amount of published material, this was an issue that existed when we started playing, when we decide to continue playing at a huge rate, and will always be a limiting factor. That said there are options for increasing the amount of play one can have with Modules, APs, Core, Normal, and Evergreens. (Not to mention Pirate Rob's guide to infinite play being out there somewhere, though I can't find it atm). And yes GMing does greatly increase the amount of play you can do.
First, neither Core Campaign or the Card Game is popular in my area; we actually ended up disbanding the ACG in our area because of scheduling; we were forced to make the ACG compete with PFS for scheduling reasons, and no one ever signed up to play the card game. Based on the feedback we got from our players. One of the big criticisms that we got was that the ACG felt more like a product push to them than PFS did. (Technically, you don't need anything to be in PFS whereas the ACG requires people to own cards. Its weird logic, but that's what we were seeing.) Core isn't popular for similar reasons; people want to feel like they can choose what they buy, and they want to be able to use most of what they own.
So yes, Core and ACG are options, but people in my store seem like they would rather just not show up then take those options.
|
|
Hello,
When we talk replying scenarios, typically the answer is a big, resounding, “NO.” Usually the reasons are twofold; first, we’re afraid that the replayer will spoil the story for people who haven’t yet experienced it. Second, we’re certain that people will use the ability to replay scenarios to farm desirable boons on their characters. In terms of replaying content, that already exists in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. The rules clearly allow replaying for no credit, so long as everyone at the table is aware and accepting of the replayer. Furthermore, we allow GMs to replay scenarios if they possess a specific boon. I think that if we can trust GMs to replay scenarios for credit fairly, we can trust every player to....
'Tis not just that we are afraid. Experience has proven this is the case way more often than not. Secondly, even in our area which is generally really good about spoilers, there are a couple players I don't want to play with if they have GMed the scenario.
However you are proposing a solution, and while I can see some pitfalls, I can also see some way to create a better working solution. They sky key is an interesting way to work the solution into the campaign as well. Which is the point of a thread like this. Rather than unlimited replay with a modified chronicle, what about a chronicle that allowed (limited) replay?
I propose a seeker level evergreen involving the sky key. It would still only be once per character, but the chronicle would have something like "choose [X] scenarios this character has played. This character's protege may replay those scenarios as if [redacted] has [redacted] them from the Society's chronicles." This not only puts a cap on replays, but also rewards frequent players who make it to Seeker (attainable, but not guaranteed), and offers something for seeker level. (There is a usually lot of interest in getting more sanctioned content for Seeker level.)
Not a perfect solution (what happens to those hard-earned star replays?) but, as my boss used to say, bring me solutions, not problems.
|
Contributor
|
PFS is a vehicle for Paizo to attract people into the game to spend money on their product. Much of Paizo's product is sold through game stores. Here is a game store owner's take on why replay is a bad thing Drogon.I know im going to get yelled at by the Elites.. But the replay rules are broken. Plain and simple we have players who aren't coming to game days and or switching to other games because they have played all or most of the pfs games that are normally played. it is ALWAYS a hassle trying to figure out who can play what. In my humble opinion the replay rules need to be removed. As long as you play with another cha, and don't ruin it for folks that haven't played that scenario I would vote that that's ok. That being said, DND doent have these restrictions. Cheers all, My apologies if my opinion upsets anyone that's not my intention. I just want to play, and I see the replay rules as a detriment to play.
That's great for Drogon (Yay! I found out who that was). Sadly, I don't own my store, so its my job how to figure out how to get people into the store on my own. I also disagree fundamentally with one of Drogon's points, the "Its a community. Grow it," point. Arguably, that's the mindset that largely led to the sinking of 4th Edition. The idea that the game needed to tailor to outside people and could abandon their bread and butter customers.
I agree that the store doing more to promote PFS and to get new players into the store will help me fill tables. It will not, however, help me keep the community going because it isn't going to help me keep veteran players at tables. Mathematically, if I have a group of 6 players who have all played every scenario and I somehow manage to recruit six new players to run all of the classic stuff with, how many of those veterans will get to GM? At most, two of them. If I split the new group into groups of three and make them bring a pregen every time, then I could have two of my classics GM.
I don't want to imply that my problem is this severe yet. It isn't. But I can see trouble on the horizon, and I want to act now rather than later. Yes, there are easy solutions like ACG or Core that place a colorful bandaid on this problem, but that doesn't mean the problem stops existing, and honestly my players are coming to my store on their free time to play games. I don't want to be the one to tell them what they can and cannot do.
|
Contributor
|
Plain and simple we have players who aren't coming to game days and or switching to other games because they have played all or most of the pfs games that are normally played.I know. We schedule the same scenarios at our different stores to make sure that out prolific players don't attend every game day. I'm actively engineering that specifically to prevent them from overplaying all the scenarios. You can see how here.
