Request: Unlimited 1e replay


Pathfinder Society Playtest

151 to 200 of 203 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
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.)

So we close off the border to all beer?

Or try to establish a three drink maximum

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

I thought we were already at the three drink maximum.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
I thought we were already at the three drink maximum.

I'm gonna need another pitcher

2/5

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
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.)

This is a truly, profoundly stupid analogy. People drinking to excess in public setting creates a SOCIAL HARM. Others are effected by their behaviour, often in life-threatening ways. Please explain to me how a group of PF players engaging in some limited form of expanded replay creates a similar social harm. If you are in the same store or other PFS location, do/will you suffer because one of the tables there is occurring due to some form of expanded replay?

Grand Lodge 4/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

BigNorseWolf wrote:
They also have a much narrower level range which makes scheduling harder.

If you have players who have played themselves out of content the scheduling is harder anyway. If the issue is putting new players together with experienced ones, modules and APs could solve the need for replay. Does it take a bit more effort and perhaps some consistent commitment from the players? Sure, but if you are already experiencing scheduling problems, you cannot in good faith dismiss additional options because its "harder."

BigNorseWolf wrote:
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

Big words and fancy terms does not make you more "right" than the rest of us.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

pjrogers wrote:
This is a truly, profoundly stupid analogy. People drinking to excess in public setting creates a SOCIAL HARM.

I appreciate that you think replay isn't harmful, but plenty of people have experience otherwise.

pjrogers wrote:
Please explain to me how a group of PF players engaging in some limited form of expanded replay creates a similar social harm. If you are in the same store or other PFS location, do/will you suffer because one of the tables there is occurring due to some form of expanded replay?

Here we go again.

Walter Sheppard wrote:

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

2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012

2/5

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Bob Jonquet wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
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.

You're arguing a false equivalence between our two proposals. My proposal has no substantial impact on you. If there is some form of expanded replay, you can simply chose not to participate. Your proposal has a substantial impact on me because I am unable to participate in any form of expanded replay because no such replay option exists.

I want to give options and choice to the PFS community during the period after PF2e comes out. You seem to want to do the opposite.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is "turning the campaign into something I cannot stomach" not a substantial impact?

2/5

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Here we go again.

Walter Sheppard wrote:

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

2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012

These threads all refer to unlimited replay at a time when the PFS1 was a living, growing concern. As such, I see them as having little or relevance to the discussion at hand which concerns limited expanded replay during the period after PF2e is released.

So, I repeat my question, how will you be harmed by others engaging in such a limited expanded replay during the period after PF2e is released?

2/5

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
Is "turning the campaign into something I cannot stomach" not a substantial impact?

Please explain how people at another table engaging in limited expanded replay of PFS1 during the period after PF2e is released will transform "the campaign into something [you] cannot stomach"?

Grand Lodge 4/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

pjrogers wrote:
My proposal has no substantial impact on you

How is not playing not having an impact on me? Whether I don't okay because there are no opportunities or I don't play because of replay, I'm not playing. Either way, someone is not going to play. Creating rules that you know will force people not to play is at the heart of the argument. the difference is which is for the greater good.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Bob Jonquet wrote:


If you have players who have played themselves out of content the scheduling is harder anyway. If the issue is putting new players together with experienced ones, modules and APs could solve the need for replay. Does it take a bit more effort and perhaps some consistent commitment from the players? Sure, but if you are already experiencing scheduling problems, you cannot in good faith dismiss additional options because its "harder."

Yes, I absolutely can on three grounds. Being that harder becomes three things

1) More work for the coordinator (who is already doing a good chunk of the work). You go from geek soduku to 3d geek soduku you'll get more burnout faster

2) You will hit or surpass the ability of coordinators to find the games that are theoretically there

3) Even a mathematically perfect coordinator is going to have to start leaving people out for a while. Harder hits a point of being mathematically impossible

Quote:


Big words and fancy terms does not make you more "right" than the rest of us.

The meaning behind them does. There are objective, fundamental flaws with your arguments that go well beyond personal preference and the big fancy words let me point out specifically what they are right down to which kind of flying horse they came off of. It is not merely a personal preference because I disagree with the conclusion the arguments are actually flawed.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

2 people marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:
So, I repeat my question, how will you be harmed by others engaging in such a limited expanded replay during the period after PF2e is released?

If you were conversant with the discussions of previous replay campaign you would be familiar with the chronicle farming, reduced engagement, and general lockout of unestablished players that occurs.

