Are we going to have to start over earning DM stars in the 2.0 campaign?

[TriOmegaZero]

N N 959 wrote:

Can't they just start over with a new ID?

No, actually. Against the terms of service for Paizo accounts.

[N N 959]

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Can't they just start over with a new ID?

No, actually. Against the terms of service for Paizo accounts.

So what happens to people who get PFS cards at a convention and then lose them and create a new ID on the forums?

[TwilightKnight]

N N 959 wrote:

Can you explain this to me?

You'll have to ask them. I cannot speak to their why's. My personal opinion is based on the assumption that they are proceeding as if PFS2 is a new campaign. Under that concept, I am in favor of a clean start.

N N 959 wrote:

So what happens to people who get PFS cards at convention and then lose them and create a new ID on the forums?

They are instructed to contact customer service to have the accounts merged. Though in reality, the reason this happens is because they lost the original card and that number just becomes a lost number. There is no actual account ever created.

[N N 959]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

My personal opinion is based on the assumption that they are proceeding as if PFS2 is a new campaign. Under that concept, I am in favor of a clean start.

If they were keeping 1e, I would tend to agree. Do PFS stars have any impact in SFS? I suspect not.

However, since they are getting rid of 1e, wouldn't you want to incentivize the most committed members of 1e to come over to 2e?

[whew]

N N 959 wrote:

Bob Jonquet wrote:

My personal opinion is based on the assumption that they are proceeding as if PFS2 is a new campaign. Under that concept, I am in favor of a clean start.

If they were keeping 1e, I would tend to agree. Do PFS stars have any impact in SFS? I suspect not.

However, since they are getting rid of 1e, wouldn't you want to incentivize the most committed members of 1e to come over to 2e?

But if I'm already maxed out in stars, what incentive do I have to keep working hard? Wouldn't having new widgets to earn give more incentive than not being able to earn more widgets?

[Belafon]

N N 959 wrote:

How are people who want a clean start, negatively impacted by having their stars carried over? . . .snip previously answered question...

How are people who have not GM'd in 1e, negatively impacted by stars from 1e still having the same value in 2e?

I'm one of the people who advocated for a clean start.

My main reasoning comes from a thousand-meter-view. The most important thing to make PFS2 enjoyable for me is a healthy and vibrant community. Having play opportunities is far more important than a bonus on my rerolls and some minor recognition. So I don't want there to be anything that discourages even a few people from GMing.

I've been playing online persistent games since MUDs as a wee child. On through subscription MMOs and Free-to-Play mobile games. One of the biggest challenges in the persistent-game industry is how to keep existing players engaged without making new players feel like perpetual second-class citizens, never able to catch up to the long-established players. I've certainly felt that. There's plenty of games I played for a bit and enjoyed but set aside because I realized the continual increase in top-level power meant I would never reach the leaderboard/be invited to a top-tier raiding guild/be strong enough to defeat the reigning queen and claim the throne.

That's not true for every person and its not true for every situation. There were already 5-star GMs in PFS when I started GMing. I did it (and continue to do it) because I enjoy GMing. But some people I have met look at that 150-step mountain and say "Why should I start? I'm never going to have as many games as those who are already there." Starting from a blank slate removes that potential barrier.

To me it's a simple balance:
(Keep Stars) Recognition and a minor mechanical bonus.
(Reset Stars) The potential of more new GMs for the campaign overall.

It's worth more to me to have those potential GMs. Even if I turn out to be wrong and resetting the stars doesn't result in new GMs, I'll happily give up my stars just for the chance that it does. A bigger Society with more play opportunities is going to give me far more enjoyment than being a top dog in a smaller Society.

[BigNorseWolf]

Kevin Willis wrote:

It's worth more to me to have those potential GMs.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. You have people you know will step up and run. Then you have people you think might step up and run but aren't because....other people people have already run a lot of games?

[Tallow]

My view nearly mirrors Kevin's.

Not much more to add other than I think because stars represent a quantity of experience, and experience can help on the road to various levels of mastery in a gamut if objective and subjective benchmarks, resetting the need to gain that experience with a system that seems fundamentally different so far, is important.

