|
It also prohibits say, someone who has a character who is a Silver Crusader from playing in *THE SILVER CRUSADE SCENARIO* of the Season because the first two scenarios were Exchange and their 'favored' character was The Exchange.
That's hardly an optimal design, and no season is *SEASON OF THIS FACTION ONLY*.
|
I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up yet...but if the "favored character" option is used, doesn't that also run the risk of having poorly balanced tables? Let's say you show up to a game and your only available character for that adventure is a Paladin. Maybe not great for a skill-heavy scenario, but not an impossible challenge...until the rest of your table arrives and you find yourself sitting with 5 other Paladins.
Yes that's an extreme example, but something like this could happen.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
That looks good, Alex. Having to fill out the whole chronicle with games may limit replays from lower star GMs, and have them earn some back bennies when they get another star.
Salt, I believe using both the Expanded Narrative and the Favored Character together may alleviate some of the party disparity, but any replay option other than unlimited is going to have downsides such as this. I would hope any solution we could come up with would give a little leeway as we loosen the reins a bit within PFS1 as the move to PFS2 gets underway.
What we don't want to do is have a group play the same scenarios over and over again for character tweaking and "farming" of boons and items.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up yet...but if the "favored character" option is used, doesn't that also run the risk of having poorly balanced tables? Let's say you show up to a game and your only available character for that adventure is a Paladin. Maybe not great for a skill-heavy scenario, but not an impossible challenge...until the rest of your table arrives and you find yourself sitting with 5 other Paladins.
Yes that's an extreme example, but something like this could happen.
This the same hypothetical problem that could occur in the current atmosphere of PFS, especially with new players that might only have one level 5.
Pregens are the easiest solution, although obviously not the best. However, if there was a favored character option pregens are a solution that could work.
I also think that with a favored character thing implemented, we'd see smaller groups of PFS regulars making use of it more than anyone else. In that case, they'd be playing with each other from level 1 all the way up until level 5. Meaning they would probably make more diverse characters. So they would avoid the "all paladin table" problem from the start.
The "all paladin table" is still a potential issue when those players mingle at cons or other game days, but IMO a fairly minor one.
|
The rule for pregenerated characters and credit in the current version of the guide is:
- Credit for playing higher-level pregenerated characters must be applied to a Roleplaying Guild character of a lower level than the pregenerated character or to a 1st-level character.
This does not rule out the ability to play a pregen if you have a character in-tier. It does, however, make playing pregens and assigning credit to a character in-tier dicey. At best.
Assuming that we're only talking about following the restrictions in the guide and not extra restrictions that might be more regional or GM-specific. Those sorts of limitations could certainly make pregens a less than ideal solution for many players.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Please clarify this. HOW will pregens be any sort of solution? I have been told many times that if my PC is in Tier, I cannot play a Pregen and assign the credit to it.
This is an oft-repeated statement that's not correct (at least, anymore). The rule has changed a few times, it used to be more ambiguous.
Some organizers apparently thought pregens were a cheesy way to play risk-free, or that they were intended as a last resort. The Guide has always listed numerous bona fide reasons for playing them though, including "want to try out a new class".
With the introduction of the pregen death tax, the argument that it's a cheesy way to avoid risk is no longer valid. In return, pregens now also represent your character's faction. Basically, they're a full stand-in stunt double for your character. Your actual character bears all the final risk and rewards.
Strictly speaking, the rule could now be relaxed to "credit must be assigned to a PC of lower or equal level" without messing things up.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please, don't make the replay rules involve a greater use of/dependence upon pregens. Unlike nosig, I hate playing pregens. I rarely feel any connection to pregens. They're just a collection of stats with no personality. Perhaps this speaks to a lack of imagination or some other creative or moral failing on my part, but please don't make pregens an important part of any PFS1 replay system.
|
MrBear, there are many folks who believe that those two things aren't mutually exclusive. In this case, What's best for the players IS best for the campaign. The question then becomes, "is replay really best for the players?" You'll find some folks saying one thing, and some saying another. I don't believe we will find a real consensus on this as there are some who are adamantly against any replay and think it destroys their own enjoyment of the game (so its obviously not best for those players) and those who are adamantly for unlimited replay so the campaign can go on forever despite no new content and they find enjoyment in playing for the sake of playing (so they obviously feel its best for those players.)
