RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Shadius. Maybe I was wrong to link those prior threads? I'll admit I didn't re-read them this year as, you can see, I posted in all the others. And, since you read them, you can see my opinion also changed from a strong Pro-Replay stance to a more Meh-Replay stance. So my goal in linking those was to provide all the information from a historical PFS perspective that I'm going off of. I think most people are happy with the gated replaying, linked to stars, infrequent boons, and annual refreshes. The system, as it is now, works.
But what of the future? Should we change the replay rules?
If we keep replay as they are, eventually people cap out on games and can no longer play PFS. There are just not enough scenarios to sustain them, as content has ceased to be created.
And it's here where I referred to earlier similar popular games that have stopped being maintained. As an example, I'd like to use Diablo 2. In that game the original community is divided. Players have either moved on to other games entirely (D3), play on custom servers (Path of Diablo), or kind of mill about in the original game -- but that playgroup is by far the smallest. And you can see the same pattern repeat itself with dozens of other video games that have stopped being officially supported.
And that is not a bad thing.
It may be a difficult pill to swallow now, but games have shelf lives. There's reason why I don't play Diablo 2 every day anymore. Newer, more attractive game exist. And that's what is happening with Pathfinder and in turn, PFSv1. There will be a time shortly when it is no longer being "patched." And when that happens, what is the point in allowing unlimited replay?
If people can still get credit, let them get credit. Report those games for bragging rights even. If people can't get credit, they can still play -- they don't need to use replays, they should just play a home game (akin to a custom server in the above example). So unlimited replay is a silly thing to have in my mind. And if anything, it makes my life, and those of other VOs more difficult. Now we have two PFS campaigns to organize for (in addition to SFS and the ACG).
I'm sure those home games will be fun, heck, I'm sure I'll be playing in them myself, but I, and the other VOs, don't need to manage them. I'm trying to organize space, GMs, and players on behalf of the Organized Play foundation that will be maintaining PFSv2 at that time. I don't need to support content that not even the content creators are supporting anymore. I'll do it for as long as people can get credit but once that day comes that all the games have been played, I think it's time to retire the game.
All unlimited replays do is keeps this game around longer than it needs to be. If you want to play, play, but we don't need to change to rules to make those games un-necessarily official.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
what is the point in allowing unlimited replay?
For the record, I don't think there are any serious proposals to allow unlimited replay. That's a red herring. My ideas and those of other pro-replay folks in this thread are generally limited to one or two additional replays per year, and there's also the support for the idea of generic chronicle sheets for these additional "transition" replays so as to avoid the problem of boon farming.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
what is the point in allowing unlimited replay?For the record, I don't think there are any serious proposals to allow unlimited replay. That's a red herring. My ideas and those of other pro-replay folks in this thread are generally limited to one or two additional replays per year, and there's also the support for the idea of generic chronicle sheets for these additional "transition" replays so as to avoid the problem of boon farming.
Sure. If that’s the case, then any system that gates replays sounds good to me, as it’s similar to what is working now.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
In a way, the idea of a "finished" ruleset for PFS1, with all the clarifications and FAQs fully complete, appeals to me. It's unlikely to happen but still.
I think that would be a great place to have the campaign be, so we can solidify all that stuff, apply any replay program, and call it a day.
|
We have a player locally who has 8 tier 3-7 adventures left to play. At the end of season 10 he'll only be able to pay 2nd edition games.
It sounds like your high-volume player is a bit stuck already. With two new scenarios a month, if you are playing weekly, he will run out of content even before the end of season 10.
There are already no-credit replay options for people. There is also non-PFS gaming available. Within organised play there is SFS (and in time PFSv2).
While on one hand I totally get that some of these high-volume players are totally the ones you want to keep (and Paizo will probably want to keep), making campaign wide changes to accomidate a small minority seems short sighted.
While Paizo has stated PFS(v1) will still be an option, you can be pretty sure the massive focus is going to be on v2 and SFS. I'd be surprised to see much in the way of v1 tables offered at cons and such after 2020.
Of course the count-side to this is that with fewer people playing v1, what really is the impact on the remaining players if others come to replay a scenario for the 3rd time. And I'd argue it is probably low. It is already possible to play a scenario for credit at least three (and likely four) times between standard, core and replay stars.
It is likely only going to be the first year of v2 that this is a big issue. Of course if Paizo are not quite so sure about uptake of v2, and want to keep the option open to keeping v1 gaming alive, they might want to be stricter about keeping a lid on replays.
