|
It's not fun to go to a hospital for a medical emergency. It's not fun to then after get told that you received partial credit on a scenario because of it. Because that would mean that not only do you lose out on the rewards of the scenario, you will never be able to try again without having to burn a GM star.
In a different campaign, with far less options for replay I had the misfortune of coming down with Gawdawful Con Crud the Sunday morning before a new module was to be run, and I was playing in.
I remember sitting down at the table.
I remember rolling the first skill check.
And then I had two of my fellow players shaking me to see 'if I was still alive' because I had passed out *that hard* at the table.
At that point I stumbled up, apologized for the inconvenience (I think, it may have been mumbled profane gobbledygook, for all I know) and dragged myself back to the room and collapsed for six hours.
My 'reward' for leaving that table because of illness?
The effective PFS equivalent of a 0 exp/0 gold/0 prestige sheet and the inability to ever play that scenario again.
I don't play in that campaign anymore, in part due to that particular mentality/situation.
I *hope* that there are cooler and more understanding folks in the Society leadership chain.
|
|
The point of the rules is to be followed at the table. The point of the rules is to avoid bad practices. The deal is, in PFS as well as most organized events, there's a leadership chain that you can petition for an exception. Thus we penalize the 1 to stop the 1000, but the 1 can become un-penalized via petition.
In court and going to jail, that is pretty much the final decision, the chain is short. So the ability to have 1 person get a legitimate fix is much harder and more severe, thus we err to make sure that issue doesn't happen.
If Wei Ji the Learner ask their VO to ask Tonya for the ability to replay that mod that he zonked out in I'd imagine she'd approved, she has the power to override the local table and it's easy. If I was the GM of the table I'd probably hand over the 0 chronicle and say, "if you have an issue and really want to play for credit I advise asking your VO to talk to Tonya about it." Since the rule is you get credit for how much you play once you start, and I try to follow rules. I feel as a table GM I don't have the right to overrule that PFS rule, thus I wouldn't. As such, and feeling that there are probably many GM's that'd have a similar mindset, I ask that you don't rag on GM's that are put in a rough spot and follow the rules. It's not their job to change rules cause you decided to have a too full schedule and be to tired to play or you spontaneously go from fine to puking during the scenario or if an emergency comes up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point of the rules is to be followed at the table.
The point of a DM is to understand the rules, why the exist, and use them to achieve the desired end and more importantly to know when the situation is so outside of the norm that the normal rules really don't apply.
|
|
The point of the rules is to be followed at the table.The point of a DM is to understand the rules, why the exist, and use them to achieve the desired end and more importantly to know when the situation is so outside of the norm that the normal rules really don't apply.
That's what leadership and their ability to grant exceptions is for. Nothing in the rules for 0 credit says, "use your judgment if an extenuating circumstance arises." It says, if a player fails to do 3 encounters they get 0 xp.
EDIT: I want to be clear, I'm not advocating that everyone needs to follow my way, or that not doing so is wrong.
|
|
I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
If someone leaves the table can choose 1 of three options. Pause the table and finish it later, end the table and get the credit accrued, continue on subbing in a pregen if needed giving the current credit to the one that leaves.
The rules already can handle someone suddenly leaving in the middle
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's "middle" and then there's "middle".
If somebody has barely started, and then has to leave for a legitimate reason, I would count it as them not having played it.
If they are past an encounter or two, then, yeah, they're in the middle of it, and you have to think harder.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point of the rules is to be followed at the table. The point of the rules is to avoid bad practices. The deal is, in PFS as well as most organized events, there's a leadership chain that you can petition for an exception. Thus we penalize the 1 to stop the 1000, but the 1 can become un-penalized via petition.
In court and going to jail, that is pretty much the final decision, the chain is short. So the ability to have 1 person get a legitimate fix is much harder and more severe, thus we err to make sure that issue doesn't happen.If Wei Ji the Learner ask their VO to ask Tonya for the ability to replay that mod that he zonked out in I'd imagine she'd approved, she has the power to override the local table and it's easy. If I was the GM of the table I'd probably hand over the 0 chronicle and say, "if you have an issue and really want to play for credit I advise asking your VO to talk to Tonya about it." Since the rule is you get credit for how much you play once you start, and I try to follow rules. I feel as a table GM I don't have the right to overrule that PFS rule, thus I wouldn't. As such, and feeling that there are probably many GM's that'd have a similar mindset, I ask that you don't rag on GM's that are put in a rough spot and follow the rules. It's not their job to change rules cause you decided to have a too full schedule and be to tired to play or you spontaneously go from fine to puking during the scenario or if an emergency comes up.
I agree that if a person feels a reporting call was made unfairly, they should work up the chain.
My only disagreement with you is that sometimes "following the rules" isn't the best call. In Wei Ji's experience, I think it would have been more fair to just call him a "no-show". Of course, I wasn't there, so I only have one side of this story to judge off of.
So assuming he is speaking the truth as to what had happened, then the GM could have just made a judgement call and avoid the whole "up the chain" process. As GM's, we do have the ability to make judgement calls, even when it comes to reporting successes and failures of the chronicle. If the GM is uncomfortable to make such a call, then they should go up the chain themselves to find someone who is.