That's a beautifully organized system that makes me jealous. More than one of our Philly PFS stores mandates what we (the VOs) can and cannot use for our scheduling purposes for their own connivence. I.e. certain stores want it to be THEIR store's schedule and don't really care if its at the cost have a consolidated Lodge schedule.
For the most part, I have no idea what other stores in our Lodge are running more than a week or two in advance.
|
Contributor
|
I'm completely against making replay easier than it is now. I've stated why many times in previous threads.
While we don't necessarily want to come out and say, "play less." We need to effectively explain the finite resource. And if they choose to ignore that and play themselves out of things to play, that really is thier own fault.
I don't think its necessarily a wise proposition to tell passionate people who are indulging in your hobby to indulge less. We should be celebrating passion, not try to stamp it out like a forest fire.
|
Contributor
|
If you have a group that plays that often and that regularly, have you tried looking into modules/sanctioned AP legs play? All of these options take multiple weeks of play, and provides opportunities that have probably been unexplored. Of course, this only works with a stable group who comes weekly but the new ruling on what to do if a player drops mid-sessions gives GMs and organizers more tools to handle. I know that I've been looking into opening up an weekday evening PFS slot that focuses on modules and AP legs.
Yes, we have. Currently, our store typically does one sanctioned module a month, but its a little more difficult to get GMs for those. Mods are significantly more expensive than scenarios (even in PDF form) and require someone to be able to commit to two slots.
As for opening up replay? Honestly, even your boon-less version will cause more problems for my area and my game days than it makes. When I rolled out Core games, I hoped it would mainly be for people who had option fatigue or otherwise wanted a more restrictive environment. However, in my region, our Core tables are pretty much exclusively replayers, which is... eh? For me personally, it's not fun to replay or have prior knowledge of a scenario, or to have other players who can't participate fully because of that. It kinda sucks, honestly.
To me, that sounds like more of an etiquette problem then a scenario problem.
I personally am a fan of GMs being able to re-run for credit, as re-run only ever adds to the experience while replay takes away from it. Rerun for credit does cut down on chronicle sheet farming, as you have to figure out a way to find more players, which either means you run through that resource or you end up having to recruit more players.
As a teacher, I was baffled about why GMs couldn't rerun scenarios for credit. The absolute first thing they teach us in our certification programs is that your lessons get stronger the more times you do them. The same is true for GMs; the more you run a scenario, the more familiar you are with it, the better you get at running it. We should be rewarding people who are so committed to the society that they're willing to rerun, not to mention that Prep is Prep regardless of whether you're running something you've already done or prepping something entirely new.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
unlimited replay was one of the final nails in the coffin of 4E LFR for me, when a local group ran a 'speed day' where they just ran the combats & skill challenges (so as to be legal, as they had all played them multiple times before and the plot was meaningless). they ran 8 scenarios in 8 hours just to farm the certs for powerful items.
If your players have burned through the 300+ available scenarios, they need to learn to pace themselves; rather than expect paizo to turn out more scenarios a month.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that if it doesn't disrupt your organized play experience, they should be allowed to do what they want with their games.
As a matter of fact, at GenCon 2015 I ran a Speed Run of Thornkeep: The Accursed Halls for Monica Marlowe and her husband, Andrew, the Ventura clan (Rachel, her husband, her brother, and her nephew), and Owen K.C. Stephens. It was a real Who's Who of the Paizo Community, topped with us all trying to run Thornkeep at break-neck speed so Monica, Andrew, Owen, and I could make it to Adam Daigle's freelancer meet up in time. We have some pretty hilarious stories from that run, like when Owen's warpriest charged the end boss of the floor with reckless abandon and managed to critically hit her with his scorpion whip, killing it instantly.
I would agree that its a problem if you're doing something like that to a group that includes people who want to enjoy the scenario normally, but if everyone's down for a little bit of insanity, let them.
|
Contributor
|
BNW: I think the problem is that you are assuming that you have to schedule 4 tables all-at-once in order to have both Core and Standard PFS.
You don't.
I help coordinate a small location here, and we usually are only able to get one table going any particular day. We just schedule the table as either Core or Standard, depending on how everyone, including the GM, is feeling.