I'm kind of hoping they still produce a bonus one or two v1 scenarios for the next year or two as a bit of a bone for the die hard v1 players. Though I can see them not wanting to advertise that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is NOT that this discussion has grarg
The problem is that people are using tactics that deserve grarg and or not listening.
People are NOT advocating for unlimited replay. If you go after that strawman YOU ARE NOT LISTENING.
The problem is not just high volume players being out of games. The problem is being able to put together TABLES for moderate players. If you're not addressing the issue at the table level YOU ARE NOT LISTENING.
|
The problem is NOT that this discussion has grarg
The problem is that people are using tactics that deserve grarg and or not listening.
People are NOT advocating for unlimited replay. If you go after that strawman YOU ARE NOT LISTENING.
The problem is not just high volume players being out of games. The problem is being able to put together TABLES for moderate players. If you're not addressing the issue at the table level YOU ARE NOT LISTENING.
I'd argue that Moderate as a player means you aren't playing more than 2 times (maybe 3) a month. At that pace, you will never run out of things to play (until the campaign ends after Season 10.) And if you are having trouble seating a table of moderate players right now, then I'd argue they really aren't moderate players.
If you have trouble seating a table of moderate players even 6 months or a year after August 2019, then I'd argue that things are working as intended.
|
Calling me out in spoiler takes and claiming its directed at someone else is not very becoming.
Quote from post above: "How did my post about replay not ruining other organized play campaigns ..." ?
so. If replays do not ruin other OP campaigns, why restrict it at all?
Umm because there might be other good reasons to not allow it? Which was my whole point many pages ago and continues to be my point, you can argue against replay of any stripe, unlimited, certain scenarios, refresh with whatever, but make an actual argument. An argument regarding history that isn't actually supported by the historical record isn't an argument, its a way to prevent arguments.
That's why I get so frustrated by that particular argument because:
a) its not historical accurate as the reason the campaign that's cited for support died had very little to do with replay based on the historical record;
b) its used to shut down debate on the issue by linking to other threads where it was stated as fact, even though the supporting evidence for the argument has not been given in those threads and was simply taken at face value; and
c) its empirically denied as there is a campaign out there that is as, if not more, successful that allows unlimited replay.
I'm not asking people to change their minds, I'm asking them to make better arguments.
|
|
Calling me out in spoiler takes and claiming its directed at someone else is not very becoming.
Quote from post above: "How did my post about replay not ruining other organized play campaigns ..." ?
so. If replays do not ruin other OP campaigns, why restrict it at all?
Umm because there might be other good reasons to not allow it? Which was my whole point many pages ago and continues to be my point, you can argue against replay of any stripe, unlimited, certain scenarios, refresh with whatever, but make an actual argument. An argument regarding history that isn't actually supported by the historical record isn't an argument, its a way to prevent arguments.
That's why I get so frustrated by that particular argument because:
a) its not historical accurate as the reason the campaign that's cited for support of the proposition died had very little to do with replay;
b) its used to shut down debate on the issue (by linking to other threads where it was stated as fact without supporting evidence) even though the supporting evidence for the argument has not been given in those threads and was simply taken at face value; and
c) its empirically denied as there is a campaign out there that is as, if not more, successful that allows unlimited replay.I'm not asking people to change their minds, I'm asking them to make better arguments.
You do realize that just because you claim there is little to no support for those suppositions doesn't actually make it true, right? Just because you can say it, doesn't make it true.
|
|
You do realize that just because you claim there is little to no support for those suppositions doesn't actually make it true, right? Just because you can say it, doesn't make it true.
Yes, I realize this, but considering it took at least a dozen posts to get people to even state what campaign they were talking about replay ruining and provided scant evidence of replay being the reason that a majority or even a strong minority stopped playing the campaign I'm fairly confident that my claim of little to support the supposition is accurate. Never mind the fact that the word "campaigns" is used and not the phrase "a previous campaign" and upon further examination people have only been able to cite one campaign.
Basically, this was used as a boogeyman for years and never challenged, is what it looks like to me.
|
|
You do realize that just because you claim there is little to no support for those suppositions doesn't actually make it true, right? Just because you can say it, doesn't make it true.Yes, I realize this, but considering it took at least a dozen posts to get people to even state what campaign they were talking about replay ruining and provided scant evidence of replay being the reason that a majority or even a strong minority stopped playing the campaign I'm fairly confident that my claim of little to support the supposition is accurate. Never mind the fact that the word "campaigns" is used and not the phrase "a previous campaign" and upon further examination people have only been able to cite one campaign.