In the end, if a GM is going out of their way to make a call that does nothing but harm the player(s) at the table, then they missed the more important sections of the Guide. A 0/0/0 chronicle for a player that made 1 or 2 skill checks is doing nothing but punishing the player, and our jobs as GM's is not to punish.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I understand it, the entire point of banning replays is so Paizo can sell more Scenarios to the GMs. I do not see any other logic behind this approach (though it could be an issue found in other areas, not something local to me).
I do see the logic of preventing the same character from playing the same scenario multiple times, since as a role playing game, repeating scenarios wouldn't make sense on the same character.
From experience, the best scenarios are those which the GM has run many times. And the ones run the most are the ones that can be replayed the most. Limiting replays reduces the quality of a scenario.
In terms of balance, I don't feel that balance of a scenario should be established by it being an uncommon encounter. A scenario should remain just as balanced if things are suprising for the players or not, since it is the character that is being roleplayed, not the player.
So, I conclude that if Paizo is purposely reducing the quality, the motive cannot be balance or role play related, and must be about finances.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I understand it, the entire point of banning replays is so Paizo can sell more Scenarios to the GMs.
Your understanding is deeply flawed and totally incorrect.
It is about quality of play and the ability to recruit new players.
Can somebody else grab a nice Drogon link or replay threads over the years link?
|
|
As I understand it, the entire point of banning replays is so Paizo can sell more Scenarios to the GMs.
Your understanding is deeply flawed and totally incorrect.
It is about quality of play and the ability to recruit new players.
Can somebody else grab a nice Drogon link or replay threads over the years link?
Please explain your own point, instead of just critizing and asking others for a link.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I understand it, the entire point of banning replays is so Paizo can sell more Scenarios to the GMs. I do not see any other logic behind this approach (though it could be an issue found in other areas, not something local to me).
As a player, and one that's heard about it since the beginning of the initiation of PFS, I can say that it's about quality, not quantity. As has been repeatedly stated elsewhere, establishing replay in previous campaigns has created a farming style economy with players replaying the "best" scenarios for boons. It also limits the fun of the non-replayers at the table that are at the will of the players that aren't concerned with the fun of the others at the table.
As somebody that has seen everything from the group that replayed We Be Goblins 1 in "30 minutes" 75 times to get somebody their star (plus chronicles), and has seen players that have burned replays on games ruin it for others - I personally believe this has some fairly strong legs.
From experience, the best scenarios are those which the GM has run many times. And the ones run the most are the ones that can be replayed the most. Limiting replays reduces the quality of a scenario.
I would like evidence of this. My experience with the "best" GMs is that they'll rerun fun scenarios in a heartbeat. To them it's not about "achieving credit", it's about telling a fine story. Please explain further how limiting replays reduces quality of a scenario from the standpoint of GMs that run games for the fun of it.
So, I conclude that if Paizo is purposely reducing the quality, the motive cannot be balance or role play related, and must be about finances.
To each their own - I find Paizo far less sinister than you.
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
As I understand it, the entire point of banning replays is so Paizo can sell more Scenarios to the GMs. I do not see any other logic behind this approach (though it could be an issue found in other areas, not something local to me).
Just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You must not have looked very hard, it comes up in almost every one of these replayability threads.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please explain your own point, instead of just critizing and asking others for a link.
No. We are not rewriting the same old argument when others have already done an excellent job of it. Case in point.
I've posted on this topic before in this thread.
Those comments were from a player perspective. My opinion is pretty clear. The original poster in this thread has noted things from a store owner's perspective and a couple people have mentioned customers or have asked about bottom line at local game stores. I own a store and am willing to chime in on that perspective, as well, so here goes:
4th Edition D&D started out with a bang, drawing a ton of people into organized play. We filled tables faster than we could create space for them. Every one of those players was buying books, minis and accessories. They were customers, and life was good for all of us.
Slowly, insidiously, things changed to what they are now, two years later. Every Tuesday and Thursday I have the same group of 12 to 18 guys sitting in my store, playing the same mods they've already played, occupying the same space they've occupied for a year or more. There are never any new faces. They never buy books. They rarely buy accessories. They're no longer really customers.
Why? It's simple, really: they already own everything they need. And, due to the fact that they can replay any module we have on the schedule, they sign up for every game day we run. There are certain guys who have their emails set to receive notification the moment a schedule is posted and they jump on all the available spaces as soon as they get that notice. New players are never even given the chance to get a seat, because they usually go looking for a table for *tomorrow*. That table is full because we can't turn those other players away due to the fact that they're allowed to replay any scenario they want.
PFS is different. It thrives. It grows. I always have somewhere to send new players, because a spot will usually be available at one of the tables we run (I'm the store that Romulax plays at). It's available because all the hardcore players have either played the module and are patiently waiting for the next game day, when a mod they haven't played is being run, or they're GMing for this game day.
You know what happens when I get those new players all the time? They buy books.
At the LFR tables, when I have to tell new players that no space is available, invariably those players will delay their purchases, "...until I can get into a game." I try to guide those players into the idea of creating home games, and they all say they don't know enough people. I try to put them all together with each other to solve that problem, but it usually results in an awkward look of, "You expect me to play a home game with someone I don't know?" It's heartbreaking.
