|
I gotta say, I really don't understand the basis for your objection to expanded PFS1 replay if you're not going to participate in it. If you want to spend your time and energy on the limited number PFS2 scenarios that will be available post August 2019, that's fine with me. But please don't interfere with my and others' desire to continue to play PFS1 after that point.The same could be said by those who like the campaign as it is and want to continue playing it without significant changes. We could say, "please don't interfere with my and other's desire to continue playing PFS1 by expanding replay, thereby making the gaming experience poor, and making us quit." I never said I wouldn't participate in PFS1, in fact I plan to as long as I can find a table of players. However, expanding replay is a non-starter for me.
Oh its a challenge, rise up, do it harder... Yeah. No. That's a pile of pap. How is it remotely possible to do this without the campaign screaching to a halt? We can't KNOW isn't a very good answerI think you may be looking at my comments from the wrong perspective. I am not saying any of your concerns are not valid. Yes, the scheduling challenges will continue to increase as people play themselves out of content. As time goes on, that is inevitable. My experience and understanding indicates the vast majority of players still have plenty of PFS1 content they can play, so there is no need to change the existing rules for the majority of players to be able to continue. That is certainly not true for everyone. The simple truth is that for people who have a strong dislike for replay it doesn't matter. We feel the harm that expanded replay does to the actual gameplay outweighs the benefit it provides. That's a philosophical difference of opinion. We would rather not participate in the campaign than continue with expanded replay. This really just boils down to one group wanting expanded replay so they can continue to play indefinitely...
My opinion pretty well matches Bob's.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You want to replay a scenario? Have a GM run it for you for no credit. Do like my wife and I did, play the scenarios with a group as a campaign free of PFS rules."But then I'm not getting a CR for my PC that adds to the character I have in PFS!"
"What? That would be like playing for no REWARDS?! I would have put all that effort out for nothing!"
Yeah, I can actually understand this feeling, because I have felt it before myself. I got too immersed in organized play, where we are incentivized with chronicle rewards, that I had to remember that playing a game just for fun is an entirely valid way to spend my time. And at PaizoCon I signed up for lottery events that got me nothing but a good time. (And boy was that the right thing to do! I never would have gotten to play at Nic Logue's table otherwise.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, let us remember that organized play is a marketing platform for Paizo. It would surprise me if they wanted PFS1 to continue any longer than it naturally will. They are unlikely to make significant rules changes to artificially force it to continue. It is not likely to bring much if any revenue since they won't be producing new content for 1E.
Counter-point to that is that I'm pretty sure Paizo wants to sell through their remaining PF 1.0 product and with the "must own" restrictions, PFS is probably their only way to do so after 2.0 launches.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, let us remember that organized play is a marketing platform for Paizo. It would surprise me if they wanted PFS1 to continue any longer than it naturally will. They are unlikely to make significant rules changes to artificially force it to continue. It is not likely to bring much if any revenue since they won't be producing new content for 1E.Counter-point to that is that I'm pretty sure Paizo wants to sell through their remaining PF 1.0 product and with the "must own" restrictions, PFS is probably their only way to do so after 2.0 launches.
I'm pretty sure they are more concerned with selling PF2 product and getting the new edition a foothold in the market than they are in selling remaining stock of PF1.
|
Counter-point to that is that I'm pretty sure Paizo wants to sell through their remaining PF 1.0 product and with the "must own" restrictions, PFS is probably their only way to do so after 2.0 launches.
I can agree to that and probably a contributing factor to letting PFS1 continue after the 2E launch. At least there is some value to buying the books between now and then. We know we can use them between now and next Gen Con. Then if you continue with PFS1 after that, its bonus time with said book. This of course doesn't even consider the value it might have for non-OP play that can continue indefinitely after the launch regardless of what Paizo does. I have no intention of converting my home group if our existing campaign continues past the 2E launch, though our next campaign after that is up for grabs.