Basically, this was used as a boogeyman for years and never challenged, is what it looks like to me.
Either that, or people are continually tired of providing the same information over and over and over again, and so have excised the specific information from their brain. I mean this only comes up every 3 months or so, and the same conversation happens every time. And every 3rd thread or so, someone posts up the links to all the past conversations where you have actual first hand anecdotal evidence from Drogon and excerpts of information from others who actively experienced those past campaigns and what replay did to them.
But if you can't take Drogon's word for it, with a very passionate first hand recounting of what happened, then of course nothing will convince you, so I'm going to stop trying. Suffice it to say, that the leaders of PFS firmly believe that unlimited replay is bad for organized play, and will most likely not entertain any ideas that creates such.
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You’re correct that John’s stated stance was against unlimited replay, which is fair enough. I think that unlimited replay is a bad idea too. Gaming is better with surprises. But I do think that we can find a more modest replay compromise that will allow allow PFS to thrive everywhere in the interim.
Hmm
|
|
Either that, or people are continually tired of providing the same information over and over and over again, and so have excised the specific information from their brain.
Is the argument here really that people provided the same underlying facts about an issue so many times in a row that they forgot it?
I mean this only comes up every 3 months or so, and the same conversation happens every time.
Yes, with the same people saying one thing to new people saying the opposite thing, yet somehow the former people are given more weight than those new people arguing for the opposite. Do you not see the issue there?
But if you can't take Drogon's word for it, with a very passionate first hand recounting of what happened, then of course nothing will convince you, so I'm going to stop trying. Suffice it to say, that the leaders of PFS firmly believe that unlimited replay is bad for organized play, and will most likely not entertain any ideas that creates such.
I asked Drogon specifically to describe how AL is doing at his store since it also has unlimited replay, he ignored my question and railed against replay in his reply, so I didn't bother to follow up.
If unlimited replay is a campaign killer why is AL thriving in many areas, no one has been able give me reason that just doesn't invalidate the whole unlimited replay kills campaigns invariably narrative. I continue to wait.
If you have two campaigns both with unlimited replay and one dies and the other doesn't you try to figure out what was different to cause one to fail and one to succeed you don't declare "well this just shows unlimited replay kills campaigns"
Look, I'm not asking anyone to support unlimited replay, I personally don't support unlimited replay as the only path forward, what I am asking that we make actual arguments that aren't completely contravened by contemporary evidence of another campaign that has it and shows no sign of dying any time soon.
|
|
I see, so you asked the guy and chose to ignore his response because it didn't fit your narrative. I know enough now.
I'm happy to hear and evaluate for myself evidence that is presented to me. But that's not what I got from my exchange with Drogon.
Here's what I wrote to him, "Hey, your name has come up in connection to a replay thread and I'm wondering if you have read it. We're talking about how replay killed LFR at your store and am wondering what your experience has been with AL with similar replay rules."
To which he responded that he hadn't read it, that replay is bad, linked me to a bunch of the same threads linked to here and finished by telling me that "Replay is death. Don't give in. Seriously."
Perhaps I should have followed up and asked again about his experience with AL since it appears to be run weekly in his store but it didn't seem like a good use of time in response to someone telling me that replay is death.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shadius, have you ever played AL?
I`m asking, because I haven`t. Might even be because they have unlimited replay, but from what I understand locally the AL crowd is quite different from the PFS crowd.
Locally the AL crowd are mainly younger players that still live at home with their parents.
The AL sessions start later and end earlier, which is good for younger players as they can have dinner at home first and be home before 10 PM on a weeknight.
Also (but I`m not sure as I don`t play AL) my understanding of AL is that it is more encounterbased that storybased and there isn`t a `living` enviroment or overlying story like they have in PFS (or had in LG).
|
|
I have played AL but I no longer do because it's not a system I enjoy, some because of the restrictive +1 PHB restriction some because I don't like 5e as much (although still enough to play it) some because my group that I played encounters with in a store became a home group where we play the hardcovers (Which we could do for AL credit like you can do APs and modules for PFS credit but for which I choose not to.)
I didn't intend for this to be a discussion on the relative merits of AL versus PFS, as I consider Paizo's OP to be superior to anything WotC has put out since Living Greyhawk (Which I consider the pinnacle of OP).