Meanwhile, PFS players are constantly rotating through new games with new players, meeting new people and coming up with new ideas all the time. I know of no less than 4 APs that have been launched or are about to launch in the last four weeks. All of those players started with PFS, bought their books from me, came back to buy their AP material, and come back regularly, still, to play PFS in games when they have not already played the modules we're offering. Better yet, they come back regularly to chat with me about the games they're playing. I love that part the most, because I usually have the chance to show them "the new hotness," which they often buy. (And, yes, I love the stories, too).
A thriving community is not a group of players who are ravenously consuming all that is offered to them FOR FREE after a single purchase at their local game store. A thriving community is one that continues to find new things to experience, continues to recruit new players to experience these new things with them, and continues to grow. In the last year, I estimate we have run somewhere around 200 tables' worth of games. Not once have we relied on replay to fill those seats. In almost every single case, new players purchased books.
Which business model do you want to be a part of?
Note the date of this post. Has something changed in the past seven years to invalidate his concerns? I don't believe so. In fact, it is just the opposite. We have more content than ever before, pushing over 30 scenarios a season, plus sanctioned modules and APs. There is far more than enough for people to play, even people like me with whole seasons under my belt.
|
|
As I understand it, the entire point of banning replays is so Paizo can sell more Scenarios to the GMs. I do not see any other logic behind this approach (though it could be an issue found in other areas, not something local to me).
I do see the logic of preventing the same character from playing the same scenario multiple times, since as a role playing game, repeating scenarios wouldn't make sense on the same character.
From experience, the best scenarios are those which the GM has run many times. And the ones run the most are the ones that can be replayed the most. Limiting replays reduces the quality of a scenario.
In terms of balance, I don't feel that balance of a scenario should be established by it being an uncommon encounter. A scenario should remain just as balanced if things are suprising for the players or not, since it is the character that is being roleplayed, not the player.
So, I conclude that if Paizo is purposely reducing the quality, the motive cannot be balance or role play related, and must be about finances.
I do agree that money probably plays a part of it, but I doubt that's the main reason. I can tell when my area is starting a new batch of characters as all of a sudden I start to see the evergreens come out from hiding.
And I've already said myself that there are a few scenarios that I'd beat like a dead horse just for the rewards.
And although I agree that scenarios typically get better the more the GM has run it, they also get more irritating to deal with players that have played it multiple times. I consistently have ask why someone is casting a buff spell before any combat occurs, knowing it's because they are meta-gaming, but ultimately powerless to do anything about it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Slowly, insidiously, things changed to what they are now, two years later. Every Tuesday and Thursday I have the same group of 12 to 18 guys sitting in my store, playing the same mods they've already played, occupying the same space they've occupied for a year or more. There are never any new faces. They never buy books. They rarely buy accessories. They're no longer really customers.
Why? It's simple, really: they already own everything they need. And, due to the fact that they can replay any module we have on the schedule, they sign up for every game day we run. There are certain guys who have their emails set to receive notification the moment a schedule is posted and they jump on all the available spaces as soon as they get that notice. New players are never even given the chance to get a seat, because they usually go looking for a table for
Sounds like a bad group, but also sounds like the argument against replays is about players buying things. I don't see anything wrong a company trying to promotes it's products, but I dislike the dishonesty when I point it's about finances and people jump on me like that can't possibly be a consideration.
Sure, the arugment here is that buying things results in a more vibrant group of people, but you aren't discrediting my argument that it's about finances.
|
|
I suppose I should step in and speak up, seeing as my name is being brought up:
I don't know enough about Living Greyhawk to know what was motivating the constant replay. However, we have to be constantly aware of Drogon's "same faces" (and the wrong faces) showing up to play the same scenarios all the time. That'll kill organized play while it's still going....Living Forgotten Realms was killed by replay.
Living Greyhawk had no replay whatsoever.Auke is correct: LFR was, in my store's case at least, buried by the ability to replay without limit.
rknop describes PFS as "quite welcoming to newcomers," and it certainly is; new players can show up and hop onto a table with relative ease. And, in the case of my store (which is admittedly a busy PFS location), there will almost always be space for them to find a seat they can sign up for.
The biggest problem with replay, in my experience, is the fact that there are those people who just don't care about anything except the ability to play as much and as often as they can. Sure, there were "farming" problems with LFR, too (enabled by replay), but what killed LFR for my store was the lack of new players being able to come into the game. The same 6-10 replayers routinely signed up for every game day, without concern for what was being played, and monopolized the available seats. New players were consistently turned away because all the tables were full. When that happens enough, eventually those new players stopped trying. And, actually, occasional players (those who only played once or twice a month) were getting locked out of tables by that same core group, and THEY stopped trying, too. Eventually, those same 6-10 players were the only players at any table, and GMs got sick of being stuck with always having to run and never getting to play (because, due to replay, there was never any reason for those players to make the jump to GMing).
Thus, LFR died.
When I come on these boards an rail against replay, that is why. I understand the fact that replay will likely solve a small play group's problem with finding an adventure that everyone can play. But solving that problem creates a different problem for those of us who have larger groups. And, in my opinion (and my own experience, obviously) that problem leads to a steady decline in attendance and eventually a lack of interest in the campaign itself.
You can mark me down as still firmly against the idea of expanding replay more than it already has been. Which I'm sure is unsurprising to most of you. My reasons haven't changed in the 8 years I have been arguing against it. So, I'll stay out of this debate, having said my piece.