Plus, for the first 6-12 months (or so) after the 2E launch, there will be trickle sales of 1E books for people still playing with those rules. So, its good not to have a "hard stop." I was just saying that generally speaking the revenue from 1E will reduce significantly over the next couple of years and they would be foolish to push many resources behind it when 2E is the thing that'll be paying the bills (along with Starfinder).
|
Venture-Lieutenant
|
Ok so I was going to write a long post with rebuttals, then it occurred to me that this whole argument can be brought down to another argument in the war gaming community that has been going on for years.
Painted vs. Unpainted Miniatures
The argument boils down to this there is a contingent who refuses to play if their opponent's miniatures are not painted to a certain standard. In my mind this argument has always sounded elitist, even though I endeavor to always have painted miniatures on my side. It is the you play my way or I am going to take my toys and go home.
So this argument really boils down to a simple duology, inclusive vs exclusive. I will always side on the inclusive side of the argument as my feeling is that while it might be less fun for me to play under less that "perfect" conditions but it is better than not playing at all.
|
|
My experience and understanding indicates the vast majority of players still have plenty of PFS1 content they can play
What doesn't seem to be connecting is that having plenty of content an individual can play is not the same as having plenty of content that a group can play. You need to have all the geeks with the same available content at the same time or you don't have a game.
That kills the game exponentially faster than when is everyone out of content.
There is no possible way that there is not SOME level of replay that is better than the near mathematical certainty of the death/senescence of the campaign.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No gaming is better than bad gaming. (But I don't consider unpainted minis bad gaming.) Bad gaming nearly caused my wife to stop playing. (She has already sworn off playing in our local community.)
My wife has pretty much sworn off gaming. She might be willing to join in on a home game, outside of PFS, with folks she knows and likes being around and playing with. But yeah, a lack of gaming opportunities is better than bad gaming. I can find something better to do with 4 to 6 hours of my time than to not have fun, even if I am constantly getting a jones to game.
|
Ok so I was going to write a long post with rebuttals, then it occurred to me that this whole argument can be brought down to another argument in the war gaming community that has been going on for years.
Painted vs. Unpainted Miniatures
The argument boils down to this there is a contingent who refuses to play if their opponent's miniatures are not painted to a certain standard. In my mind this argument has always sounded elitist, even though I endeavor to always have painted miniatures on my side. It is the you play my way or I am going to take my toys and go home.
So this argument really boils down to a simple duology, inclusive vs exclusive. I will always side on the inclusive side of the argument as my feeling is that while it might be less fun for me to play under less that "perfect" conditions but it is better than not playing at all.
well... no, I do not see it this way.
It is the split between the group that wants to play by a set of established rules, and the group that wants to modify those rules before continuing to play.
To take this into the realm of Miniatures (something I have been playing for ...ah...gods... 42+ years? shhesh!... anyway, ...) So we have a group of players who have decided to play in a campaign - say we are playing a Ancients game with 15 millimeter figs using WRG DBA rules (whichever edition) and we'll be playing a Roman Civil War period. There, we have established the rules of the campaign. Now, I just finished up a new War of the Roses English army and I want to play that in the Campaign. That's ok right?
I mean, it's the same RULE SET. they are even able to be played together - lots of people would do it OUTSIDE the campaign... why can't I just use my English when we get together next week? And have it "count" for the overall campaign standings. The campaign is coming to an end anyway, and sometime soon it'll end anyway right? So what's it hurt?
|
|
No gaming is better than bad gaming. (But I don't consider unpainted minis bad gaming.) Bad gaming nearly caused my wife to stop playing. (She has already sworn off playing in our local community.)My wife has pretty much sworn off gaming. She might be willing to join in on a home game, outside of PFS, with folks she knows and likes being around and playing with. But yeah, a lack of gaming opportunities is better than bad gaming. I can find something better to do with 4 to 6 hours of my time than to not have fun, even if I am constantly getting a jones to game.
