Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Yeah but there won't be any new scenarios anymore, so the concern that GMs will only want to run things they've already run wanes as a concern doesn't it?
Sorry, but no, I haven't run everything published up to this point, and while a number of GMs almost have a perfect record, that is still pretty rare, and some scenarios still require quite a bit of prep even if you have run it a couple of years ago.
|
I personally prefer to run different things. I also rarely watch the same movie twice or read the same book twice.
I know others feel similarly, but I realize this is not the only or prevailing opinion.
I've had GMs say if they haven't played it, they won't GM it. I've had GMs ask for me to promote getting credit for every run of the same scenario. I've had GMs who refuse to run the same scenario again.
I'm guessing that a popular attitude started at least in Atlanta with GMs running a lot of the same scenarios, because I'm pretty sure that's where the 5-star stipulation of running 50 different scenarios came from.
I'm pretty sure I hit that benchmark before I hit my 3rd star.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer to run scenarios that I've already played but I'm not averse to running something that I haven't played, either. It also doesn't bother me to GM the same thing more than once, especially if it's a scenario that I personally enjoyed playing/GMing. While it would be a nice gesture, I likely wouldn't take credit more than once for GMing a given scenario.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am a fan of giving people who replay a dummy chronicle with level appropriate gold, and I have no reservations about giving GMs the same option, after they have taken their first chronicle from the scenario (I just don't think that the Chronicle sheet from Night Marsh of Kalkamedes needs to be on every character and I have run it a fair number of times) .
|
|
I think one of the things we (as a collective) should keep in mind is that others are looking at "replay" from different sides.
On one side, you have replays for players....on the other, you have replays/credit for GMs.
I think which ever side you focus on, is the side that you tend to do more of. While I GM, I enjoy playing more and tend to do that if the opportunity is there.
When you comment, could we please answer 3 things?
1) What type of replay (if any) would you prefer for players in PF1?
2) What type of additional credit (if any) would you prefer for GMs who run a game they have already ran in the past?
3) Do you tend to GM or play more often?
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I think one of the things we (as a collective) should keep in mind is that others are looking at "replay" from different sides.
On one side, you have replays for players....on the other, you have replays/credit for GMs.
I think which ever side you focus on, is the side that you tend to do more of. While I GM, I enjoy playing more and tend to do that if the opportunity is there.
When you comment, could we please answer 3 things?
1) What type of replay (if any) would you prefer for players in PF1?
2) What type of additional credit (if any) would you prefer for GMs who run a game they have already ran in the past?
3) Do you tend to GM or play more often?
1. There should still be a real incentive to share some the communal need for GMs, but I feel something like 2-6 no questions asked player replays might be an option we could explore.
Ideally I would want that liked to playtest/survey participation.2. No additional access to unique chronicle sheet rewards.
3. I think these days I run a bit more than I play (but I try to hold some scenarios in reserve so I can visit conventions without having to use replays).
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think "dummy chronicle" replay might be a reasonable compromise. As in, you can replay a scenario and get gold, XP and PP, but no boons or item access. That way you can certainly replay the stories you enjoy most, but not grind for the best boons. That should relieve worries about boon farming and people playing scenarios they don't really care about.
There's just one niggle: when a later scenario asks if you played this one. Sometimes it's "if you have the chronicle for #666", and then a dummy chronicle could work fine. But if it asks "if the players have the XXX boon from #666" that's trickier; especially when it's one of those "you either get the left or the right boon" things depending on outcome. We might have to carefully word an exemption for that.
|
I have never heard that complaint - I mostly hear GMs wanting to GM something they have run already, which in combination with your suggestion would make it even harder to find GMs for new scenarios.