Edit: Living Greyhawk (LG for short - the 3.5 OrgPlay campaign which preceded LFR) was easily as popular as PFS, if not moreso. No, it did not allow replay, and I think that was a key component in it's longevity and popularity. In defense of the small PFS playgroup's problems, LG also had a high number of adventures published on a monthly basis. This, obviously, went a long way toward allowing every group who played the ability to find adventures they all qualified for.
Is it doom and gloom to suggest that unlimited replay will kill PFS? Maybe. But it's justified doom and gloom.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I understand it, the entire point of banning replays is so Paizo can sell more Scenarios to the GMs.
Entirely wrong, and that scenario is highly unlikely to happen.
The real reason is there is a tendancy to have groups farm particular scenarios for unique items/boons or higher than average gold and push out other groups plus generally stomp out the fun for anyone playing the scenario for fun.
I've witnessed it in 4e and other types of living campaigns.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From experience, the best scenarios are those which the GM has run many times. And the ones run the most are the ones that can be replayed the most. Limiting replays reduces the quality of a scenario.I would like evidence of this. My experience with the "best" GMs is that they'll rerun fun scenarios in a heartbeat. To them it's not about "achieving credit", it's about telling a fine story. Please explain further how limiting replays reduces quality of a scenario from the standpoint of GMs that run games for the fun of it.
To each, their own I suppose. Personally, I'm working on a full set of 3d terrain and fully painted miniatures for the Confirmation scenario. I'm a former 40k player, so WYSIWYG is important to me. I'd love to work on non-evergreen scenarios, but it isn't worth the effort to buy the right models or make the terrain for a scenario that is really only going to be play a small handful of times per year.
Our local GMs defininely run the evergreen scenarios better than they do the others. Not just a matter of maps and models, but just familiarity with the text. Many of the PFS scenarios feature very confusing layouts and characters which are not fully understood, or are very dependent on knowing rules which are uncommon in other adventures. Meanwhile, evergreen scenarios often have the GM doing actual voices and roleplaying of the NPCs, since they have the experience of running it multiple times and are needing to not feel stress created by the being in charge of an unfamiliar adventure.
As a player, I find the evergreen scenarios considerably more enjoyable than the non-evergreen ones.
|
|
As a player, I find the evergreen scenarios considerably more enjoyable than the non-evergreen ones.
And I prefer to avoid the evergreens whenever possible. And we have GMs that do quite a bit of 3-D modeled terrain for scenarios whenever they can (Storval Stairs and Sniper in the Deep come to mind).
Perhaps it's less about Paizo and more about who GMs for you.
|
|
As I understand it, the entire point of banning replays is so Paizo can sell more Scenarios to the GMs.
Entirely wrong, and that scenario is highly unlikely to happen.
The real reason is there is a tendancy to have groups farm particular scenarios for unique items/boons or higher than average gold and push out other groups plus generally stomp out the fun for anyone playing the scenario for fun.
I've witnessed it in 4e and other types of living campaigns.
If that's really the issue, there's a simple solution:
Unlimited replay. Boons/Chronicles are awarded/unlocked per player, not per character, so each character has full access to all previously acquired chronicle sheets and boons. Scenarios always give the same amount of gold based on your character's level (no out of tier additional reward). Then the session is about roleplaying and achieving the scenario objectives, without any farming possibility. This removes the player penalty for death of a character, though the character remains dead, but the player isn't penalized for scenarios they can't repeat because a character that had them, died. And buying every new scenario remains important, with the GM having more ability to run what they want to run without having to consider if players will be able to play their scenario. Core and normal remain seperately tracked boons/chronicles.
|
|
As I understand it, the entire point of banning replays is so Paizo can sell more Scenarios to the GMs.
Entirely wrong, and that scenario is highly unlikely to happen.
The real reason is there is a tendancy to have groups farm particular scenarios for unique items/boons or higher than average gold and push out other groups plus generally stomp out the fun for anyone playing the scenario for fun.
I've witnessed it in 4e and other types of living campaigns.
If that's really the issue, there's a simple solution:
Unlimited replay. Boons/Chronicles are awarded/unlocked per player, not per character, so each character has full access to all previously acquired chronicle sheets and boons. Scenarios always give the same amount of gold based on your character's level (no out of tier additional reward). Then the session is about roleplaying and achieving the scenario objectives, without any farming possibility. This removes the player penalty for death of a character, though the character remains dead, but the player isn't penalized for scenarios they can't repeat because a character that had them, died. And buying every new scenario remains important, with the GM having more ability to run what they want to run without having to consider if players will be able to play their scenario. Core and normal remain seperately tracked boons/chronicles.
This opens a whole new can of worms. My newly level 1 character would just destroy any new player's level 1 character in this scenario, making the game far less fun for the new guy. My personal experience should not be greater than a newer player's in a given scenario.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My only disagreement with you is that sometimes "following the rules" isn't the best call. In Wei Ji's experience, I think it would have been more fair to just call him a "no-show". Of course, I wasn't there, so I only have one side of this story to judge off of.So assuming he is speaking the truth as to what had happened, then the GM could have just made a judgement call and avoid the whole "up the chain" process. As GM's, we do have the ability to make judgement calls, even when it comes to reporting successes and failures of the chronicle. If the GM is uncomfortable to make such a call, then they should go up the chain themselves to find someone who is.
