|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I have put on my face mask and protective padding in preparation for all the rotten fruit that will be thrown at me. It's inevitable, considering the topic, but here I go.
What about allowing replays after a certain number of years?
Let's start with 3 years. Maybe it should be 4. Originally I was thinking 5, but that felt a bit much. Anyway, I was pondering recently the concerns about replay. Most had to do with people "farming" scenarios over and over, or ruining the experience for others by knowing what was going to happen. It was really that second part that got me thinking along these lines. After 2 or 3 years the scenarios start to run together for me and after five years I'd be surprised if I could reliably recall more than a few details.
So that thought led to my next thought. It would be pretty hard to farm a scenario if you could only do it once every 5 years. But it sure would throw a bone to those hard core dedicated players that have been at it since the first few seasons.
I'm sure there are those who would always balk at any replay for any reason. Some have been seriously burned by replay in other game systems. It's a touchy subject. But this idea seemed simple and to have limited downside. I've only been playing for 3 or so years, so this wouldn't impact me yet. Maybe there are repercussions I haven't thought of.
Just a thought. Figured I'd kick it out there. Might give some people some more opportunities to have fun with the hobby.
|
It's a nice thought, but the problem that will arise is this: How could this be tracked reliably under the current system without any infrastructure or coding changes?
In addition, it won't *prevent* the farming, it will just *forestall* it a bit.
The bigger danger is that if #12-12: All The Magic has something cool in it, when it pops back up 'on rotation' the same folks who played it the first time will sit down to play it the second time, and it doesn't grow the community, instead stagnating it.
The same scenarios will always be put into the rotation, and other 'hidden gems' will continue to be lost to obscurity because 'they don't have cool things in them'.
In addition, folks who have played 'the things they want' will take a back seat and not participate for *insert time window here* and then show back up at the end of that time EXPECTING the 'old stuff' to be in the rotation.
It kills any forward progress of the campaign and it's detrimental to the player base in a corrosive fashion.
Venture-Agent, Minnesota
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait? I was supposed to bring rotten fruit? Kifaru, you need to give me more advance warning because with two teenagers at home, fruit never goes bad in my house unless I stock something they really hate!
I agree that it is painful trying to schedule for the folks that have played everything though. I really love the initiatives to get 3-7 evergreens like Tome and Halflight out there because it at least allows a play option (and a fun exercise for GMs like me who like to build out storylines from the dungeon pieces they give us. It’s scenario lego! Who can resist that?)
Hmm
|
I feel Nefreet's question sums up my feelings on this. There are so many scenarios out there, and several different ways in which you can legally replay scenarios that I just don't think its necessary. I certainly play less than a lot of people so I could be mistaken, but it seems like it would be really hard to truly run out of options to play. I only know one or possibly two people who have exhausted the available content, and are constantly waiting for new scenarios to come out and the one I know for sure is in this situation wouldn't benefit from this because he doesn't want to replay scenarios.
|
|
And the problem is that if the 'old-timers' are allowed to replay something, they will commandeer a table, and the goal of 'increasing play' is not met.
...before you ask, no, most of the 'old-timers' are unable to no-credit for any of a number of personal reasons, which don't need to be loaded on here...
...has seen this happen too much in other campaigns.
So the major concern is that by opening up older scenarios again the old timers will play it excluding newcomers.
Is there a way to address this?
I feel a solution might be to allow a replay after x years, but only allow say 1/2 people per table to be replaying in this fashion.
|
|
So the major concern is that by opening up older scenarios again the old timers will play it excluding newcomers.
Is there a way to address this?I feel a solution might be to allow a replay after x years, but only allow say 1/2 people per table to be replaying in this fashion.
How would that be enforced fairly, building the community and not dividing it?
How would that be enforced fairly, building the community and not dividing it?So the major concern is that by opening up older scenarios again the old timers will play it excluding newcomers.
Is there a way to address this?I feel a solution might be to allow a replay after x years, but only allow say 1/2 people per table to be replaying in this fashion.