Ahh, I gotcha. I guess I just never see it done that way. In almost all areas I am familiar with, the GMs do not chose the schedule. Typically the organizer is taking requests from the players or in many cases maintaining a history for their players and offering things that enough people haven't played to fill a table. After they announce the schedule, then the GMs signup. Its only then that some areas encounter problems as a seemingly growing number of GMs prefer to GM scenarios they have experience with to reduce the prep burden. To be fair, I have not witnessed this phenomenon, only been told about it by organizers and some GMs. My suggestion was only meant to help those areas. Surely, considerations would have to be made for any negative impact this could have, like what you said and do what is best for the greater community.
|
|
I think this largely becomes a moot point for the 1e campaign come August 2019 doesn't it?
Not if the 1E campaign remains active as we hope it will. Also, my suggestion was for PFS2 to adopt it as well. It could be especially valuable initially when the library of playable scenarios is soo small. It is likely during that time that GMs will be running some of the scenarios many times and getting credit for each of them would be a nice reward. Again, with the caveat that its actually in the best interest of the community which is something I am not prepared to say. Just a suggestion to consider.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
Aside from Gencon where I had no choice in it, I've only re-GM'd without credit for 7 of my over 300 games GM'd. Others in this area are a mix - some like to repeat GM games, some don't. But we keep a lot of spreadsheets of who's already got credit in what so we can try to schedule something that works for everyone.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aside from Gencon where I had no choice in it, I've only re-GM'd without credit for 7 of my over 300 games GM'd.
I think there will be a lot of different experiences. There are some season zero/one scenarios I've run upwards of a dozen times. I can recall a time when Doug Miles was running Mists of Mwangi for the 25th time at Origins as a pickup game. Did it all from memory. Quite impressive actually.
Anyway, I know there are differences, but I believe that generally speaking allowing "replay" credits for GMs would benefit the community. For those who prefer running new as much as possible, no worries, you could still do that. For those communities that find they have to run scenarios repeatedly because they have a large base who all want to play, and have GMs who like to GM only when they get credit, this could be a help in filling those GM spots. YMMV
|
|
If the system...requires
I don't believe requires is really the right word. I stopped keeping track of player/GM histories long ago. Simply too many players, too many GMs, too many scenarios, and too many people not updating the spreadsheets. For me it became more headache than benefit. I am blessed with a healthy community where we can schedule just about anything and find enough players to make a table. I could see it being more challenging for smaller communities, but then again tracking play history in a small community is much easier to manage.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But we keep a lot of spreadsheets of who's already got credit in what so we can try to schedule something that works for everyone.If the system for people trying to play a game that's no longer being supported requires "a lot of spreadsheets" to function I think it's time to seriously reconsider of the "benefits" significantly outweigh the work required.
https://www.pfstracker.net/#/search
We locally use this amazing site, and it can also track what you have run.
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Appalachia
|
For me personally, I schedule the newest stuff at our flagship to ensure that anyone can play but it can get pretty dicey at our other stores as we have a lot of 'lapsed' players who returned to the game who all have wildly different stuff they can't play; fortunately such players have been really cool about stepping up to the plate to run games when that has happened which is the way it should work but just two or three fewer members in our community and that whole thing could get kind of dicey.
|
|
For my GM prep process I kinda need to play a scenario through first, so I have an idea of pacing and what things to emphasize and what things are 'not as important' to carrying the scenario.
It also allows me to look at a scenario and go "Yeah... this could be a rough one for this table, how do I run this as written with the characters being brought while still keeping it a fun experience for everyone?"
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You do not need a replay policy liberal enough so that one person can play the thing.
You need a replay policy liberal enough so that six random geeks can all find something they can play together at the same time or the game doesn't happen.
Lets say you have 6 people that have played half the games.
Bob leaves you with half the games, Jim leaves you with half of bobs games, brenda leaves you with half of those games left, etc...
It means you can play .5^6th= 1.6% of the available games out there.
And finding which one it is is a pain.
|
|
You do not need a replay policy liberal enough so that one person can play the thing.
You need a replay policy liberal enough so that six random geeks can all find something they can play together at the same time or the game doesn't happen.
Lets say you have 6 people that have played half the games.