Yep. She plays with our Roll20 crew and on occasion when I ask her to come out and make a table happen.
|
|
That doesn't matter BigNorseWolf. My {our?} argument against replay expansion has nothing to do with play opportunities. If that was the only issue, I'm sure we would all be in favor of it. However, there is the component of replay "ruining" the gaming experience. For those of us who have experienced that in the past, we are simply not prepared to do it again. Thus, we oppose expanded replay (and in my case would like to see it restricted further). As TOZ said, I would rather not play than play "badly" and that is what I expect to experience if replay is expanded. So, I will not do it. Simple as that. If there is a way to create more play opportunities without expanding replay or expecting more content (since they have said they will not be doing that) then I may be more for it. Until then, we are where we are.
I am also not arrogant enough to think that what is best for me, is best for all. That is why I do not envy Paizo in this. They have to decide which is for the greater good. If they expand replay they will lose me and many others. If they don't, they stand to lose those who have played [nearly] everything already produced. Either way, they are going to lose some players. Unless of course everyone picks up the 2E mantle which would reduce the impact of this issue to some extent.
|
My experience and understanding indicates the vast majority of players still have plenty of PFS1 content they can playWhat doesn't seem to be connecting is that having plenty of content an individual can play is not the same as having plenty of content that a group can play. You need to have all the geeks with the same available content at the same time or you don't have a game.
That kills the game exponentially faster than when is everyone out of content.
There is no possible way that there is not SOME level of replay that is better than the near mathematical certainty of the death/senescence of the campaign.
Well, it looks to me like the question is... do we wait until the creature is dead to animate the zombie or do we just cast the (Replay) spell now?
To put it another way
IMHO - the question is not so much do we cast the Animate Dead Campaign now?(well perhaps there are some Paladins in the readers who are objecting), it's do we let it bleed out first or shoot it in the head now?
|
|
My experience and understanding indicates the vast majority of players still have plenty of PFS1 content they can playWhat doesn't seem to be connecting is that having plenty of content an individual can play is not the same as having plenty of content that a group can play. You need to have all the geeks with the same available content at the same time or you don't have a game.
That kills the game exponentially faster than when is everyone out of content.
There is no possible way that there is not SOME level of replay that is better than the near mathematical certainty of the death/senescence of the campaign.
It appears you are under the impression that PFS1 eventually dying off is a bad thing. Without support, of course its going to eventually die off. Artificially extending its life past the point-of-no-return is not conducive to a healthy campaign.
And I think you are highly underestimating how long an average group will be able to find content to play until around 2021. Now if you are in a small area, and you ravenously play all content as soon as it comes out, and between all the regulars, you currently might have 2 or 3 combined things you can play together, then your supposition is likely correct. But replay is still not the answer. Because it can't be offered to your group, and not the campaign as a whole.
Unfortunately, smaller groups may suffer for the greater good of organized play as a whole.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok so I was going to write a long post with rebuttals, then it occurred to me that this whole argument can be brought down to another argument in the war gaming community that has been going on for years.
Painted vs. Unpainted Miniatures
The argument boils down to this there is a contingent who refuses to play if their opponent's miniatures are not painted to a certain standard. In my mind this argument has always sounded elitist, even though I endeavor to always have painted miniatures on my side. It is the you play my way or I am going to take my toys and go home.
So this argument really boils down to a simple duology, inclusive vs exclusive. I will always side on the inclusive side of the argument as my feeling is that while it might be less fun for me to play under less that "perfect" conditions but it is better than not playing at all.
It isn't elitist when the decision is trying to be made at a meta level, and not an individual gaming style level. At the meta level, considerations for the health of the entire campaign have to be made. And if the determination by the leaders of the campaign are that the health of the campaign would be better with no replay, then that isn't elitist. That's leadership making a tough decision.
My choosing to quit because a campaign no longer serves my needs, is not elitist because I'm not willing to play a game with a style I don't enjoy. That's called responsible self-care.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That doesn't matter BigNorseWolf. My {our?} argument against replay expansion has nothing to do with play opportunities.