How is it settled when you have 7 players who want to play the same module now, and no GM to run a second table? We issue boons randomly, so this could be done randomly as well. If you have more than the limit of replays apply to play you could decide with dice.
|
|
Hypothetical situation that may have come up at a convention, for example:
...transportation at least an hour for all players.
...table overflowed on walk-ins (Your 7 players, for example).
...which players do you tell to 'go home' without playing anything after spending an hour to get to the venue (and now will have to spend an hour going home with no play-time)?
...even with random decision via dice, someone is really losing in that equation.
Wei Ji, I agree it does raise some issues.
The idea isn't perfect and needs some balancing.
I also note that every convention I have been to requires you to sign up for games ahead of times so that they can avoid the 7 players to 1 table issue.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why not?You need enougj people that can all play the same game together. If you re a one table lodge and halfmthe people have played you cantput the game together
And while people might be able to scrape together the replays for one scenario, burning a trilogy's worth might be somewhat less palatable.
|
I would love to see more relatable scenarios, or the option to replay older scenarios without burning GM stars.
I get cherry picking scenarios could be a problem, a possible solution is to just go through scenarios and pick which ones could be replayed and tack a tag on the PDF. Recently there have been lots of callbacks to season 0 or 1 scenarios, my characters who played or ran those scenarios have long been retired. Most have bad rewards and low WBL gold rewards, most people wouldn't game the system to replay them. Just make them replayable.
My lodge runs PFS games twice a week, and we consistently sit 25-35 players. A lot of our regular GMs have gone through a lot of scenarios, so when a new table gets put up and one of us misses and early sign up we might end up with 5 tables we can't play or GM for credit and hope we can hop on the table the next time it gets put up.
I feel a workable way to do it would be to make S=current season, S-7 scenarios relatable, restrict the gate by stars if you really feel it is necessary.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
which players do you tell to 'go home' without playing anything after spending an hour to get to the venue (and now will have to spend an hour going home with no play-time?
The simplest answer is preregistration. Limit table signups to six. Additional players are waitlisted. If it comes to the GameDay and all the original players are still signed up, that 7th player should stay home. It’s not fair to the organizer of the other players if someone simply shows up knowing all the available tables are full and expecting to get seated. I like to think players are reasonable, but unfortunately I’ve seen too many cases of the player blaming the organizer for failing to seat them or “force” them onto a table as the 7th player. No one likes to miss out, but this is a cooperative community. Players need to understand that organizers have limited resources and it’s a bit unfair to knowingly put them in a bad position of either making that player mad by sending them home, or making other players/GM mad by making them take on an extra player.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My lodge runs PFS games twice a week...
Danger Will Robinson! If the same players are attending all the events and any of them have an extensive play history, you are setting the community up for problems. You’re offering games four times as often as they are produced (minus mods/APs). Over time, as players rotate in/out you are likely to have extreme mismatches between new/old players. Be careful. It’s a great “problem” to have a community that is that excited about OP to play so frequently, but it can be a double-edged sword.
|
|
which players do you tell to 'go home' without playing anything after spending an hour to get to the venue (and now will have to spend an hour going home with no play-time?The simplest answer is preregistration. Limit table signups to six. Additional players are wait-listed. If it comes to the GameDay and all the original players are still signed up, that 7th player should stay home. It’s not fair to the organizer of the other players if someone simply shows up knowing all the available tables are full and expecting to get seated. I like to think players are reasonable, but unfortunately I’ve seen too many cases of the player blaming the organizer for failing to seat them or “force” them onto a table as the 7th player. No one likes to miss out, but this is a cooperative community. Players need to understand that organizers have limited resources and it’s a bit unfair to knowingly put them in a bad position of either making that player mad by sending them home, or making other players/GM mad by making them take on an extra player.
I won't argue the clear benefits of preregistration. It makes mustering *so much easier*. Having worn the organizer hat in other campaigns and having been forced to take walk-ins as a GM with tables of 8 or 9... shudders at the flashbacks
However, how does one *grow* the community if the venue is consistently 'booked' and 'new blood' can't get in to play? Or alternatively, finds out at last minute after pre-reg is closed, shows up hoping, and then gets turned away?