I have been at replay tables that were wonderful experiences that had me asking "y'all HAVE played this, right?" and I have been at terrible replay tables that made me want to just hand out chronicles and stop wasting my time. I know which one is more common and I fully expect the trend to continue if replay is opened up. My play WILL be harmed by expanded replay, even if I abstain from those tables. (As after all, those are tables I could have participated at, but I am refusing to do so.)

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Here we go again.

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

In every thread "play the new stuff" has been the biggest answer.

That is no longer an answer.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

Okay, clearly we are not going to get anywhere with this back and forth. Y'all can continue to express that the only solution to this problem is expanded replay and I will respectfully disagree. We are all passionate about what we want out of OP. For those of us who do not want to see an expansion of replay, I encourage you to speak up so Tonya and the leaders of our campaign know how many (or few) of us there are. I just hope they make the decision that will do the greatest good for the community even if some of us disagree with it.

2/5

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Bob Jonquet wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
My proposal has no substantial impact on you
How is not playing not having an impact on me? Whether I don't okay because there are no opportunities or I don't play because of replay, I'm not playing. Either way, someone is not going to play. Creating rules that you know will force people not to play is at the heart of the argument. the difference is which is for the greater good.

Under either of our propsals, PFS2 and SFS exist as play options. With your no replay position, PFS1 will probably quickly die so no one will have the option of playing it. With my limited expanded replay position, PFS1 will linger a bit longer giving additional options to the organized play community during the transition period between the two systems.

And that’s it for me with this discussion.

Scarab Sages 5/5

you know, an option to extend options of PFS1 into the years where PFS2 is active, would be to actually play PFS1 less. And to coordinate with friends more effectively on what you are going to play when, rather than just showing up and hoping to play something, anything.

You know, maybe organizers could take the reigns and become organized by creating a database (oh, wait, PFS Tracker) and keeping track of who can play what, and making sure that there are things to play for the majority of the people. Instead of letting it be geek sudoku every week.

Just a couple options to help extend the life of PFS1 that doesn't include creating poorer play experiences.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Okay, clearly we are not going to get anywhere with this back and forth. Y'all can continue to express that the only solution to this problem is expanded replay and I will respectfully disagree.

Without showing any workable solutions.

There are still games individuals can play does not automatically equate to there are still games groups can play. Even the most homogenous group is going to have split into 2 tables at some point. Not acknowledging that is not acknowledging the actual problem

There is a reason pathfinder scenarios are 1 four hour session when modules are 8 + hours. There is a reason PFS scenarios allow the oddity of a level 1 and a level 5 in the same scenario (and season 1 had level 1s in with 7s...) Modules either need people to show up on consecutive weeks or miss half the story and loot. You need to be able to fit everyone into the same scenario.

Having 1 perfectly mathematical answer for what people can play leaves no room for last minute changes of plans. Last minute changes of plans happen a lot.

You cannot divide 35 evenly by 8. At some point "just math harder!" doesn't work.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

In every thread "play the new stuff" has been the biggest answer.

That is no longer an answer.

I agree.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Without showing any workable solutions

And neither have the rest who seem to insist that expanded replay is the only option. It works both ways. And in fact, I am involved in conversations about alternatives. One being community produced content and the other backward compatibility. Meaning how we could create a limited rule set for converting 2E scenarios to PFS1. Both of those may be workable solutions but since this thread is specifically about [unlimited] expanding replay, I am focusing on that and trying not to derail the thread.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Bob Jonquet wrote:


And neither have the rest who seem to insist that expanded replay is the only option.

My belief that there is no other workable solution besides expanding replay to some degree is entirely consistent with the idea that we should expand replay. In fact one leads directly to the other.

Discussing limited replay vs. unlimited replay is... close enough to on topic for state work. As are alternatives.

Expecting people to prove a negative is silly. Expecting people to refute their own stance is a non starter.

This does not work both ways.

Person 1: "There are no penguins indigenous to areas north of the equator

Person 2: "Why aren't you naming penguin species indigenous to areas north of the equator? *

Quote:
I am involved in conversations about alternatives. One being community produced content and the other backward compatibility. Meaning how we could create a limited rule set for converting 2E scenarios to PFS1. Both of those may be workable solutions but since this thread is specifically about [unlimited] expanding replay, I am focusing on that and trying not to derail the thread.

If either of those gain any traction let me know.