And that is an enormous problem with your position. You have to take the entire thing into consideration. Replay being bad doesn't change anything.
"Taking this splinter out will hurt, i'll just leave it in"
The flesh around the splinter starts turning green
"Taking it out will still hurt nothing has changed.
Something HAS changed. (or in this case is going to change) even though the reason for not yanking it out is still there. It makes no sense to make decisions in a vacuum
If that was the only issue, I'm sure we would all be in favor of it. However, there is the component of replay "ruining" the gaming experience.
Without replay there isn't going to be any PFS1 gaming experience to ruin.
Five times now I have offered you (and by default anyone that wants to pop in) an opportunity to show how on earth that will not be the case. In the absence of a response and my own years of attempted cat herding I have to proceed as if it is the case.
Which leads me to...
Unless of course everyone picks up the 2E mantle which would reduce the impact of this issue to some extent.
If the replay rules aren't tweaked its going to feel like they burned down the pizza place I really like where i already have all these coupons to force people to try the new fangled Falafel joint. I cannot by "we didn't see it coming" or "we didn't know it would happen" without SOME other plausible explanation of what was supposed to happen when you handed the goblin the flame thrower.
I'm not even sure what a falafel IS, i might like it, i might not but if i'm being forced into getting one I'm walking to the next town over.
|
|
That doesn't matter BigNorseWolf. My {our?} argument against replay expansion has nothing to do with play opportunities.And that is an enormous problem with your position. You have to take the entire thing into consideration. Replay being bad doesn't change anything.
"Taking this splinter out will hurt, i'll just leave it in"
The flesh around the splinter starts turning green
"Taking it out will still hurt nothing has changed.
Something HAS changed. (or in this case is going to change) even though the reason for not yanking it out is still there. It makes no sense to make decisions in a vacuum
If that was the only issue, I'm sure we would all be in favor of it. However, there is the component of replay "ruining" the gaming experience.Without replay there isn't going to be any PFS1 gaming experience to ruin.
Five times now I have offered you (and by default anyone that wants to pop in) an opportunity to show how on earth that will not be the case. In the absence of a response and my own years of attempted cat herding I have to proceed as if it is the case.
Which leads me to...
Unless of course everyone picks up the 2E mantle which would reduce the impact of this issue to some extent.If the replay rules aren't tweaked its going to feel like they burned down the pizza place I really like where i already have all these coupons to force people to try the new fangled Falafel joint. I cannot by "we didn't see it coming" or "we didn't know it would happen" without SOME other plausible explanation of what was supposed to happen when you handed the goblin the flame thrower.
I'm not even sure what a falafel IS, i might like it, i might not but if i'm being forced into getting one I'm walking to the next town over.
OK, I'll buy into your example.
We're in your favorite pizza place, and there's enough fixings for XX weeks/months of "the food of the gods" then we're out completely.
We can start re-cycling the stuff we've been pitching out back for the last 9 years....
Eventually we are going to have to re-use that stuff or move on to that new place cross the street, or SOMETHING - so the question is:
Do we start dragging it back in the kitchen NOW? Mix it in with the stuff we're serving now? Or wait till the original stuff is all used up?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we don't get expanded replay, at least 2 stores in my region will have to shut down PFS due to incompatible remaining games.
When? Now? Or in a year? After 2E comes out?
Realizing that there is still 1e content that isn't even released yet...
We've been hearing things like this for years "I/We/They have played everything out and have NOTHING we can play unless we are allowed to replay games!" ... I think I first heard this in season 3.... please excuse me if I find it hard to beleave this is any differrent this time, just because in a little over a year NEW content will stop coming out.
|
|
And that is an enormous problem with your position.
Again, its a matter of perspective. IMO the splinter is expanded replay. Yes, the analogy doesn't work as well in reverse, but I don't need an analogy to express the point...being that IMO expanding replay will do more damage than losing some players due to hyper-play leaving them little to nothing left. I would rather see the campaign die than expand replay. Its as simple as that. Sorry, you do not seem to get that, but we simply do not have the same perspective on this issue.