How many people 'just stay home' under a preregistration system? How can we adjust for that while still maintaining mustering cohesion?
|
Venture-Agent, Minnesota
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is what we have now not enough?It never is.
Seriously, though, I'd be okay with a replay after X years. Maybe further reduce it by the number of GM stars? IX years for I star. VIII years for II stars. VII for III stars. Etc.
I realize that I didn’t state this before, but I would support a replay after X years option to bring up more classic scenarios. I’d want it to be a good chunk of time, though. Time for parts of the scenario to be forgotten.
I really like Earl’s suggestion, above as another GM incentive.
Hmm
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
which players do you tell to 'go home' without playing anything after spending an hour to get to the venue (and now will have to spend an hour going home with no play-time?The simplest answer is preregistration. Limit table signups to six. Additional players are wait-listed. If it comes to the GameDay and all the original players are still signed up, that 7th player should stay home. It’s not fair to the organizer of the other players if someone simply shows up knowing all the available tables are full and expecting to get seated. I like to think players are reasonable, but unfortunately I’ve seen too many cases of the player blaming the organizer for failing to seat them or “force” them onto a table as the 7th player. No one likes to miss out, but this is a cooperative community. Players need to understand that organizers have limited resources and it’s a bit unfair to knowingly put them in a bad position of either making that player mad by sending them home, or making other players/GM mad by making them take on an extra player.I won't argue the clear benefits of preregistration. It makes mustering *so much easier*. Having worn the organizer hat in other campaigns and having been forced to take walk-ins as a GM with tables of 8 or 9... shudders at the flashbacks
However, how does one *grow* the community if the venue is consistently 'booked' and 'new blood' can't get in to play? Or alternatively, finds out at last minute after pre-reg is closed, shows up hoping, and then gets turned away?
How many people 'just stay home' under a preregistration system? How can we adjust for that while still maintaining mustering cohesion?
Preregistration works well for our area, but one reason for that is that we monitor them quite actively. If tables are getting full we know we should start to set up another table. So I tend to tell new people that we'll always seat people who show up, but that signing up is in everyone's best interest.
The other half of it is having a few backup evergreens at hand that can be run if a table has to be split. It's not brilliant but it means everyone can play.
|
|
However, how does one *grow* the community if the venue is consistently 'booked' and 'new blood' can't get in to play? Or alternatively, finds out at last minute after pre-reg is closed, shows up hoping, and then gets turned away?
How many people 'just stay home' under a preregistration system? How can we adjust for that while still maintaining mustering cohesion?
It’s a struggle to be sure, but the simplest answer is you use the resources available and the rest are left out. Some might say that is harsh, but it’s reality. Organizers are not wizards. We cannot magically create GMs and open seats when they just don’t exist. Players have to understand that. If you are consistently turning players away, maybe you add more game days. It is rare that the entire community has time to attend all the Gamedays. Then again, that means more GMs. Some areas restrict table count to five and use the extra seat to accommodate new players. There are a lot of methods to help mitigate turning players away, but at the end of the day, an organizer simply cannot always accommodate every person who wants to play.
There is no organizer bible that has all the answers and every community is different. As long as players, GMs, and organizers are communicating, understand the needs of each other, and work to maximize resources, then it should work out. Whenever a local group is struggling to meet the demands of the player-base, ask for help. The community forums can only help so much because we’re usually talking in generalities that may not be helpful. Talk to your players, talk to your Local VOs, talk to organizers in surrounding communities and see what works for them. Hell, poke me. The RVC team has some of the most experienced organizers in the community. Most of us have been around since the beginning and seen/heard/experienced just about everything.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I'm cautiously interested in a replay after X years idea. My local venues have a fairly small crowd, half of which are old guard. So running stuff like Destiny of the Sands 1-3 is hard because that would mean excluding them unless they want to burn 3 replays. But now the newer players never get to play that series.
It would however require Paizo to really set up a proper lookup system for which scenarios people have played and when.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
we'll always seat people who show up, but...