*He should be mentioning the Galapagos penguin.

The Exchange 5/5

"Request: Unlimited 1e replay" - No. Please no.

should we wish to discuss "LIMITED 1e replay" I have some suggestions.

As long as the Replay Options are limited to 1e and not taken directly into 2e.

I mean, everyone I have spoken to at the local gamer venues are taking it for granted that the existing replay options in 1e will be taken directly into 2e, with some people even asking if they can use their "judge re-plays" from the existing campaign in 2e. "I don't want to use my existing 'star' before I find out if I can use it in after the new edition is released, because there will be so few scenarios out at first, and I'll want to use it on one of those."

Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's a bunch of competing concerns here, so let's acknowledge all of them.

SMALL LODGES

Small Lodges -- especially those with 1 table venues (2 on a good day) -- are worried about having 1e tables make at all when 2019 rolls out. These are lodges where if one person cannot play a given game, no one can play that game. For them, having some form of replay will be necessary in order to help keep 1e alive past the launch of Pathfinder second edition.

I have no statistics on how many lodges are small ones like the ones BNW runs, but my suspicion is that small venues may be the majority of Organized Play -- especially as we look outside the US. I have the amazing good fortune to have two booming Organized Play areas in which to play -- online and Minnesota -- and so I'm looking forward to a year or more of 1e play past the 2e launch.

This option is simply not available to smaller lodges, and we want to keep those sites alive.

Another issue that may be stressing out the one-table lodges further is that getting characters to higher level becomes problematic if you keep getting new players who want to play their own characters. If this happens without being able to expand to a second table -- it means that you keep falling back to Level 1-5 scenarios and rarely get past the level six choke point.

QUALITY OF PLAY WHEN REPLAY IS IN THE PICTURE

So, I'm going to state that I really hate the Confirmation. I loved it the first time I played it. It was okay the second time I played it, but then I never replayed it again because I realized how unvariable and boring it really was when replayed too much. But even worse than that is playing it with a bunch of players who all knew what to expect. If the whole table's replaying an adventure that's not very variable and that they've already done 5 times, it sucks as a player and as a GM.

I don't mind star replays. Revisiting a scenario once seems to be okay, and many regular scenarios have some variation to how they could go, so having one or two replayers at the table is usually not a problem. It can be even fun if the replayer is trying to do something very different than what happened the first time that they ran through it, or are doing the scenario with a completely different type of character. But I'll admit that I'm terrified that if the floodgates are opened to unlimited replay everywhere that we'll have nothing but boring games with no surprises and no roleplay spark.

EXPANDING CURRENT EVERGREENS

Some games allow for replay and remain interesting. House of Harmonious Wisdom, Consortium Compact, Tome of Righteous Repose and Beyond the Halflight Path all have aspects that have made it fun for me to replay with other groups. But they were built to be evergreens, and have ways to be different.

I have not been shy in advocating that Option 5 (allowing replay on all levels of an Evergreen) means that there is less bookkeeping, and it'll help characters in smaller lodges get to higher level play, which may open up the higher level scenarios to some groups.

OTHER SUGGESTIONS, WILD BRAINSTORMING and IDEAS

Remove the Replay for No Credit Restriction

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
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 really, really like this one.

Open up each scenario for replay *once* for everyone with a Generic Chronicle Sheet.

I'm also reconsidering the idea that someone suggested of opening up every scenario for one additional replay with a generic chronicle sheet (to avoid chronicle fishing.) This might be something that could work to aid the small lodges. It would be important for us to still maintain the 'three drink maximum' that TOZ suggested. Let's have no more than a play, a replay and a GM credit on any one given non-evergreen scenario to keep things fresh an interesting. GM Star Replays would still be worth it, because they would allow for someone to get the original chronicle sheet.

Other variations on this. Open up replay *once* with a generic sheet, Season by Season. I think this is a variation on PG Rogers's suggestion, but it could work on limiting the replay floodgate to only the oldest scenarios, and hopefully the ones that are the dimmest in folk's minds.

Opening up 'Glutton for Punishment'

Another replay suggestion that I could see is opening up Glutton for Punishment boons generously in order to help tables make.

