First Edition Replay when Second Edition Launches


Pathfinder Society Playtest

551 to 600 of 734 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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*.

The Exchange 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵⦵

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.

Note - I have not thoroughly examined the "favored character" discussion. The above is just a thought I had upon seeing a few of the most recent posts.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville aka thaX

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.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8 aka WalterGM

Old "Scuttlebutt" Salt wrote:

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.

Note - I have not thoroughly examined the "favored character" discussion. The above is just a thought I had upon seeing a few of the most recent posts.

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 Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Walter Sheppard wrote:
Old "Scuttlebutt" Salt wrote:

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.

Note - I have not thoroughly examined the "favored character" discussion. The above is just a thought I had upon seeing a few of the most recent posts.

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.

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. so... if I arrive at a table and find 3 newer players with Support Bards (all in Tier), and my “Favored PC” is a Bard - how do I (or anyone else at the table) play a Pregen? Or are you saying one or more of the beginners needs to start a new PC Number and run a Pregen?

I mean, if I am replaying using the “Favored PC” option, my choice of PC is locked (unless my PC is not high level to play in the scenario - say a 2nd level PC and the scenario I am re-playing is a 3-7).

So, I must be missing something here...

Silver Crusade 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Pennsylvania—Pittsburgh aka Terminalmancer

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.

Sovereign Court 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

nosig wrote:
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.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So it looks like people are saying that if I am replaying using the “Favored PC” option, my choice of PC is either a Pregen of higher level, or the “Favored PC”. Is that correct? While I can see many problems with the mechanics of this I don’t want to sound to negative. I’m sure we could modify the Pregen rules to work around them, and I actually LIKE most of the Pregens - (even Harsk!) so I would be fine with being limited to playing a Pregen whenever we “Replay” - but that would sort of violate the spirit of the “Favored PC”.

“Hi, my ‘Favored PC’ is a Pregen!”

Perhaps we can list this an ANOTHER “Replay” option? That we can replay a any scenario once, using a Pregen?

2/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

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.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The entire reason people prefer pathfinder is the customizability. Forcing people to play pregens or nothing at all goes against that.

Silver Crusade 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Pennsylvania—Pittsburgh aka Terminalmancer

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.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The entire reason people prefer pathfinder is the customizability. Forcing people to play pregens or nothing at all goes against that.

I actually feel that forcing players to play ONLY ONE PC (or nothing at all) goes against that too.

Allowing me to select one of several Pregens at least allows SOME flexibility of choice...

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alex Wreschnig wrote:

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.


nosig wrote:
MrBear wrote:

.

Did I offend you in some way? If so, I am sorry, I did not intend to.

I'm honestly offered that this discussion is happening. We're all playing a game that is particularly popular with folks with social awkwardness, neurodivergent individuals, and people that struggle to find a place to belong and we're arguing over who is going to still be allowed to play. It stinks of gatekeeping to me and that makes me overly sensitive to word choice and phrasing used in the discussion.

I want any organized play system to be as inclusive as possible. I never want to have to turn away a player for any reason besides their personal behavior.

I completely understand the need and desire to limit replays in an active campaign. I don't disagree with it and support it. If we're running adventures as they're released and the pace is steady then the only situations we'd run into are when people have been playing several times a week. At that point I encourage them to try running a game or two.

When the campaign is functionally over and the new content is gone I feel that harsh replay restrictions are an exclusionary practice. You're not saying "Come back next time for the new scenario." You're saying "You can't play here." I won't be happy with any result that asks me to exclude players. I'll burn my pathfinder books and stop running the system before I turn a player away from a finished campaign.

It's why I've mostly stopped posting in this discussion (though I still follow along). I think what's best for the campaign is worthless compared to what's best for the players.

Scarab Sages 5/5

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.

The Exchange 5/5

MrBear wrote:
nosig wrote:
MrBear wrote:

.

Did I offend you in some way? If so, I am sorry, I did not intend to.

I'm honestly offered that this discussion is happening.

I assume you mean offended? you are offended that we are discussing expanding the Replay options in "First Edition Replay when Second Edition Launches "? What?

MrBear wrote:

.