I will say that AL does have more leeway with regard to run as written which does mitigate some of the concern with metagaming but the scenarios still have an overarching plot and they have overarching seasonal plotlines much as PFS does. They also have convention created content that can span years and are huge draws where they are offered.
Now it could be a fair point that perhaps the crowd that is attracted to PFS would react more negatively to more open replay than the crowd that is attracted to AL, and that's potentially worth exploring but I was more using AL as an example to show that unlimited replay doesn t have to kill campaigns, it may be best to not adopt it but those reasons should be supportable on their own.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
If option two could be a boon that can be given out at supported stores and conventions for a character to be favored, limited to one character each season (tied to the season change over for PF2) So we could start option 2 this season (season 10) and have a second favored character starting in PF2's season 1, and so on.
I think this would provide a way to play through PF1 and have characters level out as the player gains another favored character.
|
|
Pink:
In evergreens I've discovered that there's a certain 'freedom' in knowing possibilities coming down the pipe, and I'll let folks know I'm replaying when it's one I've played before.
I do everything in my power to avoid using info I know as a player, but if my character makes a given knowledge check and the GM gives me info, I have no qualms roleplaying out the dispensing of that info -- as it would mean my character knows said information, not me as a player.
That being said, I've seen some scenarios where folks have all loaded up for 'x' given encounter because they're all burning GM stars or whatnot to replay, and it's like "So, um, should I just sit in the corner, then?"
The hope is to be able to play some of the earlier things that I've missed because I came to the campaign late. At the sake of ego, I can't be the only one in that position.
EDIT: I have seen what you have a concern about in a different organized play, and even worse, I've seen tables that have *deliberately* stacked the deck *against* party success because they know what the 'best' way to 'win' is.
Playing at that kind of table can be a nerve-wracking challenge.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You do realize that just because you claim there is little to no support for those suppositions doesn't actually make it true, right? Just because you can say it, doesn't make it true.Yes, I realize this, but considering it took at least a dozen posts to get people to even state what campaign they were talking about replay ruining and provided scant evidence of replay being the reason that a majority or even a strong minority stopped playing the campaign I'm fairly confident that my claim of little to support the supposition is accurate. Never mind the fact that the word "campaigns" is used and not the phrase "a previous campaign" and upon further examination people have only been able to cite one campaign.
Basically, this was used as a boogeyman for years and never challenged, is what it looks like to me.
To add to my previous statements. I did not see a huge number of people quitting LFR solely because of their unlimited replay rule, but I did see plenty that listed that as one of the factors. Now what I also saw was a lot of dedicated LG players that simply refused to play LFR because of the unlimited replay rules. Now I can't say how much of that was bluster, or how many may have eventually relented and played anyway, but I can think of at least a dozen people I new in LG who either stuck to their guns and never played it because of that stated reason, or who tried it and didn't like it enough to compensate for the fact that it offered unlimited replays (which they didn't like). Most of these people were generally of the opinion that replays ruin the experience for everyone at the table. I partially agree though I would use the word 'lessen' rather than 'ruin.' Regardless, most of these people pretty much went to PFS as soon as it came out.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
Something I've been considering. Even if we did get another time through everything, how many would I really want to? The answer turned out to be not that many. Of the 265 scenarios I've done (one side or the other, mostly both sides) There's only 57 that I'd want to revisit. And 17 of those were of a "eh, I guess" priority.
Regarding the 'Generic Chornicle' proposition, there's only a dozen of these that I'd feel bad about missing out on chronicle rewards. (Only one of which has anything to do with Lissalans)
The only problem I'm seeing is that I'm the most frequent GM at my main stores, but there's only 2 or 3 on the list that I'd want to use my replay GMing. If I only get one more go at it, I want to PLAY it. Hopefully this just means we have more people stepping up as GMs. If everyone else is in the same boat though, it could be hard to find GM's.
|
I support unlimited replays because then Paizo doesn't have to worry about supporting a legacy system to keep track of games from the old version. Much better to start with something new and shiny, not an old system wrapped in duct tape trying to do too much. Also according to many of the GMs above (I would guess higher than average stars) it would help jump start 2 edition because for many of the high-volume GMs that is all they'd play. Paizo just doesn't make much if people refuse to move on to the new edition.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
It is humorous to see people say unlimited replay killed 4E while ignoring the fact 5E is going bonkers and it also has unlimited replay. You could easily say unlimited replay is a boon to the system using the 5E rational and would make just as much sense.