Glutton for Punishment wrote:
You gain a pool of replay (or "re-GM") credit that you can allocate to yourself or any participant at your table. If someone earns credit for an adventure in this way, simply check one of the boxes below, make a note of having used this boon on his or her Chronicle sheet, and have fun. After all, you dedicated your free time to help the campaign, so use this to make the most of your next chance to play. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

The problem that the initial Glutton for Punishment boon had was that it was distributed at GenCon. Now it was an awesome surprise to those who volunteered for clean-up duty, but it was still out of reach as a boon for most of the folks from the tiny lodges who could not make GenCon. As my friend Lau noted with a sigh, it was geo-locked primarily to US players. This meant that the small lodges of the Netherlands never got to use it.

Could we make this an RSP GM reward? Could we extend the reach of this boon in order to help the small lodges have tables make without opening the Replay floodgates entirely?

Or should it be a GM star reward that GMs can get once for second star and once for every star afterwards? This would keep it rare, but still allow organizers of smaller lodges to have tables make.

FINDING COMMON GROUND

I think that we're all going to have to compromise. Like Nosig said, I'd like it if replay options didn't fully launch until after 2e debuts in 2019. But I think we're going to have to find someway to open up options so that the smaller lodges can keep thriving too. I don't want an unlimited floodgate of replay, but perhaps we can at least explore some of these options to allow tables to remake.

Since we're admitting selfish interests, here's mine. Online play does not exist in a vacuum. For me to keep getting top-notch players and GMs, I need all of in-person play to thrive -- everywhere. Two thirds of my player base have home lodges where they continue to play, and take part. For my region to thrive, I need all of you to do so as well.

Endless replay will kill the campaign fast, but so will starving out the tiny lodges. Let's find a compromise so that we all have somewhere to keep playing our 1e characters.

Hmm

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ran unfortunately. The employee player who kept the shop open for us moved on, so we really haven't had a venue for a while.

We're looking at starting up again in a new venue, but I have some things going on and a much needed gym membership is soaking almost all of my potential geeking gas money. (on the plus side I have forearms again...)

Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It is. He's responding to this.

Me wrote:
I have no statistics on how many lodges are small ones like the ones BNW runs...

I had my tense wrong.

Hmm

PS Off-topic: I'm glad that BNW now has forearms. Health is good!

The Exchange 5/5

"SMALL LODGES - Small Lodges -- especially those with 1 table venues (2 on a good day) -- are worried about having 1e tables make at all when 2019 rolls out. "

ok... I am more worried about 2-table lodges than 1 table. A one table lodge is going to decide to:
a) run a table of 1e.
or
b) run a table of 2e.
edit: or c) play Warhammer/Battletech/Ticket to Ride

(IMHO) 2E is going to win. At least for the first 2 or 3 months. Then maybe, just maybe, they'll get a 2nd table of people "going back to 1e" - more than likely by going to someone's house (or meeting on line?) and leaving the poor over-taxed driving force behind the other table sitting at a table with one or two visitors wondering what happened to everyone that used to show up.

Seen it several times in the past.

3.5 went to 4th ed. and a bunch of venues slowly (over a month or three) died as people stopped showing up. They went to play PFS at someone's house.

That's what might kill a small lodge.

If you don't have enough players to field more than one table... the introduction of 2e just MIGHT kill the play of 1e even if we had lots of un-played 1e scenarios available. (Like it did to some lodges when Starfinder was first released). The players might decide to go on to 2e - it's the "new thing" and (many people believe) that makes it better...

Now, that just moves the problem to slightly larger Lodges. Ones that regularly have 2 tables, or on an off day only have 1. Splitting the player base between 1e and 2e... that could kill both. With not enough players at each table upset at the other table for "killing our game!".

That's what I worry about.

The Exchange 1/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Granted I have not played anywhere near all of the PFS1 content and may not get through all of it anyway. Because SFS, PFS2e,. I have already replayed a table to help the table fire at conventions and at my FLGS and will continue to do so. I have not yet used my GM star replay, but I have found a few scenarios that I would like to spend it on. I don't understand the amount of vitriol being slung back and forth other in the light of East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet!
I vote NO EXPANDED PFS1 replay! There is plenty of ways to replay to help tables fire, ect without it. I think it will harm the community more than it would help.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Lieutenant, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka thistledown

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
The problem that the initial Glutton for Punishment boon had was that it was distributed at GenCon. Now it was an awesome surprise to those who volunteered for clean-up duty, but it was still out of reach as a boon for most of the folks from the tiny lodges who could not make GenCon. As my friend Lau noted with a sigh, it was geo-locked primarily to US players. This meant that the small lodges of the Netherlands never got to use it.