We're all playing a game that is particularly popular with folks with social awkwardness, neurodivergent individuals, and people that struggle to find a place to belong and we're arguing over who is going to still be allowed to play. It stinks of gatekeeping to me and that makes me overly sensitive to word choice and phrasing used in the discussion.

??? sorry to hear that??? IMHO we are looking at how to keep this version of the game (PFS1e) as fun for as many people as we can, for as long as we can. That would be everyone, "particularly ... folks with social awkwardness, neurodivergent individuals, and people that struggle to find a place to belong", those persons who have joined the campaign in the last 6 years and haven't played anywhere near everything... who have years of content left to play for the very first time. Currently, in PFS, if a player has played a scenario they cannot Re-play it (with some exceptions added in the last few seasons). I am sorry you consider that this policy "stinks of gatekeeping". It was put in place at least partly by people intending to help "folks with social awkwardness, neurodivergent individuals, and people that struggle to find a place to belong". To make the campaign a welcoming environment for new players, esp. for those who do not have a clique of regulars that can form home games.

MrBear wrote:


I want any organized play system to be as inclusive as possible. I never want to have to turn away a player for any reason besides their personal behavior.

And now I am being "overly sensitive to word choice and phrasing used in the discussion." The above statement to me sounds like you are pushing for Unlimited Replay. In all campaigns. I do not support that. But it sounds like you do?

I am willing to turn a player away from a table if they have played that game before. I will work with them to ensure that they have another game/table they can sit at - in fact my home area is famous for running mostly "Pick-up" games, where the scenario is not picked until after we know who all the players for that table are. We run mostly "Open Library" games and get a lot of flak from other posters in other regions because we run "Cold" (or nearly "cold") a lot. In my home town we pride ourselves on the fact that EVERYONE gets to play, every time. Just show up (heck, less than 25% of the people even look at Warhorn, which almost never lists what is actually run on any give night anyway). It's the way it works here. And has for a number of years.

MrBear wrote:


I completely understand the need and desire to limit replays in an active campaign. I don't disagree with it and support it. If we're running adventures as they're released and the pace is steady then the only situations we'd run into are when people have been playing several times a week. At that point I encourage them to try running a game or two.

I do not think that the release of 2nd ed. will be the end of the "active campaign". I do not think this because I know large numbers of players who have not played everything... a common statement heard when we are selecting what scenario to play at a table will be something like "I only started 4 years ago, so I can play most anything season 5 and before." Will these players eventually run out of things they can play? Yeah - but I don't want to steal the chance to play PFS1e from them just because a few of us have played 10 years of scenarios. Someone who started 2 years ago and plays every week will have only played less than half of the available scenarios. I would like to give them the same chance at playing "fresh" games that I had... so that he sits down with a group of other players and everyone has as close to the same fun that I had when I played that scenario for the first time. I don't want to condemn them to playing as an extra in someone's "Ground Hog Day".

And from a strictly selfish perspective - I have a couple dozen scenarios I have not yet played. I'd like to play them the same way I played all the rest of PFS... with strangers/friends at a table experiencing the scenario fresh for all of us... or as close to that as I can make it.

MrBear wrote:


When the campaign is functionally over and the new content is gone I feel that harsh replay restrictions are an exclusionary practice.

I do not think the campaign is "functionally over" with the release of 2nd Ed. In fact, with the newer players I have be running for this last couple months, ... but never mind. We just seem to have a difference of opinion of when the campaign is "functionally over".

I also do not consider most of the Replay Options suggested here to be "harsh restrictions".

MrBear wrote:


You're not saying "Come back next time for the new scenario." You're saying "You can't play here."

No, I am saying "you can't REPLAY that scenario. Pick another one." (actually I wouldn't even say that. Normally I would say "what have you not played? anyone else need that one?" and we put together a table for them. happens all the time, just like that.) The only time this is a problem is when the player has played EVERYTHING available. Which means he has played ... everything... Hundreds of scenarios and APs, and Mods, and ... wow. That's a lot of stuff.

In fact I regularly say "What have you NOT played so we can fit you in at a table." And when we are marshaling a table I look around and might say "hay, Jason - what the heck are you short in low tier? we've got two beginners at the table today, so I need to run a 1-5." And we fit Jason in, we'll play what he is short - 'cause he's fun at the table and
we don't turn people away if we can help it.