In the end, if a GM is going out of their way to make a call that does nothing but harm the player(s) at the table, then they missed the more important sections of the Guide. A 0/0/0 chronicle for a player that made 1 or 2 skill checks is doing nothing but punishing the player, and our jobs as GM's is not to punish.
No bovine excrement, this *did* happen in a previous campaign I was affiliated with for several years.
If such a provision had been in place in the other campaign being mentioned without having to dive into a morass of interconnected politics and personality issues, it would have been pursued.
Subsequent posts have talked about expansion of replay to 'YES! EVERYTHING MUST REPLAY!'.
Having seen what that can do to campaigns, I must humbly and respectfully disagree, and suggest that the only thing that's lacking is a way to get someone to the 3-7 bracket without burning unique play/GM opportunities. However, that is a discussion topic in another thread.
Other folks with much more experience than I have posted why unlimited replay is corrosive to a living campaign, and my personal experience supports this.
Limited replay seems to work better, for many of the above mentioned reasons...
EDIT: ALSO! A very large proportion of my scenarios that weren't part of the Humble Bundle initiative were provided to me to judge at conventions BY Paizo via the play support system, so the idea that they are attempting to force GMs to purchase material does not hold water.
|
|
I agree that if a person feels a reporting call was made unfairly, they should work up the chain.
My only disagreement with you is that sometimes "following the rules" isn't the best call. In Wei Ji's experience, I think it would have been more fair to just call him a "no-show". Of course, I wasn't there, so I only have one side of this story to judge off of.
So you'd have thought that him leaving was worthy of a no-show. The table GM might not feel that way. If it's at a con, he can't just give the chronicle later if he finds out he needs to. So if I was the table GM I'd give you the 0 chronicle for being there and then leaving and tell you to ask the chain, since they can undo things I've done, but can't really do things I haven't done.
|
|
So you'd have thought that him leaving was worthy of a no-show. The table GM might not feel that way. If it's at a con, he can't just give the chronicle later if he finds out he needs to. So if I was the table GM I'd give you the 0 chronicle for being there and then leaving and tell you to ask the chain, since they can undo things I've done, but can't really do things I haven't done.I agree that if a person feels a reporting call was made unfairly, they should work up the chain.
My only disagreement with you is that sometimes "following the rules" isn't the best call. In Wei Ji's experience, I think it would have been more fair to just call him a "no-show". Of course, I wasn't there, so I only have one side of this story to judge off of.
In the example I was 'lucky' to be given the 0/0/0 equivalent afterwards, and only because I asked how it was going to be resolved.
If I'd done the intellectually dishonest thing and kept my mouth shut...
|
|
I have no other experience in other public campaigns, but I respect the experience with it going poorly from so many GMs locally that I trust.
While I don't have Paizos financials available, between the inclusion of entire seasons of scenarios in Humble Bundle's and a few other hand outs I doubt that purchasing of scenarios is particularly high on the revenue list and any changes to the number sold by replay is very small compared to other campaign rules, like you need to have your resources. So any financial angle is a minuscule consideration at best.
Plus they give them out for free to Venture people for their stores to use.
|
|
So you'd have thought that him leaving was worthy of a no-show. The table GM might not feel that way. If it's at a con, he can't just give the chronicle later if he finds out he needs to. So if I was the table GM I'd give you the 0 chronicle for being there and then leaving and tell you to ask the chain, since they can undo things I've done, but can't really do things I haven't done.
And I did mention that I do not have the entire story, so I cannot say that I would have felt the same if I was the GM. I also mentioned my own experience with a player who left after participating in one encounter. Now, instead of hunting the player down to throw a zero/zero/50 gold or so chronicle at them, I chose not to. I felt uneasy how it should be reported, as the player was there for an encounter, so I (the GM, not the player) decided to reach out to my VC and request what I should do in this particular scenario.
So I believe our process would be similar, except we switch the order of how we do it. By giving them the zeroed sheet first, you are deciding to punish a player for their already bad day. By reaching out to the event coordinator or VC or whatnot, you are getting the issue resolved in the most fair way, whether or not it results in a zeroed sheet is no longer in your hands.
If getting in contact with the player is your concern, we are in a day of communication. Get an e-mail, a phone number, or something.
I get that not all GMs feel comfortable with decision making in this sense, but they should not burden the player with the task of working up the chain. If they don't know how they should handle the situation, then they should go and seek the answer instead of telling the player to.
|
|
I still have prizes to hand out to a player who was not at the drawing for them in February. Communication isn't the issue, actually following up is. It's far easier for them to throw out a zeroed chronicle than it is for me to get one to them a week later.
Follow up on who's end?
The scenario I can think of "Hey, can I get your e-mail? I am not quite sure how I should report this on your chronicle. Let me get to my VC and I'll get back to you."
I then talk to my VC, it may take a week or something for him to get back at worst. I then e-mail the player: "Hey, good news!" blah blah blah, or "I'm sorry about this, but my VC says it needs to be handled like" blah blah blah. If I need to attach a chronicle, I can zip down to my local library to scan!
I understand this may not be the exact order for others (don't know who the VC is, VC is often unresponsive, No library or scanner for many hours drive), but I don't think its that difficult. Once you send that last e-mail, its out of your hands.
|
|
Regardless, it is far easier to send them an email/text/phone call/carrier pigeon that says "throw that chronicle out".