Even many those of us who DID make it to GenCon weren't able to get them simply because we had flights to catch. So not just locked to US players, but to those within driving distance.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Lieutenant, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka thistledown

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:

The following is a very selfish request. Sorry.

Can we please not sanction any major expansion to the existing replay rules until after the release date of 2e.

Please.

I would like a chance to play at least part of Season 9 and 10 before I have to sit thru someone else's Groundhog Day.

While I'll agree that it shouldn't kick in until 2019 release, we need an answer NOW so that we can plan out our remaining games. Hopefully we'll get an answer at Paizocon.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Eastern Eurasia-Africa

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Anderson wrote:
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
The problem that the initial Glutton for Punishment boon had was that it was distributed at GenCon. Now it was an awesome surprise to those who volunteered for clean-up duty, but it was still out of reach as a boon for most of the folks from the tiny lodges who could not make GenCon. As my friend Lau noted with a sigh, it was geo-locked primarily to US players. This meant that the small lodges of the Netherlands never got to use it.
Even many those of us who DID make it to GenCon weren't able to get them simply because we had flights to catch. So not just locked to US players, but to those within driving distance.

I've got a Glutton for Punishment boon and I'm not within driving distance at all.

I've used it 4 times now to grant local players to replay Specials they played before, but I've made sure they played at a significantly different tier so they would be unable to spoil and still be surprised by the encounters.

Silver Crusade 1/5

Last weekend I was discussing with some people, one of whom griped about replay. He was running some notorious dungeon dive and two people showed up and spent a replay to join the table. Between them, they had exactly the consumables to solve every room at no risk.

I thought about that a bit on my commute one day and realized, replay had nothing to do with it. There is absolutely nothing stopping someone from just buying the scenario and prepping a character to drag a whole party through.

Some people are trolls, whether they are the kind who wants to ruin fun for a table of people nearby or the ones who want to end fun for thousands of people they will not meet in person. Replay is completely askew to the issue of people trolling PFS players who just want to play and have fun.

(For the sake of disclosure, I am trying to get some people together to play an all-fox party and hunt down a game GMed by someone who said that catfolk should always be banned because only furries would want to play that race.)

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How about the people who look at the GM and say "yeah, we've all already done this mod, we're just here for the item certs, can we skip the story?"

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Just put one foot in front of the other....

Grand Lodge 4/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
How about the people who look at the GM and say "yeah, we've all already done this mod, we're just here for the item certs, can we skip the story?"

This is essentially one of the contributing factors to why I dislike replay...

Personal Anecdote:
It actually happened to me back in season one as I recall. There was a brief period back then when players could earn more than one chronicle for playing a scenario, just not for the same character. No one I had played with took advantage of this because we all felt, why play an adventure if you already know what is going to happen.

Anyway, I traveled from my home 2-1/2 hours to a GameDay in Chicago. Everything appeared normal until we were about an hour into the scenario. Something happened that caused a player to remark about the impending encounter. Details they could only have known if they had GMd it before. I had fumbled a minor detail about the encounter set up and they started telling me how to run the scenario. Not just one, but all of them, and not just then, but the rest of the scenario right through the boss fight. To say I was surprised was an understatement. All six players indicated they were not GMs, but had played the scenario before. They were replaying because they were farming specific items/experience for particular characters they had not used the first time around. I was soo pissed at the audacity of the players telling the GM how to run the game that I stopped the session, issued the chronicles and spend the 2-1/2 hour drive home fuming about wasting my time. I will not go through that again.

5/5 ⦵⦵

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like HMM's suggestion of the GENERIC chronicle sheet.

Having a basic generic that simply provides a set amount of gold and no boons or other rewards would be great. No 'fishing' that way.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Agreed. I like the dichotomy of giving people something for helping make the table but less than those playing for the first time/using an 'official' replay.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Agent, Rhode Island—Lincoln aka Upaynao

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I know there have been some very passionate arguments from people I know on both sides of this. I don't know that I have much to add to this, beyond a desire to alienate as few people as possible while giving everyone a reasonable chance to continue playing PFS1 under difficult scheduling conditions.

I've always been of the mindset that unlimited, or even some limited replay can be harmful. I believe pjrogers and Joe will understand when I speak of a small proportion of players who will take their foreknowledge of a particular scenario and either backseat GM or play everyone else's character, something that will likely drive those new players we are trying to gain away. This should highlight the need to act gingerly, as that is bad gaming. And I believe we have seen how bad gaming is worse than no gaming locally in the past both near and distant.