MrBear wrote:


I won't be happy with any result that asks me to exclude players. I'll burn my pathfinder books and stop running the system before I turn a player away from a finished campaign.

Sorry to hear you won't be happy.

Please don't burn the books. Pass them to a new player - one that is short money and might be having a problem scraping by... Oh, and I could use a judge for a table of players who haven't played the scenario offered, if you want to hang around - but I guess I can get the guy who has played it to run it...

MrBear wrote:


It's why I've mostly stopped posting in this discussion (though I still follow along). I think what's best for the campaign is worthless compared to what's best for the players.

And I think that what's best of the campaign is the same thing that is best for the majority of the players.

now I need to go wash my face and avoid the boards for a few hours. Sorry about the rant...

Shadow Lodge 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8 aka WalterGM

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.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8 aka WalterGM

Bringing the conversation back to where it started...

Quote:

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!

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Australia—NSW—Newcastle aka Tim Schneider 908

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Only downside to me about PFSv1 going "Wild West" is from an explaining perspective. It's nice to let the guys who work at our FLGS know that we're running PFS and it's open to everyone so if they have people come in looking for rolelplay they can point them our way. Most our new players come to us via referral from the stores we play in.

Having to say "It's kinda PFS but it's not really PFS cause we break these rules..." makes that a lot more complex & probably makes them go "Uhuh... so I can remember all that or I could just point them at Adventurers League".

Admittedly we'll probably point new players to our second edition games once it's a thing, but having a nice banner we can say "We do this" is what separates PFS from the home-games in the store & if it takes a period for our games to move from 1E to 2E it'd be kinda nice to keep the banner.

That's the only thing I think we'll lose locally if the call is "No replay" - I'm 99% sure all nearby conventions will be dropping 1E so our 1E would just fall off the PFS map into home-game with suspiciously PFS-like rules.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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. Nosig, correct me if I messed that up, please.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8 aka WalterGM

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.

Silver Crusade 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Pennsylvania—Pittsburgh aka Terminalmancer

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?

Silver Crusade 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Pennsylvania—Pittsburgh aka Terminalmancer

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.

Silver Crusade 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Pennsylvania—Pittsburgh aka Terminalmancer

nosig wrote:
Alex Wreschnig wrote:

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.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

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.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Nobody has suggested that.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
Nobody has suggested that.

Ok, I really-really hate to come to BNWs defense - so let me just spit this out so I can go wash my mouth out afterword...

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...

...now where the heck did I put that bar of soap...

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

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.

actually, I think this is a matter of perspective.

From my perspective (and the perspective of many of us "ol'guys"), I have played almost everything. I jumped into playing Mods a while back because I was down to less than a dozen scenarios... now I have about half of Season 9 I can play yet, and some APs ... and maybe a few more Mods... then I'm out of content (except for Judge Star Replays...). So yeah, without "new" content or some other form of Replays, I am limited to just running games (something I have also been doing a lot lately).

I've been running games up at the local venue for several new players. Some of them play 2 or 3 times a week, most get one game in a week... so from their perspective they have years of content left. So, it seems to me, that from their perspective they have just started into a Campaign that I have played for ...gods... to many years.

Yeah... anyway,... for those 4 new players the campaign is "fresh" and has years of life - unless "we" cut it out from under them. Change it enough so that it isn't PFS1e any more... and I sort of worry about that. Two or three of them have expressed the interest in running scenarios...

It's sort of making me feel like I/we are being a bit selfish. "I got my play in, so we can blow the playground up now - it's over once I'm out of here."

3/5

nosig wrote:
It's sort of making me feel like I/we are being a bit selfish. "I got my play in, so we can blow the playground up now - it's over once I'm out of here."

I said this (paraphrased) quite a while back...Now, back to lurking

Scarab Sages 5/5

nosig wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Nobody has suggested that.

Ok, I really-really hate to come to BNWs defense - so let me just spit this out so I can go wash my mouth out afterword...

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...

...now where the heck did I put that bar of soap...

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.

