Replay suggestion?


Pathfinder Society

Grand Lodge 4/5 *** Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Boston

OK, before I get the beat down from everyone, I understand how replays work.

That being said, has there been any discussion on allowing players to have some sort of unlimited replay rule for all scenarios, not just the specific re-playable ones?

I was thinking along the line of a PC can only play the scenario once but the player, after letting the GM know he/she has played it, can play it again and apply that to another character.

Other than meta-gaming (and that is no small thing), what would be the drawback?

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a perenial topic that comes up every once in a while.

Other campaigns have had it, and it's worked badly to stagnate the players. I don't think there's a theoretical argument that could get unlimited replay in the door when the experimental evidence is that it's bad for the campaign.

as the head cat herder for a small venue, I'd like to see some sort of a bus exception: "plans changed, your options are to replay or take a bus home, so replay" , but it's a little too much grease on the slippery slope for some people.

Dark Archive 4/5 *

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

At this point, GM stars effectively renew every season with minimum effort. That seems more than sufficient for 99% of players given there are new scenarios every month.

Dark Archive 5/5

I agree I think its sorta silly to allow replay on all scenarios...

But i would like to see some of the early scenarios that were removed season 0-1 ...updated for and re-released

IT really wouldn't take much for someone to update them.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Here are some large threads from each year from the last 5 years about this topic.

2016
2015
2014
2013
2012

So there's already been a bit of discussion. It can be summed up thusly.

1. Replay has been tried in other Organized Play Campaigns (OPCs) and has led to more problems than solutions. People have "farmed" scenarios and spoiled fun for new players, which inhibits growth and the overall health of an OPC.
2. While there are people that would replay responsibly, and would do so even without a chronicle sheet being involved, given the nature of an OPC we have to assume that not everyone is an angel when it comes to replays. Similar to why leadership and item crafting are banned, with great power comes great responsibility and we can't take the chance that people wouldn't abuse it.
3. There are so many way to participate in PFS you actually don't need replay. We have *takes a deep breath* PFS, PFS Core, PFACG, Modules, Specials, Adventure Paths, GM Star replays, Quests--each of which is an opportunity to play. And if you GM as well, that means you have *double* the opportunities to participate. Given the length that PFS has existed, there is so much material out there that we don't need replay at this point.
3a. In counter to the inevitable "there isn't X, Y, or Z in my area so I can't do that!" the response is an overwhelming "then make it happen!" PFS is a participant driven adventure, so get involved and organize some events. There are no handouts here, get it done.

On a personal note, if you actually read those old threads, you'll see me vocally opposing the fact that there is no replay. That's because there was a time where there was *literally* nothing I could do for credit in PFS. I had GM everything and run everything that was out there. Or almost everything. As a result, I was advocating for replaying for no credit. What we got instead was sanctioned Adventure Paths and the Core Campaign. Now I have been quiet on the subject, because there is no longer a need for replay. There is just so much content out there, you'd have to eat, sleep, and breathe PFS to run out at this point.

Anyway, that's why people grimace when this topic comes up. For some of us, we've been talking about replay for 5+ years now O.o

5/5 *** Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East

For anybody curious about the math there are currently

~230 scenarios available.
77 Modules (Measured by chronicles, excluding bonus sheets)
5 Quests
72 AP chapters

Silver Crusade 4/5 Venture-Captain, Pennsylvania—Pittsburgh

If we keep buying PFS scenarios and PFS keeps leading to sales of Pathfinder materials, maybe someday Paizo will be able to invest enough in the PFS team to bring us three scenarios a month?

I mean, it would almost certainly be a long way off if it did happen. But the way to get more PFS is to help make PFS more rewarding for Paizo, and worth investing more money in.

(For the record, I wouldn't mind a tiny bit more replay, but making stars recharge every year solved most of my concerns.)

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

Pirate Rob wrote:

For anybody curious about the math there are currently

~230 scenarios available.
77 Modules (Measured by chronicles, excluding bonus sheets)
5 Quests
72 AP chapters

More math. But it's Walter math, so it's probably wrong.

Assuming the following times per game, since we have to assume something.
Scenario = 4 hours.
Module = 8 hours.
Quest = 1 hour.
AP Chapter = 12 hours.