On the other hand, as a particularly hands-on schedule maker for my little corner of the northeast, the difficulties of making scenarios happen and to serve as many people as possible weight heavily on me. Last Thursday's Red Harvest offering is a prime example of the difficulties of making this geek Sudoku work under current replay rules. While my data indicated there were enough people who could play and make a 6-person table happen, in the end I had to choose to replay to make the table happen with a pregen seated. I was happy to choose to seat myself at the table, and willing enough to make it happen to expend a use of Expanded Narrative. However, I hemmed and hawed until almost the last minute before I joined, as I had played it a little over a year ago, had some memory of the events within and didn't think that the scenario was, in of itself, worth a replay. Now, I did feel like I had a duty to make the table happen as a VA. But what if you don't? Are we always going to depend on the goodwill of strangers? Perhaps that is fine. Perhaps not. Perhaps there could be a more codified "kudos for being a awesome person" offered by OPF. I don't know. But I do feel like we need to find at least something we are begrudgingly willing to accept as the last compromise for this campaign.

2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Agreed. I like the dichotomy of giving people something for helping make the table but less than those playing for the first time/using an 'official' replay.

I would be totally happy with such an approach. I think the the ability to earn XP, prestige, and gold is key. For me, the boons are much less important as an incentive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gregory Rebelo wrote:

I believe pjrogers and Joe will understand when I speak of a small proportion of players who will take their foreknowledge of a particular scenario and either backseat GM or play everyone else's character, something that will likely drive those new players we are trying to gain away. This should highlight the need to act gingerly, as that is bad gaming. And I believe we have seen how bad gaming is worse than no gaming locally in the past both near and distant.

If the issue is that certain specific players cause problems then the obvious solution is to address the problem players, not legislate around them. "This idea is difficult to implement because a certain jerk will cause problems" should instead be "This player is toxic and drives other players away. What can we do about this?" The player is the problem, and while preventing replays might solve the most egregious issues that player is STILL toxic and is still hurting play in the region.

3/5

@BobJ (due to think thing that as you're an RVC I would you'd likely have access to more / better info)

Has the current "open replay option" aka "Core campaign" been generating significantly more complaints about the type of behavior you are associating with replays? - all of the (admittedly second- or more-hand) information I've seen regarding regions where Core is doing well seem to indicate that the limited replay options opened by Core haven't had the noticeable negative effects that were anticipated by many who campaigned against no replay at all.

Dark Archive 4/5

MrBear wrote:
Gregory Rebelo wrote:

I believe pjrogers and Joe will understand when I speak of a small proportion of players who will take their foreknowledge of a particular scenario and either backseat GM or play everyone else's character, something that will likely drive those new players we are trying to gain away. This should highlight the need to act gingerly, as that is bad gaming. And I believe we have seen how bad gaming is worse than no gaming locally in the past both near and distant.

If the issue is that certain specific players cause problems then the obvious solution is to address the problem players, not legislate around them. "This idea is difficult to implement because a certain jerk will cause problems" should instead be "This player is toxic and drives other players away. What can we do about this?" The player is the problem, and while preventing replays might solve the most egregious issues that player is STILL toxic and is still hurting play in the region.

I'm not wholly opposed to replay like some, partially because PFS is my first organized play experience, but replay is not problematic just because of abusive players. I've seen scenarios fall flat with good experienced players holding their tongues to avoid spoilers. It tends to crop up with a number of the local GMs in my experience. Not trashing the scenario with insider knowledge is of course the right thing to do, but it can definitely lead to tables where there is no-one is driving the role-playing encounters.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Replay is not perfect.

That is accepted. It is acknowledged. It is known

Stating it again. And again. And again, and again does not itself make an argument against it.

Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

TimD wrote:
@BobJ (due to think thing that as you're an RVC I would you'd likely have access to more / better info)

I am a mere VC, but I assure you that sometimes Paizo staff keep their cards close to their vest. Some decisions they work closely with the venture corps, and others they work on strictly within the company.

Do we get more / better info? Sure. That is not the same as all / complete info.

TimD wrote:
Has the current "open replay option" aka "Core campaign" been generating significantly more complaints about the type of behavior you are associating with replays? - all of the (admittedly second- or more-hand) information I've seen regarding regions where Core is doing well seem to indicate that the limited replay options opened by Core haven't had the noticeable negative effects that were anticipated by many who campaigned against no replay at all.