Assuming it's true that unlimited replay is the reason 5e OP is succeeding. I have to wonder if it's because unlimited replay is simply good for a campaign or because 5e OP has so few scenarios that unlimited replay allows more games to go off. PFS has such a vast library of scenarios, APs, and modules at this point that unlimited replay isn't needed for most players.
|
|
It is humorous to see people say unlimited replay killed 4E while ignoring the fact 5E is going bonkers and it also has unlimited replay. You could easily say unlimited replay is a boon to the system using the 5E rational and would make just as much sense.Assuming it's true that unlimited replay is the reason 5e OP is succeeding. I have to wonder if it's because unlimited replay is simply good for a campaign or because 5e OP has so few scenarios that unlimited replay allows more games to go off. PFS has such a vast library of scenarios, APs, and modules at this point that unlimited replay isn't needed for most players.
I just started playing 5ed's Adventure League(AL) and there are plenty of scenarios (5ed call them modules) available for play. I understand that AL is in its 7th season and moving on to its 8th. Not sure on how long is a season.
For a long list of 5ed AL Modules have a look at this list here. Click the tabs to see the different list of modules.
Locally, my area has a very dedicated core group of PFS GMs and players. However it is clear that we are vastly out numbered by 5ed AL players and GMs. This is not the case even a year or 2 ago.
5ed's AL has spring up very quickly in my area. Main cos AL:
1) Has games every day/night at various games stores around the city.
2) And they can have these large numbers of games, cos the modules can be ran over and over again. AL actually REWARDS DMs and players with extra XP when a DM has ran a module for a few times.
3) This constant availability of games, means 5ed AL is very visible to new players. They can easily look up and join a game, any day of the week.
4) 5ed itself is very easy to jump into. (This is due mainly to how 5ed works.)
5) D&D is a recognized brand in table top
As for PFS in my area? A few years back we started out just like AL, we ran games every night of the week. It was a really fun time and we got plenty of players.
Now? We only run a game once a week. Usually it alternates between the latest new scenario or a game for new players.
Not able to replay means older players can't play with newer players easily. They can only end up on the same table if its a new scenario or an evergreen.
NO REPLAY = NO VISIBILITY for PFS = NO NEW PLAYERS
Those of us that play PFS, love PF and would likely play on for quite some time, but its very difficult for us to get new players. We just don't have the visibility.
Breakdown of issues PFS faces in my area
1) PFS lack visibility compared to other organized play groups like 5ed AL.
2) This lack of visibility means we can't get new players to join easily, as they often end up being absorbed by other organized play that runs more frequently like 5ed AL.
3) The lack of visibility is due to us unable to run games often.
4) Because most older players can't play older scenarios that they have already played and new Scenarios only come out like 2 per month.
5) Which means we are back to the first issue, which is a lack of visibility.
I do hope everyone can see we are in a Egg and the Chicken situation here. We can't get an egg, cos we don't have a chicken, and we can't get a chicken, cos we lack eggs.
Our Core group of PFS players and GMs can't grow our group, cos its very hard to get new players in without having more visibility.
This are just the facts of our current situation. PFS vs AL is like a PC game vs a mobile game. One is just going to be way more accessible then the other. In that view, it could also explain why both groups draw in a different kind of player/GM.
To the OP, which method is best? The one that can bring people back to playing Pathfinder and STAY playing Pathfinder.
------
On that note, here are some interesting notes on 5ed AL:
- All their modules are re-playable and this allows them to run plenty of games.
- The AL games are very abuse-able. This is due to how AL works.
- Why abuse-able? Cos usually only the modules with better rewards are constantly being run.
- Each AL module has the potential to reward the party as a whole 1 magical item, that the party members must then decide or roll-off to see who gets it,
- Since 5ed DOES NOT balance how magic items work, it means magic items of the same "rarity" are all not equal.
- So a player may end up with a winged boots (limited, slower flight and uses a attunement slot), while another may get a broom of flying (unlimited flight, no slot needed). AL threats both items as of equal value. Even if it is clear that one item is vastly more superior then another.
- This means DMs would usually only run those modules that give the "better" items, cos why not?
- Interestingly, there have been an announcement recently that the 8th Season of 5ed AL would make major changes to the way EXP and magic items are rewarded. The changes make AL behave a lot more like PFS now.
