|
I think Mike Brock mentioned it a couple of years ago (there was beer involved and I am a little bit hazy) - that a these chronicles had been already worked through - so there might be some tidying up required - and some balancing to confirm with current PFS direction.
What it does come down to is time and scheduling and I am not privy to their [paizo's] workload. But there would be all sorts of deadlines to shuffle around to get there I'd imagine.
But... we have established pre-published content (which has made it through the editing process already). All we need is the chronicles approved and possibly a new PDF - and we done - New content for PFS that means we don't need to consider relaxing role-playing policies etc...
Hooray!
I think I remember the post you're talking about, and I think the idea was that they were going to work on some sort of a conversion document and chronicles for the 3.5 modules / scenarios. As far as I can recall, it was something that was on the slate to get worked on, I haven't heard anything else about since Mike left, so I've no idea if it is still on the list of things to get done or not.
|
|
oh yeah, very aware of that. Some of the more caustic personalities online must be ok in person... not sure. Normally I just filter them out. Ignore can be a worderful thing...
I guess since I feel like running my mouth off, I've never really seen the usefulness of having an ignore function. To me, the benefit of Ignore is far outstripped by the drawback of missing the good points that people might have to say. There are people on the boards that I might find frustrating, but I don't really think it is the best of ideas to completely block off ideas that I might find objectionable. While I might be saved a minor nuisance every once in a while, I'm also missing out on another viewpoint, and I think ideas come best when I can look at them from many differing perspectives, which I wouldn't have if I ignored people.
While we may find each other to be frustrating at times, we are all very passionate about PFS, and together we all make OP better. Except you, Gary (kidding!).
|
I'm not a mod or anything special like that, but could we back off a bit and cool down some?
Anyone who has worked in customer service/retail/with the public should know that there's always two sides of the story, and it is seeing the needs of the customer AND the retailer met that is the optimal zone for business.
Animosity and weighted words only serve to widen the gap and prevent that synergy from bringing the two sides together.
There are plenty of things that have been brought forward in this thread, ways of looking at scenarios and Society play as a whole.
Please let's reduce the noise and increase the signal?
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please understand, that unless you are in our office day-to-day, it's really unfounded to call an explanation of our development process and business practices "excuses." We're happy to explain and provide as transparent as is appropriate answers to concerns like the ones brought up here, but keep it civil and remember we're humans on the other side of the screen too. I think instead of turning the discussion into a heated debate, that it may be ultimately more productive to provide suggestions or tell us what you'd like to see. Let's get this back to the original topic. Thanks!
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
We also have a responsibility for the health of the PFS community we organize for. If [you] have soo many events and frequency of play that players run out of things to play, then maybe [you] have exceeded the saturation rate and need to dial it back a bit.
I can understand your point about CORE having restricted materials and your players wanting to your their shiny books, but by adding CORE opportunities you are not reducing how much they use their books. You are simply adding more opportunities to play beyond what they have already. They will have just as many opportunities to play using the full extend of their books as they do now, plus more games with full rewards. Its a compromise that already exists within the rules but your community has to be cooperative to make it work.
people in my store seem like they would rather just not show up then take those options.
This seems to be the crux of the problem for most areas struggling with this issue. The players are not willing to cooperate to make more gaming happen. At some point they have to take responsibility for their own gaming opportunities. Paizo has provided hundreds of scenarios, dozens of modules, plus a number of sanctioned APs and quests for us to use, double all that for NORM & CORE, quadruple that for GMs. Its up to us, not just the organizers, but the GMs and players to take ownership of the resources and cooperate to make them work.
I don't want to offend anyone, but sometimes it just feels like "complainers gonna complain." Organizers express an issue they are having and numerous other community members offer advice on how to improve their situation. All to often, every suggestion is shrugged off. "Won't work for me" is expressed over and over again. At some point, people stop wanting to help. Maybe I'm not open-minded enough. Dunno, but I have seen and experienced play areas from small to large, urban to rural, blue-collar to white collar, wealthy to poor, etc and I have yet to find one that could not sustain regular PFS play IF, and this is the key, IF the players, GMs, and organizers are willing to cooperate to make it happen. We just have waaay too much available content for people to be truly "played out."