Bob leaves you with half the games, Jim leaves you with half of bobs games, brenda leaves you with half of those games left, etc...
It means you can play .5^6th= 1.6% of the available games out there.
And finding which one it is is a pain.
Except it isn't a pain if everyone uses the session tracker.
|
|
Well that's a worst-case scenario, not necessarily a realistic one. Chances are these geeks have been gaming before so their set of scenarios played will overlap more.PFS exists so that people who don't know each-other can meet and play a game without getting into arguments about resource levels or build rules. The entire purpose of PFS is to accommodate 6 random players and a GM who has not met any of them before.
If BigNorseWolf's scenario is not common now, it will be more common as your cruel dreams of total quest exhaustion carry on and a more people get close to only being able to play evergreen scenarios.
As I have typed, it will take me and my most common table a while to run out of content, especially if we do some creative cycling of game-mastery. I have met people at conventions who are chasing new content each year because they have played nearly everything. It does happen.
People should play as often as they want with one caveat.
Knowing there are a finite amount of adventures, if they play themselves out of things to play super quickly, that's their own fault. At least prior to Aug 2019, they will always have 2 scenarios a month to play for PFS1. That's a decent amount of gaming. I get the obsession. I used to be top 5 in scenarios played and GMd on the session tracker. I'd be involved in some way 5 to 8 times a month. That was fun, but ultimately not sustainable nor healthy.
Each player who's been around for a few levels knows the score. And it's their own responsibility to manage their play habits. Their have been many games I've not participated in, because their was no common scenario the group could play, and I was the most difficult to plan for. That was ok. I put myself in that situation.
Replay might, short term, solve the problem of keeping PFS1 going in an area where most folks have played most things. But it will artificially extend the life of the campaign in the area, and ultimately harm it. The slow death will be longer and more painful.
As PFS2 comes online, and active Paizo support ends for PFS1, I fully expect PFS1 to die off in about 2 years. And that's as it should be.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's weird.
My first year, I hardly had any play opportunity, and more than a few times I'd sign up for a table, it wouldn't fire, and I'd be out of luck (since everyone else had played it to 'slot 0' for the GM that was going to run it for me).
For the last couple of years, the only reason I've managed to stay 'current' is because I found an awesome supportive group AND picked up the stray table (or ten) via PbP/VTT.
The local convention scene hasn't been as effective in going after 'older' content, because everyone is playing 'the new shiny thing'(or evergreens).
This still leaves huge holes in things I 'have not played/GM'd' in S1, S2, S3, S4, S5.
And those holes are likely to remain that way until there's some way for folks to re-visit them, because of this situation.
I'm not sure how to address that, but it cannot be a unique situation -- and before folks say 'Well, just GM it'... I kinda need to play something first to be able to GM it well enough to meet my standards of excellence.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I used to be top 5 in scenarios played and GMd on the session tracker. I'd be involved in some way 5 to 8 times a month. That was fun, but ultimately not sustainable nor healthy.
...
As PFS2 comes online, and active Paizo support ends for PFS1, I fully expect PFS1 to die off in about 2 years. And that's as it should be.
Wow...so "Screw you people who want to still play PF1. I got my play in, so I don't care about you." or "Convert or go away." huh? You may not care, but there are many people who do. Many of us have characters we still want to play and maybe even want to build yet. Characters who may not be possible in PF2 for years or ever...but you got your play in, do you don't care. Glad I'm not in your area....
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is "this kind of playstyle is not healthy" an example of "I don't care about you"?
It's the combination of what was said...
He got his play in...he chose to do what he wanted and got to play as much as he wanted. Regardless if it is "not healthy" or not (his opinion), he got to play and GM as much as he wanted and he's now done with PF1. Fine. I know people who feel the same way. No one is making him play or continue with PF1.
But by following it up with "I fully expect PFS1 to die off in about 2 years. And that's as it should be." The "..that's as it should be." show a total lack of caring about anyone else's situation.