XP is being change to a fix number of games. Gold reward is no longer decided by the GM, but a fix number and magic item reward is based on the number of hrs played by the character. Characters can use the number of hrs played to "purchase" magic items off certain tables.
I guess they must have realized that the current AL is very chaotic and not in a good way.
Check out AL Season 8
|
|
If we're going to compare to different organized play systems, I'd like to play in a campaign where I don't get treated like a 'gamer partner' by the people next to me and chastized for "not making the *right* choices to 'win'".
I'd like to avoid a 'free-for-all' with f-bombing, insults, and recrimination at the end of the scenario when loot is distributed.
I'd like to avoid a table of folks who have *deliberately* either over-built for a given scenario (some exceptions DO apply) or under-built for the same reason -- they're replaying and trying to make it either a 'speed run' or a 'challenge'.
With any sort of replay, the amount available needs to be bigger than one or two per year, because people *will* hoard those, and save them for the 'best ones' rather than 'the ones that are needed to fire the local tables'.
At the same time, unlimited is not a good thing. I have not seen it work to grow any organization in the long-term.
Short-term, sure... but when folks get burnt out, they're going to go away.
The sensible ones that engage in fair play, that is.
The ones that are power-gaming lewt-farming twinks? They'll stick around.
Any sort of replay has to have some sort of 'opportunity' cost involved, but not at the same time essentially mandating runs of only certain scenarios because the rewards in them are so much better than other scenarios.
Trying to keep it fair for folks who are playing for the first time PLUS making tables fire is a daunting challenge.
Thinking about it, what if a 'generic' chronicle had 'checkboxes' on it for Boons like 'Share the Wealth(Companion)' 'Share the Wealth(Equipment)', etc? Maybe even linked to how much Prestige the team gets for a scenario (and subsequent ones).
That way folks would be motivated to replay responsibly more than once AND build the community, but it wouldn't be a full-on Boon (it'd require some legwork to actually get done).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bear in mind the following:
1) Unlimited replay appeals more to the casual and new player than the invested player. Invested players try to get as much out of each gaming experience as they can, and many feel that unlimited replay cheapens this. This is actually somewhat paradoxical since invested players are the ones who play the most and would logically get the most benefit out of unlimited re-play.
2) D&D 5E is a simpler system than Pathfinder. Simpler systems also appeal more to the casual and new player than the invested player.
In other words, just because Unlimited Replay may work for AL does not mean it will work for PFS because they don't have the exact same fan base.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
I doubt that the Magical Item reward will change from what it was, being a low magic (item) campaign. If the speculation would be right from what you have gotten from it, that would likely be a do over for all characters, either starting over or rebuilding to line up with the new "PFS" like structure.
One of the changes that could be happening is limiting replay, and adding in some of the Arthur contest content and more developed material that is not based on a hard cover. Another could be some way to distribute magic items to characters according to their own WBL metrics and if they have items already, leaving them out for the session.
The changes will likely not be paralleling PFS as you and the speculation is veering toward.
But as far as PFS2 is concerned, unlimited replay is just not feasable in how the Organized Play is set up currently, and I don't see PFS1 going that way with the remaining time it will be played. (which may be another ten years, who knows?)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things that's been proposed is that folks who are replaying a scenario would get a 'generic' or 'blank' sheet with gold, prestige, and experience.
If there was say, three categories on it (again, spitballing) and if a character got 2 Prestige for a scenario, they could mark off 2 of (unknown) number of boxes for any given 'generic' sheet -- so someone could be 'working' on say 'that really awesome tetsubo' when they're replaying, and there's a motivation to not screw up the table.
As far as the 'stick' to keep folks from meta? That's probably a bit harder though.
|
|
Back to the 5 given options, I would like to suggest a variant of Option 2
Option 2—Favored Character: This model allows each participant to select one Pathfinder Society PC to ignore all replay restrictions. That could mean playing a new PC all the way from 1st level to 20th, or you could make an 8th-level PC your favored character in order to play through all of the Tier 7–11 and higher adventures. Whatever the case, everyone would be able to fulfill that limitless story with another PC.
Option 2a— Seasonal Favored Character: Same as Option 2, but each participant can select a new favored character at the start of each Season (Seasons start and end at each year's Gencon date.)
This means that each year, a PFS player/GM can always replay scenarios with 1 character of their choice.
This give players something new to try out at all times, without actually having unlimited play.