The thing though is, I won't lose my PFS1 stars. They'll still be there, for everyone to see when I post. I'll still get the rewards of being a 5-star whenever I play or GM PFS1 for as long as enough people still want to play it. I'm expecting the over/under to be roughly 2 years for a good sized region with plenty of play opportunities per week.

But I wouldn't feel right being considered any stars in PFS2 until I've done some GMing, because the time and effort of doing so, to me, represents time I've spent mastering the new system. I know not everyone agrees that stars represent mastery. But in my opinion, and experience, and personal preference for how I approach GMing and learning the game, they do. I respect differing opinions and personal experiences on this, but please don't tell me my personal preference is wrong insofar as how I judge myself to myself (I'm my own harshest critic.)

[N N 959]

whew wrote:

But if I'm already maxed out in stars, what incentive do I have to keep working hard? Wouldn't having new widgets to earn give more incentive than not being able to earn more widgets?

Well, two easy ideas:

1. They can simply up the number of benefits for games past 5 stars, so long as all games count toward that goal;

2. They could give you separate benefits for 2e games separate from 1e games. But by keeping the 1e benefits intact, you are also motivated to keep GMing 1e games up until the cutover, and maybe even beyond that.

[N N 959]

Kevin Willis wrote:

I'm one of the people who advocated for a clean start.

First, let me thank you for taking the time to give your perspective and answer my questions.

After reading your comments, I have to admit that I have trouble reconciling your position, particularly the idea that the existence of players/GMs who have already have achievements are an impediment to anyone who wants to start playing.

In particular, this:

Quote:

One of the biggest challenges in the persistent-game industry is how to keep existing players engaged without making new players feel like perpetual second-class citizens, never able to catch up to the long-established players.

It is not possible to construct a multiplayer game where everyone comes in on equal footing. Even wiping the slate clean on Day 1 means anyone who comes in on Day 2 is a day behind. If you come in on Day 1 and don't play on Day 2, you're behind those who do. In short, I completely disagree that game designers are focused on trying to mask the presence or existence of established players.

On the contrary, for Mobile Apps, the need to "catch-up" is a desired response because it motivated players to spend money to catch-up. Fortunately PFS doesn't use this model and I have never heard of someone feeling like they needed to catch-up until now.

You even admit that you're GMing despite the fact that there were already 5 star GMs when you started. As such, any decision based on this motivation would be ultimately pointless after Day 1. It would thus be extreme folly for PFS to risk alienating established GMs to give everyone equal footing for one and only one day in a campaign that should last five if not ten years.

Quote:

It's worth more to me to have those potential GMs.

As I stated above, wiping out GM stars doesn't achieve this except for Day 1 and then it is lost as players GM at different rates.

Quote:

A bigger Society with more play opportunities is going to give me far more enjoyment than being a top dog in a smaller Society.

I've never viewed PFS as a PvP or ranking driven endeavor. Personally, I wouldn't want GMs whose only motivation for GMing is a result of a competition with other players.

[Belafon]

N N 959 wrote:

You even admit that you're GMing despite the fact that there were already 5 star GMs when you started. As such, any decision based on this motivation would be ultimately pointless after Day 1. It would thus be extreme folly for PFS to risk alienating established GMs to give everyone equal footing for one and only one day in a campaign that should last five if not ten years.

Here's the crux of the matter. My desire (and presumably that of Paizo) is to have as many people both playing and GMing the game. So again, it's trying to foresee the balance between the two choices.

Do I think people are going to throw in the towel and quit PFS because their stars don't carry over? Maybe a few.

Do I think potential new GMs and players might sit next to an existing 5-star and be upset that they get to play a special race/get a bonus to rerolls/something else? Yes. Do I think that's going to make players give up and not come back or not GM? A few.

My estimation (and to be clear, it is just an estimation. There's really no way to know the truth.) is that we will lose more potential players if stars carry over than we would lose GMs if stars reset. Because those GMs have become invested in the setting, not just their stars. Those potential players are going to be trying out a new game for the first time. They are going to see someone with an advantage "just because" they got in the earlier campaign. An advantage they can't gain without years of work.