As I investigate areas that are experiencing problems with "play-out," I find more often than not that issues like "I don't like CORE" or "I don't like modules" or "I don't like high-level play" to be the root cause of their problems. We really just need to foster more cooperation amongst the players. And if they still refuse, then we just have to say sorry, there's no gaming available for you this time, but there's another game coming up soon. As much as we'd like to give every single player everything they want, its just not reasonable.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Why does it seem that people freak out when a players plays something else? Would it be impossible to consider playing both PFS and D&D if you have the available time to do so? If you really are played-out of sanctioned PFS material (a claim I do not believe in most cases) the same thing will happen with any campaign you join. Why not play both? You get the beauty of playing exciting, fresh adventures without having to drudge through stories you have already explored.
This is coming from a Regional Venture-Coordinator who spends all my time supporting PFS. Do I want it to be the biggest, bestest campaign in the world? Of course, but I also want it to maintain the consistent, high-quality experience it has always been. While there are some areas that might, and I stress might, benefit from expanded/unlimited replay, the vast majority of the community has said they don't want it; mostly for reasons of quality and purity of experience. Don't be afraid to play other games. It's okay. We won't shun you or cancel your PFS number. I applaud and envy you having the time it takes to play enough PFS to run out of things to play, but you are the exception not the rule. We simply cannot sustain a level of production that would allow you to always have something new to play. Unfortunately, expanding replay, while an easy solution, is not the best one. The Paizo team doesn't seem to support it, PFS leadership does not support it, and most of the player community does not support it.
|
|
Bob, as a brief rebuttal, I do not care for how your attitude comes off in the first post. I am one of those problem players who refuses to do Core. I just don't care for it. It's not about me using my books, or anything like that. I don't care for the CRB classes without archetypes or feats from other sources. That isn't an attack, just my opinion. I will never play Core, as quality of play is as important to me as quantity of play. This has lead me to reduce the amount of PFS I play sure, and I do accept that. But let's not see Core as a great cure all for lack of content. There are people, who no matter what you do, will not care for it. I do admit if this is a problem for Venture Agents they should look at all the options, but it sounds as if he did at least ask.
|
|
Bob, as a brief rebuttal, I do not care for how your attitude comes off in the first post. I am one of those problem players who refuses to do Core. I just don't care for it. It's not about me using my books, or anything like that. I don't care for the CRB classes without archetypes or feats from other sources. That isn't an attack, just my opinion. I will never play Core, as quality of play is as important to me as quantity of play. This has lead me to reduce the amount of PFS I play sure, and I do accept that. But let's not see Core as a great cure all for lack of content. There are people, who no matter what you do, will not care for it. I do admit if this is a problem for Venture Agents they should look at all the options, but it sounds as if he did at least ask.
I agree Mr. Joquet words can be read to have disdain for people that do not play the game in his style. But he did not just say core. He was right with the adventure paths and such as well.
I also agree with you that I would like appreciate more PFS adventures.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
yet I've been informed that I should try not working over the weekend.
I'm glad somebody told you that :)
Short term, you can get a benefit from working over the weekend.
Long term (and "long" can be as short as "a month or two"), you end up getting less done. Even if you keep overworking. Plus you start to hate life sooner or later.
|
|
Bob, as a brief rebuttal, I do not care for how your attitude comes off in the first post. I am one of those problem players who refuses to do Core. I just don't care for it. It's not about me using my books, or anything like that. I don't care for the CRB classes without archetypes or feats from other sources. That isn't an attack, just my opinion. I will never play Core, as quality of play is as important to me as quantity of play. This has lead me to reduce the amount of PFS I play sure, and I do accept that. But let's not see Core as a great cure all for lack of content. There are people, who no matter what you do, will not care for it. I do admit if this is a problem for Venture Agents they should look at all the options, but it sounds as if he did at least ask.