Silver Crusade 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Pennsylvania—Pittsburgh aka Terminalmancer

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.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually think that BNW feels that without some form of Replay PFS1e will "die"... for him. and perhaps for many of the people he plays with. His "..' minimal effective population of pathfinder geeks is a Table...".

But I think he is being kind of short sighted, and viewing it only from his personal perspective.

Do we have "Tables" of players who have years of content yet to play? Well, I know several myself. I know people who have started the campaign in the last 2-3 months - which means their "games played" number in the teens. Out of 10 years of games they have played 2%? maybe. 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.

Could they (we?) keep the campaign going in the face of "NEW GAMES" such at PF 2nd? well... maybe? After all, PFS did basically that when that other company made the jump to 4th ed.

Now - do I want to be part of that? yeah - I like PFS1e! I'd love to "keep it going" and will do so as long as I can - even if that means I just run games for the new blood and get in 4 Replays a year (and maybe the Evergreens?). If we come up with some sort of "Replay Option" to keep BNW in the campaign too? Well... sometimes we have to take the bad with the good.... ;-)

The Exchange 5/5

Alex Wreschnig wrote:

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 to keep the more experienced players in the game. 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.

raises hand

I'd be willing to run games for the next 10 years.

and with the "silly idea" I put out, I figure on AT LEAST 10 more Seasons...

"#19-20 Fury of the Final Blade" would be a Season 19 game after all...

A couple years ago, I ran for a table of young ladies... the youngest was 9, the oldest was "14 and three quarters". I would love to be running a table for them (or heck, playing at a table run by one of them) in 2022... and they would still have scenarios they had not yet played then.

and then in ten more years? There's always

"#29-20 Fury of the Final Blade"

So... do we (us "old guys") set fire to the building on the way out? or leave the maps on the tables for the next crew (those young ladies for example)?

Shadow Lodge 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8 aka WalterGM

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Nobody has suggested that.

Ok, I really-really hate to come to BNWs defense - so let me just spit this out so I can go wash my mouth out afterword...

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...

...now where the heck did I put that bar of soap...

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.

Quote:


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.

Silver Crusade 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Pennsylvania—Pittsburgh aka Terminalmancer

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?

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nosig wrote:
. 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?

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville aka thaX

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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

If there isn't going to be any further support for PF1, what does it matter?

There's not going to be any new seasons. It won't have official tables at PaizoCon, Gencon, etc. FLGS play is already split between PF1 and SF1, there isn't going to be a big enough pool of GMs and players to support three games. When push comes to shove, people are going to gravitate to the new (PF2 and SF1) scenarios because they're, well, new.

This means that, in a couple years, PFS Seasons 1-10 will only be played in houses, open game tables, and online. Groups can make whatever replay rules they want when they are in those situations.

Arguing in general terms over what will be legal in PFS 1-10 is like arguing about what is legal in Living City.

2/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Furdinand wrote:
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.

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:
Furdinand wrote:
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.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Walter Sheppard wrote:
nosig wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Nobody has suggested that.

Ok, I really-really hate to come to BNWs defense - so let me just spit this out so I can go wash my mouth out afterword...

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...

...now where the heck did I put that bar of soap...

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...

again, it appears that I have mislead someone. Or I am not understanding they're understanding of my position. Let me try a repost of one of my earlier posts to make my viewpoint a little clearer... this post is from "May 17, 2018, 11:52 am" in this thread

nosig wrote:

...Will PFS1e eventually die off? Yeah, I think so. I actually hope so. I hope it does because PFS2e is a BETTER campaign, being played with a BETTER product - with a better Game System. Not because it requires an "all-in commitment". Not because "it's my way or the highway"... and you know what? if PFS2e is the "4th Edition" of Pathfinder and PFS2e is the LFR of PF2e, then I would like the option to go back to the older one that worked. I don't want to "set fire to the house" on my way out. (On a side note, if it isn't PF2e that is a better system and takes over for PF1e - then in time we'll get PF3e, or something else that does. So yeah, eventually PF1e and PFS1e will die off. And become just another set of boxes in my basement...)

But that's just my opinion. and in the end, I only get one vote.