I said in my first post that I'm fine with 1E stars doing something in 2E. Just as long as it isn't a mechanical advantage over new players.

You are correct, the playing field won't stay level. But the psychological barriers to entry will be lower for a long time. If rates stay the same there will likely be a handful of 3-glyph GMs by the end of the first year, but mostly it will be 1- or 2-glyph GMs through the first couple of years.

And I'm not necessarily right. Maybe I'm more altruistic than the average GM. Maybe thousands of people will feel that not getting their bonuses in PF2 is a betrayal of the hard work they put in. Maybe the majority of those new players would see the bonuses of the existing multistar as a goal rather than an unfair head start.

The unfortunate truth:

Is that Pathfinder Society Organized Play is going to lose a lot of players between now and the transition. More once 1.0 scenarios stop being produced.

It is going to happen. Will resetting stars cause more losses? Yes, probably. Keeping the stars might have kept a few GMs on board who instead decide it's time to go.

But this move isn't about player retention. It's about getting new players. It is something every business faces. If your product isn't getting new users at or above replacement rate, you have to change. Some of the existing users will leave because they don't like the changes. The harsh reality of capitalism is that you have to let them go if the concessions required to keep them would turn away new users.

So that's what the star debate comes down to. What can Paizo give existing GMs that doesn't run the risk of alienating potential new users?

[BigNorseWolf]

Kevin Willis wrote:

But this move isn't about player retention. It's about getting new players.

I do not get the logic here at all.

"I won't DM because I can see that the other person DMed a lot..."

wait.. what? How on earth does that follow at all? By that logic you should kull every 5 star dm because no one will step up as long as they exist.

[TriOmegaZero]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Kevin Willis wrote:

But this move isn't about player retention. It's about getting new players.

I do not get the logic here at all.

"This campaign cares more about the old players than me. It would take me years to catch up to what these guys have. I'll go play something else."

[N N 959]

Kevin Willis wrote:

...

Once again, thank you for sharing your response and your perspective.

Quote:

If your product isn't getting new users at or above replacement rate, you have to change.

I agree that this is a concern for any business. However, if you take college level marketing classes, one of the truisms of marketing is that it is more cost effective to keep existing players than to give up on them and try and attract new players.

Also, I believe we are weighing the comparison much differently: the players you're giving up are proven assets to your business revenue. How much money do you think you've spent on your journey to 5 stars?

I would submit a 5 star GM does not have the same value as a new player/GM. These GMs are worth an order of magnitude more to Paizo/PFS than any potential new player. How many people who play one game of PFS make it to 5 stars?

From a financial perspective I would gladly alienate any player who sees the existence of establish players as an impediment, in order to retain the maximum amount of 5 star GMs.

The other key factor I would point out is that we're talking about GMs, not just players. Not all potential players will GM, but your 5 star GMs are far more likely.

Quote:

But the psychological barriers to entry will be lower for a long time.

This is the part I struggle with. I don't perceive the things you are describing as barriers. I've never heard any person bemoan or begrudge the benefits of existing GMs. Now, if we are talking about character boons coming over from 1e, I could kind of see that. But I would fully expect PFS to reward particularly helpful playtesters prior to the release of 2e. In fact, I would encourage PFS to reward people who have gone beyond the call of duty to help make PFS a better experience for others prior to the release of 2e, and apparently John Compton agrees as they are not getting rid of campaign services awards.

Quote:

My desire (and presumably that of Paizo) is to have as many people both playing and GMing the game.

I wanted to come back to this. I'm pretty sure that in the world of gaming, not all players are equally desirable. A game like PFS wants to attract players whose attitude or motivation for playing is self-sustaining. I think we can both agree you don't want to modify the game or the system to attract players whose a priori mindset means they'll have a limited lifespan. To that end, I guess I am hard pressed to believe PFS should harm 5 star GMs on the hopes of attracting players who would not be playing if the 5 star GMs from PFS 1e, who are now forced to play 2e, are being rewarded.