Without replay there isn't going to be any PFS1 gaming experience to ruin.
That's fine with me. If the only solution that will appease you is to expand replay, then I'm out. If Paizo/OPF decided it is the solution, you get what you want. If they don't, the I can continue playing PFS1. This really is an issue of selfishness. The only solution we accept is the one that benefits ourself. You want expanded replay because it helps YOU play more PFS1. I don't want expanded replay because it helps ME play more PFS1.
Five times now I have offered you (and by default anyone that wants to pop in) an opportunity to show how on earth that will not be the case.
In the long run I agree with you, without expanded replay, eventually PFS1 will die. For some more quickly than others. What you seem to fail to accept is that is okay with us. PFS1 dying is not something to be feared. All campaigns eventually come to an end and we start a new one—in this case PFS2.
If the replay rules aren't tweaked its going to feel like they burned down the pizza place I really like where i already have all these coupons to force people to try the new fangled Falafel joint.
No one is burning it down. In fact it is staying open after the new Falafel house opens...but only for a limited time. They cannot make enough money on the pizza to pay the bills without changing the menu so everyone has to eat the same pizza over and over again. There are a few ingredients you probably haven't tried yet, so here is your chance, but eventually all they'll have left is the same ol' thing you've had before. The lack of variety is driving some people to other restaurants. So, they are opening the Falafel house to create a fresh, new opportunity with an ever changing menu to appeal to those not wanting to repeat the same ol' same ol' over and over.
Okay the analogies have been cute, but they are not really helping.
|
|
If we don't get expanded replay, at least 2 stores in my region will have to shut down PFS due to incompatible remaining games.
No offense, but there are well over 300 opportunities to play PFS, from scenarios to modules to Adventure Paths. If the group has played through everything and there is truly nothing left they can play for credit, then yes, you are right, when 2E launches, if they refuse to participate in PFS2, then they will probably have nothing to play. There is no one rule that is going to appease everyone. As I said above, this issue is a personal one because there is no clear-cut better choice. Expand replay and your lodges survive...and some somewhere else will die because they will not replay. And even if you did expand replay, there will be a time when everyone becomes bored with playing the same scenarios repeatedly. Imagine reading the same book every month, over and over. Remember the old adage, everything in moderation. No matter what we do with PFS1 it is a lose-lose, unless your community is willing to accept and play 2E.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
being that IMO expanding replay will do more damage than losing some players due to hyper-play leaving them little to nothing left.
This is what you either don't seem to get or will not address.
Not being able to play is not a niche market of superfans or paizo fanatics. (supergeeks ARE not going to be able to play but not all people not being able to play are supergeeks) You keep treating the threshold for not being able to play as having nothing of the available 300 games to play and that is NOT the functional limit. The functional limit is when you can't make games with the other geeks you play with. That happens well, well before 250 games.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look, I'm not going to continue to argue with you. The bottom line is we are approaching this from different perspectives. You are placing the opportunity to play as the paramount factor, while I feel quality of play is more important. I would rather not play than play with replay which IME is a bad experience. You would rather allow everyone to play because play > no play. That's absolutely fine. I am not saying you are wrong for you, but please don't try to insinuate that replay is universally better or that I owe you some justification of why I feel the way I do. I simply do. I would happily continue playing PFS1 for as long as I can find a table, but not if replay is expanded. This is not a matter of who is more right or wrong, it is simply a difference of philosophy. In the end, when Paizo decides, someone is going to be disappointed. Selfishly, I would rather it not be me, but I understand if they decide the other way and will wish you luck with you expanded replay campaign.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you would rather have the campaign die than expand replay even moderately then claim that position and stay with it. Don't pretend that all that's going to happen to the campaign is a couple of people who've played 300 games are going to be out of the campaign.