Currently I like PFS1e. I know it, and enjoy it. Show me something better, more fun, and I'll jump to the New Shiny Toy. I'm a little kid like that. And just like a little kid, push me and I'll resent it. Push hard enough, and I'll take my money and move to a different part of the hobby.

So, when I am pushing/suggesting/examining Replay proposals for "First Edition Replay when Second Edition Launches" I am trying to be constructive on those suggestions. If I think they might help PFS1e - perhaps even aid in the transition from PFS1e (and the bloated monster that is First Edition) to a NEW campaign that I think of as PFS2e - if I think they might help the campaign I am currently active in, then I say so. If I think the suggested "First Edition Replay when Second Edition Launches" option has problems (IMHO), I call those out so that other posters - people who have views different from mine, can discuss with me and change my mind. (I hate to admit this - but BNW actually did change my opinion on this in a basic way. I now believe that there might be a place for some form of Expanded Replay Options in PFS1e

2/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Tallow wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
Furdinand wrote:
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.

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.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:

I keep getting flash backs to April 23, 1985... which is what? Over 30 years ago now? And why do I flash back to that specific date you ask?

On Thursday, April 23, 1985, the Coca-Cola Company announced a change to its nearly century-old secret formula. Here's hoping we don't have the "New Coke" of RPGs. If we do, I hope we can pull a "Classic" out of the ashes of the Campaign.

Just wanted to link this post of mine to the one above...

Yeah - I REALLY hope that 2nd Edition PF is a great game and totally replaces the bloated mess we now have in 1st Edition. Really. But I want it to replace it because it is a BETTER - more FUN game.

And if it is the "New Coke" of RPGs? If it's what the "4th Ed." D&D was? I want the option to continue what I have now... I don't want to have to go find a replacement for the "Version 3.75" replacement I found when 3.5 got "Replaced" by that other company.

So that's why I am posting so much in this thread.

The Exchange 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
Furdinand wrote:
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.

wow... Déjà vu... Thanks Tallow, I had forgotten this conversation till now.

I can recall a conversation with a Triad member in Colorado that I had back right 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 and the RPGA are supporting and thus the only thing available will be in 4th. It may take a few months, perhaps even a year, but 3.5 will die off, replaced with 4th. 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...

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:
Tallow wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
Furdinand wrote:
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.

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.

The Exchange 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nosig wrote:
. 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?

Currently? Yes. Long Term? I have no idea. Though it will likely depend a lot on PF2 and PFS2e. and how often new PFS2e scenarios are released.

BigNorseWolf wrote:


How aboout if the new guys are playing the new system?

Will we be able/willing to play/run both? For a short time I think so. A couple months at least. For more than a year? We'll likely have to wait and see. We are planning on at least one sub-group/table doing some Playtest games while continuing to play PFS1e scenarios... and that is likely to be effected by how much PFS2e there is available after it's released. If the Playtest games "are fun", we'll do more PFS2e. Then it's likely to be a question of how much 2e there is available... this group plays once a week, so I could see it doing alternating games for the first year, as PFS2e scenarios are released... even if PFS2e is vastly better than PFS1e.

Sovereign Court 2/5

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.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Cylyria wrote:

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.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

I'm still slogging my SFS characters through low level play. I'm amazed at how disinterested I am in PFS low level play at this point.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I'm still slogging my SFS characters through low level play. I'm amazed at how disinterested I am in PFS low level play at this point.

I’m going to Gencon this year, to play with a friend I haven’t been able to game with in years... He’s bringing a Newbie also - so it’ll be a chance to start someone into PFS (as well as re-start someone who hasn’t played in a while) So we’re signed up for:

9-10, 9-12, 9-08, 10-00 (at Tier 1-2), 9-16 and 9-22... I figure by the end of Gencon we’ll be 3rd level. (Yeah, they are all Tier 1-5s).

I’m REALLY interested in PFS low level play at this point. Building several new PCs so that I’ll have several to choice from when my friends finally finish building theirs. Getting my PC ready is A LOT of fun - deciding on personality/mannerism/motivations/background... oh and Class and Stats and all that too. Great fun “playing” with the PC, and I haven’t even run it yet.

551 to 600 of 734 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society Playtest / First Edition Replay when Second Edition Launches All Messageboards