Replaying Scenarios > 4 years played


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 146 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
5/5 ⦵⦵

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I had an idea, maybe scenario's that someone played over a certain amount of time (4 or 5 years) can be re-played for credit. In essence anything that a person has played over 4 years ago can be re-played again for credit.

This will reward long time players with more material to play and help the people who have played everything by giving them stuff to play again.

I only am currently eligible to play 2 scenarios and a few modules everything else I have played. I'm not the only one in this boat. But I'd love to play the stuff I played at the start of my PFS career again. For most of them so much time has passed i don't recall the details anyway.

I know tracking might get messy but I think it's worth it.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I take it you're not a fan of CORE?

I see it being run often in your area.

5/5 ⦵⦵

Not really, I'm pretty bored of the core classes.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

So, 30 "new" replayables in my case(started back in November 2008).

Well, dun mind.

Grand Lodge

I don't really have an issue with this, although I couldn't imagine tracking, especially for personal records. I'd also suggest putting the same restriction that is currently on star replays, you can only replay once across this and your stars. I feel like 3 times on a scenario is enough. Obviously this wouldn't really be a problem for the 4-5 year trigger, but it'd be weird to replay Silent Tide after 6 years then burn a star to replay it again in two months.

Silver Crusade 5/5 Venture-Agent, United Kingdom—England—Colchester

Certainly an interesting idea and one I would be in favour of, but I can't really provide much insight. It would be good to hear for some of the larger & older lodges that would have a better idea if this would be a positive or negative change to them.

3/5 Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka TechGnosis

I agree there should be some more flexibility to allow more replays than just stars once. I currently am a store coordinator for a number of folks who have been playing for years, (Kurthnaga being one of those folks) and every few months I pull my hair out trying to schedule stuff everyone can participate in (I had to make a spreadsheet of everyones plays / gms). Our local VL plays at my store, as well as being a coordinator for another store. That on top of his VL duties to visit other stores means he has pretty much done it all Roy Rydbeck also local, and visits our store from time to time, so maybe its just an indication our area is more saturated with PFS players in general, but regardless its a problem for us.

I understand some of the issues that they are trying to prevent, but honestly for folks that want to there is still not much stopping them. Play a scenario, turns out it has an awesome reward that would be perfect for your other character? Just GM it and apply it to that character. GMed it and know everything about the scenario? Just prepare your character with extra gear to avoid some of the issues, and use your existing knowledge to sail through the scenario by making all the right decisions. Its a matter of trust, we are trusting folks not to ruin the game for others by abusing their knowledge already, why not give GMs a bit more leeway.
I'm sure most folks think this is a dead horse, but I am a fan of stars refreshing on a yearly biases.

The Exchange

Should time be the deciding factor or should it be based on what you have available to play?

I could see a system such as if you have both played and run an entire season's scenarios that season becomes available for credit again. Alternatively it could be something such as completing all scenarios (besides the current season) unlocks the scenarios for play once again. This could also apply to GMing so if you have GMed all scenarios they can be run for credit again.

I feel like time doesn't properly account for what a player has available to them.

Scarab Sages 5/5 Venture-Agent, United Kingdom—England—Thames Valley aka chris manning

i ran my first PFS game in 2008, didnt start playing in earnest till 2011 - i have nearly 200 games of player credit and 160+ GM credit
i have never used any of my GM star replays, and have 2 filled expanded narrative boons to refresh them if i ever do use them up. I still have 95 games that i havnt played + all the AP's. I dont see this as a real problem - i know there are a few players who seem really vocal about it, but they are really in the minority in my experience.

3/5

I don't see why the minority shouldn't be helped if the majority isn't being hurt. After 4-5 years, the chances are that you won't remember stuff enough to spoil it. I think this is a good idea.

3/5 Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka TechGnosis

chris manning wrote:


i have never used any of my GM star replays, and have 2 filled expanded narrative boons to refresh them if i ever do use them up. I still have 95 games that i havnt played + all the AP's. I dont see this as a real problem - i know there are a few players who seem really vocal about it, but they are really in the minority in my experience.