Oh! That's fine too, as long as the player knows that you are inquiring the the circumstance and not just saying "Hey, well, rules are rules. You left the game last week in an ambulance before the session was over, here's your zeroed chronicle sheet".
My whole point on the matter is that I feel it is the GM's responsibility to make a fair judgement to whatever circumstance that caused the loss of credit. If they cannot determine what is fair, then they should seek out those above them that would be able to.
Don't throw a blank sheet at a player and tell them to bark up a different tree to get it sorted out. That makes it look bad in my opinion as to me its either the GM was being unfair, or the player is looking to skip the chain of command to get their way. While if the GM does it, then it looks a lot better to me as now I know it is just an honest question as to how it should be handled.
I get one question every few months or so about how the chronicle should be handled and only once did I think the player was being whiny about it. It also turned out the GM was in the wrong and if the GM had simply asked me how it should be handled instead of taking it into his own hands and dinging the players for "failing" the secondary success, the mess wouldn't have happened at all.
Simply put: If it rewards the player, go ahead and give it to them without fuss. If it harms the player, start second guessing yourself and ask the appropriate questions to the appropriate people.
|
|
Regardless, it is far easier to send them an email/text/phone call/carrier pigeon that says "throw that chronicle out".Oh! That's fine too, as long as the player knows that you are inquiring the the circumstance and not just saying "Hey, well, rules are rules. You left the game last week in an ambulance before the session was over, here's your zeroed chronicle sheet".
My whole point on the matter is that I feel it is the GM's responsibility to make a fair judgement to whatever circumstance that caused the loss of credit. If they cannot determine what is fair, then they should seek out those above them that would be able to.
Don't throw a blank sheet at a player and tell them to bark up a different tree to get it sorted out. That makes it look bad in my opinion as to me its either the GM was being unfair, or the player is looking to skip the chain of command to get their way. While if the GM does it, then it looks a lot better to me as now I know it is just an honest question as to how it should be handled.
I get one question every few months or so about how the chronicle should be handled and only once did I think the player was being whiny about it. It also turned out the GM was in the wrong and if the GM had simply asked me how it should be handled instead of taking it into his own hands and dinging the players for "failing" the secondary success, the mess wouldn't have happened at all.
Simply put: If it rewards the player, go ahead and give it to them without fuss. If it harms the player, start second guessing yourself and ask the appropriate questions to the appropriate people.
It's easy for the GM to figure it out. They didn't finish so they get partial credit. Done. If the player is unsatisfied they can work to get their exception. It's not my job to bend/alter/break the rules for them, that's the job of someone higher up.
The issue with your view is in one breath you say, "it's the GM's responsibility to make a fair judgement to whatever circumstance" and then say "if the GM had simply asked me how it should be handled instead of taking it into his own hands" is that you're proposing the GM takes it into his own hands to not give the 0 chronicle if he feels the player deserves it, then in the same breath complain about a GM doing what he thought was correct without asking first. The issue is, for a GM following the rules that you get 0 credit is always "right", thus a GM isn't in a state of not knowing how to handle the situation or what is fair cause the rules have already told him that.
This issue is the same as for court. If you don't like the ruling of a local court you can petition the higher court to look at it. The lower court did it's best and ruled as it thought right. It's not their job to hold off on a ruling and ask the higher court, nor should they really worry about it after their ruling. If they decide to petition they can't go straight to the supreme court, they need to go to the immediately higher court. It's not someone skipping up the chain because they have already dealt with the first step and are then moving to the second. And it's not the first court being unfair or jerks, it's what they decided was right.
GM's should do what they feel is right, and following the rules is always okay. If a player disagrees he can talk to the GM/leadership to try and fix the "error". If the GM wants to double check and ask leadership and hunt people down to fix the error he's welcome to do so.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's easy for the GM to figure it out. They didn't finish so they get partial credit. Done. If the player is unsatisfied they can work to get their exception. It's not my job to bend/alter/break the rules for them, that's the job of someone higher up.
Regardless of whether you participate in the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild at home or at a convention, your most important responsibility as a GM—other than providing your players a fair and fun gaming experience—is to keep a careful record of events on every scenario’s Chronicle sheet.
Chronicle sheets record everything that a Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild character does over the course of her career and serves as the official record of each character in the campaign so a character can be played under a number of GMs at events all over the world. Chronicles also help prevent the rare unscrupulous player from cheating.
The first part I bolded shows that a GM's first and foremost duty is to provide the players a fair and fun gaming experience. If you find receiving a zero across a chronicle to be fair and fun, then I assume that your GM was doing their job. However, if that is not the case, the GM needs to figure out what they can do to make it fair and fun. Now, I understand that some calls will be more fair than fun and vice-versa, but that is the responsibility of the GM.
The second bolded part was for a secondary (as the primary is to serve as a record) reason why we keep chronicles. To prevent cheating. This is your current primary concern. Cheating is bad, but if you give a zero sheet to a player because they had to leave for medical/emergency reasons, then you are not "stopping" them from cheating, but rather cheating them out of a scenario for no other reason than what you believe is you duty.