I hear this and things like “I never turn players away” but how can you say that? I tend not to place much value in absolute statements since they are usually not as absolute as they sound. What if you are the GM and a full table of 7 players are seated, two new unregistered players arrive, and no one will step up to GM? GMs are a finite resource. Having a “never turn a player away” attitude is nice and should be encouraged, but the reality is, sometimes there just is no [legal] way to seat everyone.
Some will even exceed the maximum player count rather than turn players away, but we cannot support that as it’s clearly not allowed by the rules and more often than not seems to create poor play experiences.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The attitude from senior VOs and Paizo has always been to restrict replay, but maybe the “replay after X years” is something that could be considered. To be honest we have not discussed it recently. I think if developed properly, it could be something that could work for some locations, but it will take communication. Generally speaking our attitude has always been to give preferential treatment to the “fresh” player over the replayer. If push comes to shove, many places would bump a replayer for someone who hasn’t played before, but attitudes vary on that being the “best” for the community.
We realize that replay continues to be a topic and reconsider our position a few times a year. However, so far, the decision seems to be that the problems that could arise from a more liberal replay program outweigh the benefits gained from it.
|
|
which players do you tell to 'go home' without playing anything after spending an hour to get to the venue (and now will have to spend an hour going home with no play-time?The simplest answer is preregistration. Limit table signups to six. Additional players are wait-listed. If it comes to the GameDay and all the original players are still signed up, that 7th player should stay home. It’s not fair to the organizer of the other players if someone simply shows up knowing all the available tables are full and expecting to get seated. I like to think players are reasonable, but unfortunately I’ve seen too many cases of the player blaming the organizer for failing to seat them or “force” them onto a table as the 7th player. No one likes to miss out, but this is a cooperative community. Players need to understand that organizers have limited resources and it’s a bit unfair to knowingly put them in a bad position of either making that player mad by sending them home, or making other players/GM mad by making them take on an extra player.I won't argue the clear benefits of preregistration. It makes mustering *so much easier*. Having worn the organizer hat in other campaigns and having been forced to take walk-ins as a GM with tables of 8 or 9... shudders at the flashbacks
However, how does one *grow* the community if the venue is consistently 'booked' and 'new blood' can't get in to play? Or alternatively, finds out at last minute after pre-reg is closed, shows up hoping, and then gets turned away?
How many people 'just stay home' under a preregistration system? How can we adjust for that while still maintaining mustering cohesion?
We have this issue in the Twin Cities. At least one venue requires accommodations be made for walk-ins. Two of the ways some organizers have handled this is always make sure you have a GM ready to go (the organizer often-times) with a 1-5 or evergreen in case you get enough walk-ins or waitlisters so they can play too; alternatively, you seat only 5 people per table until game time, where walk-ins get first shot at the 6th spot or waitlisters can come and see if they become available.
There are solutions to these problems. But by-and-large, a pre-registration system solves most of the issues people keep coming up with on why replay is necessary.
|
|
I'm cautiously interested in a replay after X years idea. My local venues have a fairly small crowd, half of which are old guard. So running stuff like Destiny of the Sands 1-3 is hard because that would mean excluding them unless they want to burn 3 replays. But now the newer players never get to play that series.
It would however require Paizo to really set up a proper lookup system for which scenarios people have played and when.
I have a few questions:
1) How many people on average show up every game day?
2) How many tables of games do you have going every game day?
3) How critical is it for a game to even happen, that you must sit old guard and new folks at the same table?
4) If you had it set up where the organizer dictated what scenarios were run each week (and used the Session Tracker for who's played what and your own tracking spreadsheet for what you've run when), and that happened to be one of these scenarios that all your old-guard couldn't play without replaying, how likely is it to ensure your game day didn't happen?
5) Do you think you'd lose players if they could only play once or twice a month instead of once or more a week?
|
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
we'll always seat people who show up, but...I hear this and things like “I never turn players away” but how can you say that? I tend not to place much value in absolute statements since they are usually not as absolute as they sound. What if you are the GM and a full table of 7 players are seated, two new unregistered players arrive, and no one will step up to GM? GMs are a finite resource. Having a “never turn a player away” attitude is nice and should be encouraged, but the reality is, sometimes there just is no [legal] way to seat everyone.