If you would rather walk than have one iota more of replay that is a personal preference. Thats whats going to cost you a small chunk of your players. That is a big loss, but its a loss that is survivable for the campaign.
That the campaign is toast without replay is not a personal perspective. Its borderline math.
The opportunity to play is kind of a necessary factor for something who's existence consist of people playing.
Replay does not need to be unlimited to be functional. Our options are not limited to free for all or no change. Nosig had a very elegant suggestion. You can mitigate a lot of the problem with a firsties first policy. We deal with Dms who've read the scenario all the time (with a rolled up newspaper as needed)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are placing the opportunity to play as the paramount factor, while I feel quality of play is more important.
Without the opportunity to play, the quality of play is irrelevant.
I would rather not play than play with replay which IME is a bad experience.
That's fine, the problem is you want PFS1 organized so that your values trump other those of other people. If you don't want to play, then all you have to do is NOT PLAY. You don't need to insist that organized play be set up so that no one else can either.
I would happily continue playing PFS1 for as long as I can find a table, but not if replay is expanded.
I, for one, am not talking about unlimited replay. I think everyone should have one additional replay experience. It's not clear to me how such a limited expansion of replay is going to create the miserable gaming experiences that you fear. Do you currently refuse to play at any table where one or more of the players is replaying with GM stars or a replay boon?
Selfishly, I would rather it not be me, but I understand if they decide the other way and will wish you luck with you expanded replay campaign.
As I see it, you "selfishly" want Paizo to force others to do what you could easily do voluntarily.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or we selfishly want Paizo to not change the campaign to do what others could easily do for no credit.
Its not easy. Because some people are going to want credit.
People playing for no credit aren't playing PFS. YOu're playing a PFS scenario as a home game
Some people do want credit or still need it to advance. Those people can't use the people playing for no credit to do that.
|
|
The bottom line is, that eventually, PFS1 is going to die off. It will not be viable in perpetuity, because there is a definite, finite amount of material that will be available for it.
That being said, there will be 2 scenarios per month of PFS2.
Are you really saying that PFS altogether is going to die if you can't play it more than 2 times a month?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that is why I support removing the restriction that no credit replay can only be used to fill out the table. Then you can have any number of replayers helping the ones who can get credit, get credit.
I'd be fine with that. But it would still be a change to the replay rules.
I'd probably want to add a wayfinder or Runetoken system you can spend like prestige points on a res or consumable to offset the risks a little bit.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we don't get expanded replay, at least 2 stores in my region will have to shut down PFS due to incompatible remaining games.When? Now? Or in a year? After 2E comes out?
Realizing that there is still 1e content that isn't even released yet...
We've been hearing things like this for years "I/We/They have played everything out and have NOTHING we can play unless we are allowed to replay games!" ... I think I first heard this in season 3.... please excuse me if I find it hard to beleave this is any differrent this time, just because in a little over a year NEW content will stop coming out.
One of the stores is already on a schedule of running the games as they come out. 2 pathfinder games and 2 starfinder games a month. Months with an extra Tuesday get an evergreen. The other store is nearly at that point. So, the store will stop about a month after they stop printing games. If they had the option, they would skip any starfinder games with Ship Combat in them, but that's a complaint for another thread.
I'm not in favor of unlimited replay either. I think that WILL lead to some of the problems Bob and Tallow have listed. My preference is what I pitched in the other thread: a one-time catalog reset on what you've already played. I could also get behind the proposal of re-releasing scenarios over time, such as season 11 being a repeat of season 1, but I'm less enthusiastic about it as some of the early stuff isn't as good as the later stuff.
|
|
And that is why I support removing the restriction that no credit replay can only be used to fill out the table. Then you can have any number of replayers helping the ones who can get credit, get credit.
I'd be ok with this, as long as its unanimous at the table, including the GM, that this would be ok.
|
|
And that is why I support removing the restriction that no credit replay can only be used to fill out the table. Then you can have any number of replayers helping the ones who can get credit, get credit.I'd be ok with this, as long as its unanimous at the table, including the GM, that this would be ok.