We do have limits on some of our players on Standard mode scenarios available (myself being one of the worst culprits here). In order to open things up, we tend to wind up alternating, at present, between low-to-mid Core (1-5, 3-7) games and higher Standard games (5-9, 7-11). That gives the GMs a chance to run "easier" stuff, with the low-to-mid tier games, with games that take more preparation (5-9, 7-11).
For a larger group, with multiple tables, find out if you have enough people to run a Core group as an occasional insertion in place of one of the Standard tables, as a way to ease the scheduling for Standard games, maybe give a GM an easier (in terms of PC capabilities, at least) game to run.
I actually give my players feedback forms for each slot. One of the questions I gave them was, "Would you play Core Campaign if it was scheduled?" I got all "Maybes" and "Nos."
I'm well aware that this isn't the case everywhere, but Core isn't a solution for my store. Not yet, anyway.
|
Contributor
|
I'm more for directing that passion into positive, non-destructive channels.
Then let's talk about that. Increasing scenario publication isn't an option. People refuse to loosen the faucet on the replaying trickle. (Because at 5 games out of 155, it really is a trickle.)
What's the solution?
Developer
|
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
'Tis not just that we are afraid. Experience has proven this is the case way more often than not. Secondly, even in our area which is generally really good about spoilers, there are a couple players I don't want to play with if they have GMed the scenario.Hello,
When we talk replying scenarios, typically the answer is a big, resounding, “NO.” Usually the reasons are twofold; first, we’re afraid that the replayer will spoil the story for people who haven’t yet experienced it. Second, we’re certain that people will use the ability to replay scenarios to farm desirable boons on their characters. In terms of replaying content, that already exists in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. The rules clearly allow replaying for no credit, so long as everyone at the table is aware and accepting of the replayer. Furthermore, we allow GMs to replay scenarios if they possess a specific boon. I think that if we can trust GMs to replay scenarios for credit fairly, we can trust every player to....
One of the reasons you're seeing a lot of pushback here is that many of the commentators who have participated in these discussions have witnessed the decline of other organized play campaigns that embraced unlimited replay. That's valuable insight, as I had limited exposure to other organized play campaigns before I began working at Paizo. What's more, it's feedback that closely parallels that of my more OP-savvy colleagues. It's really easy to dismiss that caution as fear, yet much of that caution comes from hard-learned experience.
I think that if we can trust GMs to replay scenarios for credit fairly, we can trust every player to.
We trust GMs to play through scenarios despite being familiar with the material for three major reasons. First, the GM may be familiar with the material because she had to read the scenario to run it for a different group of players. That introduces the second reason, which is the ability to play (and sparingly replay) those adventures for credit as a thank-you and sign of consideration for the time a GM puts into preparing, printing, and delivering a great gaming experience. Finally, I tend to trust GMs with replaying because our GMs are on the receiving end of a variety of play styles and are in a unique position to learn what works and what doesn't in managing the play experiences of 3–7 players. When it comes time to replay an adventure, I trust that a GM (and admittedly many but not all players) can apply that experience to replay in a considerate manner that doesn't spoil or overshadow others who are seeing the adventure for the first time.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that if it doesn't disrupt your organized play experience, they should be allowed to do what they want with their games.unlimited replay was one of the final nails in the coffin of 4E LFR for me, when a local group ran a 'speed day' where they just ran the combats & skill challenges (so as to be legal, as they had all played them multiple times before and the plot was meaningless). they ran 8 scenarios in 8 hours just to farm the certs for powerful items.
If your players have burned through the 300+ available scenarios, they need to learn to pace themselves; rather than expect paizo to turn out more scenarios a month.
What becomes really problematic, though, is that not everyone's confident enough to speak up when something is disrupting their organized play experience. Based on the fun stories that arose from discussions of whether to play up or play down when determining subtiers, I can attest those kinds of situations can be pretty brutal in the organized play setting, causing some to suffer in silence.
On top of that, we're an international campaign spanning dozens of countries and hundreds of sub-communities. Replay might be an amazing idea for area A because everyone there is really conscientious of those who haven't played the adventure before. However, area B has some very passionate and driven participants who aren't nearly so considerate, and suddenly they have a powerful tool to be disruptive. If replay rules are relaxed and the problem players of area B have free reign to replay (even if it hurts others' experiences), area B suffers and can even collapse. Can area B's organizer step in and issue targeted bans on someone's ability to replay? Can area B's organizer issue a ban on replaying because it would ruin her region—even if area A would find it useful? These are serious questions that arise when the standard is "If it doesn't disrupt your experience, others can do what they want."