I have a player who has 12 games he can play, add in trying to schedule everyone else with no conflicts and it becomes a problem. Just because it's not one for you doesn't mean it isn't an issue for others. As I said earlier, perhaps its just the heavy concentration of gamers in the area and we are an outlier.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Roy Rydbeck wrote:
I only am currently eligible to play 2 scenarios and a few modules everything else I have played. I'm not the only one in this boat. But I'd love to play the stuff I played at the start of my PFS career again. For most of them so much time has passed i don't recall the details anyway.

If you've played that much, do you really need more credit on more official characters? Why not just get some like-minded people together and play the old scenarios not-for-credit?

The Exchange

Roy Rydbeck wrote:

*snip*

I only am currently eligible to play 2 scenarios and a few modules everything else I have played. *snip*

I'm curious about this, how many games days are there at your local dice rolling location?

Noting there are 2 scenarios a month released that gives you 2 sessions every month you can play. as a 5 star GM your obviously active in that side of the game as well.

Say you GM one game a month (I'm sure your probably doing more then that) that gets you 3 games days a month where your actively participating in a session on either side of the GM screen.

With that said, I'm sure the majority of games days you could actively participate at without replaying, or playing core. say you could replay the entire PFS catalog, would this really solve your lack of opportunity problem? or would you just burn through your re-playable just as quick and still end up with nothing to play? would you even get tables of these older scenarios if you could replay them, or would the rest of the player base have played them more recently?

While I appreciate your desire to play more, I'm not sure that any sort of limited replay would solve the problem your experiencing in any meaningful way, just as core is not solving the problem for you currently.

3/5

brock, no the other one... wrote:
Roy Rydbeck wrote:
I only am currently eligible to play 2 scenarios and a few modules everything else I have played. I'm not the only one in this boat. But I'd love to play the stuff I played at the start of my PFS career again. For most of them so much time has passed i don't recall the details anyway.
If you've played that much, do you really need more credit on more official characters? Why not just get some like-minded people together and play the old scenarios not-for-credit?

See, I really dislike this argument, and it's not the first I've heard it. The problem is that in a number of areas, it is far easier to get a PFS game than a home game. And such games, in my experience, tend to consistently go off, while home games will lose a player or two to real life and not run when they're scheduled to. We should be valuing and supporting our older players, many of whom have spent hundreds upon hundreds of dollars on sources, rather than tossing them aside and relegating them to games where they could have just used the free PRD materials once we've sucked them dry. Their experience and knowledge of the setting is invaluable to helping immerse others in the roleplay, and that richness of knowledge is precisely what drew me to PFS play in the first place. I've seen too many good players stop attendance due to being unable to schedule games they hadn't played. I feel like dedication to the Society should be rewarded, and the notion of "Why not just go play elsewhere?" seems to spit in the face of that.

I realize that there are about 2 dozen new scenarios that come out each year, and personally that is enough to last me the whole year. But not everyone only plays once every other week or so like myself. Furthermore, I still run into trouble at times because the local groups generally try to avoid the newest stuff.

I think rather than asking "Why?" (which is perfectly clear to those that it affects), those unaffected by lack of scenarios to play should instead ask "Why not?".

~~ Are we afraid of spoilers? GMs play games that they've run before, and 4-5 years is a long time to forget details. It seems to me that spoiling wouldn't be an issue. I think that just as the administration has said that they trust our GMs with the responsibility not to ruin the fun of others by spoiling puzzles and such, we should be able to trust such long term dedicated players with a similar responsibility.

~~ Are we worried about people becoming overpowered by having multiple copies of the same boon? Unlike a full replay option, limiting a boon to access once every 4-5 years suggests that this wouldn't be particularly easy to abuse.

~~ Are we worried that older players will flood out newer ones at tables? This could potentially happen, although the forum response here so far suggests that there are many more who haven't been playing for so long and are running out of scenarios as those that have been and are. While I appreciate that new players means new sales, I again must stress my belief that we should work to support and appreciate the benefits that experienced Society members can bring to our tables, enriching the game for new players as well.

I'd love to hear other arguments against this proposal, but I do urge people to ask "Why not?" rather than "Why?", because there are certainly those who would benefit from the proposal, even if they are not in your particular areas. The policies of the Society should aim to do good for anyone they can, so long as that policy is not also harming other members.