And of course, the various players could all share "taking the hit" as it were.
|
|
That's fine, the problem is you want PFS1 organized so that your values trump other those of other people. If you don't want to play, then all you have to do is NOT PLAY. You don't need to insist that organized play be set up so that no one else can either.
Let's not pretend that this isn't an issue of self interest for everyone involved. I'm just being more open about it. I have already said NUMEROUS TIMES that if replay were expanded, I was out. My message has been very clear from the start. I'm perfectly happy not to play under those circumstances. However, I would rather play. So, I am backing the no expanded replay horse.
I, for one, am not talking about unlimited replay.
Neither am I specifically. MY commentary always uses EXPANDED replay. Again, I have been clear from the beginning that I don't want ANY expansion of replay and in fact would like to see it restricted more than it is now.
Do you currently refuse to play at any table where one or more of the players is replaying with GM stars or a replay boon?
Not yet, but it is moving in that direction. Replay has been expanded in a series of baby steps. At some point, its impact will become more than I can bare.
As I see it, you "selfishly" want Paizo to force others to do what you could easily do voluntarily.
So does everyone else. Is it selfish to want for the campaign what will benefit you most? If so, then yes, I am selfish. That is no different than most players. I am not in the position to decide this issue. I am merely expressing my preference. People really need to get away from this perspective that their their position is all altruistic and everyone else is "selfish." People want what they want out of the campaign and that is fine. I have said from the very beginning that even though I prefer little to no replay, especially not expanding it, if that is the will of the campaign and will serve the greater good, great, I will be happy to step away. Personally, I think replay will do more harm than good and therefore is a short-sighted solution to a growing problem. I also admit, I do not have the solution, but I feel replay isn't it.
If Tonya decided she wanted replay simply because she was out of opportunities, THAT would be selfish. If she rejected replay simply because she didn't like it, THAT would be selfish. If her decision is based on which group will benefit more from the decision, then THAT is what she is supposed to do.
|
|
As a V-A, I can easily attest that if there is no replay expansion for PFS1 in some capacity, I'm probably going to lose players. About 30% of my local player base is long-time PFS fans that are reaching the bottom of the barrel in terms of scenarios left that they haven't GM'd and/or played. And only releasing two scenarios a month is not going to keep things going at the store. I think expanding the replay options to one replay/re-GM isn't going to do a lot of damage to PFS2, and I'd even be on board with delaying that option until after PFS2 rolls out (just to gauge the effects on the frequency of play before making a decision).
In thinking about this further, it may be worth considering NOT instituting a replay change until after PFS2 comes out. That way, reporting data on the website can be referenced to determine if the number of reported tables has increased or decreased, and if it's a sharp decline in players and tables, then maybe a replay option should be exercised. But it's best if that replay option is vetted and decided upon before its needed, to help mitigate any potential damage done to the player/GM pool.
|
|
I'm probably going to lose players. About 30% of my local player base is long-time PFS fans that are reaching the bottom of the barrel in terms of scenarios left that they haven't GM'd and/or played
Have they played all the mods and sanctioned AP content? That is another HUGE pool of play opportunities and many lodges do not take advantage of.
Also, and this applies to any organizer who is worried that they will lose players if replay isn't expanded, do you have a gage for how many might leave if replay is expanded? That group is harder to see since you don't have any reporting for it. Will you lose players because "I've already played that numerous times" and they are bored? It is something to think about.
For most players of TTop RPGs the most fun is experienced on the journey. Its discovering the unknown, experiencing a story unfold, etc that keeps us coming back. The more replay there is, the game becomes more and more like a repetitive MMO or a board game. Most of us play TTopRPG because of its differences. If we wanted to play those other games, we would and many of us do, but for different reasons. Take away the mystery, the journey of the RPG and you lose what makes it different from other games and people will lose interest.
|
|
So does everyone else. Is it selfish to want for the campaign what will benefit you most? If so, then yes, I am selfish. That is no different than most players. I am not in the position to decide this issue. I am merely expressing my preference. People really need to get away from this perspective that their their position is all altruistic and everyone else is "selfish."