The same bread-and-butter participants that you want to reward with replay also include a large number of other bread-and-butter participants who have seen unlimited replay in action and stated in no uncertain terms that such a policy would drive them away forever. A campaign policy that benefits one place can really damage another. Any policy that revisits the replay standards must take these matters into account.
|
|
I hate to say it, especially here, but the best solution for your group might be to just move to regular play. If you are such a tight nit group this will likely be an easy transition. You yourself might need to just grow the community if you want to keep organized play going on in your area.
EDIT: I am curious, what do people think of a one time wipe? The idea is that one time only you can have a complete start over. All information attached to your number would be stripped.
|
|
There have been arguments of 'punch-clock' for 'credit' replays and 'diminished value in play'.
Oddly enough, a different long-term campaign I've been affiliated with for many years was concerned enough that they did a three year program to first test concept of design, tracking how many replay situations came up, how many players were actually replaying a given scenario, and whether the player was disruptive in said scenario.
Oddly enough, the general consensus was that replaying scenarios was actually *a lot harder* than playing through the first time, because it requires a level of mental discipline and maturity layered on top of attempting to have fun and roleplay without disrupting the table.
The rule in that particular campaign is that the author of a given scenario gets to decide if their scenario is replayable or not (some scenarios are written like PFS 'evergreens', with lots of options, others not so much...).
About half the scenarios for that campaign are available for replay, and while there was an 'uptick' in number of tables filled, at the same time the same scenarios kept getting scheduled -- because anyone could play them.
Someone mentioned up-thread about the idea of a 'Sky Key/Seeker' reward. That would actually be kind of neat, but how would it be practible to implement it fairly? And would, in such a circumstance, the reward be *repeatable* or a 'one-off'?
I have two characters that could theoretically hit Seeker in the next year or so, depending on how play falls. It would be rough trying to determine which one's adventure path would be more 'exciting'...
That being said with all of the above, there's a lot of material that is *not* being run at local conventions that I've been at(the usual focus is *all the shiny new scenarios* with possibly some from the last season or two).
Is there any way to keep the older scenarios 'fresh' or 'viable' or even 'desirable to play'? (There are some that I've heard vague whispers or rumors about, and others I've played in that were... anticlimactic at best compared to more recent material...)
|
|
Note that you cannot replay for no credit, unless the replayer is making a legal table.This is something I've been wondering for a while, why can't the person replaying get credit for the table?
If the option is sending up to 3 people home (a GM and 1-2 players at the table) or letting those three people play, why should the person that makes a legal table have to completely sacrifice their time with no reward in doing so? At the very least, we could give them a chronicle for stepping up and completing a table.
Could do some kind of "check 5 boxes, get x reward" kind of thing for replays. Nothing too fancy, just a tiny something. People rarely need a big reward for doing something they like... but they do like to get some kind of reward when everyone around them is getting one too.
That way replays are still discouraged, but not completely prevented and still under the PFS banner.
But you'd still need to keep a system to prevent people who are replaying from taking seats from those who haven't played yet.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
John Compton outlined the issue a number of us have with unlimited replays quite well, thanks John. I'll give you some of the problems I had with unlimited replay there were two major problems that cropped up (not everywhere, but enough places to be detrimental to the campaign).
First, a group of players replays the same scenario over and over again together, then a new player (whether to the group playing it or to the campaign as a whole joins, first time playing or a repetition himself (though more problematic with a first playthrough)). The 'old' players don't allow the 'new' player to do what he wants because they no longer care about the story and are just meta-gaming to get the rewards. 'Hey why are you doing X, all we have to do is go over to Y and do Z and we'll be done with full rewards.' I've seen/heard of experiences like this and it greatly discourages new players from joining either the group or the campaign as a whole. Any decisions we make should be to be more inclusive especially of new people to the hobby/group, and yes at times this means veterans will get less time playing at the table.
Second, people playing the same 2 or 3 or X scenarios over and over for some item/boon/reward on every character. How many times do you want to see someone Gamin the system for an intelligent longsword or core players fall like a plague on a scenario to get access to a +5 alchemical bonus versus disease. Builds became cookie cutter based on access or your build determined everything you played. GMs burn out running the same X scenarios over and over, and excitement of exploring new things is at a minimum since only infrequently do people actually do that. Not to mention the 'why don't you use X, oh you haven't played Y' judgments that some people encountered.