Silver Crusade 3/5

This seems like a nice idea. I have played since mid-season 3 I think, or the tail-end of it, so I guess my earliest scenarios would be up to play with this.

I can remember bits and pieces of old scenarios, sure, but never the whole story. It might be interesting to re-visit my earliest PFS experiences with new knowledge of the rules and lore and stuff. I think I started with Quest for Perfection without knowing much anything about Tian Xia, now I could have an actual Tian character there and get much more out of the setting.

On the bookkeeping: I could see this allowed if you provide the earlier chronicle at the table and the Gm makes some kind of note on either or both of the chronicles noting that this replay has been used/this scenario was played as a replay. Marking it on the earlier chronicle might seem kinda weird, but would help the player keep track of which old scenarios they have already replayed.

5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Tampere aka Rei

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The inability to play old scenarios and the small selection of new scenarios has, at least in our area, created quite a "generation gap". Old players show up for the new scenarios, typically in groups large enough that only one or two new players fit into the remaining slots, and then go back into hiding until more scenarios are released or one of their few unplayed older scenarios is offered. The only older players who regularly interact with the newer players are those who GM. It makes it quite difficult to create a sustained community.

(It must be noted here that we have so few players in the area that we can typically only pull off a maximum of three tables of any non-replayable scenario, ever. Maybe four if we run four-player tables or get visitors from other areas or one-off players.)

5/5 ⦵⦵

brock, no the other one... wrote:
Roy Rydbeck wrote:
I only am currently eligible to play 2 scenarios and a few modules everything else I have played. I'm not the only one in this boat. But I'd love to play the stuff I played at the start of my PFS career again. For most of them so much time has passed i don't recall the details anyway.
If you've played that much, do you really need more credit on more official characters? Why not just get some like-minded people together and play the old scenarios not-for-credit?

Playing for no credit has restrictions. It is only allowed if it brings the table up to a legal limit. That's tricky to plan with the number of last minute drop ins and drop outs.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

2 people marked this as a favorite.
brock, no the other one... wrote:
Roy Rydbeck wrote:
I only am currently eligible to play 2 scenarios and a few modules everything else I have played. I'm not the only one in this boat. But I'd love to play the stuff I played at the start of my PFS career again. For most of them so much time has passed i don't recall the details anyway.
If you've played that much, do you really need more credit on more official characters? Why not just get some like-minded people together and play the old scenarios not-for-credit?

because not every area can support multiple groups of gamers

Shadow Lodge 4/5

chris manning wrote:


i have never used any of my GM star replays, and have 2 filled expanded narrative boons to refresh them if i ever do use them up

Wait, you can do this? I thought you could only have one filled and in use.

3/5

I've actually wondered if this was going to become a thing for several years now.
I'd support it as it also solves for people who may have tried PFS many years ago and have no idea what they played, but don't want to feel like they're breaking rules and don't have any desire to try to track down people they haven't spoken with in 4+ years to find out what they may have played on a random game day.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Muser wrote:
Wait, you can do this?

Answer unclear, ask again later.

The boon is not clearly defined, so I make sure to use all of my current year replays by GenCon and then start a new Expanded Narrative boon afterwards.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
TOZ wrote:
Muser wrote:
Wait, you can do this?

Answer unclear, ask again later.

The boon is not clearly defined, so I make sure to use all of my current year replays by GenCon and then start a new Expanded Narrative boon afterwards.

Same here.

I've replayed Evergreens with Level 2 characters just so they didn't go to waste.

3/5

I think it's an interesting idea until you get to paperwork. Tracking would be a nightmare. I prefer GM stars recharging at Gencon annually WITHOUT a boon that I have to charge with more GMing.

Sovereign Court 5/5 Venture-Captain, Canada—Manitoba aka Kess, Humble Servant of Abadar

Asked and answered in many many other posts. Replay such as this is not good for the campaign as a whole.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dave Baker wrote:
Asked and answered in many many other posts. Replay such as this is not good for the campaign as a whole.

Unlimited no holds barred replay has been bad for campaigns. That doesn't mean every iteration of the idea is.