I honestly don’t think Core succeeded enough for there to be a lot of data about replay in Core. It’s vibrant in France, Schools and Online. Everywhere else... it’s thin on the ground. Even in Online I have discovered that while people love to play Core, they don’t select it when their choices are limited. So if they have a choice between a standard and a core seat in a PBP special, most folks will pick the standard seat. At OutPost (a PBP convention) we initially only allowed players to sign up for three player slots — and the Core tables struggled. When we opened it up to three tables + 1 extra if it was Core, the Core tables filled.

So the only really real data likely coming out of Core is that while there are still people playing it and loving the challenge it provides, it is by far the minority of what you find in PFS.

Hugs,
Hmm

Grand Lodge 4/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Replay is not perfect.

That is accepted. It is acknowledged. It is known
Stating it again. And again. And again, and again does not itself make an argument against it.

Replay will provide more play opportunities. It is acknowledged. It is known

Stating it again. And again. And again, and again does not itself make it an argument

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Bob Jonquet wrote:


Replay will provide more play opportunities
Stating it again. And again. And again, and again does not itself make it an argument

Which is not what I'm doing and you KNOW that. So why this accusation? Why make up something that isn't the point I"m making and respond to that as if it's what i said?

Replay has always meant more games. I have not always been in favor of more replay. If I'm just looking for "more play" why is that the case?

Because the options are now some expansion of replay or a very rapid heat death as you drop below a feasible amount of play to sustain a group. Refute that stance or go full pet cemetery and argue that death is better.

1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Could we dial it back a smidgen, please?

This is not about personalities, but about a fundamental concept that has a lot of emotional weight notice, I did NOT say baggage! on both sides of the equation.

For example:

I am EXCEPTIONALLY adverse to 'unlimited' replay, due to experiences from a previous campaign.

However, the nosig suggestion of 'launch 'Season 11' as 'Season 1 Renewed' is a reasonable suggestion, as it is a very limited window of opportunity/abuse while still preserving campaign integrity.

Is there a way to move the discussion forward from this point?

Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, I would like to see us move forward as well. Let’s find our common ground, and figure this out without rancor or accusations. I know that you are both somewhat entrenched in your positions, but we all share a concern for the future of Organized Play during this transition. We all love Organized Play. So, let’s work together to find the right balance here.

Hmm

Silver Crusade 1/5

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
Yes, I would like to see us move forward as well. Let’s find our common ground, and figure this out without rancor or accusations.

No option will please everyone. At some point, we will have to accept that some people will be offended by the decision regardless of what it is and weigh how important their departure from PF1S is compared to the benefit of not offending other populations.

The harm associated with replays has been demonstrated to be that of foreknowledge, which is an issue of the person (who does not even try to step back and let others play) and the universal availability of the content.
For a counter-example, I played the House of Harmonious Wisdom 3 times on different characters at one local convention because everything I had signed up for had cancelled. With one play a different time, that makes 4 playthroughs of an evergreen quest pack, with 3 different GMs, and it changed up every time (possibly because one scene is not the clearest in the text). Part of the fun of replay is to see how different GMs will put their own personal touch on it, or even just how your options differ on different characters.

I am probably one of those who will not move my opinion, that any option of earned replay or less will kill PF1S by 2021, partially from lack of playable tables and partially from disgust by a significant portion of those who don't post. That doesn't mean the answer has to be "each character can play whatever", while typing this I thought of the '2-year replay' option.

So, here's my latest attempt at something that might be a compromise:
2-year replay. All characters created after GenCon 2019 may apply two faction cards from their faction and play in scenarios of 2 adjacent seasons (plus evergreens). All characters with playtime before GenCon 2019 use the old rules, twisting and tumbling through the timeline with few crossover events like a British multi-media show.

(I'll also edit in that if all the "boon fishing" concerns are about certain quests, those could easily be prohibited or toned down in a kind of 'dev review' at any time.)

The Exchange 5/5

Can we please move discussion of starting some form of LIMITED replay of 1st Edition PFS scenarios AFTER 2nd Ed. release to a thread not titled "Request: UNLIMITED 1e replay"?

I keep making the silly assumption that because that is the title of this thread that that is what is being discussed. UNLIMITED replay.

use of CAPS is mine - sorry to appear to be shouting, but I want to highlight what I am finding as the issue here.

151 to 200 of 203 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society Playtest / Request: Unlimited 1e replay All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.