But you are forgetting, there will still be new material coming out every month. For PFS2. And frankly, PFS1 should not enjoy an indefinite extension by way of replay, else it impacts PFS2 success.
So in this case, it may actually contradict what I said above, but not in the way you originally implied. This would be what's best for the players of PFS1 vs. what's best for the campaign of PFS2. And in this case, I think you have to let PFS2 campaign concerns come before player concerns of PFS1.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
So Nosig, I see that you're getting frustrated here. Sorry if I caused that, definitely not my intention. I really do try and be reasonable poster most of the time.
I'm not advocating pregens as the best solution, just relating that it would solve the problem--as it does now when people don't have a character that can play in a scenario that's out of tier. They can still play. And yes it's not ideal, and yes it's crummy, and yes, I hate asking players to play pregens.
But I don't even care about that, really, as the main thing I stated was that this situation rarely comes up now, and I imagine it would rarely come up with the "favored character" (FC) thing as well. Even less frequently, really, because the people that would only use FCs are such a small percentage of the PFS population anyway.
TLDR: Pregens are a poor band-aid for the problem of not being able to play multiple tiers with your Favored Character. Fortunately, I don't think the problem will come up too much.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Bringing the conversation back to where it started...
Option 1—No Further Replay: There are already some replay options out there, and everyone would be able to fill out a new Expanded Narrative boon (i.e. "recharge the GM stars' replay" boon) each year. However, there wouldn't be any additional allowances for replaying beyond what already exist.
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 3—Heightened GM Star Recharge: In this model, the Expanded Narrative opportunity continues but has some capacity for more recharging than normal. That might mean someone could instantly begin a new Expanded Narrative Chronicle sheet the moment she fills out the first one, not waiting for a new season. It might instead mean that there's a limit of one sheet per season, but the sheet grants more than one replay for each GM star. There are likely other variations on this approach.
Option 4—Unlimited Replay: As noted above, we're unlikely to institute unlimited replay in First Edition, even after the new campaign launches. If that's something you'd want to see anyway, go ahead an say so, but please also convey what you'd want to see were unlimited replay not selected.
I'm currently in favor of Option 1.
Reasons: I think that most people are going to tap out of PFSv1 eventually and then start moving on to PFSv2 and SFS. The people that are staunch supporters of PFSv1 and for one reason or another don't want to participate in the other OP options are going to be out of luck... officially. Unofficially there are a ton of options. Replays, conversions, campaign mode AP, whatever.
But Walter, why should we stop having rules for PFSv1? I'm not saying we stop having rules here, just saying we leave things as is and let it organically dwindle out. Once it's finished it's official run, people are free to jam it as much as possible however they enjoy.
The beauty here is that there's no oversight from VOs, which makes our lives much easier. The downside is that there's no oversight from VOs, which makes it the wild west. And it will still have Paizo's name on it--even if it's unofficial. So not a perfect solution, but one that is the easiest to implement (as we do nothing new).
Discuss!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having seen an organized play campaign keep things moving for twenty years+ and the amount of work it required in a 'dead' system, I'd honestly prefer to *not* go that route.
Nosig's idea would be:
Option 6(?)--Staggered re-release of Scenarios (one time only) This is the idea of re-releasing the scenarios numbered as 'Season Eleven (former Season Zero and One)', etc with the same numerations and restrictions as currently exist.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
You guys make some good counter points. What system has been going for 20+ years?
I like the idea of rereleasing scenarios. It would require no real extra work from an OPF perspective and would allow people to still play PFSv1 -- which is the main goal of this thread.
I guess for clarity my main goal here is to have whatever system is put in place (or not) be easy enough to explain and maintain without requiring too much extra work on behalf of VOs. They'll already be busy with a new OPF system and adding more to their plate for something that's no longer Paizo support (no new content) is something I'm really hesitant to do.
|
|
Walter, you've expressed some openness to nosig's idea, the phased reset or phased rerelease plan. Are there other options we've expressed that you might find appealing? If you had to add some form of player replay, what do you think would be least disruptive to the campaign and have the lowest required investment from the various organizers and volunteers?
Are there any tweaks to the ideas you're not in favor of that would make them more appealing?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as going "Wild West..." I'm not a fan, personally. Portability of characters (based on the universal campaign rules) is a huge appeal to me and many of the people we play with locally. Breaking that and losing the ability to mix groups would just spur the creation of fractured, regional campaigns as people try to retain the benefits of PFS1. But it would happen without a lot of the support, would lead to confusion, and would lose us a chance to capture those people and move them on to PFS2.