Something to make newbies sitting with veterans when the high level table collapses would be very welcome. As it is the geek soduku for games has the highest CR in organized play.

5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Georgia—Atlanta aka Yiroep

A legitimate argument against it would be people not doing their paperwork right and messing that part up, since scenarios would be re-unlocked in real time.

As well... is 4 years the right number? What about 3 years? 1 year? 7 years? 6 months? What is the number? It proposes the question: Why not more replay? Why not less? What's the correct balance? Is there a verifiable number that should be used? If we do 4 years, why not unlimited? Is 4 years too close, or too far?

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

4 hours.

3/5

Andrew Roberts wrote:

A legitimate argument against it would be people not doing their paperwork right and messing that part up, since scenarios would be re-unlocked in real time.

As well... is 4 years the right number? What about 3 years? 1 year? 7 years? 6 months? What is the number? It proposes the question: Why not more replay? Why not less? What's the correct balance? Is there a verifiable number that should be used? If we do 4 years, why not unlimited? Is 4 years too close, or too far?

Well for that we take our best guess, start restrictive (5 years?) and then loosen as campaign leadership gets a feel for how it is working out. I've found that not acting on something simply because you don't know the BEST answer is hardly ever the RIGHT answer. Sometimes 'good enough' is better than 'not at all'.

As for book-keeping, this is really no different onus on a player's records than knowing that they've already played a scenario before. If they don't know they've played it, then they would just replay anyhow under current rules without realizing it. If they know they've played it before, they'll have the chronicle sheet. The date part is a mandatory field that the GM fills out when signing the sheet, not something left to the player to fill out.

Someone could, of course, cheat and change the date on a sheet (or not show the newest one if they've already replayed it), but then that's no different than someone just claiming to have not played a game that they've already played under the current system. It requires the same level of faith in our members' honesty as the current no-replay system does.

The Exchange 5/5

wait - is it time for the Replay thread already?

Didn't we just have one of these a couple months ago?

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

15 people marked this as a favorite.

We're using a replay on it.

Lantern Lodge 5/5

Isn't this just going to lead into a "properly filled out chronicles" debate?

5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Georgia—Atlanta aka Yiroep

DrakeRoberts wrote:
Well for that we take our best guess, start restrictive (5 years?) and then loosen as campaign leadership gets a feel for how it is working out. I've found that not acting on something simply because you don't know the BEST answer is hardly ever the RIGHT answer. Sometimes 'good enough' is better than 'not at all'.

Fair enough, but I suspect many wouldn't be fine with 5 years.

As well, adding to the fire, there would be many who would want to replay specific scenarios (Season 4, I'm looking at you) for more powerful character options. Many people don't like this "farming" aspect of it.

DrakeRoberts wrote:

As for book-keeping, this is really no different onus on a player's records than knowing that they've already played a scenario before. If they don't know they've played it, then they would just replay anyhow under current rules without realizing it. If they know they've played it before, they'll have the chronicle sheet. The date part is a mandatory field that the GM fills out when signing the sheet, not something left to the player to fill out.

Someone could, of course, cheat and change the date on a sheet (or not show the newest one if they've already replayed it), but then that's no different than someone just claiming to have not played a game that they've already played under the current system. It requires the same level of faith in our members' honesty as the current no-replay system does.

I would argue there is an additional factor. I have a spreadsheet that tells me everything I've played. As well, 90% of the time I'll be correct just from memory telling you what I've played or haven't, CORE and Classic.

That mental tracker is going to be WAY off adding the factor of "how long ago." As well, I haven't tracked date on my spreadsheet at all, so I'd have to go back through all of that. I suspect many others are on the same page since there was not really any reason to before.

Of course, a legitimate counter-argument is that players don't have to participate in the replay option and continue what they are doing, and that's a legitimate claim.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Jeff Hazuka wrote:
Isn't this just going to lead into a "properly filled out chronicles" debate?

My wager is on alignment.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Nefreet wrote:
Jeff Hazuka wrote:
Isn't this just going to lead into a "properly filled out chronicles" debate?
My wager is on alignment.

I'll take the alignment replay ban characters more powerful than mine trifecta

Silver Crusade 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Jeff Hazuka wrote:
Isn't this just going to lead into a "properly filled out chronicles" debate?
My wager is on alignment.