It also avoids other issues like replay burn out or replay abuse. And allow new and older players to play together at the same table.
|
|
The problem with linking it to a character is that will limit the tables that said player can participate in, or alternatively, what other players can bring to the table.
If, for example, one has a martial, and they are a very good martial, but that becomes the 'favored character', then that can bump someone else who *also* designated their martial character as 'favored' unless the party wants to encounter a significantly increased difficulty (depending on scenario).
I can't speak for anyone else, but the nightmare of sitting down to a table with say, five other barbarians (because they were all designated as 'favorite') becomes a distinct possibility, or the table may not fire.
It's not a *bad* idea, but... it could reduce the effectiveness of the 'fix' significantly.
|
|
The problem with linking it to a character is that will limit the tables that said player can participate in, or alternatively, what other players can bring to the table.If, for example, one has a martial, and they are a very good martial, but that becomes the 'favored character', then that can bump someone else who *also* designated their martial character as 'favored' unless the party wants to encounter a significantly increased difficulty (depending on scenario).
I can't speak for anyone else, but the nightmare of sitting down to a table with say, five other barbarians (because they were all designated as 'favorite') becomes a distinct possibility, or the table may not fire.
It's not a *bad* idea, but... it could reduce the effectiveness of the 'fix' significantly.
This is already a present situation at tables now. People may bring characters for a particular faction to play, resulting in too many characters of a one class/role etc. Or they may only have certain characters being of the right level/tier to play.
Not knowing who you will be playing with a table is one of the main facets of PFS play.
Do you really turn someone away for playing the 5th barbarian at the table? Or pick and choose who gets in a party and who is denied?
If the goal is to always have the "correct" combination at the table, then why play PFS? Why not just make your own homebrew party, where you will always be playing with the "correct" party make up.
The randomness of a party make up is part and parcel of PFS play. PFS is a public organized play, so the party make up is always expected to be different.
This randomness is likely to still be there even in PFS2,0
It also means that when they level out of low tier they again have issues playing, if low teir is in demand
At the least, they will have 1 character each season to restart from low level.
Not to mention they can take the slow XP track to DOUBLE the amount of low level scenarios they can replay.If character death is a worry, then it could be added that if your favored character dies, you can make a new one from level 1. (Not sure if this is likely to be abused.)
If not, this could be a good opportunity to remind players that they should be careful with their characters and that the party can pool resources to rise dead a fellow player.
By the time replay players level out of low tier, the newer players would likely have reach mid tier as well, meaning there will be a demand for more mid and higher tier games.
-----
Conclusion,
There is a clear dislike of total unlimited replay, as seen by the number of post by other player, including VCs and other VOs. It would not be possible to come up with a system that satisfy everyone perfectly.
That said, the system for replay-ability post PFS2.0, should be one that everyone can work with to some degree. One that does not alienate the player/GM base.
My proposal for Option 2a, is to allow constant replay with a set limit. It rewards players who plays every year (Since its one character per season.), without resorting to something system breaking like unlimited replay.
|
I disagree with you on how much replay the campaign needs, Nosig, but I agree with you on the favored character idea. I don't think it's a good one.
We seem to be more comfortable here gating replay by GMing. What options could we come up with that could provide player replays to a broader group with some limit or possibly GM discretion?
One rough idea
For example could we open up Expanded Narrative so a GM could earn multiples of them per season, and then allow a GM to "burn a star" to provide a replay to themselves plus say... 2 other players?
The design goal is to base this on something we already have and know how it works (Expanded Narrative) and to keep it as a primarily GM reward (since we seem more comfortable with those here) but also to provide some rewards to players who can't GM much or at all.
Benefits: the GM + 2 players means the GM still needs to find at least 1 other player who hasn't played the scenario before (or, I suppose, who is willing to burn their own star replay). It keeps replay somewhat controlled and rate-limited. It doesn't bypass the usual "play once, gm once, star once" limits on scenarios.
Possible drawbacks: I don't like leaving stuff like this up to the GM because it could promote favoritism and exclude players the GM doesn't get along with. It also might encourage GMs to spend their replays in smaller groups or home games. (But doesn't that already happen to some extent?) Doesn't help experienced players make tables for inexperienced GMs.
Ways to tweak this idea: change the number of players who could benefit. Remove the GM from the list of beneficiaries. Change the requirements for Expanded Narrative. Could be combined with other proposals.