As with any change affecting this many people, there are going to be players for whom PFS1 will no longer be available after PFS2 is launched. That's fine, that's to be expected. But I'd like us to try to minimize that as much as we reasonably can.
And don't underestimate the power of network effects... having a captive audience is a big deal, especially if we can find and agree on a way to keep them without Paizo spending a lot of money to do so.
|
|
It sounds like pregen play could stand to be clarified and maybe we could inquire about letting people apply pregen credit to a character of the same level.
I think that is and should stay a separate discussion from replay, though.
But wouldn't that still only be a partial fix? If my "Favored PC" is currently 5th level, than that means that if I am Replaying with the "Favored PC Replay" rule, I would be locked into playing that PC in Tier 1-5 games. I would not have the option to switch off to a Pregen, as they are all lower level than my PC. Even if the rest of the table is level 1 and 2, I would be REQUIRED to play my 5th level. Correct?
So, if I signed up to (Re-)play at a table of Black Waters, and the other players were a 1st and three 2nds, my 5th level would push us into playing up to Sub-tier 4-5, and my only option to "fix" this would be to just not play.
Oh, and as far as favored characters go, I don't really see pregens as saving the favored character plan in my eyes. So while I think Lau's right that we could talk about updating the rules about assigning pregen credit, I don't think it should be because of replay. But that is very much just my own 2 cents.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just let pathfinder 1e die before we've even SEEN pathfinder 2e seems like a really really bad plan.
And yes. That is absolutely what no change in the replay rules means. The minimal effective population of pathfinder geeks is a Table. It doesn't matter if people have games left they can play you need the same group of geeks who can all play the same game together at the same time.
|
|
Nobody has suggested that.
Actually, looking back thru this thread I see several comments like this...
" As soon as 1st ed 'dies' at gencon 2019,..." (top of page 2) which leads me to believe that some people actually believe just that...then comments like @(Fri, Jun 8, 2018, 05:47 am) "...Offer "vintage PFS" at conventions, replays be damned, but don't make organizers report it. Don't make games count for table credit once Season 10 completes. Retire the old game with the old system. We had eleven years anyway. This is well past the shelf life of a good TV show. We're readily approaching Simpsons decline. Lets let it die with dignity and watch Futurama...." seem to indicate that at least SOME people (with lots of stars) are saying SOMETHING like "Just let pathfinder 1e die before we've even SEEN pathfinder 2e ...
Now I am quoting them a bit out of context, so feel free to scroll back and double check me on this...
Ok, fair enough. But like the last 2 or 3 pages of conversation have not indicated that.
Now I agree, I think that it should be allowed to die its natural death. But I think that's going to take about 18 months to 2 years to really get PFS2 on its feet before that should happen.
Canceling PFS1 immediately in August of 2019 is not a good idea. I get that BNW thinks that this will just automatically happen in his area if some level of replay, more than we have now, is not implemented.
I feel where this happens naturally, it should be allowed to happen. But then I am coming from a privileged point of view of having a robust and large lodge where more replay is probably not largely necessary.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've all been doing a pretty good job of keeping the thread constructive for a few pages. Let's keep it up!
So I think many, perhaps most, of the people here, want to see PFS1 continue, at least for... let's steal Tallow's 18-24 months range. That seems pretty reasonable to me. I figure two years is enough time to build up a backlog of PFS2 scenarios to run. But is that right?
Does anyone think we need to be planning for more than two years of PFS1? If not, how much longer do you think we need?
That answer, I expect, would change what kind of replay options campaign leadership would want to consider.
For my part, I suspect we'd want some moderate player replay to prevent complete segmentation of our local playerbase, enough to keep things going for a couple of years. I think that translates into something on the order of 5ish replays per player per year to keep the more experienced players in the game alongside the newer players. But that's really just a guesstimate. So when I'm evaluating solutions, I'm looking for options that provide 5-10 player replays a year without a requirement that those players be GMing for their replay.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody has suggested that.
Actually, looking back thru this thread I see several comments like this...