I'd have no problem with increasing the number of times GMs can get for running a scenario, maybe a sheet with only the items/xp/gp but no boons or some such. (I know personally I have a few non-evergreens that I can't get credit for even with stars already). I think GMs benefit for running scenarios more than once, but I'm not ready to see replay for players being thrown even further open. Frankly, I feel that we've reached a system that works pretty darn well and don't want to see it broken. (And no, I'm not concerned that players don't want to use options they have like GMing, Core, and the ACG versus not playing anything, that is their individual decision. Assuming 1 module/AP month and 2 scenarios they've been provided with 8+ four hour sessions a month already, that they only want to use half is on them - and frankly me. I'll play ACG (though I prefer the game out of the box over the OP) but Core isn't big here so I haven't even touched that option - outside 1 GM credit)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This entire thread is part of why I stopped running PFS.
Lack of any replay kinda hurts when running in a small venue (2 tables).
Some folk have been playing for years, others have just started.
How about the new scenario?
Oops, looks like Chad played it already.
Well, what about last week's release?
Nope, Dave played that one, at a Con that only he (of the people in the venue) went to.
Who missed one week, several months ago, before the fresh wave of 3 new recruits?
Do we have enough to play this old scenario that I know I've run but am not sure who with of the top of my head?
Oh wait, the one player who could make that table work is playing at the other table, and if he leaves that on then he'll have other issues later.
The Sudoku just became too much.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel you. We get that too. I just don't figure replay is the answer.
Our solution for geek sudoku has been to do it beforehand by announcing what's happening on game days. Dave might have to stay home, but everyone else gets to play!
Yeah, but when Dave is Cheryl, Matt, and Steve's ride and that is literally half the players...
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but when Dave is Cheryl, Matt, and Steve's ride and that is literally half the players...I feel you. We get that too. I just don't figure replay is the answer.
Our solution for geek sudoku has been to do it beforehand by announcing what's happening on game days. Dave might have to stay home, but everyone else gets to play!
Dave can GM!
To help with Geek Sudoku some of my players have developed a session tracker. It's still under development, but quite usable already!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've had one player mistakingly use a star at a convention to sit in a game he forgot he played a couple years prior. It was a spur of the moment decision to pick an open game during mustering and now he's penalized for that. And he still jokes now that it wasn't even a good scenario!
We've also had two other players willingly use them under the assumption they would refresh, so they too have wasted those stars.
We've occasionally had cases where three GMs will prep to run tables, but when we only have players for two tables, that third GM is left out. The GM put a lot of time into preparing to run a game and simply wanted to come socialize with friends and have a fun time. Are we really supposed to tell him to go home, because he's already played both scenarios?
There are some really good scenarios out there that we'd love to replay again. I won't specify the scenario, but many of us were really impressed with an older scenario where the NPC's roles could change as it plays out. After we finished, we thought we'd love to play that again to see what could happen differently.
I think too many people are looking at both extremes; either unlimited replay or the current conditions of no replay (Core mode and limited stars aside).
Maybe one play credit per sub-tier would be a good option to consider. You can still limit the GM credit to one chronicle, but an extra play (or two for the 1-7s with three sub-tiers) gives players an option to get the full chronicle in rewards without being excessive. It would also allow players an extra chance to join a game without being left out of an event, because they've played what is scheduled.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but when Dave is Cheryl, Matt, and Steve's ride and that is literally half the players...I feel you. We get that too. I just don't figure replay is the answer.
Our solution for geek sudoku has been to do it beforehand by announcing what's happening on game days. Dave might have to stay home, but everyone else gets to play!
Dave can GM!
To help with Geek Sudoku some of my players have developed a session tracker. It's still under development, but quite usable already!
Then I'm the guy heading home...
I mean, I get where you're coming from, and I understand that the replay rules are a necessary evil that comes with balancing a massive organized play, but they really put the clamps to us small town folk.
In the end, we moved over to regular AP play.
The players seem to enjoy it more anyways.
But I did want to voice my concern as a small time PFS DM.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, one other point to throw out there that I thought of before falling asleep;
The lack of player replay ability actively encourages chronicle fishing.
Yes, chronicle fishing is a form of cheating (no, I haven't fished before myself).
Yes, cheating is bad.
But if you think about it from a novice player standpoint, it's really a logical one.
One can only take "playing the wrong character for the boon you received" so many times before they've had enough.
Oh look, a nice boon for the Silver Crusade! I played through on my Dark Archives character...
Ah! An unique boon granting access to an exotic animal companion! Too bad this character isn't my cavalier...
What ho! A special weapon perfectly balanced for my other chara....you get the idea.