I care about this...and surprisingly, not fully for myself. I only started PFS a bit over a year ago, so I have a tons of scenarios I can play before I am close to being limited with PF1. In this case, I mostly care for those in my area that have already played 75+% and would like the ability to replay PF1 while also playing PF2.
All I see are people who have 4 and 5 stars next to their names saying "Don't give any replay" and most everyone else saying "We'd like some replay of some type".
Maybe I'm too close to this or care too much. Maybe I'm taking it too personal....When I see people disregarding other's feelings on the matter, someone who has already done all they wanted, yes, it ticks me off. Great, glad for you, but that doesn't mean you should deny anyone else who wants the possibility to replay scenarios.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"..that's as it should be." is an acknowledgement that systems no longer receiving support are expected to die off.
Neither he nor I are trying to deny you or anyone else the chance to play. But we are against opening the campaign up to what will kill it faster than it will already die.
|
|
"..that's as it should be." is an acknowledgement that systems no longer receiving support are expected to die off.
Neither he nor I are trying to deny you or anyone else the chance to play. But we are against opening the campaign up to what will kill it faster than it will already die.
Let me be clear: I'm not advocating for unlimited replay...and I never have in any post in this thread. I agree that some form of limited replay is the best.
Will it die off? Eventually sure. But that doesn't mean you stick a knife in it as soon as you can, especially when so many people out there still enjoy it. Even after the first year of PF2, there won't be enough scenarios to kill PF1. It will probably take 3 or possibly even 4 years of PF2 scenarios to truly kill PF1.
But saying (paraphrased) "I already did my games, so I don't care about it any longer" is selfish to anyone else's situation. You don't have to play the games, you don't have to even run the games. But don't deny other's the opportunity to replay some games just because you've had your fill.
|
|
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I was giving myself as an example of a non-sustainable play amount. And I also indicated that there were several times I couldn't play because I'd already played everything.
Nowhere did I say, imply, nor intend to say "I got mine, screw you!"
I'm trying to say, that in many cases, the reason people feel they need replay, is because they play too much on a monthly basis. If they pare back on how much they play per month, then PFS1 will last longer for them. Especially now that we know exactly what the final finite limit of playable material will be.
|
|
Nowhere did I say, imply, nor intend to say "I got mine, screw you!"
I apologize. That is how I interpreted it, but by your words that wasn't your intention.
And by the way, I still care. I still want to play season 9 and 10. But artificially lengthening the campaign for a few stalwart replayers is not going to be healthy for any of the campaigns.
I fail to see how it "is not going to be healthy". How would telling someone "Sure, you can play this scenario again" hurt PF1? I'm not talking about unlimited replay. (although I think the best option so far was "everyone can replay/GM one time for free)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just as a tentative suggestion... maybe any formal "this is the replay paradigm" should include a caveat that the exact rules are subject to local conditions - possibly with local VC sign off? Because I can see that what is the best fit for a community where 90% of players have played 90% of what has been published may not work for one that has a new-ish player base who are keen to work through the old content for the first time.
So area A might say they are an unlimited replay lodge where everyone is getting all their characters through Eyes of the Ten on alternate Sundays, and Area B declares that they are going with old school no-replay bar GM replay because they were only set up 18 months ago and there are enough new players to keep PFS1 going to 2030.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Just as a tentative suggestion... maybe any formal "this is the replay paradigm" should include a caveat that the exact rules are subject to local conditions - possibly with local VC sign off? Because I can see that what is the best fit for a community where 90% of players have played 90% of what has been published may not work for one that has a new-ish player base who are keen to work through the old content for the first time.
So area A might say they are an unlimited replay lodge where everyone is getting all their characters through Eyes of the Ten on alternate Sundays, and Area B declares that they are going with old school no-replay bar GM replay because they were only set up 18 months ago and there are enough new players to keep PFS1 going to 2030.