In any event, thank you for responding.

[Blake's Tiger]

I see where some of these arguments are coming from, but I agree with N N 959:

Paizo needs to retain players so that all the people purchasing PF1 material buy PF2 material.

An existing market is worth more than a theoretical market.

As has be stated several times previously, the "blank slate" is a transient illusion because it will cease to exist the moment someone gains something from GMing (be it a star or early access to an ancestry). Alternatively, rather than barriers, they serve as incentives, showcasing the rewards of GMing to the new players should they wish to try their hand at GMing.

So, why encourage the OPC to alienate the existing market of return customers with a "blank slate" that might, in one theory of how a blank slate works in this situation, attract a smaller market of new players?

[TriOmegaZero]

I think stars should give a benefit in 2e, ideally the same as in 1e. (Replay, assuming things work mostly the same way, and reroll bonuses, assuming the math is close enough.) I think 1e table count should not count towards sigils or whatnot. I think sigils could give their own bonus, something else, whatever we can come up with as appropriate. Or they could just be a quantifier of 2e tables, but the important part is that 2e tables count towards earning BOTH stars and sigils.

This keeps 1e GMs happy that they are not being snubbed. It gives 2e GMs a chance to earn the same benefits as their 1e counterparts. And it gives 1e GMs something to pursue in 2e, incentivizing them not to abandon it.

Could 2e GMs say 'but they get something I don't, why bother'? Sure, but by having a clear path to earn the same thing, we minimize that complaint.

Would it be simpler to have all tables count for both stars and sigils? Yes. However, then we lose the incentive for 1e GMs to keep GMing. Maybe that is desirable, given the limited availability of tables. I would guess not, but I don't have the experience to say either way.

[BigNorseWolf]

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

"This campaign cares more about the old players than me. It would take me years to catch up to what these guys have. I'll go play something else."

Yes. It is going to take years to get 5 stars. It took most of us years to get 5 stars. It's something that takes years at a reasonable pace for life and bathroom breatks.

[TriOmegaZero]

New players aren't going to see that.

[TwilightKnight]

N N 959 wrote:

However, since they are getting rid of 1e...

I'm sorry, but this is a gross misrepresentation. Organized Play is not getting rid of PFS1/1E. That campaign will continue to run and be sanctioned indefinitely. In fact they will continue to sell any published material that is still in print (and the pdfs) including the soft cover versions that aren't even published yet. They just aren't going to produce new content after Gen Con 2019, but that is not the same as getting rid of it. Please stop misinforming the casual reader who might skim across these comments and be misled that they will no longer be able to play PFS1/1E when PFS2/2E is launched.

[GreyYeti]

As a five star GM i feel a bit insulted by the idea that i and others need the special incentive of having to grind for for glyphs/symbols/whatever because otherwise we would not GM for PFS2. As far as i know most 5 stars didn't stop GMing when they got there so why do people think we would do so when PFS2 hits.
I am far more likely to stop GMing if they devalue my stars. And i am really worried about being forced to speed grind again because my country has noone else that can run certain star-gated content. i had to do that once and it was annoying enough.

[TwilightKnight]

Without commenting on the value of keeping the stars or resetting them, I can say that the trend in the community is for 5-star GMs to at least slow down significantly if not stop entirely. That is not to say that most 5-star GMs stop GMing, but a majority do it much less than they did during their "drive for five."

I, myself, have over 360 reported sessions and many unreported (from the early days and demos) so clearly I didn't stop, but if you compare the rate at which I GMd prior to being a 5-star to that afterwards, it is a significant drop. And I see that all the time with GMs. There was a time when the number of 5-stars was small enough we all knew their names and could speak to each other's activity in the campaign. Now 5-star island is quite populated so its harder to pull reliable data. So, I cannot tell you exactly how GMing trends before or after 5-stars, but I can tell you the average drops significantly.

[GreyYeti]

Apparently there are regional differences because the 5 stars around here did not really slow down.