Some will even exceed the maximum player count rather than turn players away, but we cannot support that as it’s clearly not allowed by the rules and more often than not seems to create poor play experiences.
We split off a last minute table. We have a very active and responsible GM pool. Most have a few scenarios they feel comfortable with running with little prep time. We have the resources for an evergreen at the location.
GMs are indeed the scarce resourse. That is why we actively coach people to try GMing, and if they like GMing to help them grow and let them know how much we appreciate them.
|
Venture-Agent, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
I won't argue the clear benefits of preregistration. It makes mustering *so much easier*. Having worn the organizer hat in other campaigns and having been forced to take walk-ins as a GM with tables of 8 or 9... shudders at the flashbacks
However, how does one *grow* the community if the venue is consistently 'booked' and 'new blood' can't get in to play? Or alternatively, finds out at last minute after pre-reg is closed, shows up hoping, and then gets turned away?
How many people 'just stay home' under a preregistration system? How can we adjust for that while still maintaining mustering cohesion?
I start by telling the new person about the registration (currently Meetup in our case) and that is the only way to know that a spot will be available. If I don’t have room, I apologize and explain why I can’t seat them. Then I make sure they are aware of our next session, where to sign up, and what other locations might also work for them. I also briefly talk about what they can bring but state all that is required is “a good attitude.”
Reasonable people understand that we need to limit seating and can tell when you are trying to be helpful. They will often register for the next event that day.
I recently had to turn away two teens and their Mom because I didn’t have room nor an ability to split off a table. It happens.
I also look at the registration a week, a few days before, and the day of a game. That allows me to see how quickly some tables filled (which has caused me to repeat the scenario the next time) and see if we may want to add another table.
|
|
I agree with this the OP. But I'd put it at 5 years. My area has lots of experienced players and many drop out because there is not enough to play. It's almost impossible to find an old scenario that can muster due to only a few of the old timers have not played a particular scenario. New scenarios fill up.
With the Starfinder scenarios in the mix it satisfies the more content needed for players who are also willing to play Starfinder.
|
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We split off a last minute tableBut what if no one can/will GM that impromptu table? Then what. As I said, you take precautions depending on the local climate, but my question was specific to those who say things like “we NEVER send anyone away.”
We will tackle that problem when we get there. Untill now, we have never turned anyone away. There may be a day when it will not be feasable. But so far we have always managed at my location.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about...
“Old” multi-parters require the expenditure of only one replay for all parts, but only if all Chronicles are applied to the same character?
This could solve the problem of small lodges having difficulties offering older multi-part story arcs to newer players.
And could help those players who may have played some, but not all, parts of such an arc (on a character that has now leveled out of the missing parts) get Chronicles for the whole series on a single character.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My opinion ... has not changed.
I'd still support it if only to try to pull back in the players who have lost their stuff due to RL issues over the years and don't want to expend the effort to try to recreate everything.
Edit: missed Nosig's familiar-sounding post the first pass-through. Seems like it is that time again.
|
|
My opinion ... has not changed.
I'd still support it if only to try to pull back in the players who have lost their stuff due to RL issues over the years and don't want to expend the effort to try to recreate everything.
Edit: missed Nosig's familiar-sounding post the first pass-through. Seems like it is that time again.
if they don't have their older PFS number... they are going to have problems connecting to their older games. If they do, just log in and see what they played?
and if they haven't played in 4 or more years, I would guess they could play anything from seasons 6, 7, 8, or 9 safely, without even logging in and checking their account... which would normally get them thru a day or two until they could check right?
or am I not understanding what you are saying? I can be pretty dense sometimes... sorry!
No worries.
The point about their old PFS# is pretty much part & parcel with what I was thinking - for those who have played and completely lost track, there's not really a legit way to re-establish them or to start over. If we were to implement a X-year cool down, I would also petition that someone would be able to just apply for a new PFS # if their other # is unavail for whatever reason.