(230*4)+(77*8)+(5*1)+(72*12)=
2,405 hours.
x2 (GM Credit multiplier)=
4,810 hours.
x2 (Core Campaign multiplier)=
9,620 hours.

If you have a 40 hour a week job, you work about 2,080 hours a year.

So if you literally did PFS as your day job (40 hours a week), it would take you over 4 years to complete it. Assuming no new content.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem with the above calculation is that it assumes availability of any game at any time. You don't have a hard time getting games when you're out of everything, you have a hard time getting games when you can't scheduel your available games in the geek suduko of availability/time/venue with other people who also can and want to play that game.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

But it's almost 10,000 hours. That's soooo many hours.

Even if you can only make this work 20% of the time that's still almost 40 hours a week of content for year. That's making PFS your day job.

Look at it from a different perspective. If you play two 4 hour sessions each week, that works out to 416 hours a year or a bit over 4% of the content in a year.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Counter-proposal that's come up before: remove the level 2 restriction on Tier 1-2 adventures.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Walter Sheppard wrote:

But it's almost 10,000 hours. That's soooo many hours.

Even if you can only make this work 20% of the time that's still almost 40 hours a week of content for year. That's making PFS your day job.

Look at it from a different perspective. If you play two 4 hour sessions each week, that works out to 416 hours a year or a bit over 4% of the content in a year.

Modules are hard to scheduel in a reasonable slot of public table time and the narrower level range makes the geek soduku harder.

Same with AP's

Quests can only be done with 1st level characters and most have a pregen requirement

In a small community running a game more than once or twice makes the geek soduku very hard

people don't like core, and it doesn't take a whole lot of people to not like core before you're out of a table

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

There are a couple of situations wher I could live with replay for situations like this, but that would likely need to come with a reduction of rewards/boons.

Paizo Employee 3/5 * Organized Play Coordinator

6 people marked this as a favorite.

On the subject of replay. The threads linked by Walter contain many discussions about the dilemma. In a nutshell, do we make it more difficult for small groups to play games or do we risk stagnating the entire campaign? A difficult decision, and one we don't enter into lightly. As a side note, the team revisits the replayability problem on a regular basis and is always considering solutions.

5/5 ** Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht

I agree with BNW here. While modules and APs are certainly a way to extend your PFS career, it's not always available. Our lodge consists of 15-20 regular people. Having seven of them locked in a multi-session campaign means nearly half of our lodge can't participate in other games as either a GM or player. It simply eats up too much time/resources. And then there's the question if people like the group composition enough to see it though. In my mind, APs and modules work best when you choose your party, both in and out of character. I'd rather play an AP at my own pace and in an environment that's more suited to it than under the time constraints of an LGS or when people have a time limit on when they need to go home.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
In a small community running a game more than once or twice makes the geek soduku very hard

You just described my LGS since it started hosting PFS in 2012/13. We have two weekly sessions and the only time that things got difficult (sudoko wise) was back in 2014 before AP sanctioning, Core, and all the rest of the replay options that have since been added to PFS.

In fairness, there are those rare times where we need to spend a few minutes figuring out who can play what, but the issues now are far less prevalent than the way they were back then. The replay options and additional content are making a difference, even without Core (which we haven't run in many months).

As a result, this is my train of thought.

Assumption: If you play PFS 2-3 nights a week, you're among the most rabid PFS consumers.

Argument: People that play the most PFS are at the highest need for having replay options.

1. Since my LGS plays PFS 2-3 nights a week, we are among the most rabid PFS consumers.

2. Since we are among the most rabid PFS consumers, we are at the highest risk for having issues with replay.

Conclusion: Since we are not having an issue with replay, replay isn't really an issue for the campaign overall.

Now, there may be corner cases. Perhaps folks have been playing since S0 and play 2-3 nights a week are entirely tapped out of content, but that number is few and far between.

Honestly, I think that my LGS, and possibly yours from the sound of it, are outliers for the campaign overall. I have doubts believing that a large number of participants play PFS 2-3 nights a week, 52 weeks a year, for the last 5 years. I could be wrong, but I'm very skeptical. So the people replay is effecting at this point is a very small number of participants.