The VCs in other areas (and GMs in all areas) may not approve of having to deal with those characters should they ever wish to travel (and they do) which might involve excluding players from other regions from public events.
The other problem is that this could create an area of haves and have-nots, which would also result in negative feelings on both sides.
|
|
I'm intrigued by the dummy chronicle sheet idea. There could be six such sheets (see a hypothetical list of tiers below).
1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8
9-10
11
If you already have "real" chronicle sheet for an adventure, then you could play it and get a dummy sheet which awards some appropriate amount of gold, but no boons or items.
Is this the general idea? If so, I like this a lot.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is replay for no credit not enough to make tables happen?
I can list a reason, "While I have fun playing pathfinder, if I am going to get nothing out of my 4-5 hours sitting there other than the enjoyment of it....then I'll go do something else."
Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy playing pathfinder...however, if it was "Play and get nothing for your time" or "Go and play another game or home and play on the x-box" why wouldn't I choose the second?
|
|
I'm intrigued by the dummy chronicle sheet idea. There could be six such sheets (see a hypothetical list of tiers below).
1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8
9-10
11If you already have "real" chronicle sheet for an adventure, then you could play it and get a dummy sheet which awards some appropriate amount of gold, but no boons or items.
Is this the general idea? If so, I like this a lot.
A dummy chronicle sheet that gives a reward can be abused. Even if it is just gold, I could play 5 or 6 scenarios that only give me gold, and suddenly have way more gold than other players at my level.
|
|
Why is replay for no credit not enough to make tables happen?I can list a reason, "While I have fun playing pathfinder, if I am going to get nothing out of my 4-5 hours sitting there other than the enjoyment of it....then I'll go do something else."
Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy playing pathfinder...however, if it was "Play and get nothing for your time" or "Go and play another game or home and play on the x-box" why wouldn't I choose the second?
So you wouldn't play Pathfinder outside of organized play, given the chance? I mean, chronicles are nice, but the point of the game is to have fun, not earn credit.
|
|
A dummy chronicle sheet that gives a reward can be abused. Even if it is just gold, I could play 5 or 6 scenarios that only give me gold, and suddenly have way more gold than other players at my level.I'm intrigued by the dummy chronicle sheet idea. There could be six such sheets (see a hypothetical list of tiers below).
1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8
9-10
11If you already have "real" chronicle sheet for an adventure, then you could play it and get a dummy sheet which awards some appropriate amount of gold, but no boons or items.
Is this the general idea? If so, I like this a lot.
Apologies as I think I didn't completely developed this idea. One would also earn XP and prestige as normal with a dummy sheet. The only thing lacking would be boons and items. If players are earning XP and advancing, I think that addresses your concern.
|
|
So you wouldn't play Pathfinder outside of organized play, given the chance? I mean, chronicles are nice, but the point of the game is to have fun, not earn credit.Why is replay for no credit not enough to make tables happen?I can list a reason, "While I have fun playing pathfinder, if I am going to get nothing out of my 4-5 hours sitting there other than the enjoyment of it....then I'll go do something else."
Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy playing pathfinder...however, if it was "Play and get nothing for your time" or "Go and play another game or home and play on the x-box" why wouldn't I choose the second?
Sure I would...but that also means my character is getting some of the loot that is shared by the party. I have a home game that we do that in.
Would I play pathfinder just for the sheer enjoyment of it, where my character would get nothing at all and I am spending my precious real life time when I could also be doing something else that I enjoy AND gaining a benefit? No, probably not...unless it was a group of my closest friends and they were in desperate need of help in that game.|
|
Apologies as I think I didn't completely developed this idea. One would also earn XP and prestige as normal with a dummy sheet. The only thing lacking would be boons and items. If players are earning XP and advancing, I think that addresses your concern.A dummy chronicle sheet that gives a reward can be abused. Even if it is just gold, I could play 5 or 6 scenarios that only give me gold, and suddenly have way more gold than other players at my level.I'm intrigued by the dummy chronicle sheet idea. There could be six such sheets (see a hypothetical list of tiers below).