I try to never underestimate the chilling effect that the legalese of PFS can have on introducing new players to the campaign after the hoops I put myself through before my first game. (Part of the reason why my 15.2 character is my -5 and my next highest level character is my -31)
|
|
My lodge runs PFS games twice a week...Danger Will Robinson! If the same players are attending all the events and any of them have an extensive play history, you are setting the community up for problems. You’re offering games four times as often as they are produced (minus mods/APs). Over time, as players rotate in/out you are likely to have extreme mismatches between new/old players. Be careful. It’s a great “problem” to have a community that is that excited about OP to play so frequently, but it can be a double-edged sword.
We have people who regularly GM who attend both days, but that number of people is less than 1/3 our regular attendence.
Additionaly I am not a coordinator so I really have no say in how often we put up scenarios, it has been twice a week since before I came to this lodge, and it will be twice a week after I leave the lodge.My point stands however, the less tables you run, amd the less often you run tables, the more likely people just won't be able to get in to a table that they can get credit for. Loosening up the replay rules would help curb this issue.
|
|
However, the other side of it, as noted above, has been demonstrated in the past.
There is vast evidence of the issue of the formation of 'cliques' in other organized play campaigns that gather up all the 'replay' and don't really leave any room for 'fresh blood' to the campaign.
With the suggestion by O/P 'farming' might not be AS much of an issue, but the insular nature of 'well, we played this all together (or we all play together)' will work against inclusion.
How to balance those will need to be an important consideration moving forward on any discussion of the topic, I suspect.
|
|
For those who say there is no reason to expand replay, let me put forth an example I am currently involved in.
I play most of my games on line, and have done almost all of my PFS GMing on line. Some of these games are planned out in advance, but many are "pick-up games". A GM will pop up and say that he/she can run a game. A handful of players will say they would like to play. What follows is usually an hour or more of "Geek Suduko" trying to find something the GM can run and the players can play. And way more often than not, everyone eventually gets tired and gives up.
When you are in a situation where 60%-80% of the attempted tables fail, I'd say that's a problem worth looking into.
What I proposed won't necessarily fix the situation, but I think it is worth considering.
|
|
For those who say there is no reason to expand replay, let me put forth an example I am currently involved in.
I play most of my games on line, and have done almost all of my PFS GMing on line. Some of these games are planned out in advance, but many are "pick-up games". A GM will pop up and say that he/she can run a game. A handful of players will say they would like to play. What follows is usually an hour or more of "Geek Suduko" trying to find something the GM can run and the players can play. And way more often than not, everyone eventually gets tired and gives up.
When you are in a situation where 60%-80% of the attempted tables fail, I'd say that's a problem worth looking into.
What I proposed won't necessarily fix the situation, but I think it is worth considering.
using the session tracker reduces the time for geek sudoku to less than 5 minutes usually.
|
|
I've pretty much never seen it work out that way. The theory is great, but only if everyone uses the tracker and has everything up to date. That's a rarity. I just sat through a little more than an hour of "Geek Suduko" before my play window started to close and I had to give up. I wish this was an aberration, but it's pretty much par for the course.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've pretty much never seen it work out that way. The theory is great, but only if everyone uses the tracker and has everything up to date. That's a rarity.
At all our face to face venues that is a requirement when you sign up for ‘to be decided’ games, which all of our games are until the GM has selected the scenario. Sometimes a tier is given, but often the players decide the level range. Players know that they have to sign in close to the level of the players that have already given a level to make it happen, so that does not lead to any issues. Although we have one player who always signs up with a bard 70....
|
|
At all ours venues that is a requirement when you sign up for ‘to be decided’ games, which all of our games are until the GM has selected the game.
Well, the online community is from all over the world and a hundred or more different lodges. They all have different standards and requirements.
The session tracker has only been up and running for a relatively short while. I know at least some of the lodges have there own recording systems that they have been using since long before the PFS Session Tracker came out. I've heard more than one player say that they already have one way they are required to record their sessions and are reluctant to go through the process again with a different system.
Maybe with time this will work itself out as the PFS Session Tracker becomes more ubiquitous.