" As soon as 1st ed 'dies' at gencon 2019,..." (top of page 2) which leads me to believe that some people actually believe just that...then comments like @(Fri, Jun 8, 2018, 05:47 am) "...Offer "vintage PFS" at conventions, replays be damned, but don't make organizers report it. Don't make games count for table credit once Season 10 completes. Retire the old game with the old system. We had eleven years anyway. This is well past the shelf life of a good TV show. We're readily approaching Simpsons decline. Lets let it die with dignity and watch Futurama...." seem to indicate that at least SOME people (with lots of stars) are saying SOMETHING like "Just let pathfinder 1e die before we've even SEEN pathfinder 2e ...
Now I am quoting them a bit out of context, so feel free to scroll back and double check me on this...
Golly. It’s almost as if you don’t really want a discussion to take place here but are looking for an echo chamber. But it looks like I don’t share your opinions. And I’ve invested just as much into this campaign as you have, so I’m going to share those opinions. That’s the purpose of a discussion.
I’m interested in participating in OP with the same community that I’ve spent the last six years organizing for. I’m just not sure I want to do that with a system that’s been abandoned by it’s creators for something that they claim is better. I of course will assess said system before deciding which I prefer, and regardless, Pathfinder v1 and PFS v1 will always have a special place in my heart. But things change. And if PFv2 and PFSv2 are more promising, which I really hope they are, then I think PFSv1 as it is does need to stop being supported by the VO corp.
Why? Because, given all the information we have, there is going to be no new updates to the system, no new content—nothing. When nothing changes, things stagnate. That is the antithesis of a living campaign. If we want to keep PFSv1 alive when PFSv2 comes out, some dedicated folks are going to need to pick up the slack and generate new content for it. And it is not what the VOs are tasked with doing—they are tasked with organizing official tables of PFS and ensuring it’s rules are followed. Whatever these dedicated folks come up with will not be Paizo published and thus not be under the purview of VOs.
So, like I’ve been saying since the start, eventually PFSv1 will officially die. There is honestly no way around that. Sorry to be the bearer of reality here, but it is what it is. It’s not about being selfish, it’s about being realistic. Living games that are no longer supported by their creators cease to live. That doesn’t mean it still can’t be played, enjoyed, and taught to new people, but if we want that to happen it will take a dedicated PFSv1 people to make it happen.
Just reading this thread, I see dozens of such people. I am certain that they will help keep PFSv1 (in whatever form it takes) vibrant for many years after Paizo support. Just don’t expect VOs to organize for it.
Walter, you've expressed some openness to nosig's idea, the phased reset or phased rerelease plan. Are there other options we've expressed that you might find appealing? If you had to add some form of player replay, what do you think would be least disruptive to the campaign and have the lowest required investment from the various organizers and volunteers?Are there any tweaks to the ideas you're not in favor of that would make them more appealing?
When it comes to replay, I honestly think it’s a band-aid solution to the problem that PFSv1 is going to end. And that's a problem with no solution that's gonna please everyone. I think people are nervous about PFSv2 and are trying to find a way to keep PFSv1 play going. I don’t think replay is it, but at this point I don’t care anymore. There are people here that are getting really upset and taking this very seriously, and my attitude just doesn’t mesh with that. My train of thought is: it’s a game, it’s been fun, and whatever comes next will also be fun cause it’s with the same people. Whatever is implemented I'll be fine with, given enough time. Just another day in paradise.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Walter, people tend to get sad and emotional when something they've grown attached to dies. I would take it as a compliment, a sign that you have helped build and sustain something that a lot of people have really cared about!
With respect to its impending death, I think we all (hopefully) recognize that the PFS1 campaign is coming to a close. The matter is not "Is it going to die or not? Can we save it??" but rather "How is it going to die?" Natural deaths, of creatures or organizations, is not always pretty. It'd be nice if we could minimize the pain caused by PFS1's demise.
If even a band-aid solution eases the transition for a significant portion, even a significant minority, of the player-base at little cost to Paizo and the VO corps, that would seem to be a worth-while trade to me?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. If they wanted to play for the next 10 years they could. AND, if they recruited "new blood" they could easily keep the campaign going - just replace us older players with new ones... Heck, I'd be happy to come run games for them myself. And that's not counting all the people who only have 3 or 4 (or heck, 5, 6, or 7) years of games under their belt.
But can you consistently make tables of them without having to dip into your Grognard supply?
How aboout if the new guys are playing the new system?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
The reason for Replay isn't to have some sort of player lottery for cherry picking scenarios for "farming" of resources. (Boons, items availability and the like)
The solutions for Replay is for the veteran player to be able to play and mentor the newer players that have interest in the game. I think the Favored Character combined with an adjusted Expanded Narrative boon would be a good way to provide some of the old guard the means to do that.