1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8
9-10
11If you already have "real" chronicle sheet for an adventure, then you could play it and get a dummy sheet which awards some appropriate amount of gold, but no boons or items.
Is this the general idea? If so, I like this a lot.
Yes, that would address my concern. I'd be fine with gaining a chronicle sheet that gave no boon or items, but still gave me xp/pp/gold.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure I would...but that also means my character is getting some of the loot that is shared by the party. I have a home game that we do that in.
Would I play pathfinder just for the sheer enjoyment of it, where my character would get nothing at all and I am spending my precious real life time when I could also be doing something else that I enjoy AND gaining a benefit? No, probably not...unless it was a group of my closest friends and they were in desperate need of help in that game.
This is the stereotype that non-PFS players have of those of us who participate. That we are non-roleplaying powergamers who will not do anything without a mechanical reward. It's a false stereotype, but I can't deny I've faced the same question in my own mind.
I can't tell you why you should choose one leisure activity over the other. If playing a game for the enjoyment of it isn't enough motivation for you to join, then by all means do something you will enjoy more. I am not in the business of bribing players to make tables.
|
|
Neither he nor I are trying to deny you or anyone else the chance to play. But we are against opening the campaign up to what will kill it faster than it will already die.I find the presumption that this is a Truth to be absurd. Many times, from many people, these words are spoken as though they were gospel. You then hear these people explain that they've seen campaigns ruined by this, and that it will be the death knell...
It already is the death knell, friends. The campaign is ending. You're preaching from a high horse that people who are going to stop playing already are going to give up the game, and that you'd prefer the game to fizzle in two years than allow people who want to keep playing the opportunity to do so.
I've not come close to the point where replays l unlimited replays matter. I doubt I ever will. I've got friends sitting or, again, this Saturday because they cannot play in any of the three games offered. I watch locals being forcibly left out of a game, and I can see the situation only getting worse. Then I come on here and see others proudly stating "This is fine."
It's not fine.
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
|
|
I want to address the other aspect of MrBear's post as well.
Nobody is saying that people should be left out of gaming. But even now, where we have almost 10 full seasons worth of material, several AP's and Modules, and a bunch of quests, there are going to be game days where what's offered will not fit into someone's available list they can play. That's the nature of organized play. Sometimes you don't get to play 5 times a month, but only 2 or 3. In my case, sometimes I don't get to play for 3 months straight.
If you play yourself out of play opportunities extremely quickly, then its your own fault for putting yourself in that position. If the organizers in your area aren't doing a good job of making sure there is something almost everyone can play, then they aren't doing a very good job.
But with PFS1 not getting any new material after season 10 in August of 2019, there will be a permanent finite number of adventures one can play. And as people continue to play scenarios, there will come a time when there will be little to nothing that anyone can play. My over/under guess, where the number of things the avid player can play compared to all their friends becomes zero, is about 2 years.
Yes, PFS1 will have a finite life span. And those who want to continue to play it, can do so indefinitely. When that over/under hits zero, they can still play it for fun. Those plays just won't be supported as organized play if there is no unlimited replay.
But the only thing that keeps an organized play campaign going is constantly getting new people involved. The Twin Cities has roughly 200 active players. You know how many active players there are still in the game from when I first started in March of 2011? We had roughly 20 or 30 active members at the time. Maybe a handful. It was only by constantly getting new players that we were able to maintain a great campaign in the Twin Cities. I'd say that our retention has been better in the last 4 or 5 years, but still.
From past campaigns, when liberal replay rules have been allowed, you see less and less new players showing up to play, because playing in a scenario where most of the other players have played the same thing several times reduces the enjoyment of the new player, almost every single time. Eventually the regulars start dropping off as rehashing the same story lines over and over again begin to grow stale.
But as this is still a campaign that could bring in new people to also potentially try out PFS2, you don't want to alienate the new folk at a PFS1 table either.