The issue with your view is in one breath you say, "it's the GM's responsibility to make a fair judgement to whatever circumstance" and then say "if the GM had simply asked me how it should be handled instead of taking it into his own hands" is that you're proposing the GM takes it into his own hands to not give the 0 chronicle if he feels the player deserves it, then in the same breath complain about a GM doing what he thought was correct without asking first. The issue is, for a GM following the rules that you get 0 credit is always "right", thus a GM isn't in a state of not knowing how to handle the situation or what is fair cause the rules have already told him that.
What I said is that the GM needs to make a fair judgement to whatever circumstance that caused the loss of credit. And I also said that my GM made a mistake that he should have taken to me as he decided the players were allowed to bypass a fight by speaking to a creature, then said they failed to meet the secondary success condition of defeating said creature, and then dinged the players for it. In this case, he should have come to his VO and said "Hey, I let my players do something that the scenario technically doesn't allow. It made them fail their secondary success. What should I do?"
His call was not fair, as it was his fault that he did not stick to the scenario.
This issue is the same as for court. If you don't like the ruling of a local court you can petition the higher court to look at it. The lower court did it's best and ruled as it thought right. It's not their job to hold off on a ruling and ask the higher court, nor should they really worry about it after their ruling. If they decide to petition they can't go straight to the supreme court, they need to go to the immediately higher court. It's not someone skipping up the chain because they have already dealt with the first step and are then moving to the second. And it's not the first court being unfair or jerks, it's what they decided was right.
This is a game, not court. Should definitely not be treated as such.
GM's should do what they feel is right, and following the rules is always okay. If a player disagrees he can talk to the GM/leadership to try and fix the "error". If the GM wants to double check and ask leadership and hunt people down to fix the error he's welcome to do so.
I agree that following the rules is always okay, but when the rules start looking a little gray, maybe look to someone else before you make a judgement call.
Player leaves halfway because he's bored? He earns partial credit. (Pretty clear how it should be handled)
Player leaves because he lost his lunch during the game? Ask your VO how it should be handled before telling the poor guy he gets partial credit. (Not so clear as it is an extenuating circumstance)
|
|
Why are rules looking gray? Did the player start the scenario? If yes they get a Chronicle. Did they finish everything? If no then give them credit for what they did do rather than full credit.
There's nothing unclear about this.
If they player wants to ask for an exception to this rule they are welcome and encouraged to do so. Personally as a table GM I don't feel entitled to grant the exception request so I wouldn't. If you feel you do have the power to do so then you can do that. The GM has no need or reason to second guess himself.
|
|
Say the person wants to accept the partial credit for his character, but also get permission to replay it for full credit later on someone else.
Say they got far enough to get 1 XP but lost out on lots of gold still or a PP or 2. Can you waive them playing it still?
What if you don't make a chronicle and the player was needing that XP for tomorrows game, and since you ruled he doesn't get one his character isn't high enough leveled now? Now he has to get to you to undo your ruling and get a chronicle before his next game in the morning to legally play his character.
To me there's far to much to guess on and factor in to be worth trying to predict if it's okay for me as a table GM to not follow the rules. The player knows his situation best, and what his preferred outcome is. If it's not what happened he's in the best position to levy a request since he knows all the details of why he had to leave.
|
|
This opens a whole new can of worms. My newly level 1 character would just destroy any new player's level 1 character in this scenario, making the game far less fun for the new guy. My personal experience should not be greater than a newer player's in a given scenario.If that's really the issue, there's a simple solution:
Unlimited replay. Boons/Chronicles are awarded/unlocked per player, not per character, so each character has full access to all previously acquired chronicle sheets and boons. Scenarios always give the same amount of gold based on your character's level (no out of tier additional reward). Then the session is about roleplaying and achieving the scenario objectives, without any farming possibility. This removes the player penalty for death of a character, though the character remains dead, but the player isn't penalized for scenarios they can't repeat because a character that had them, died. And buying every new scenario remains important, with the GM having more ability to run what they want to run without having to consider if players will be able to play their scenario. Core and normal remain seperately tracked boons/chronicles.
How does your new level 1 character do this? You wouldn't get the prestige or gold from previous scenarios, just the options to purchase additional items (or select new races) based on past accomplishments. Shouldn't be able to make a character any more broken than you'd norablly be able to. Maybe a few minor bonuses with certain skills or factions, but nothing huge (maybe there are hugely game breaking boons out there, but I haven't seen those yet).
|
|
How does your new level 1 character do this? You wouldn't get the prestige or gold from previous scenarios, just the options to purchase additional items (or select new races) based on past accomplishments. Shouldn't be able to make a character any more broken than you'd norablly be able to. Maybe a few minor bonuses with certain skills or factions, but nothing huge (maybe there are hugely game breaking boons out there, but I haven't seen those yet).
I know of a few boons that give gold or a free item up to X value. They are "balanced" because 1000gp at lv10 isn't that much of a percent increase in overall gold for that level.
But give that to a lv1 and he's much better off than anyone else. Plus if you stacked a few you could have tons of stuff.|
|
I think I'm understanding now.
I'm not talking about in general, I'm talking in extenuating circumstances.
Hospitalization, passing out, stuff like that. If a player decides to leave, that's on them. If life tells them they have to leave, then that should be taken into account as well.
A GM shouldn't have to second guess themselves, but if they are marking for less than full credit, they should double check that they didn't make a mistake. That's only fair.
|
|
I think I'm understanding now.
I'm not talking about in general, I'm talking in extenuating circumstances.