Yes, a player in such straits could DM for others to get credit for an appropriate character.
Then again, small venue rules.
The sudoku was bad enough with just the regulars at the PFS table.
Now said player needs to find a new group of appropriate level characters who haven't played said scenario....
In the end, it's far easier to screen for specific boons and plan accordingly.
Yeah, honestly, I get the points for the current replay rules.
Just pointing out some things from the other side.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) chronicle fishing: do you honestly think that will get better with open replay? You consider replay good because it will allow rampant chronicle fishing? That's counter-ontuitive.
2) It sounds like you proclaim a game day, and pick GMS and tables based on who showed up and what you can play. Move to a strict RSVP system. I know all the arguments against, and the idea that players may stop coming back if they can't play. The fear might be founded for a few, but frankly we are better off in our community without players whose play rate is both untenable and irresponsible. The majority of people will shrug and say, "Ah, already played it, see ya next time." Some days you might just get one table. But you'll know it based on who RSVPs for which scenario(s) you've decided to organize that day.
|
|
2) It sounds like you proclaim a game day, and pick GMS and tables based on who showed up and what you can play. Move to a strict RSVP system. I know all the arguments against, and the idea that players may stop coming back if they can't play. The fear might be founded for a few, but frankly we are better off in our community without players whose play rate is both untenable and irresponsible. The majority of people will shrug and say, "Ah, already played it, see ya next time." Some days you might just get one table. But you'll know it based on who RSVPs for which scenario(s) you've decided to organize that day.
He is using warhorn, with about a month lead on what gets scheduled.
Alex is a bit more organized then the last store coordinator (me) who tended to schedule based on what he felt would be the best choice for the slot.
Seriously though, please no more replay than we already have.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the reasons you're seeing a lot of pushback here is that many of the commentators who have participated in these discussions have witnessed the decline of other organized play campaigns that embraced unlimited replay. That's valuable insight, as I had limited exposure to other organized play campaigns before I began working at Paizo. What's more, it's feedback that closely parallels that of my more OP-savvy colleagues. It's really easy to dismiss that caution as fear, yet much of that caution comes from hard-learned experience.
I seriously appreciate the time you took to post in this thread, John. Thanks. :D
I also appreciate everyone's feedback about other organized play methods, because I'll be the first to admit that I haven't been doing this very long. My 1-year PFS participation anniversary was last July, and I've been a coordinator for about a month now. I am the epitome of the no-experienced guy spouting his opinions on a public forum.
I think that if we can trust GMs to replay scenarios for credit fairly, we can trust every player to.We trust GMs to play through scenarios despite being familiar with the material for three major reasons. First, the GM may be familiar with the material because she had to read the scenario to run it for a different group of players. That introduces the second reason, which is the ability to play (and sparingly replay) those adventures for credit as a thank-you and sign of consideration for the time a GM puts into preparing, printing, and delivering a great gaming experience. Finally, I tend to trust GMs with replaying because our GMs are on the receiving end of a variety of play styles and are in a unique position to learn what works and what doesn't in managing the play experiences of 3–7 players. When it comes time to replay an adventure, I trust that a GM (and admittedly many but not all players) can apply that experience to replay in a considerate manner that doesn't spoil or overshadow others who are seeing the adventure for the first time.
I don't have any comments here. These are great reasons, and I agree both with the reasoning and the practice. The logic makes sense.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Tampere
|
Yeah, but when Dave is Cheryl, Matt, and Steve's ride and that is literally half the players...I feel you. We get that too. I just don't figure replay is the answer.
Our solution for geek sudoku has been to do it beforehand by announcing what's happening on game days. Dave might have to stay home, but everyone else gets to play!
Dave can GM!
To help with Geek Sudoku some of my players have developed a session tracker. It's still under development, but quite usable already!
Keep in mind not every Dave can GM, though. We have a few players in our area who for various personal reasons don't or can't GM.
|
Contributor
|
Personally, I'm of the opinion that if it doesn't disrupt your organized play experience, they should be allowed to do what they want with their games.What becomes really problematic, though, is that not everyone's confident enough to speak up when something is disrupting their organized play experience. Based on the fun stories that arose from discussions of whether to play up or play down when determining subtiers, I can attest those kinds of situations can be pretty brutal in the organized play setting, causing some to suffer in silence.