Well then, I guess I've got my work cut out for me.

*Drinks*

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Nefreet wrote:
Jeff Hazuka wrote:
Isn't this just going to lead into a "properly filled out chronicles" debate?
My wager is on alignment.

So you believe that any character whose paperwork is clear enough to allow them to replay a 4+ year-ago scenario should be forced into a Lawful alignment?

Got it. I agree.

3/5

Andrew Roberts wrote:


{STUFF}

Fair enough, but I suspect many wouldn't be fine with 5 years.

As well, adding to the fire, there would be many who would want to replay specific scenarios (Season 4, I'm looking at you) for more powerful character options. Many people don't like this "farming" aspect of it.

{More Stuff}

I would argue there is an additional factor. I have a spreadsheet that tells me everything I've played. As well, 90% of the time I'll be correct just from memory telling you what I've played or haven't, CORE and Classic.

That mental tracker is going to be WAY off adding the factor of "how long ago." As well, I haven't tracked date on my spreadsheet at all, so I'd have to go back through all of that. I suspect many others are on the same page since there was not really any reason to before.

Of course, a legitimate counter-argument is that players...

I agree that farming is a thing we're trying to avoid. But someone having to wait 4-5 years to do a replay farm of something is unlikely to break the system I think. I mean, we're talking about a period of time about half as long as the Society has been in existence.

As for the 'not fine with 5 years', I'm not entirely sure in which way you're talking. The original post was for 4-5 years, and my offering was that it is better to start off extra stringent than too loose, as you can always shorten the wait later without messing anyone up. Extending it later will create odd situations requiring grandfathering or whatnot.

As for your mental tracker, I agree. But that's what chronicle sheets (and online tracking, though that has accuracy issues) are for. If it's something you've played before, you look up the sheet and see when you last played it. Or you modify your tracking sheet to include a 'date last played' field. While I agree that this might be a bit more work, I think those benefiting from the arrangement (those currently running into scheduling issues due to the number of games they've played) would find the extra work acceptable if it meant they could participate in more of their local game days. Of course, as you pointed out, if you didn't want the extra work and you aren't finding yourself running out of play options, then no biggie.

I would like to say that I appreciate your points (even if I disagree with some). I find the OP's idea to be a good balance between the farming and plot-spoiling that the campaign leadership has been trying to avoid and the difficulty some of the older players have been having with finding local offerings they have yet played. I have found your responses to be constructive, and an honest attempt to seek out a good solution rather than to just write off the OP's ideas. Too often these threads come to the latter, so thank you.

On the note of CORE: In my opinion, I believe relegating someone to CORE, after they've bought all of the sources that they likely have is unkind. Also, by keeping more people playing non-CORE, Paizo will keep selling more sourcebooks. I think CORE is a great idea for players joining in who have not made numerous book purchases and who cannot afford them (or choose not to). If I were in my college days, I would have whole-heartedly embraced the CORE campaign.

I just think that a number of people I've seen drop mostly out of PFS over the years has been in large part due to scheduling conflicts from replayability and a lack of desire to be relegated to CORE after their purchases. It is, I imagine, how I felt when the Organized Play of another system ended up practically requiring a yearly subscription to access a character builder that had all legal material (due to constant erratas) to play, after I'd already bought the books. Kind of a kick out the door to those who put a lot into supporting a company. I'd love to see a replay option like this that would keep those loyal supporters/players (of money, time, and community) involved in a non-second-class sort of way while still keeping up with the Campaign's philosophy of minimizing metagaming and boon farming.

The Exchange 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
pH unbalanced wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Jeff Hazuka wrote:
Isn't this just going to lead into a "properly filled out chronicles" debate?
My wager is on alignment.

So you believe that any character whose paperwork is clear enough to allow them to replay a 4+ year-ago scenario should be forced into a Lawful alignment?