Hospitalization, passing out, stuff like that. If a player decides to leave, that's on them. If life tells them they have to leave, then that should be taken into account as well.
A GM shouldn't have to second guess themselves, but if they are marking for less than full credit, they should double check that they didn't make a mistake. That's only fair.
it's pretty easy to tell if a player leave early for whatever reason. If they are leaving early due to Hospitalization, passing out, and stuff like that then they are leaving early. By giving them the chronicle earned you don't make any mistakes and are fair.
But I think I'm done with this thread. My only purpose is to try and get people to not hate on GMs that follow the rules. I feel I've successfully shared my view in that attempt so there's no reason I see to keep going.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
+1 on the concept that they give away more than they sell.Well, if it isn't finances, I'm not sure what the point is. Completely disagree with the idea that it's to prevent farming or promote gameplay diversity. Seems either arbitrary or purely about control, if it isn't about finances.
Are you listening to what others have said? Paizo wants PFS to succeed and survive. They have the advantage of having seen some of the pitfalls that previous organized play campaigns have fallen into. Drogon is best at describing how farming and tables filled with the same old guys is off-putting (at best) to newcomers, which ultimately will spell the demise of the campaign.
A mechanism has been described. Observations have been described seeing that mechanism in action. It's very clear that the replay rules are there for the health of the organized play campaign.
Next, your particular finances argument doesn't make sense. Look at the prices that PFS scenarios sell for. Compare that to the prices of (say) modules, or anything else. They're quite low, yes? Even considering the smaller page count. I don't know the details, but I would strongly suspect that the price they're selling them at, together with the number of people who buy them (which is reduced by the folks who get them free to run at a con!) does not come close to the cost of producing them. (Freelancers must be paid, there is time in design and development... plus, I really hope Tonya is getting paid to run the whole campaign.) The income from seling $4 scenarios to GMs probably helps a bit, but I would be extraordinarily surprised if it came anywhere close to paying for the cost of running PFS.
So why do they do it? Ultimately, it is about finances, but not in the way you say. PFS is partially a marketing program. It serves as a way of getting games played, and played visibly -- at cons, in game stores. It provides regular games that is easy for new folks to just drop into. All of this keeps Pathfinder in the public eye, and is a way to keep people able to keep playing Pathfinder. That is good for the company as a whole. For that to work, they have to have as healthy of a organized play campaign as possible. And for that, they can't have unlimited replay, for that's a demonstrated OP campaign killer.
The second way PFS earns money for Paizo is that it encourages people who are already players to buy all the new expansions. The better GMs are probably interested in the campaign background you can find in the Campaign Setting line, and everybody is interested in the new toys they can get for their characters in the Player's Companion line.
|
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
+1 on the concept that they give away more than they sell.Well, if it isn't finances, I'm not sure what the point is. Completely disagree with the idea that it's to prevent farming or promote gameplay diversity. Seems either arbitrary or purely about control, if it isn't about finances.
Developing product is expensive. Economics isnt my strong point, but Paizo would need to sell a very high amount of 1 scenario to make back the money they invest in it. And if the scenario doesnt get popular for some reason, they might never make back what they invested in it.
You do however need to own the product you use to make your character. There is shiney new stuff coming out every month. By giving people the opportunity to play the game, and make them excited for a new thing, you get them to buy product. That's where you make the money.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nice "the Chain" works example:
90 minutes into a scenario where we had the first two combat's down but both were touch and go. No one died. The GM announced we had ran out of time and he was issuing us all 0 xp / 0 pp / "You are dead" sheets.
The GM didn't realize he had his times wrong, likely because we were one of a handful of 8 am tables that started that day. So an empty room doesn't mean "out of time".
We were so shocked and confused, we didn't notice it was 90 minutes into the game.
I talked to the VC about it, and his quick response was to find the reporting sheet and tear it up in front of us. Enabling us to replay and not suffer a fake TPK.
I like the "chain", but I like GMs to recognize situations and act properly. But knowing you can get proper "support" from the VC/VL means you don't need to worry about being harmed this way.
|
|
How does your new level 1 character do this? You wouldn't get the prestige or gold from previous scenarios, just the options to purchase additional items (or select new races) based on past accomplishments. Shouldn't be able to make a character any more broken than you'd norablly be able to. Maybe a few minor bonuses with certain skills or factions, but nothing huge (maybe there are hugely game breaking boons out there, but I haven't seen those yet).I know of a few boons that give gold or a free item up to X value. They are "balanced" because 1000gp at lv10 isn't that much of a percent increase in overall gold for that level.
But give that to a lv1 and he's much better off than anyone else. Plus if you stacked a few you could have tons of stuff.
Hmm.... Perhaps create a Boon "Slot" for characters in a per session/encounter capacity. Or you could just have them "unlock" at appropriate levels. Or both.
I do think that if boons were handled per player, rather than per character, and each senario gave the same xp and gold with a success, then it would eliminate any of the farming potential that is being discussed here.
As is, farming remains an option. It's more limited than it could be, but if the goal is a maxed character, you could certainly farm the "best" scenarios within the current system.
If the goal is selling things (and not eliminating farming), then I think the current system is better, since it promotes sales (both to GMs and in regards to the materials needed to play).
And PS, I have no objection to it being about finances. I'm responded to the overwhelming rejection by other posters that this is about finances. It's dishonest to say it's about farming and not money.