[TriOmegaZero]

I imagine any GM slowdowns over there likely also cause a slowdown in overall play. I at least have multiple GMs competing for our table slots to continue their own climb, so I don’t need to keep it up for the community to survive.

[N N 959]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

However, since they are getting rid of 1e...

I'm sorry, but this is a gross misrepresentation.

No, it's not a gross misrepresentation. Once Paizo/PFS stop producing content, it's dead. They've told us unequivocally that PFS will move over to 2e. Paizo, does not want everyone to keep playing a version of PF that they are no longer publishing books for or producing content for and...they will be emotionally divorcing themselves from.

One of the main reasons I play PF is because Paizo keeps answering rules questions for it as opposed to WotC which won't answer any questions on 3.5. How long do you think the PDT is going to FAQ 1e after 2e comes out?

Paizo absolutely wants everyone to start playing 2e because that's how they are going to pay for the resources they put into 2e. PFS takes its marching orders from Paizo. It would be financially disastrous for PFS to keep promoting 1e when Paizo needs to sell 2e content.

You really think PFS is going to be promoting 1e tables at PaizoCon 2021?

[TriOmegaZero]

Yes.

[Gary Bush]

In my area, we have five 5-star GMs. Three of them earned their 3rd star after GenCon 2017.

All five have stopped GMing and play very, very rarely.

[TwilightKnight]

N N 959 wrote:

You really think PFS is going to be promoting 1e tables at PaizoCon 2021?

It is quite possible. The error you are making is that the continued viability is not being decided by Paizo. The PLAYERS will decide if PFS1 continues to be a living campaign. If the trend is it is being actively played by a measureable number in the community, then Paizo will continue to offer it at future conventions. How can I say that? Because I am involved in organizing at least one of the Paizo sponsored annual events (Gen Con). We do not decide what to offer based on our own preferences. We look at ticket sales, previous year’s results, and the trend in the general play to determine what is offered. In 2021 if players are still actively playing and reporting PFS1 content, it will be offered at those events.

[N N 959]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

You really think PFS is going to be promoting 1e tables at PaizoCon 2021?

Heh. The question was rhetorical. But let's discuss it.

Quote:

In 2021 if players are still actively playing and reporting PFS1 content, it will be offered at those events.

Offered/Allowed? Certainly. The PaizoCon I went to offered all kinds of games, many of which I assume had nothing to do with Paizo. I would not be surprised to find out someone ran an AD&D 1e table. But there's a fundamental difference between a game system which is tolerated and one that has the weight of Paizo and PFS behind it. Yes, people will most likely play PF 1e for the next sixty years...but clealry Paizo no longer believes in 1e and that means there is no future for 1e with PFS. Yes, PFS is going to keep it afloat for a short bit, to maximize the opportunity to transition players. But PFS 1e has been selected for extinction, whether PFS staff want to recognize that or not.

Quote:

The PLAYERS will decide if PFS1 continues to be a living campaign.

Not really. The players will decide if PFS/Paizo have to cut staff, but Paizo is not going back to 1e and that means PFS isn't either. PFS exists solely as a promotional branch of Pathfinder, that's it. PFS exists to generate revenue for Paizo. PFS isn't the work of some philanthropic benefactor wanting to create a gaming community for 3.5 castoffs and refugees and AD&D veterans looking for purpose. PFS has to turn its efforts and attention on making 2e work. Why do I feel that this is true? Because they've already told us that their cutting over to 2e in 2019. There is no forum discussion or poll or survey on whether PFS should continue to run a 1e campaign. That decision was made the same instant Jason Bulhmann was given the green light to produce 2e. 1e is a dead-man walking with respect to Paizo and PFS. Yes, you can play it at your home, Paizo won't bother you there. You'll even be given a table in the back of the convention hall, the one which rocks and sits right below the A/C vent on max. But real soon now, there will be no PFS 1e campaign....at least not one offered by Paizo.

Quote:

The error you are making is that the continued viability is not being decided by Paizo.