Sadly, these are people that have already been running games for no credit. The people that are organizing events they can't play in. People that don't care about having replay, but wouldn't mind it if they could play for credit every now and then.

The good news is that regardless of replay, these participants will still be here, because we still enjoy being a part of PFS. And we'll still post in threads like this defending something that honestly blows at times for us.

The other good news is that, at the very least, twice a month we'll get to play for credit ;)

Grand Lodge 4/5 *** Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Boston

Thank you all for your responses, it's helpful to help me understand why the rules are the way they are.

Scarab Sages 5/5 5/5 * Venture-Captain, Netherlands

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Walter Sheppard wrote:
I have doubts believing that a large number of participants play PFS 2-3 nights a week, 52 weeks a year, for the last 5 years.

I wasnt there at the start of PFS in the netherlands, but even with our small group, we manage to average 2 games a week, every week.

(hollidays arent for family. Hollidays are for MARATHON GAMING SESSIONS :) )

I've been playing since march 2014 and GMing since june 2014. Luckily I've GMd a lot more then I played so I have plenty left.

But Quentin has almost no 1-5 scenario's left. We're managing, but we've had to subdivide tables because he and the other old guard had no overlap what so ever in 1-5's to play.

It makes it hard to find a position in the discussion. Its good to have learned the lessons from LG, as there were some serious wrongs with that. It also sucks to not be able to give your local players the opportunity to play the game we all love.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

The other irony about all this is that with reports of people running out of 1-5s before other tiers of games, it positions the PFS dev team to produce more 1-5s. Which is weird, because whenever people ask for any content it's almost always high level content--which is harder to produce, harder to schedule games for, and has far less games reported for it.

Locally at least, I need people to get to level 5 then start playing that level 5 in 5-9+ scenarios, rather than make a new level 1 and start over immediately. Which is a trend I've seen a bit lately.

It just eats up all the 1-5s for everyone. And my favorite high level games never get run :'(

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Phoenix

Walter Sheppard wrote:
I have doubts believing that a large number of participants play PFS 2-3 nights a week, 52 weeks a year, for the last 5 years.

Well, I mean, not QUITE that much, but yeah, close.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Walter Sheppard wrote:


As a result, this is my train of thought.

Assumption: If you play PFS 2-3 nights a week, you're among the most rabid PFS consumers.

Argument: People that play the most PFS are at the highest need for having replay options.

.. fails against experimental evidence. I'm sorry, but you're trying to give me an argument why I shouldn't believe my own eyes. For bonus points, I'm showing you exactly why your math doesn't line up reality and your answer is... more math.

We play 1-2 tables every 2 weeks. We have some people that have been doing pfs for a long time , some people that only play in the one venue and some people that also play in other venues.

Mathematically that's 4 games per month , but people can swap tables so i should never run out right?

Nope. If the second table doesn't happen the old hands collapse onto the lowbie table. That scenario is then off the menu for years because the people who played it this week may have to collapse down onto it, and they can't. Because I don't want people to have to go a month or two in between games i need to find games EVERYONE can fit into. It's a PITA and sometimes results in coldish runs because the table someone signed up for didn't happen and they've played the other scenario.

Modules don't fit WELL into the timeslot: probably going to experiment soon with trying to run them anyway as 2 parters, hand out a sheet and tell people if they miss the second part just halve everything.

Core exacerbates the problem with people that don't like it, and its incompatablity with regular characters it adds another dimension to the geek soduku, and unless paizo is paying my bar tab for that headache that's a no go (hint, alchohol doesn't work)

Lantern Lodge 5/5

To put a voice to the silent majority, I've not experienced any of the issues you are having.

All is well, around here.

5/5 5/5

At the location where I organize events, we have a mix of players, some who have played most of the existing content plus a regular influx of new players who do not have high-level characters. We run tables two nights a week, plus Sunday afternoons, so I guess many of our players qualify for "hard core" status. Fortunately, our more experienced players have enthusiastically embraced the Core campaign and we run only Core games on Wednesdays, so scheduling those events is pretty easy. That said, we do often have issues scheduling PFS events that attract enough players on Thursday nights, so I have some familiarity with the issues BNW raises. However, my experience with previous organized play campaigns tells me that for the long-term good of the campaign, it is better to have scheduling issues than the alternative of all scenarios being infinitely replayable.