On top of that, we're an international campaign spanning dozens of countries and hundreds of sub-communities. Replay might be an amazing idea for area A because everyone there is really conscientious of those who haven't played the adventure before. However, area B has some very passionate and driven participants who aren't nearly so considerate, and suddenly they have a powerful tool to be disruptive. If replay rules are relaxed and the problem players of area B have free reign to replay (even if it hurts others' experiences), area B suffers and can even collapse. Can area B's organizer step in and issue targeted bans on someone's ability to replay? Can area B's organizer issue a ban on replaying because it would ruin her region—even if area A would find it useful? These are serious questions that arise when the standard is "If it doesn't disrupt your experience, others can do what they want."
I can understand this, especially after reading through the comments that I got on this thread. There really are drastic differences between lodges and how they need to be run in order to provide for their players, such as how the ACG and CORE Campaigns have really struggled (or outright failed in some cases) to get a following in our lodge's stores, where that clearly isn't the case in most other places.
I like to think that the people I have in mind wouldn't be disruptive under such a system, but even I can picture a handful of players that, I agree, might be tempted to abuse the privilege.
The same bread-and-butter participants that you want to reward with replay also include a large number of other bread-and-butter participants who have seen unlimited replay in action and stated in no uncertain terms that such a policy would drive them away forever. A campaign policy that benefits one place can really damage another. Any policy that revisits the replay standards must take these matters into account.[/quotes]
When I really appreciate about your post, John, is that it isn't really a declaration of "No, never," but more so the explanation in reasoning that someone like me, who doesn't have much experience doing this, needed.
Even after your post, I still think that loosing the replaying rules would be a good thing, but I'm pretty much persuaded that unfettered access isn't the best policy, even if it has cool roleplaying strings attached.
Last weekend, we (our Lodge) ran a charity convention. We had enough people for boons, and the options were Expanded Narrative (the star replays) and tiefling. I did a little bit of snooping, and from what I found most of the GMs elected for the tiefling over Expanded Narrative. Personally, I already have a copy of that boon from PaizoCon and am nowhere near filling it up, but from what I saw more took the tiefling than Expanded Narrative. (Jeff is the one who actually handed out the boons, so he'd have more info in this regard.) I can't speak for the other 14 GMs who ran the convention, but as someone who owns Expanded Narrative already, I feel that its super slow. You have to run a LOT to have the replays, and you have to run a LOT in order to charge up the replay boon. I know ToZ hinted about GameDay boons, but if something like that were to happen, I'm not convinced that Expanded Narrative is the best compromise between "No replays ever" and "Unlimited replays," if only because the current system encourages GMs to horde their replays for things with high yield, like convention specials and modules. Something that takes work but is more "expendable" in the sense that its a touch easier to come across would be more preferential, in my opinion, and Jeff Fox is about the only person I've seen who will spend his stars altruistically. (He really is quite an awesome guy. Most of the time. ;-P)
I'm going to keep the conversation going in this thread to see if anything comes out of it, but I appreciate that you took your own time out of your day to post here. Thanks again!
|
Contributor
|
I hate to say it, especially here, but the best solution for your group might be to just move to regular play. If you are such a tight nit group this will likely be an easy transition. You yourself might need to just grow the community if you want to keep organized play going on in your area.
EDIT: I am curious, what do people think of a one time wipe? The idea is that one time only you can have a complete start over. All information attached to your number would be stripped.
I don't think a one-time wipe is a great idea, personally. That's a lot of hard work just gone.
My group has begun to start a lot of regular play; we do Carrion Crown once a month, Reign of Winter twice a month, and I'm going to be starting Jade Regent once a month, too. The issue is less, "Its getting hard to schedule these awesome people," and more, "These awesome people constitute 2/3 of my store's player base and I would prefer not to have them stop showing up because I don't have the slots to seat them anywhere, GM or otherwise."
|
Contributor
|
Yeah, but when Dave is Cheryl, Matt, and Steve's ride and that is literally half the players...I feel you. We get that too. I just don't figure replay is the answer.
Our solution for geek sudoku has been to do it beforehand by announcing what's happening on game days. Dave might have to stay home, but everyone else gets to play!
Dave can GM!
To help with Geek Sudoku some of my players have developed a session tracker. It's still under development, but quite usable already!
Tell me more about this program. It looks absolutely fascinating, and I love a good Technological Solution to problems like this. (I was trying to make a Google Sheets program with similar functionality, but it got so big with so much code that it was too cumbersome to run on my computer.)
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think too many people are looking at both extremes; either unlimited replay or the current conditions of no replay (Core mode and limited stars aside).