The problem, as I see it, is that your position, no expanded replay of any sort, limits the choices and options of others, while my position, a replay reset, does not. If any sort of replay is offensive to you, then DON'T PLAY. That is your choice.
However, if no expanded replay is allowed, then I am unable to decide or not if I would like to replay one or more PFS scenarios that I have already played.
I would never argue that my position is somehow more "altruistic" that yours. However, my position gives players the option of participating or not in PFS1 expanded replay. Your position removes this choice and forces everyone to adopt the option which you prefer.
I can understand why you personally don't want to participate in expanded replay. I don't understand why you feel the need to force your choice upon the rest of us.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can understand why you personally don't want to participate in expanded replay. I don't understand why you feel the need to force your choice upon the rest of us.
I could also say, "I can understand why you personally want expanded replay, but I don't understand why you feel the need to force it upon the rest of us." This is a circular argument and depends on which side you sit. If we "force" replay, people will quit. If you don't, people will quit. Either way, someone is being forced out.
The only thing we can do is try to determine which of those groups is larger so the decision is made for the greater good. We can use reporting data to give an idea of play and estimate the size of the group that is out of opportunities to play, but we do not have a way to track those who dislike replay and may quit if it is expanded, or may have already quit because of how much replay there already is. Thus, it makes the decision much more difficult on our leadership. They really don't need us repeatedly arguing the same points over and over, we need to hear from the largest pool of players as possible. Only through feedback from a meaningful dataset can Tonya hope to make the right decision.
Also, my position is that replay may solve the scheduling/opportunities problem in the short term, but as it has shown in every single campaign it has ever been used, over time, and that time is not particularly long, people stop playing because of the inherent problems with replay.
The bottom line is PFS1 is going to die. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue against that. What we can debate is what will PFS1 look like between the time PFS2 launches and PFS1 dies. If there is no replay, for those who have played everything already, they will quit and PFS1 will be essentially dead to them. Over time, that will happen to more players and eventually the campaign will die due to lack of participation.
If there is replay, people are going to quit because they are bored with the repetitiveness or because boon "farmers" are taking the fun away, whatever. Over time the pool will shrink and the campaign will die due to lack of participation.
The question is, which of these do we, as a campaign, prefer? Which is for the greater good? I don't think anyone can answer that with any measure of accuracy. So, all we have is our personal preference.
|
|
Have they played all the mods and sanctioned AP content? That is another HUGE pool of play opportunities and many lodges do not take advantage of.
Mods and sanctioned AP content take 8 hours, either over the course of 1 day (your players probably don't have that kind of time and you probably don't have the table at the goblin knot for that long) or someone shows up 1 week and not the next or wants to drop in on week 2 making things more than a bit complicated trying to herd your geeks to the same place twice.
They also have a much narrower level range which makes scheduling harder.
Also, and this applies to any organizer who is worried that they will lose players if replay isn't expanded, do you have a gage for how many might leave if replay is expanded?
Any amount is less than or equal to all.
The question is, which of these do we, as a campaign, prefer? Which is for the greater good? I don't think anyone can answer that with any measure of accuracy. So, all we have is our personal preference.
Horsefeathers. Epistemic Nihlism is no way to make a decision. Nor is ignoring the practicalities of putting a game together in one giant fallacy of composition
|
|
I can understand why you personally don't want to participate in expanded replay. I don't understand why you feel the need to force your choice upon the rest of us.
Probably for the same reason we don't let people drink to excess in public. I know I don't like it when people try to force alcohol on me, nor do I enjoy being around people who drink to excess.
(Replay = alcohol in this example. I enjoy the company of those who replay in moderation.)