I applaud the efforts of campaign leadership in their limited expansion of replay for GMs (to reward the volunteers who make the games possible). I also greatly appreciate their work to increase the number of scenarios released in the last couple of years and to sanction more modules and APs. In addition, I think that the experiment with the new mid-level evergreen (From the Tome of Righteous Repose) was a great success and would support more of the same provided that they can allow the same level of flexibility to supply varied experiences with repeated play. I have run or played that scenario six times now and each one has been different enough that it seemed like an entirely new scenario each time. I think that these solutions are the best way to make more play opportunities available. I understand that limited resources make it difficult to push this envelope further, but I think that the campaign leadership is pursuing the best course.

Grand Lodge 4/5

So to conflate a couple of posts, but not by much, players in some areas won't play Core (which already offers a replay of every scenario), won't play modules or APs, apparently won't play evergreens or GM, and are running out of content to make tables? I don't place any moral implication on this, but a practical one: it seems difficult for Paizo to find a way to help.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Pete Winz wrote:
However, my experience with previous organized play campaigns tells me that for the long-term good of the campaign, it is better to have scheduling issues than the alternative of all scenarios being infinitely replayable.

Which I'm fine with.

Quote:
We run tables two nights a week, plus Sunday afternoons, so I guess many of our players qualify for "hard core" status.

Which gives you a lot more leeway with telling someone they have to skip a day because they've already played what's on the menu than "see you in a month"

Scarab Sages 5/5 5/5 * Venture-Captain, Netherlands

Starglim wrote:
So to conflate a couple of posts, but not by much, players in some areas won't play Core (which already offers a replay of every scenario), won't play modules or APs, apparently won't play evergreens or GM, and are running out of content to make tables? I don't place any moral implication on this, but a practical one: it seems difficult for Paizo to find a way to help.

Where did you read that? No one is saying that. I find that a very insulting conclusion to draw from all this.

Core doesnt always catch on.
Modules or APs dont always fit in the regular PFS scedule but that doesnt mean they arent run. They just take longer play time for rewards.
Evergreens get run all the time, but even with the scedule of 2 evergreen scenarios - 1 evergeen modulle - 1 lvl 1-5 scenario, that still leaves you stranded at lvl 3. Or 2.2 if you have no 1-5 scenario available at this time.
Most of the people who are running out of content are also 3 or more star GMs.

Most of the people who are running out of content are the people who give this campaign their all, either in GMing, or volunteering in other ways.

So even if this discussion does go stale for some, its a good one to keep having. Several good things came out of it, like Paizo freely releasing the star recharge boon, which allows a limited amount of replay in return for GMing.
I personally like the idea of doing away with the lvl 2 replay restriction on evergreens, which would for me make it easier to scedule sessions as experienced players can more easily bring an existing level character to play at a table when we get an influx of new players again.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:
I have doubts believing that a large number of participants play PFS 2-3 nights a week, 52 weeks a year, for the last 5 years.
Well, I mean, not QUITE that much, but yeah, close.

But TOZ, do you think that a large number of participants play that much or close to that much? What percentage of PFS people play that much in your mind? I'm thinking less than 10%, probably closer to 5%.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:


As a result, this is my train of thought.

Assumption: If you play PFS 2-3 nights a week, you're among the most rabid PFS consumers.

Argument: People that play the most PFS are at the highest need for having replay options.

.. fails against experimental evidence. I'm sorry, but you're trying to give me an argument why I shouldn't believe my own eyes. For bonus points, I'm showing you exactly why your math doesn't line up reality and your answer is... more math.

We play 1-2 tables every 2 weeks. We have some people that have been doing pfs for a long time , some people that only play in the one venue and some people that also play in other venues.

Mathematically that's 4 games per month , but people can swap tables so i should never run out right?