I don't think Bob came off with an attitude at all personally, he's giving a point-of-view from someone who's been highly successful in running PFS as a Venture Captain and GenCon organizer and now as a regional coordinator. He may be putting it bluntly but the opportunity to play PFS consistently is on both the organizers to offer content and the players to take advantage of it. If players want to limit themselves that's on them all we can do as organizers is offer to run the content they can play.
As an example - locally we have a lot of dedicated players, but only one of them is running out of content. Why? Well the majority of the most dedicated players are three star or above GMs as well. The one player isn't. (The player does contribute a lot to the community but infrequently GMs.) That player has less than 20 scenarios left to play (I'm not sure the exact count), additionally they have played at least 2 full APs and are working through 2 more, and have played through nearly half the sanctioned modules. Most months (locally) this means they are only able to play when new material is released. That's just the way it is. We have run some modules/APs at the local event but have had some problems with some outside consequences when we do so. Could we add CORE play - yes and no. Our location is a game store that doesn't want to run core. Could we add another location for CORE games - yes and we did, except there was little to no interest, and you know what the one player who most needs CORE doesn't want it so we offer games when we can and move on. That player also doesn't complain about the lack of play opportunities as they know that they played themselves out - which is fair. What isn't fair is complaining that there isn't enough opportunity to play when it's been a limited resource since the beginning and no one has tried to hide that fact.
|
|
Why does it seem that people freak out when a players plays something else? Would it be impossible to consider playing both PFS and D&D if you have the available time to do so? If you really are played-out of sanctioned PFS material (a claim I do not believe in most cases) the same thing will happen with any campaign you join. Why not play both? You get the beauty of playing exciting, fresh adventures without having to drudge through stories you have already explored.This is coming from a Regional Venture-Coordinator who spends all my time supporting PFS. Do I want it to be the biggest, bestest campaign in the world? Of course, but I also want it to maintain the consistent, high-quality experience it has always been. While there are some areas that might, and I stress might, benefit from expanded/unlimited replay, the vast majority of the community has said they don't want it; mostly for reasons of quality and purity of experience. Don't be afraid to play other games. It's okay. We won't shun you or cancel your PFS number.
Bob, the problem I ran into at a local convention was due to table space issues and a faulty sign-up system was being 'shunted' to a far inferior campaign to PFS. Credit to the convention coordinator for finding me a seat, but...
Said campaign did not have a Guide to peruse at the table, nor did the players seem welcoming or even considerate of what sort of ideas a new player could bring to the table.
Instead, it felt like someone was trying to turn me into their 'gamer girlfriend/boyfriend' for the slot.
Honestly felt like I could have 'taken the bus option' for how miserable the slot turned out, but I was 'trapped by transportation'.
I'm not 'over-played', but with limited GMs for new material and that's all that was running at the convention, I understand that sometimes table space isn't available. But encouraging an inferior experience is not necessarily a winning idea in my book.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
CORE is not a cure-all for people who run out of things to play, though it certainly does introduce limited replay. If you choose not to avail yourself of the opportunities that CORE offers, that's okay, but that's also your choice.
From my days as an LFR DM in 4e, I can tell you that unlimited replay just ruined many a game day at our local stores. It became the table-top version of farming gold/materials in WoW, for example. It was not healthy for the campaign, and our local area suffered.
There should not, I don't believe, be an expansion of replay opportunities. It is currently available, in a limited sense, through CORE, and GMs can get replay opportunities (with the ability to recharge those opportunities) based on the number of stars they have.
Bob's suggestion that people can choose to also play other stuff (at least until new content is available) is sound. There is certainly the Adventure Card Game (see, Tanis, I'm helping to promote the game! :-) ), Adventure Paths for PFS credit, etc.