Got it. I agree.

nah, the PLAYER is lawful, the character... might not even be literate.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What about allowing replay after 4 years, but for a no-credit chronicle? In other words, you don't have to be making a table up to 4 to replay if the scenario is more than 4 years old, but you get a 0XP/0PP/0GP chronicle when you do so — you play only for fun.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

That's an interesting idea I could get behind, Brock.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
brock, no the other one... wrote:
What about allowing replay after 4 years, but for a no-credit chronicle? In other words, you don't have to be making a table up to 4 to replay if the scenario is more than 4 years old, but you get a 0XP/0PP/0GP chronicle when you do so — you play only for fun.

Or possibly a chronicle for standard XP/PP but no boons or access to items on the chronicle? So they could advance their character, but not get any benefit from "farming". And then another 4 to 5 years until they could play that one again.

5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Georgia—Atlanta aka Yiroep

pH unbalanced wrote:
Or possibly a chronicle for standard XP/PP but no boons or access to items on the chronicle? So they could advance their character, but not get any benefit from "farming". And then another 4 to 5 years until they could play that one again.

Just about blew my mind with that one. That's a crazy idea but... it could work! It pretty much solves the farming issue entirely.

Off Topic:
FYI, I do not have a strong preference one way or another. I just like poking holes and presenting a counter-argument. :p


So, clearly unlimited, unrestricted free replay is a bad idea. However, there seem to be a lot of people who want more replay options. It may just be a small loud group, but I think that starting with that assumption is problematic. I do feel that we need to look for some sort of middle ground. That there might be a significant amount of people affected.

5/5 Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka Pirate Rob

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Nohwear wrote:
So, clearly unlimited, unrestricted free replay is a bad idea. However, there seem to be a lot of people who want more replay options. It may just be a small loud group, but I think that starting with that assumption is problematic. I do feel that we need to look for some sort of middle ground. That there might be a significant amount of people affected.

Alright, somewhere inbetween no replay ever and unlimited total replay, how about the following:

We allow everybody to get credit twice for each adventure, once as a player and once as a GM, not restricting the order in which it happens.

But still some people want more replay so lets extend it...

So, additionally we can have a series of quests and level 1 evergreens so that we can always form tables with new players.

But still some people want more replay so lets extend it...

We'll give people a 1 time replay as a reward for certain GM milestones, say 10,30,60,100 games GMed.

Maybe lifetime isn't good enough, so lets extend it...

We can allow a small amount of further replay for our most dedicated GMs as a further incentive to GM both at cons and in general.

I don't have a witty quip regarding adding CORE.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Pirate Rob wrote:
Nohwear wrote:
So, clearly unlimited, unrestricted free replay is a bad idea. However, there seem to be a lot of people who want more replay options. It may just be a small loud group, but I think that starting with that assumption is problematic. I do feel that we need to look for some sort of middle ground. That there might be a significant amount of people affected.

Alright, somewhere inbetween no replay ever and unlimited total replay, how about the following:

We allow everybody to get credit twice for each adventure, once as a player and once as a GM, not restricting the order in which it happens.

But still some people want more replay so lets extend it...

So, additionally we can have a series of quests and level 1 evergreens so that we can always form tables with new players.

But still some people want more replay so lets extend it...

We'll give people a 1 time replay as a reward for certain GM milestones, say 10,30,60,100 games GMed.

Maybe lifetime isn't good enough, so lets extend it...

Finally we can allow a small amount of further replay for our most dedicated GMs as a further incentive to GM both at cons and in general.

Maybe not enough... so let's extend it...

Re-Introduce the entire list for a replay, but treat it as an entirely different campaign, so all new PCs. We can combine this with limiting access to selected rules and rope in the players we are loosing due to "rules glut" and maybe...

[ooc]edit: drat, didn't type fast enough! Ninja'd!{/ooc]


So, everything is fine as is? The people calling for more replays are either greedy or in an outlier situation? There is no valid issue behind the threads that keep coming up?

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

2 people marked this as a favorite.

No, Pirate Rob has pointed out that every measure introduced to give people limited replay has been met with "we need more replay". If we continue down this path, we will eventually be at unlimited replay or near enough to be effectively there.

Lantern Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unlimited replay, but with people likely still wanting more.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's like Rovagug, but worse.


So then you are saying that here is where the line is drawn? That there may be problems, but there is no practical way to fix them?

1 to 50 of 146 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Replaying Scenarios > 4 years played All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.