Nope. If the second table doesn't happen the old hands collapse onto the lowbie table. That scenario is then off the menu for years because the people who played it this week may have to collapse down onto it, and they can't. Because I don't want people to have to go a month or two in between games i need to find games EVERYONE can fit into. It's a PITA and sometimes results in coldish runs because the table someone signed up for didn't happen and they've played the other scenario.

Modules don't fit WELL into the timeslot: probably going to experiment soon with trying to run them anyway as 2 parters, hand out a sheet and tell people if they miss the second part just halve everything.

Core exacerbates the problem with people that don't like it, and its incompatablity with regular characters it adds another dimension to the geek soduku, and unless paizo is paying my bar tab for that headache that's a no go (hint, alchohol doesn't work)

Well BNW, I don't know what else to say. I have examples of how things work here and you have examples of how they aren't working there.

*shrugs*

Sorry man.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Phoenix

Oh, no, I was just talking about myself. :P

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

Gotcha. You maniac you.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Send help.

Dark Archive 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Walter Sheppard wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:
I have doubts believing that a large number of participants play PFS 2-3 nights a week, 52 weeks a year, for the last 5 years.
Well, I mean, not QUITE that much, but yeah, close.
But TOZ, do you think that a large number of participants play that much or close to that much? What percentage of PFS people play that much in your mind? I'm thinking less than 10%, probably closer to 5%.

You guys clearly haven't visited Boston in the last few years... We're crazy! :)

1/5 5/5

In the Chicagoland area, we have some local conventions.

Unfortunately, lately the breakdown has been *bunch of high-level scenarios/modules* and *handful of low-level scenarios/modules that don't fill*.

If it weren't for online play (which isn't an option for everyone) there's the possibility that I as a player could be down to one or two scenarios every couple of months.

In addition, due to the diminished lower-level numbers, the local conventions have been scheduling a great deal more 5e (almost to the exclusion of PFS).

This makes it very difficult to play/run/schedule anything at a convention.

Do not know what the solution is, I've been volunteering when able to run things, but I steadfastly refuse to run 'cold' after horrific experiences in a different campaign, and local convention group isn't making a lot of evergreens available...

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Phoenix

You should also see the Online Collective. They're voracious.

1/5 5/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
You should also see the Online Collective. They're voracious.

I've had the privilege of playing with that esteemed crew a few times.

However, as an old-school gamer (and having a need to get out of the house and buy more material when it becomes available as a Resource from the convention retailers) I still have a warm spot in my heart for conventions.

3/5 ** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

Walter Sheppard wrote:
Pirate Rob wrote:

For anybody curious about the math there are currently

~230 scenarios available.
77 Modules (Measured by chronicles, excluding bonus sheets)
5 Quests
72 AP chapters

More math. But it's Walter math, so it's probably wrong.

Assuming the following times per game, since we have to assume something.
Scenario = 4 hours.
Module = 8 hours.
Quest = 1 hour.
AP Chapter = 12 hours.

(230*4)+(77*8)+(5*1)+(72*12)=
2,405 hours.
x2 (GM Credit multiplier)=
4,810 hours.
x2 (Core Campaign multiplier)=
9,620 hours.

If you have a 40 hour a week job, you work about 2,080 hours a year.

So if you literally did PFS as your day job (40 hours a week), it would take you over 4 years to complete it. Assuming no new content.

You can't actually run that math correctly because its just too random. Scenarios can run from 2.5 hours to 8. Modules can run from 4 to 8. Its why you can blitz through content relatively easily because it really doesn't take as long as you imagine.

The Exchange 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Kentucky—Lexington

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CigarPete wrote:
At this point, GM stars effectively renew every season with minimum effort. That seems more than sufficient for 99% of players given there are new scenarios every month.

That isn't sufficient for most of the GM/players I try to cat herd and I kinda hated spending hours to days planning out months of play that doesn't conflict. So I pawned that off to others and attendence dramatically dropped to the point we some times have trouble getting 3 players.

Say what you will about the harm of replays. The harm of not having them is at the cost of coordinators and total player count.

The Exchange 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Kentucky—Lexington

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've spent most if not all my PFS time (started in season 0 as PFS 1045 the 45th person to get a Pfs number day 1) unable to play any given scenario. I didn't play most of season 3 and quickly got back into unplayable state. I've spent much of the last year coordinating or GMing.