I don't know the internal workings on Paizo, but I can tell you that they have a pretty ambitious schedule as it is with new scenario development (especially for cons), review of new items to include in the Additional Resources Document, and so on. And suggesting that they hire more staff to do that (particularly based on the view that "I'm paying for your product, so give me more") isn't either the solution, nor is it appropriate. We don't know the business model, we don't know all the factors that would need to be considered in hiring additional staff, and we don't know what the inclusion of more staff will mean for Organized Play. It is, by all calculations, a delicate balancing act.
I would add, off topic I'll admit, that we shouldn't be so quick to read too much into the tone of others. Text and communication media, like this, often times make it easy to misinterpret or perceive incorrectly the tone or intent with which someone posts. I think we'd all be a lot better off if we just read what was being said and focused less on the how (though, I'll admit, some posts are pretty hostile or rude on their face.)
As Bob often reminds us:
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
|
|
But let's not see Core as a great cure all for lack of content.
Core is a great cure for lack of content. Just because you choose not to partake doesn't change its availability or the amount of content/replay it opens up.
I understand its not everyone's cup of tea, but if you are SO into this game that you just HAVE to play it so often that you speed through all the regular content and then refuse to do Core, then YOU have painted yourself into a corner, not Paizo.
You here being general and not specifically Quintin.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bob, as a brief rebuttal, I do not care for how your attitude comes off in the first post.
I apologize if what I said offended. As I said it was not the intent. Not everyone likes the CORE option and that's fine. My point was that [you] cannot continue to complain about "play-out" and then refuse to take advantage of additional play opportunities when solutions are offered. Those complaints often sound unreasonable and people stop trying to help if their efforts are not appreciated.
Being an organizer and scheduling events is not easy. We know that. There are a lot of moving parts to juggle, but I am 100% completely convinced that with a little cooperation between the organizer, GMs, and players that you can offer options that will allow everyone to play frequently. There are just waay too many available options to say otherwise.
|
|
I agree Mr. Joquet words can be read to have disdain for people that do not play the game in his style. But he did not just say core. He was right with the adventure paths and such as well.
I also agree with you that I would like appreciate more PFS adventures.
Tone is difficult to "read" in text and IMO, if someone wants to find offense in something someone says in the forums, they'll find it. I dont think I promoted a style of play. I merely pointed out that there are numerous options to expand play opportunities and if players refuse to take advantage of them, it's not really fair to blame the system for not being 100% customized and tailored to fit them personally.
Certainly more adventures would be nice, but would not necessarily be a magic fix to all scheduling woes. It would probably be a solution for some, but like every option, it would not help everyone. Maybe the extra adventures are the wrong faction focus, or the wrong tier, or the wrong style (technology, gunslingers, etc). Not to mention the ROI which could be too high for Paizo.Maybe once the schedule normalizes and the PFS development team can actually get ahead of the demanding schedule, consideration can be made to add a third developer and increase output. Dunno, but until then we need to focus on the resources available and be a little creative. Considering the very nature of gaming is a creative existence, I know we can do it.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
|
|
the problem...
Don't lose heart. That was just one bad experience and believe me there is some pretty bad gaming going out there, but there is good also. Just look at PFS. It has the same opportunity to be bad gaming, but IMO we have the largest community of good gaming and awesome gamers in the world. I think you can find good gaming if you're willing and interested in finding it. I've met some really cool people and played a lot of excellent games in the other genres: console gaming, PC gaming, board games, card games (TCG or otherwise), miniature games, etc., even those nasty D&D players and their inferior RPG ;-)
|
|
I love the idea of replays as I like to believe most PFS players are respectful of the game and have its best interest at heart. That said, I remember when the GM replays were offered and a bunch of PFSers that I really respect couldn't wait to replay a certain scenario that gave out a extra feat as a boon. That soured me on that notion.
Still setting up tables at my FLGS where I used to organize PFS was always a nightmare because of who played what issues which replays could have easily resolved.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
I love the idea of replays as I like to believe most PFS players are respectful of the game and have its best interest at heart.