My response to this is to encourage you to take a step back and think about what 2e represents to Paizo...psychologically. When Paizo OGL'd 3.5, it was like one of those marriages to solidify a peace treaty between warring nations. Paizo took on 3.5 to grow its business. But you have to believe that from the second that Paizo assembled its RPG staff, the seeds for 2e were planted. Now, on the strength of that political marriage, Paizo has grown the customer base and revenue to marry for love. PF 2e is/represents Paizo's legacy. It is a creature almost entirely of Paizo's doing. Paizo didn't just tweak 1e, they dumped it, at least mechanically. You have to recognize that everybody who is on board is now emotionally wedded to 2e. There is no going back, and Paizo is not going to tie one hand behinds it back by supporting the old system. Paizo 100% believes in what they are doing with 2e and I think we're kidding ourselves if we think 1e has any long term future. No sane person keeps their ex-spouse in the house when he or she remarries and expects his/her new marriage to work out.

I foolishly believed that Paizo would always support PF 1e, looking back, I can now see how naive that was. PF 2e was/is inevitable.

[Blake's Tiger]

While the tone shouldn't be doom and gloom, it is disingenuous to say that Paizo is going to promote PFS1.

Here's what we know they're keeping for PFS1:
1. Character number generation and scenario reporting.
2. PFS1-limited GM stars as incentives.
3. A link in the drop down menu under Organized Play.

Here's what PFS2 is getting:
1. Character number generation and scenario reporting.
2. Published scenarios.
3. Published rules content.
4. GMing incentives (glyphs, boons, convention fees, hotel costs)
5. Front page real estate on the web site.
6. Post-development attention (FAQs and Erratas)
7. Campaign attention (Additional Resources and Campaign Clarifications)

First, this is all appropriate for the change Paizo is making. However, nobody should be going around telling anyone that, "everything will be fine, they're still supporting PFS1 like always." And as far as players determining the viability of PFS1, we may be "free to choose," but I am certain there is going to be an invisible hand pushing us all toward PFS2 (marketing and advertising).

[N N 959]

I will add one caveat that I'm sure has been mentioned in other threads. Paizo has to be somewhat concerned that if they stop supporting PF1e, someone will do with PF1e what Paizo did with 3.5. I'be very interested to hear the discussion on how the Paizo staff are addressing/contending with this possibility.

[Tallow]

N N 959 wrote:

I will add one caveat that I'm sure has been mentioned in other threads. Paizo has to be somewhat concerned that if they stop supporting PF1e, someone will do with PF1e what Paizo did with 3.5. I'be very interested to hear the discussion on how the Paizo staff are addressing/contending with this possibility.

I suppose its possible, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it isn't going to happen. Here is why I say that:

1) Paizo had to make a very difficult choice when WotC pulled their license/contract to publish Dungeon and Dragon magazine. Largely they were doing APs (I think they were mostly in Dungeon, but maybe RotRL's and CotCT were concurrent) and some modules. They had a choice to make when Dungeon and Dragon went away. And while they might not have gone out of business if they had just kept producing modules and adventures for 3.5, with no support of that system, they were most likely not going to be much of a company and probably couldn't support a staff of employees. Additionally, they did not know (or maybe the did) if 4th edition was going to have an OGL.) It was for their very survival that they chose to publish their own d20 system based on v3.5.

2) During my dabbling in freelancing over the last few years, I've learned that many of the 3PP companies work with both Pathfinder and 5th Edition (and some few a couple other systems like Dragon's Age and 13th Age or whatever its called. I've also seen Castles & Crusades supported.) There also isn't a 3PP that's existence is largely predicated on publishing something for Paizo. As such, I foresee these 3PP companies publishing their books and adventures the same as they always have. And potentially if there is still a market for it, they will continue their cross-publishing habits with PF1 as well as PF2, 5E, and others.

[Davor Firetusk]

From a marketing perspective it is important for Paizo to get a substantial chunk of the player base onto 2E. However whether it is selling out the warehouse or selling PDFs at almost no overhead they do have a lot of reason to hope 1E stays viable. It would be unprecedented, but frankly if 2E flopped there would be nothing (other than no one has ever tried it before) stopping them from going back to 1E.