We also should be mindful that the new edition will likely be played along side the PF1 tables, and those that come into the hobby as we move forward will look into the game that is on the store shelves rather than the previous works that we will continue to play.
I also would like to point out that these scenarios are and have always been available for home play as well as the society organized structure. This is unlikely to change.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When push comes to shove, people are going to gravitate to the new (PF2 and SF1) scenarios because they're, well, new.This assumes that folks are happy with PF2e and prefer it over PF1e, and I think that's a very open question at this point.
Frankly, it doesn't matter if people are happy with PF2 or not. That's the game Paizo is supporting and thus only supporting PFS2. It may be a year lot two, but PFS1, for all intents and purposes, will die off. This needs to happen to ensure the success and health of PFS2.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, it doesn't matter if people are happy with PF2 or not. That's the game Paizo is supporting and thus only supporting PFS2. It may be a year lot two, but PFS1, for all intents and purposes, will die off. This needs to happen to ensure the success and health of PFS2.When push comes to shove, people are going to gravitate to the new (PF2 and SF1) scenarios because they're, well, new.This assumes that folks are happy with PF2e and prefer it over PF1e, and I think that's a very open question at this point.
I'd note that it's not necessarily my responsibility to "ensure the success and health of PFS2." If PF2e is a game that I enjoy playing, I anticipate that I'll be involved in PFS2. At that point, I will support PFS2 in the same manner that I have PFS1.
However, if PF2e turns out to be a game that I don't enjoy playing, then I'll continue with PFS1 for as long as it is available and search for my gaming jollies elsewhere.
I hope that I end up enjoying PF2e, and I hope that I'm an active participant in PFS2. However at this point in time, I'm not all that excited by what I've learned about PF2e. I wish this were not the case, but alas it is.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, it doesn't matter if people are happy with PF2 or not. That's the game Paizo is supporting and thus only supporting PFS2. It may be a year lot two, but PFS1, for all intents and purposes, will die off. This needs to happen to ensure the success and health of PFS2.When push comes to shove, people are going to gravitate to the new (PF2 and SF1) scenarios because they're, well, new.This assumes that folks are happy with PF2e and prefer it over PF1e, and I think that's a very open question at this point.wow... Déjà vu...
I can recall a conversation with a Triad member in Colorado that I had back after 4th edition was released and LG was being replace with LFR. He said much the same thing about 4th Ed.... Only I think his timeline was "a few months..."...
I was saying my friends and I really didn't like 4th Ed and I think he said something like:
"It doesn't matter if people are happy with 4th or not. That's the game WotC is supporting and thus the only thing available will be 4th. It may take a few month, perhaps even a year, but 3.5 will die off. And with it LG is now LFR. This needs to happen to ensure the success and health of the RPGA and our hobby."I think it was two weeks after the above conversation that I played my first Pathfinder game...
It very well may be that PF2 will be a "jump the shark" moment, much like 4th Ed was. That doesn't change the fact, that despite people wanting to play PFS1 in perpetuity, that unless a group is willing to support it as a 3PP (likely having to name it something different and likely not work in Golarion unless they get a license to do so), PFS1 will not last forever without artificially propping it up.
It is my belief, that propping it up artificially will spell the doom of PFS2.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My main concern is whether or not there will actually be enough PF2 content to keep the players in my area busy. Southwest Ohio is pretty healthy and if there are only 3 scenarios to start I think there will be a bunch of people standing around with nothing to play after the 1st month.
The solution of course would to release more scenarios then they currently do, but I suspect that is not an option. This is why I suspect PF1 will be a thing for at least a year, at least until there is a backlog of titles to play.
|
|
My main concern is whether or not there will actually be enough PF2 content to keep the players in my area busy. Southwest Ohio is pretty healthy and if there are only 3 scenarios to start I think there will be a bunch of people standing around with nothing to play after the 1st month.
The solution of course would to release more scenarios then they currently do, but I suspect that is not an option. This is why I suspect PF1 will be a thing for at least a year, at least until there is a backlog of titles to play.
I agree. And while its nice to say, "Just play 2 times a month and you'll never run out," that just isn't the reality. Players power play through as much content as there are game days available it seems, and quickly run out of things to play.