Having played and organized a previous campaign that allowed much greater replay, I can say that the problem is not with players intentionally Metagaming for benefit (though that did happen more frequently in other locations than my own), but rather the problem came from players not intentionally avoiding Metagaming. What I mean by that is that many replayers subconsciously Metagamed. This most often reared its head in RP sessions. Since combat tends to be much more replayable than the more story elements of the game, players who were replaying a mod would quickly get board with those elements and do things to hurry events along to the combat encounters. This could frequently ruin or diminish the story aspects for those at the table who weren't replaying. It takes conscious effort to avoid this sort of thing and not everyone is willing, or thinks, to do that.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a mod or anything special like that, but could we back off a bit and cool down some?Anyone who has worked in customer service/retail/with the public should know that there's always two sides of the story, and it is seeing the needs of the customer AND the retailer met that is the optimal zone for business.
People may want to consider that you're not entitled to our time outside work hours, which is when many of us who aren't in public-facing jobs have time to interact with people on the messageboards.Detailed information about our internal processes, creative decisions, etc. is something we volunteer.
Now, most of us love the game, and enjoy interacting with other people who love the game. I personally like talking about process, about life inside the office, and so on. Most of us put in far more hours than we have to, including those hours spent interacting with players, out of that love. But most of us also have a full 40+ hours of work per week just producing those products.
You can criticize. You don't have to kiss up to anyone who works for Paizo. But if you start out hostile and demanding, don't expect us to volunteer our personal time and emotional energy to you when we have the option to spend it somewhere rewarding.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The most frustrating thing about not being able to replay a scenario is the secrecy going in. Players have no idea what they will get out of it, and commonly find if a cert has a unique item or boon on it, the character is inappropriate to benefit from it.
It would be interesting as a standard PFS rule if a character was allowed to "buy" a boon or item from another character's cert (same player of course). Even if it meant crossing it off the original character's cert and the buyer paid PP for the privilege, it would help a lot.
|
|
There is a GM boon you can get ("Share the Wealth" or some such) that lets you move a single boon from one character to another.
It might be an interesting idea to have a PP cost for sharing a boon. Some of the boons just don't make sense to have for other characters-- e.g. respect you've gained for things you've done. But some item-based boons could be "my other character traded this to me" or some such.
In the long run, the sheet boons are nice, but aren't so hugely nice that you're really at a disadvantage if you never get the right ones on the right characters. Sometimes, I think their value is oversold.
Developer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The most frustrating thing about not being able to replay a scenario is the secrecy going in. Players have no idea what they will get out of it, and commonly find if a cert has a unique item or boon on it, the character is inappropriate to benefit from it.
It would be interesting as a standard PFS rule if a character was allowed to "buy" a boon or item from another character's cert (same player of course). Even if it meant crossing it off the original character's cert and the buyer paid PP for the privilege, it would help a lot.
I like to try out ideas like this in different ways before instituting a universal policy, and the most recent experiment was in the form of a convention boon that allows a player to trade a boon granting access to a special familiar, animal companion, or intelligent item to another PC. I recognize that not everyone can secure a convention boon, yet I haven't heard much feedback on the actual mechanic.
|
|
I like to try out ideas like this in different ways before instituting a universal policy, and the most recent experiment was in the form of a convention boon that allows a player to trade a boon granting access to a special familiar, animal companion, or intelligent item to another PC. I recognize that not everyone can secure a convention boon, yet I haven't heard much feedback on the actual mechanic.The most frustrating thing about not being able to replay a scenario is the secrecy going in. Players have no idea what they will get out of it, and commonly find if a cert has a unique item or boon on it, the character is inappropriate to benefit from it.
It would be interesting as a standard PFS rule if a character was allowed to "buy" a boon or item from another character's cert (same player of course). Even if it meant crossing it off the original character's cert and the buyer paid PP for the privilege, it would help a lot.