Maybe one play credit per sub-tier would be a good option to consider. You can still limit the GM credit to one chronicle, but an extra play (or two for the 1-7s with three sub-tiers) gives players an option to get the full chronicle in rewards without being excessive. It would also allow players an extra chance to join a game without being left out of an event, because they've played what is scheduled.
After reading John's post, I wholeheartedly agree with both you and he that unlimited replays for players isn't a good tactical move. I do, however, think that the current system is still too prohibitive, and similar to what you're saying, I think it encourages GMs to bottle up until that "Perfect scenario" roles around. I would much rather see that the system has the flexibility that GMs could use it altruistically to try to combat "Geek Sudoku." (That term is REALLY growing on me, man!)
|
Contributor
|
2) It sounds like you proclaim a game day, and pick GMS and tables based on who showed up and what you can play. Move to a strict RSVP system. I know all the arguments against, and the idea that players may stop coming back if they can't play. The fear might be founded for a few, but frankly we are better off in our community without players whose play rate is both untenable and irresponsible. The majority of people will shrug and say, "Ah, already played it, see ya next time." Some days you might just get one table. But you'll know it based on who RSVPs for which scenario(s) you've decided to organize that day.He is using warhorn, with about a month lead on what gets scheduled.
Alex is a bit more organized then the last store coordinator (me) who tended to schedule based on what he felt would be the best choice for the slot.
Seriously though, please no more replay than we already have.
Honestly, I'm not more organized then you are/were Jeff. Instead of having your uncanny memory for what's been played and your patience to sort through four years of Warhorn logs, I pester our regulars for lists of what they can and can't play. :-P
|
|
Honestly, I'm not more organized then you are/were Jeff. Instead of having your uncanny memory for what's been played and your patience to sort through four years of Warhorn logs, I pester our regulars for lists of what they can and can't play. :-P2) It sounds like you proclaim a game day, and pick GMS and tables based on who showed up and what you can play. Move to a strict RSVP system. I know all the arguments against, and the idea that players may stop coming back if they can't play. The fear might be founded for a few, but frankly we are better off in our community without players whose play rate is both untenable and irresponsible. The majority of people will shrug and say, "Ah, already played it, see ya next time." Some days you might just get one table. But you'll know it based on who RSVPs for which scenario(s) you've decided to organize that day.He is using warhorn, with about a month lead on what gets scheduled.
Alex is a bit more organized then the last store coordinator (me) who tended to schedule based on what he felt would be the best choice for the slot.
Seriously though, please no more replay than we already have.
I guess my point really is to not be afraid if someone can't play occassionally. I suggest running new stuff shortly after it comes out (without of course jeopardizing any conventions--we typically hold back 2 months of scenarios for our main convention.) Which should guarantee them at leat two plays per month.
Knowing the release rate and the scope of the finite resources, if a player plays themselves out of stuff to play, that thier own fault. But if you don't tell them of the limitations, they may not know. We told folks early on, and I still repost the info every year or two for reminder and to capture new folks. My experience is people play as much as they want without consideration for the finiteness of the resource.
|
|
Im not suggesting you organize things your players don't like. If they don't like Core, then don't organize Core. Easy as that.
If they do like Core, enough to be ok with playing it anyway, then the problem is likely the way you are organizing it, if Im understanding your posts correctly.
Its not how i'm organizing it (or well, NOT organizing it. Its not really a good fit for a small venue because...
1) What people from larger venues don't seem to understand is "enough" has to be "all". Otherwise I'm leaving someone out for a few weeks.
2) Core creates problems down the line. I would like to run and people would like to play their characters past level 5. If the new people came in on core they can't help full out a table of level 7's noncore. Who has played what table and has characters available for what levels is confusing enough before you toss core/noncore into the mix.
Basically, when you create your event for people to sign up for, have the table be designated as either Core or RPG, but the table stays that way (unforeseen circumstances aside).Unforseen circumstances changing your plans are almost the norm.
I don't know why you keep assuming Im a person from a 'large venue', but Im not. I know plenty about running events at small locations.
But you seem to be pretty set that this isn't going to work for you, so Im not going to fight you on it. You know your location better than I, and Im not concerned enough to argue about it til we're both blue in the face. If you wish to discuss it further, Im more than willing to try to help via PM so we don't drag this thread out, but aside from that, good luck.
|
|
I have been lurking in the background on this thread sense the start...
** spoiler omitted **
I have played almost everything. And I've been like this for years... and I'm happy with the way it works now. Please don't brake it, trying to fix a problem for me... when I don't think it's a problem.
I am curious what you think of a one time wipe? I understand how unlimited replay is probably a bad idea, and your concern about the threat of creep.