Your prolific players often can't all play the same high level, as they've been to the same cons and played the same already. So we keep having to burn through level 1-5 and keep hoping higher level events will fire.

The lovely 9000 hour quote ignores that when you have 6 players that can often drop to 1500 hrs when you try to mesh it out and way lower when you look at just certain level scenarios.

Scarab Sages 5/5 5/5 * Venture-Captain, Netherlands

Would letting the stars recharge as long as you keep GMing be a thing? Currently its just one boon a season, but if you could endlessly renew them by GMing X amount of tables every time?

The Exchange 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Kentucky—Lexington

Tineke, I'd love that. Or maybe a VA/VL/VC boon they could hand out to get tables made to people that won't rock the boat or farm scenarios.

Scarab Sages 5/5 5/5 * Venture-Captain, Netherlands

Thanks. This discussion keeps happening as it keeps being an issue, and its a tricky one to fix, but I like to keep the discussion going forward. And if we, as a community can come up with an idea we al like, we have something to petition paizo with.

So far the discussion has had two points brought up:

Doing away with the lvl 2 replay restriction on tier 1-2 evergreens.
Letting GM stars endlessly renew as long as you keep GMing a set amount of games to recharge them.

I see merit in both, but I'd like the community to weigh in on these two ideas.

4/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tineke Bolleman wrote:

Doing away with the lvl 2 replay restriction on tier 1-2 evergreens.

Letting GM stars endlessly renew as long as you keep GMing a set amount of games to recharge them.

I see merit in both, but I'd like the community to weigh in on these two ideas.

I'm all for that first suggestion.

I'm not opposed to the second suggestion, though I am leery of it. On the surface, it seems to me that it could give anyone who GMs an unlimited number of replays

I would like to offer my personal opinion on replays. I have no desire to replay anything... not even the evergreens. But that's a personal preference... not shared by many, I would imagine. If the only scenarios offered when I'm available to play are ones which I've already played, I will either volunteer to GM (provided GMs are still needed) or simply find something else to do.

And almost every time I've played with someone who is replaying the scenario or GMing for someone that is replaying the scenario, I have had the scenario spoiled or seen the replayer attempt to metagame the table to success.

So, not only do I try to avoid replaying scenarios, I also try to avoid sitting at a table where someone is replaying the scenario. I'm not opposed to more replay opportunities; I just don't see myself using them.

But if more replay opportunities were to be made available, I'd like to see some way for consideration to be given to players who aren't replaying and don't want a replayer at their table.

The Exchange 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Kentucky—Lexington

GM Easy-Earl wrote:
nd almost every time I've played with someone who is replaying the scenario or GMing for someone that is replaying the scenario, I have had the scenario spoiled or seen the replayer attempt to metagame the table to success.

I believe you.

But your experience is the exact opposite from mine.
I've been at a lot of replay sessions. A ton for no credit age 1 GM and 2 players enlist a 3rd to play for no credit get a legal table to fire.

No one has ever lead players or even remotely spoiled the game. If they had I'd have taken issue with them as GM or player.

People are afraid of the replay farming, of "good scenarios". It's been bad for other campaigns and people don't want it in PFS. To a certain extent it's present now if a set group wants to play 100 sessions together, but isn't something that can or does happen in a casual group Pfs hall/club/store/etc.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Tineke Bolleman wrote:

Thanks. This discussion keeps happening as it keeps being an issue, and its a tricky one to fix, but I like to keep the discussion going forward. And if we, as a community can come up with an idea we al like, we have something to petition paizo with.

So far the discussion has had two points brought up:

Doing away with the lvl 2 replay restriction on tier 1-2 evergreens.
Letting GM stars endlessly renew as long as you keep GMing a set amount of games to recharge them.

I see merit in both, but I'd like the community to weigh in on these two ideas.

I like the first idea, not that thrilled about the second one, not all 1-2 scenarios scale all that well with level 2 characters.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

EDIT: There was a post here where I tried to reiterate my point and just sounded like a tool. I removed it and replaced it with this link to one of my favorite youtube videos, Grandma FUS RO DAH!

Enjoy your discussion!

Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Replay suggestion? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society