I have one of those, but just haven't found the right thing to use it on. It is a good idea though.
|
|
I like to try out ideas like this in different ways before instituting a universal policy, and the most recent experiment was in the form of a convention boon that allows a player to trade a boon granting access to a special familiar, animal companion, or intelligent item to another PC. I recognize that not everyone can secure a convention boon, yet I haven't heard much feedback on the actual mechanic.The most frustrating thing about not being able to replay a scenario is the secrecy going in. Players have no idea what they will get out of it, and commonly find if a cert has a unique item or boon on it, the character is inappropriate to benefit from it.
It would be interesting as a standard PFS rule if a character was allowed to "buy" a boon or item from another character's cert (same player of course). Even if it meant crossing it off the original character's cert and the buyer paid PP for the privilege, it would help a lot.
Share the Wealth at least of the people around here who went to GenCon was one of the 2 most sought after boons and if/when it is in a local convention's set of boons I fully expect it to be the most sought after boon. Being able to trade X to another character is pretty awesome.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I like to try out ideas like this in different ways before instituting a universal policy, and the most recent experiment was in the form of a convention boon that allows a player to trade a boon granting access to a special familiar, animal companion, or intelligent item to another PC. I recognize that not everyone can secure a convention boon, yet I haven't heard much feedback on the actual mechanic.The most frustrating thing about not being able to replay a scenario is the secrecy going in. Players have no idea what they will get out of it, and commonly find if a cert has a unique item or boon on it, the character is inappropriate to benefit from it.
It would be interesting as a standard PFS rule if a character was allowed to "buy" a boon or item from another character's cert (same player of course). Even if it meant crossing it off the original character's cert and the buyer paid PP for the privilege, it would help a lot.
I am not ordinarily a boon hunter. I can take or leave most race boons (and usually leave them). Likewise, I tend to give away the vast majority of boons I get. The exception is treasure map. Love that boon, mostly for the flavor and character development.
Having said all that, I would really enjoy having access to the Share the Wealth boon.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Enthusiastic Participants: "PFS is awesome! I want to play it all the time, and have my life-blood replaced with Golarion lore. *I named my dog Kyra so when we walk I can tell her to 'heel'! Why can't we play it all the time?"
Paizo: "Well here's the content we're producing. Unfortunately, due to the constraints of time, finances, and in keeping with our high internal standards for production, we will release X scenarios per Y time frame."
Enthusiastic Participants: "Never say never, friendly company! Here are some solutions to work around those problems!"
Paizo: "Thank you for the comments but we have been looking into this for a long time. We will let you know if it changes, and we are aware that people would be excited to see PFS expand and grow."
Other Enthusiastic Participants: "You know, if you 'finish' PFS you can always play other stuff, or take a break. Sometimes playing something else is good!"
Enthusiastic Participants: "Thanks for the advice, fellow PFS enthusiasts. While I wish for change now, I understand that sustainable improvements in an environment with so many moving parts take time. I will continue to enjoy PFS while looking into some of the options you provided."
Paizo: "Hooray for these forums and the positive discussion they encourage!"
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I would really enjoy having access to the Share the Wealth boon.Fortunately, we are rolling out a new GameDay rewards program this quarter, so make sure your events are reported to the local VC so s/he can forward them to the RVC for consideration.
Good to hear. I look forward to being able to introduce my non-convention-going players and GMs to the new character development that awaits them. :-)
|
Contributor—Canadian Maplecakes
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, there is no "one size fits all" solution for this problem, shy of Thursty uploading his consciousness to a robot and us manufacturing Shax-Slaughter-Author-Bots which churn out a new scenario every day, so if you're hitting the bottom of the well with PFS you're going to need to play around a bit and see what works.
I just wanted to post and say that I'm sorry I missed this.
As for me writing PFS more stuff... I guess you should be careful what you wish for? :)
|
|
Unlimited replay kills campaigns. Once you have played a scenario, playing it again is just going through the motions to get "credit". I've even noticed this in Core Campaign, where everyone has already played the scenario and the games seem flatter.
I don't understand the issue with multiple replays with different characters. Since we are role playing, each encounter is new the character, so is an unknown.
I did experience some of what you are speaking with the "Confirmation" mission. I was the only player that hadn't done it before. The players weren't role playing what their character would do, and even the GM seemed a bit tired on the particular mission.
In particular, it seems to come up in missions that have a "puzzle" function that is rather dependent on PCs having certain skills or abilities.
Did another mission where no one had Detect Magic. We had casters, but no detect magic or read magic. We kept failing our knowledge and spellcraft checks too. Eventually, GM allowed a player that had played it before, to give hints to the party so we could progress.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Unlimited replay kills campaigns. Once you have played a scenario, playing it again is just going through the motions to get "credit". I've even noticed this in Core Campaign, where everyone has already played the scenario and the games seem flatter.I don't understand the issue with multiple replays with different characters. Since we are role playing, each encounter is new the character, so is an unknown.
I did experience some of what you are speaking with the "Confirmation" mission. I was the only player that hadn't done it before. The players weren't role playing what their character would do, and even the GM seemed a bit tired on the particular mission.
I am confused. You just stated you had personal experience with the problem, so what don't you understand about it?
Grinding missions for loot feels just way too much like an MMO to me. As tempting as the munchkin in me finds it, in the end I know that the actual at-table experience would be lame.
Picture 4-5 hours of playing the same thing over, knowing the answers and having to keep your mouth shut so as not to ruin it for others. Heck, I just experienced having a 4 star GM as a player on an evergreen. He got frustrated and just started telling us outright where the bad guys were going to be. The GM at the table handled it well (and moved the encounter) but it kinda hurt the fun. It would suck if it was a scenario that had more story than slog, like School of Spirits.
I'd much rather be able to trade boons between "family" members. That intelligent sword would be much more interesting on any character other than one's sorcerer, for example.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I'd much rather be able to trade boons between "family" members. That intelligent sword would be much more interesting on any character other than one's sorcerer, for example.
I got that sword (and, later on, the ability to repair it) on a character that had no use for a sword. But just last weekend I got exactly what you are asking for; the ability to transfer the sword to a different character.
|
|
I am confused. You just stated you had personal experience with the problem, so what don't you understand about it?
My problem was players not role playing their characters and GMs that were tired of the mission.
Replaying it doesn't seem like the issue. The issue is that the players weren't role playing. And to be fair, forcing every PC to replay a certain mission that doesn't yield any credit, does seem like it would inherently generate such issues. (Not unlike playing the tutorial mission of PC game over and over again).
Anyway, if the issue is that players are too familiar with the missions, I strongly suggest adding variable mission features, especially to missions like "confirmation" which players are certain to play over and over again. Players and GMs alike, shouldn't be bored because they are playing the "tax" mission.
I also had issues with missions that require certain skills/abilities which the players aren't guaranteed to actually possess. Where outside knowledge was actually require to continue.
I do think any mission should be designed with a slow way and a fast way to accomplish them. The slow way requiring no skills/ingenuity, and the fast was rewarding skills and ingenuity. I especially despise missions which seem to have no lawful way to accomplish the mission. Fast and slow could exchanged with easy and hard, if preferred.
|
|
I won't even play a scenario that I have GMed before. It just isn't as fun once you've already seen how things turn out.
I've played a few scenarios with people who were re-playing them or who had GMed them before. The degree of success that they had in not spoiling things or metagaming too hard varies quite a bit from person to person, but I have never found it to enhance game play. I guess I see the limited replay that is already allowed as being a detriment to the campaign.
I don't understand people that want more re-play. I guess, more power to you if you enjoy playing the same thing over and over. Find other people who feel the same and grind out those missions again... it just won't be for credit (or at least I hope that continues to be the case)
